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 1 drawn to fig 1A in the reply filed on 3/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 is a generic claim and that a search burden does not exist. This is not found persuasive because as per MPEP 806.04(d) “…In general, a generic claim should require no material element additional to those required by the species claims, and each of the species’ claims must require all the limitations of the generic claim.” Species 1 does not require all of the limitation of alleged species claim 1 because species 1 does not require the valve unit. Claim 1 is not generic.
There indeed would be a search burden as it would be problematic to find prior art where generic claims contain multiple embodiments.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Additionally, Applicant did not amend the claims to conform to elected Species 1 and any claims not drawn to the elected species are hereby withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 4, 5 and 7 are withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/22/2024, 5/21/2024 and 12/5/2024 were filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not concise. For example, the language commencing with “In a case where…” is not concise. It is not clear if the valve unit should be a part of the claimed invention or if the valve unit should not be a part of the claimed invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al. (US2014/0373564).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishimura teaches an outdoor unit in an air conditioning system [0023; 0024; fig 1], the outdoor unit [2; fig 1] comprising:
a first control valve [25; 0033]; and
a control unit [30] that controls the first control valve [25] and that is configured to cause the air conditioning system to operate in a first control mode or a second control mode based on presence or absence of a valve unit that comprises a second control valve and that is disposed between the outdoor unit and indoor units of the air conditioning system that are connected in parallel to the outdoor unit [0051; fig 2]
wherein in a case where the valve unit is absent from the air conditioning system, the control unit causes the air conditioning system to operate in the first control mode in which a pressure of a refrigerant to be supplied to the indoor units is adjusted by controlling the first control valve [0051; 0054; 0068].
For clarity, the limitations not drawn to the elected species are not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 3, Nishimura teaches an air conditioning system [fig 1] comprising:
a refrigerant circuit that performs a refrigeration cycle [0023; 0024; fig 1];
an outdoor unit [2] and indoor units [4] connected in parallel to the outdoor unit [see fig 1],
wherein the outdoor unit comprises a first control valve [25; 0033]; and
a control unit [30] configured to cause the air conditioning system to operate in a first control mode or a second control mode based on presence or absence of a valve unit that comprises a second control valve and that is disposed between the indoor units and the outdoor unit in the air conditioning system [0051; fig 2],
wherein in a case where the valve unit is absent from the air conditioning system, the control unit causes the air conditioning system to operate in the first control mode in which a pressure of a refrigerant to be supplied to the indoor units is adjusted by controlling the first control valve [0051; 0054; 0068; fig 1].
For clarity, the limitations not drawn to the elected species are not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 6, Nishimura teaches the invention of claim 3 above and Nishimura teaches wherein in the case where the valve unit is absent from the air conditioning system, the control unit controls the first control valve in the first control mode [005; 0054; 0068; fig 1].
For clarity, the limitations not drawn to the elected species are not given patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 8, Nishimura teaches the invention of claim 3 above and Nishimura teaches wherein each of the indoor units [4] comprises an indoor control unit [47] that is included in the control unit [8; see fig 2] and that controls operation of the each of the indoor units, in response to connection of the each of the indoor units to the outdoor unit, information related to the outdoor unit is written to the indoor control unit, and the indoor control unit controls the each of the indoor units based on the information related to the outdoor unit [0031; 0047; 0051; 0057; 0058; 0063; 0064; 0067; see at least saturation temperature derivation].
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US2014/0373564) in view of Minamida et al. (JP2018059702A).
Regarding Claim 2, Nishimura teaches an indoor unit in an air conditioning system [fig 1], the indoor unit [4; fig 1] comprising:
a control unit [47; 0031] that is connected to a first valve [25] of an outdoor unit [2] of the air conditioning system that is connected in parallel to the indoor unit [0033; 0051; fig 1].
Nishimura does not explicitly teach where the control unit controls the first control valve and that is configured to cause the air conditioning system to operate in a first control mode or a second control mode based on presence or absence of a valve unit that comprises a second control valve and that is disposed between the outdoor unit and the indoor unit,
wherein in case where the valve unit is absent from the air conditioning system, the control unit causes the air conditioning system to operate in the first control mode in which a pressure of a refrigerant to be supplied to the indoor unit is adjusted by controlling the first control valve.
However, Minamida teaches an air conditioner [0001] having where an indoor unit control unit [53] controls a first control valve [28] and that is configured to cause the air conditioning system to operate in a first control mode [0100],
wherein the control unit causes the air conditioning system to operate in the first control mode in which a pressure of a refrigerant to be supplied to the indoor unit is adjusted by controlling the first control valve [0100] for the obvious advantage of enhancing user comfort [0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Nishimura to have where the control unit controls the first control valve and that is configured to cause the air conditioning system to operate in a first control mode or a second control mode based on presence or absence of a valve unit that comprises a second control valve and that is disposed between the outdoor unit and the indoor unit,
wherein in case where the valve unit is absent from the air conditioning system, the control unit causes the air conditioning system to operate in the first control mode in which a pressure of a refrigerant to be supplied to the indoor unit is adjusted by controlling the first control valve in view of the teachings of Minamida where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. enhancing user comfort.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights