DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B (Fig. 3) in the reply filed on 9/8/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species illustrate the same species with varying details. This has been found persuasive and the restriction is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US 2020/0386458) in view of Havard JR (US 10,139,143, provided by Applicant, hereinafter referred to as Havard) and Tanaka (GB2639354A, for purposes of citation the USPGPUB 2026/0036347 is utilized below).
Regarding claim 1, Shaffer teaches an air conditioner unit (see Abstract), comprising:
an outdoor heat exchanger (50, Fig. 1, paragraph [0023]);
an indoor heat exchanger (40, Fig. 1, paragraph [0023]);
a sealed cooling system including the indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger (see Abstract).
Shaffer does not teach that:
the sealed cooling system comprising multiple refrigerant circuits,
wherein each refrigerant circuit of the multiple refrigerant circuits comprises an expansion device; and
a cross-over flow connection extending between and providing fluid communication between each of the multiple refrigerant circuits, wherein the cross-over flow connection is adjacent the expansion device of each refrigerant circuit.
Havard teaches an air conditioner (Kojima, Title) which features an indoor and outdoor heat exchanger (Havard, 140, Fig. 1a, 110) which has multiple refrigerant circuits that comprise an expansion device (Havard, 150, 155, Fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer with multiple circuits with an expansion device, as taught by Havard, in order to provide increased energy efficiency.
Shaffer as modified does not teach a cross-over flow connection extending between and providing fluid communication between each of the multiple refrigerant circuits, wherein the cross-over flow connection is adjacent the expansion device of each refrigerant circuit.
Tanaka teaches an air conditioning system which features a cross flow connection between multiple circuits (Tanaka, 13, 16, 23, 26 all read as cross over connections, and connect the different circuits branched by 51 and 52, see paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer as modified with a cross-over flow connection extending between and providing fluid communication between each of the multiple refrigerant circuits, as taught by Tanaka, in order to increase the rate of heat transfer in the system by increasing the contact surface between connections in the air conditioner.
The Examiner notes that through the combination, wherein the cross-over flow connection is adjacent the expansion device of each refrigerant circuit, as the combination with Shaffer as modified through the combination with Havard has multiple circuits with expansion devices which is what is combined to reach the resultant structure by way of Tanaka.
Regarding claim 2, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 1, further comprising a reversing valve (see Shaffer, paragraph [0025]), whereby the air conditioner unit is operable in a heat pump mode when the reversing valve directs compressed vapor-phase refrigerant from a compressor of the sealed cooling system to the indoor heat exchanger (Shaffer, 64, Fig. 3, paragraph [0029]), wherein the cross-over flow connection is downstream of the indoor heat exchanger when the air conditioner unit is in the heat pump mode (met through the combination with Tanaka).
Regarding claim 3, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 2, wherein each expansion device is downstream of the indoor heat exchanger when the air conditioner unit is in the heat pump mode (see Havard, Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 4, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 2, wherein the cross-over flow connection is upstream of the expansion devices when the air conditioner unit is in the heat pump mode (met through the combination with Tanaka, see motivation and comments in rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 2, wherein the cross-over flow connection is downstream of the expansion devices when the air conditioner unit is in the heat pump mode (see Havard, Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 6, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 1, wherein each of the expansion devices is an electronic expansion valve (Havard, claim 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer in view of Havard and Tanaka, further in view of Otake (US 2007/0056302).
Regarding claim 7, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 6, further comprising a controller (Shaffer, paragraph [0036]).
Shaffer as modified does not teach that the controller in operative communication with each electronic expansion valve, wherein the controller is configured to measure a superheat in the sealed cooling system, compare the measured superheat to a predetermined threshold, and fully close at least one of the electronic expansion valves in response to the measured superheat greater than the predetermined threshold.
Otake teaches a cooling device wherein when the superheat degree is above a predetermined value, the expansion valve is fully closed (Otake, paragraph [0163]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer as modified with measuring a superheat in the sealed cooling system, comparing the measured superheat to a predetermined threshold, and fully close at least one of the electronic expansion valves in response to the measured superheat greater than the predetermined threshold, as taught by Tanaka, in order to increase the rate of heat transfer in the system by increasing the contact surface between connections in the air conditioner, as taught by Otake, in order to maintain the desired energy efficiency in the system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer in view of Havard Tanaka, Otake, and Tanaka further in view of FOR1 (WO2022211077A1).
Regarding claim 8, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 7, but does not teach the controller is configured to fully close all but one of the electronic expansion valves in response to the measured superheat greater than the predetermined threshold.
FOR1 teaches a refrigeration device (FOR1, Title) wherein multiple expansion valves can be closed while one remains open during superheat control (FOR1, Description, “The third utilization expansion valve 14 is fully closed, the first heat source expansion valve 26 is fully closed, and one of the first utilization expansion valve 15 and the second utilization expansion valve 16 is fully opened while the other valve is opened. The degree of superheat of the first refrigerant sucked into the first compressor 11 satisfies a predetermined condition, and the valve opening degree of the second heat source expansion valve 24 is controlled to superheat the second refrigerant sucked into the second compressor 21. The degree is controlled so that it satisfies a predetermined condition.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer as modified with closing all but one expansion valve, as taught by FOR1, in order to assess how this impacts the desired superheat control, as the combination already teaches closing the expansion valve for superheat control.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer in view of Havard Tanaka, and Otake, further in view of Tanaka (US 2016/0245561).
Regarding claim 9, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 7, wherein the air conditioner unit is operating in the heat pump mode and the outdoor heat exchanger is operating as an evaporator (see Shaffer, paragraph [0032]). Shaffer as modified does not teach wherein measuring the superheat comprises measuring a temperature difference across the outdoor heat exchanger. Tanaka teaches calculating superheat by the temperature difference across a heat exchanger (see Tanaka, paragraph [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer as modified with measuring superheat based on a temperature difference across a heat exchanger, as taught by Tanaka, in order to use a known method of determining superheat to determine its effectiveness in the desired control of the system.
Claims 10-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US 2020/0386458) in view of Havard JR (US 10,139,143, provided by Applicant, hereinafter referred to as Havard) and Otake (US 2007/0056302).
Regarding claim 10, Shaffer teaches a method of operating an air conditioner unit (see Abstract), the air conditioner unit comprising an outdoor heat exchanger (50, Fig. 1, paragraph [0023]), an indoor heat exchanger (40, Fig. 1, paragraph [0023]), a sealed cooling system including the indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger (see Abstract).
Shaffer does not teach: the sealed cooling system comprising multiple refrigerant circuits, and a cross-over flow connection extending between and providing fluid communication between each of the multiple refrigerant circuits, the method comprising: measuring a superheat in the sealed cooling system; comparing the measured superheat to a predetermined threshold; and fully closing at least one electronic expansion valve in one of the multiple refrigerant circuits in response to the measured superheat greater than the predetermined threshold.
Havard teaches an air conditioner (Kojima, Title) which features an indoor and outdoor heat exchanger (Havard, 140, Fig. 1a, 110) which has multiple refrigerant circuits that comprise an expansion device (Havard, 150, 155, Fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer with multiple circuits with an expansion device, as taught by Havard, in order to provide increased energy efficiency.
Otake teaches a cooling device wherein when the superheat degree is above a predetermined value, the expansion valve is fully closed (Otake, paragraph [0163]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer as modified with measuring a superheat in the sealed cooling system, comparing the measured superheat to a predetermined threshold, and fully close at least one of the electronic expansion valves in response to the measured superheat greater than the predetermined threshold, as taught by Tanaka, in order to increase the rate of heat transfer in the system by increasing the contact surface between connections in the air conditioner, as taught by Otake, in order to maintain the desired energy efficiency in the system.
Regarding claim 11, Shaffer as modified teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the air conditioner unit is operating in a heat pump mode, wherein the at least one electronic expansion valve is downstream of the indoor heat exchanger (Shaffer, paragraph [0032], see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Shaffer teaches an air conditioner unit (see Abstract), comprising: an outdoor heat exchanger (50, Fig. 1, paragraph [0023]); an indoor heat exchanger (40, Fig. 1, paragraph [0023]); a sealed cooling system including the indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger (see Abstract).
Shaffer does not teach:
the sealed cooling system comprising multiple refrigerant circuits; a cross-over flow connection extending between and providing fluid communication between each of the multiple refrigerant circuits; and a controller, the controller configured for: measuring a superheat in the sealed cooling system; comparing the measured superheat to a predetermined threshold; and fully closing at least one valve in one of the multiple refrigerant circuits in response to the measured superheat greater than the predetermined threshold.
Havard teaches an air conditioner (Kojima, Title) which features an indoor and outdoor heat exchanger (Havard, 140, Fig. 1a, 110) which has multiple refrigerant circuits that comprise an expansion device (Havard, 150, 155, Fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer with multiple circuits with an expansion device, as taught by Havard, in order to provide increased energy efficiency.
Otake teaches a cooling device wherein when the superheat degree is above a predetermined value, the expansion valve is fully closed (Otake, paragraph [0163]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer as modified with measuring a superheat in the sealed cooling system, comparing the measured superheat to a predetermined threshold, and fully close at least one of the electronic expansion valves in response to the measured superheat greater than the predetermined threshold, as taught by Tanaka, in order to increase the rate of heat transfer in the system by increasing the contact surface between connections in the air conditioner, as taught by Otake, in order to maintain the desired energy efficiency in the system.
Regarding claim 15, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 14, wherein the controller is configured for measuring the superheat in the sealed cooling system, comparing the measured superheat to the predetermined threshold, and fully closing the at least one valve in one of the multiple refrigerant circuits in response to the measured superheat greater than the predetermined threshold when the air conditioner unit is operating in a heat pump mode (see Otake, paragraph [0163], see Shaffer, paragraph [0032]), wherein the at least one electronic expansion valve is downstream of the indoor heat exchanger in the heat pump mode (see Shaffer, Fig. 3).
Claims 9, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer in view of Tanaka and Otake, further in view of Tanaka (US 2016/0245561).
Regarding claim 9, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 7, wherein the air conditioner unit is operating in the heat pump mode and the outdoor heat exchanger is operating as an evaporator (see Shaffer, paragraph [0032]). Shaffer as modified does not teach wherein measuring the superheat comprises measuring a temperature difference across the outdoor heat exchanger. Tanaka teaches calculating superheat by the temperature difference across a heat exchanger (see Tanaka, paragraph [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer as modified with measuring superheat based on a temperature difference across a heat exchanger, as taught by Tanaka, in order to use a known method of determining superheat to determine its effectiveness in the desired control of the system.
Regarding claim 13, Shaffer as modified teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the air conditioner unit is operating in a heat pump mode and the outdoor heat exchanger is operating as an evaporator (see Shaffer, paragraph [0032]). Shaffer as modified does not teach measuring the superheat comprises measuring a temperature difference across the outdoor heat exchanger.
Tanaka teaches calculating superheat by the temperature difference across a heat exchanger (see Tanaka, paragraph [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer as modified with measuring superheat based on a temperature difference across a heat exchanger, as taught by Tanaka, in order to use a known method of determining superheat to determine its effectiveness in the desired control of the system.
Regarding claim 17, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 14, wherein the air conditioner unit is operating in a heat pump mode and the outdoor heat exchanger is operating as an evaporator (see Shaffer, paragraph [0032]). Shaffer as modified does not teach measuring the superheat comprises measuring a temperature difference across the outdoor heat exchanger.
Tanaka teaches calculating superheat by the temperature difference across a heat exchanger (see Tanaka, paragraph [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer as modified with measuring superheat based on a temperature difference across a heat exchanger, as taught by Tanaka, in order to use a known method of determining superheat to determine its effectiveness in the desired control of the system.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer in view of Havard JR and Otake, further in view of FOR1, (WO2022211077A1).
Regarding claim 12, Shaffer as modified teaches the method of claim 10, but does not teach fully closing at least one electronic expansion valve in one of the multiple refrigerant circuits comprises closing all but one electronic expansion valve of a plurality of electronic expansion valves, each electronic expansion valve of the plurality of electronic expansion valves in a respective one of the multiple refrigerant circuits of the sealed cooling system.
FOR1 teaches a refrigeration device (FOR1, Title) wherein multiple expansion valves can be closed while one remains open during superheat control (FOR1, Description, “The third utilization expansion valve 14 is fully closed, the first heat source expansion valve 26 is fully closed, and one of the first utilization expansion valve 15 and the second utilization expansion valve 16 is fully opened while the other valve is opened. The degree of superheat of the first refrigerant sucked into the first compressor 11 satisfies a predetermined condition, and the valve opening degree of the second heat source expansion valve 24 is controlled to superheat the second refrigerant sucked into the second compressor 21. The degree is controlled so that it satisfies a predetermined condition.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer as modified with closing all but one expansion valve, as taught by FOR1, in order to assess how this impacts the desired superheat control, as the combination already teaches closing the expansion valve for superheat control.
Regarding claim 16, Shaffer as modified teaches the air conditioner unit of claim 14, but does not teach fully closing at least one electronic expansion valve in one of the multiple refrigerant circuits comprises closing all but one electronic expansion valve of a plurality of electronic expansion valves, each electronic expansion valve of the plurality of electronic expansion valves in a respective one of the multiple refrigerant circuits of the sealed cooling system.
FOR1 teaches a refrigeration device (FOR1, Title) wherein multiple expansion valves can be closed while one remains open during superheat control (FOR1, Description, “The third utilization expansion valve 14 is fully closed, the first heat source expansion valve 26 is fully closed, and one of the first utilization expansion valve 15 and the second utilization expansion valve 16 is fully opened while the other valve is opened. The degree of superheat of the first refrigerant sucked into the first compressor 11 satisfies a predetermined condition, and the valve opening degree of the second heat source expansion valve 24 is controlled to superheat the second refrigerant sucked into the second compressor 21. The degree is controlled so that it satisfies a predetermined condition.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Shaffer as modified with closing all but one expansion valve, as taught by FOR1, in order to assess how this impacts the desired superheat control, as the combination already teaches closing the expansion valve for superheat control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)-270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763