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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 contains the following issues:
The claim recites that “the control system is configured to change a speed of the heat exchanger”, wherein it is unclear what the “speed of the heat exchanger” pertains to. As currently recited, the limitation can be ambiguously interpreted as: A) a speed of an airflow through the heat exchanger; B) a speed of the heat transfer fluid through the heat exchanger; or C) a speed (i.e., movement) of the per se heat exchanger. It is noted that the recitation of “while the heat transfer fluid charge is being changed” does not necessarily limit the interpretation to B), given the breath of the claim as a whole. A review of the specification1 appears to show that a computer (30) monitors “a speed of the fluid” that passes through the heat exchanger(s), and modifies the “flow speed” of the heat transfer fluid as needed. However, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, absent an explicit special definition.2
Claim 8 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “a control system in communication with […] one or more internal sensors” (in lines 8-9 of the claim in page 3), wherein it is unclear whether such internal sensors are separate and distinct from the “one or more internal sensors” previously recited (in line 5 of page 3). For examination purposes, the recitation of “one or more internal sensors” (in lines 8-9 of page 3) will be construed as –the one or more internal sensors—.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Song et al. (US 20050086954 A1), herein Song.
As per claim 1, Song discloses a modular air source heat pump system (ASHP system) (see at least fig. 2) comprising:
an internal assembly (at least one indoor unit 30; see at least ¶ 14) comprising one or more internal system components (evident from fig. 2) located on an outside of a structure (outside 10 and 20);
an external assembly (10 and/or 20) comprising one or more external system components (24, 26, 36, etc.) located on an inside of the structure (10 and/or 20, respectively);
a refrigerant module (e.g., 32) removably3 connected to the external assembly (10 and/or 20);
a plurality of sensors (load sensors 60 of the at least one unit 30; see at least ¶ 19) located within the internal assembly (of 30) and configured to monitor one or more internal conditions, one or more internal system conditions, or both (load conditions of 30; see at least ¶ 19);
a plurality of sensors (62, 64) located within the external assembly (10 and/or 20) and configured to monitor one or more external conditions, one or more external system conditions, or both (e.g., pressure of the refrigerant; see at least ¶ 47);
a control system (shown in at least figs. 3-4) in communication with the plurality of sensors (60s) located within the internal assembly (of units 30) and the plurality of sensors (62, 64) located within the external assembly (10 and/or 20), the control system configured to:
change a heat transfer fluid charge in the internal assembly (of 30), the external assembly (10 and/or 20), or both by adding or subtracting heat transfer fluid (see at least ¶ 53) from the refrigerant module (32) in response to changes in the one or more external system conditions (e.g., pressure of the refrigerant), or the one or more internal system conditions (load of 30).
As per claim 2, Song discloses wherein the control system (of 70, etc.) increases the charge of the heat transfer fluid (by wholly operating both units 10 and 20) when the one or more external conditions indicate an increase in ambient external temperature (e.g., during full load; suggested by at least ¶¶ 39, 45).
As per claim 3, Song discloses wherein the control system (70, etc.) removes heat transfer fluid when a load on the ASHP system decreases (by partially operating one of 10 or 20; see at least ¶¶ 44, 46, 48, etc.).
As per claim 4, Song discloses wherein the refrigerant module (32, etc.) includes a reservoir (32, per se) that comprises an additional amount of the heat transfer fluid (i.e., as an accumulator; see at least ¶ 32) so that the control system (70, etc.) adds or subtracts heat transfer fluid to the external assembly on demand (¶¶ 31, 51).
As per claim 5, Song discloses wherein adding the additional amount of the heat transfer fluid provides additional conditioning (¶ 52 ) and reduces or maintains power consumption of the ASHP system (see last sentence of ¶ 53).
As per claim 8, Song discloses a modular air source heat pump system (ASHP system) (see at least fig. 2) comprising:
an external assembly (10 and/or 20) comprising:
one or more external heat exchangers (22);
one or more reversing valves (24);
one or more expansion valves (34, 50, 52); and
one or more external sensors (62, 64) in communication (i.e., fluid communication) with the one or more external heat exchangers (22), the one or more reversing valves (24), the one or more expansion valves (34, 50, 52), or a combination thereof, wherein the one or more external sensors (62, 64) are configured to monitor the one or more heat exchangers (22), the one or more reversing valves (34, 50, 52), the one or more expansion valves (34, 50, 52), or a combination thereof during operation (by sensing the pressure);
an internal assembly (the indoor units 30) comprising:
an internal heat exchanger (inside 30), and
one or more internal sensors (60) in communication with the internal heat exchanger to monitor operation of the internal heat exchanger (via the load detection; see at least ¶ 19); and
a control system (see figs. 3-4) in communication with the one or more external sensors (62, 64) that monitor external system data regarding operation of the external assembly (10 and/or 20) and one or more internal sensors (60s) that monitor internal system data regarding operation of the internal assembly (of each 30), wherein the control system (shown in at least figs. 3-4) monitors operation to determine if operation of the external assembly (10 and/or 20), the internal assembly (30), or both vary over time (e.g., depending on the indoor load; see at least ¶¶ 19-21).
As per claim 9, Song discloses wherein the control system (70, etc.) analyzes the external system data (from 10 and/or 20) and the internal system data (from 30) to determine when preventative maintenance (e.g., through proper refrigerant charge control) is needed (see at least ¶¶ 31, 37).
As per claim 10, Song discloses wherein the control system (70, etc.) generates signals (see arrows in figs. 3-4) that indicate an action regarding the internal assembly (30), the external assembly (10 and/or 20), or both are needed (see at least ¶¶ 37, 43, etc.).
As per claim 11, Song discloses wherein the control system (70, etc.) determines, based on the external system data (e.g., from 10 and/or 20), that performance of the external assembly is decreasing over time (e.g., through monitoring of performance and durability; see at least ¶ 54).
As per claim 14, Song discloses a modular air source heat pump system (ASHP system) (see at least fig. 2) comprising:
a plurality of system components (22, 24, 26, 30, etc.) that are individually connected together by a plurality of connectors (see fluid lines in fig. 2) so that the plurality of system components (22, 24, 26, 30, etc.) are configured to provide conditioning to a structure (via 30) and the plurality of system components (22, 24, 26, 30, etc.) are configured to connect and/or disconnect from the ASHP system (e.g., during maintenance);
a plurality of sensors (60, 62, 64) in communication with one or more of the plurality of system components (22, 24, 26, 30, etc.); and
a control system (see at least figs. 3-4) in communication with the plurality of sensors (60, 62, 64), the control system (70, etc.) configured to:
monitor system data (see fig. 3) provided to the control system (via 70) by the plurality of sensors (60, 62, 64);
analyze the system data (see at least fig. 4);
review an efficiency of the ASHP system based on the analyzed system data (see at least the last sentence of ¶ 53); and
provide feedback (see at least the conditional steps S10, S20, S40 in fig. 4) regarding the ASHP system based on the analyzed system data (e.g., ¶¶ 44, 46, 52, etc.), wherein the feedback includes:
control the ASHP system (e.g., S30, s50, etc.).
As per claim 15, Song discloses wherein the plurality of sensors (60, 62, 64) include a thermostat (one 60, per se) to monitor an interior of the structure (e.g., a load of at least one 30; see at least ¶ 37) and a system thermostat (another 60, per se) to monitor one or more conditions of the ASHP system (a load of at least another 30; evident from at least ¶ 31).
As per claim 16, Song discloses wherein the control system comprises: a mode controller (e.g., as part of 70, etc.) including modes that comprise system mode 1 (partially operating 10 and not 20; see at least ¶ 46), system mode 2 (partially operating 20 and not 10; suggested by at least ¶¶ 46 and 54), and system mode 3 (wholly operating both 10 and 20; see at least ¶ 39), wherein the mode controller controls the ASHP system based on the modes selected (¶¶ 17-18, 54, etc.).
As per claim 17, Song discloses wherein the mode controller (of 70, etc.) controls the ASHP system based on power consumption when mode 1 is selected (suggested by at least the last sentence of ¶ 53).
As per claim 19, Song discloses wherein control of the ASHP system by the control system (70, etc.) comprises a variable mode (e.g., partial operation mode) where the control system continuously varies operation of the plurality of system components (by operating one of 10 and 20 and not the other; ¶¶ 2, 14, 17, etc.) to adjust the ASHP system based on environmental conditions (the sensed load via 60; see at least ¶ 37).
As per claim 20, Song discloses wherein the variable mode comprises dynamically adjusting (e.g., by operating valves, controlling the compressor, etc.) the plurality of system components (24, 28, 34, 50, 52, etc.) so that each of the plurality of system components (24, 28, 34, 50, 52, etc.) are varied to change conditioning output of the ASHP system based on changes in the environmental conditions (see at least ¶ 37).
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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 20050086954 A1) in view of Lu et al. (WO 2023083040 A1), herein Lu.
As per claim 6, Song discloses wherein the external assembly (10 and/or 20) comprises an external heat exchanger (22) and the control system (70, etc.).
However, Song may not appear to explicitly disclose that the control system is configured to change a speed of the heat exchanger while the heat transfer fluid charge is being changed.
On the other hand, Lu, directed to an air conditioner, discloses wherein the control system is configured to change a speed of the heat exchanger while the heat transfer fluid charge is being changed (see at least claim 11).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.4
As per (1), it should be noted that in Lu, the refrigerant speed is controlled on the basis of superheat (¶ 64). The speed can be controlled to be faster or slower so as to improve the efficiency of the system (¶ 65). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Lu has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the speed of the heat exchanger refrigerant, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Song. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Song and Lu are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e., HVAC). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Song may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Lu, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Song by virtue of suggesting an improved efficiency of the refrigeration system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Song and to have modified them with the teachings of Lu, by having the control system configured to change a speed of the heat exchanger while the heat transfer fluid charge is being changed, in order to improve the efficiency of the system, as similarly suggested by Lu, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 7, Song as modified discloses wherein the external assembly comprises a reversing valve (24 of Song) and an expansion valve (34, 50 or 52 of Song) and the control system (70, etc. of Song) is configured to change operation of the reversing valve (24 of Song) and the expansion valve (34, 50 or 52 of Song) while changing the charge of the heat transfer fluid within the ASHP system (see at least ¶¶ 32, 37, 48-49, etc. of Song).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 20050086954 A1) in view of Liang et al. (CN 110285542 A), herein Liang.
As per claim 12, Song discloses wherein the control system (70, etc.) monitors and controls the one or more external heat exchangers (22), the one or more reversing valves (24), or the one or more expansion valves (34, 50, 52).
However, Song may not appear to explicitly disclose an indication that they are causing the decrease in performance over time.
On the other hand, Liang, directed to an air conditioner, discloses an indication of causing a decrease in performance over time (¶ 38).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.5
As per (1), Liang considers the historical operation of the system to determine whether its performance has deteriorated in order to compensate the target operating parameters to ensure proper cooling or heating (¶ 38). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Liang has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the performance indication, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Song. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Song and Liang are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e., HVAC). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Song may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Liang, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Song by virtue of suggesting an improved efficiency of the refrigeration system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Song and to have modified them with the teachings of Liang, by having an indication of causing a decrease in performance over time, in order to improve the efficiency of the system, as similarly suggested by Liang, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 20050086954 A1) in view of Wen et al. (CN 105910355 A), herein Wen.
As per claim 13, Song may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more external heat exchangers comprise four or more of the one or more external sensors.
On the other hand, Wen, directed to a control system, discloses wherein the one or more external heat exchangers (i.e., condenser) comprise four or more of the one or more external sensors (outlet temperature sensor, high pressure sensor, fin temperature sensors, etc.; see at least ¶¶ 18-19, 61, etc.).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.6
As per (1), Wen uses sensor information to provide proper controls for the HVAC system (e.g., ¶7). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing additional sensors increases the amount of data that may be monitored by the controller, thereby providing refined control of the system. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Wen has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the sensors, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Song. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Song and Wen are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e., HVAC). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Song may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Wen, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Song by virtue of suggesting improved data collection for controlling the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Song and to have modified them with the teachings of Wen, by having the one or more external heat exchangers comprise four or more of the one or more external sensors, in order to improve data collection and controlling of the system, as similarly suggested by Wen, without yielding unpredictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US 20050086954 A1), alone.
As per claim 18, Song may not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the ASHP system uses less power when mode 1 is selected in comparison to when mode 2 or mode 3 are selected.
However, it has been held that an “obvious to try” rationale when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be established: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
In the instant case, and as per (1), Song discloses multiple operating modes (e.g., partial load operation or full load operation; ¶ 39). As per (2), the amount of power each mode uses relative to one another can only be selected from: A) an equal amount of power; B) more amount of power; or C) less amount of power. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the power consumption for each mode may depend on the number of components being operated, as well as their capacities (e.g., compressor speed, fan speed, etc.). Controlling the operation of the components (e.g., by reducing or increasing the speed) can be done without changing the principles of operation of the prior art. As per (4), varying the power consumption can be done as matter of optimizing the operation for each mode depending on the load requirements, which are contemplated by Song.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Song and to have modified them by having the ASHP system use less power when mode 1 is selected in comparison to when mode 2 or mode 3 are selected, in order to optimize power consumption for a given set of conditions, without yielding unpredictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jianying C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 Described in at least ¶ 59 of the printed publication: US 20240318878 A1.
2 See MPEP § 2111.01.
3 The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, since apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114 (II).
4 See MPEP § 2143.
5 See MPEP § 2143.
6 See MPEP § 2143.
Prosecution Insights