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 without traverse of Species A (Figs. 2-3, claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-20) in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the vapour-compression circuit both of claim 13” clarification is requested regarding the dependency of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an expansion device” in claim 1, 7
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
After reviewing the specification and drawings, the expansion device appears to be drawn to a valve, or known equivalents, as the expansion device is noted in the drawings with the conventional symbol of a valve (see 406, Fig. 2).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “the vapour-compression circuit of claim 13, comprising a condenser control valve” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear of the recited condenser control valve is the same as that recited in claim 13, or a new one. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to be referring to the same condenser control valve as recited in claim 13.
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 1-4, 8-9, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu (US 2019/0032979 – provided by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Miyakoshi (US 2016/0201960).
Regarding claim 1, Kasamatsu teaches a vapour-compression circuit for circulating a working fluid, the vapour-compression circuit comprising a compressor (11, Fig. 1), a first heat exchanger (12, Fig. 1), an expansion device (15, Fig. 1), a second heat exchanger (16, Fig. 1), a discharge line (see line between 11 and 12 in Fig. 1), a bypass line (13a, Fig. 1) and a controller (40, Fig. 1),
wherein the discharge line extends from an outlet of the compressor to an inlet of the first heat exchanger (see Fig. 1); the vapour-compression circuit is configured to operate in a heating mode in which the first heat exchanger operates as a condenser and the second heat exchanger operates as an evaporator (drawn to intended use); and
the vapour-compression circuit is configured to operate in a defrost mode in which the working fluid is directed from the compressor to the second heat exchanger via the bypass line and the expansion device (see Fig. 1, which notes the flow path by the darken arrow), the bypass line extending from the discharge line to bypass the first heat exchanger (see Fig. 1).
Kasamatsu does teach that the controller is configured to control the expansion device based on a superheat of working fluid discharged from the second heat exchanger in the defrost mode.
Miyakoshi teaches a vehicle air conditioner (Miyakoshi, Title) which teaches controlling the expansion vlave based on the superheat degree of the outlet of a heat exchanger (Miyakoshi, paragraph [0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Kasamatsu with controlling the expansion device based on a superheat of working fluid discharged from the second heat exchanger, as taught by Miyakoshi, in order to improve the energy efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Kasamatsu as modified teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control the expansion device to maintain the superheat of the working fluid discharged from the second heat exchanger within a target superheat range while operating the vapour-compression circuit in the defrost mode (see Miyakoshi, paragraphs [0088]-[0090]).
Regarding claim 3, Kasamatsu as modified teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 1, wherein the expansion device is a main expansion device; the vapour-compression circuit comprises a liquid line extending from the first heat exchanger to the main expansion device (see Kasamatsu which shows a line connecting 12 and 15 in Fig. 1), and a distribution line extending from the main expansion device to an inlet of the second heat exchanger (Kasamatsu, see Fig. 1 showing connection between 15 and 16 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kasamatsu as modified teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to control the main expansion device based on the superheat of working fluid discharged from the second heat exchanger in the heating mode (met through the combination with Miyakoshi, the Examiner notes the control of superheat during a specific mode, where Kasamatsu teaches the operational modes claimed, is an obvious extension of the control function taught by Miyakoshi).
Regarding claim 8, Kasamatsu teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 7, but does not teach the controller is configured to control the expansion device based on a superheat of working fluid discharged from the second heat exchanger in the defrost mode.
Miyakoshi teaches a vehicle air conditioner (Miyakoshi, Title) which teaches controlling the expansion vlave based on the superheat degree of the outlet of a heat exchanger (Miyakoshi, paragraph [0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Kasamatsu with controlling the expansion device based on a superheat of working fluid discharged from the second heat exchanger, as taught by Miyakoshi, in order to improve the energy efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 9, Kasamatsu as modified teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to control the expansion device to maintain the superheat of the working fluid discharged from the second heat exchanger within a target superheat range while operating the vapour-compression circuit in the defrost mode (see Miyakoshi, paragraphs [0088]-[0090]).
Regarding claim 20, Kasamatsu teaches a vehicle comprising vapour-compression circuit for circulating a working fluid, the vapour-compression circuit comprising a compressor (11, Fig. 1), a first heat exchanger (12, Fig. 1), an expansion device (15, Fig. 1), a second heat exchanger (16, Fig. 1), a discharge line (see line between 11 and 12 in Fig. 1), a bypass line (13a, Fig. 1) and a controller (40, Fig. 1),
wherein the discharge line extends from an outlet of the compressor to an inlet of the first heat exchanger (see Fig. 1); the vapour-compression circuit is configured to operate in a heating mode in which the first heat exchanger operates as a condenser and the second heat exchanger operates as an evaporator (drawn to intended use); and
the vapour-compression circuit is configured to operate in a defrost mode in which the working fluid is directed from the compressor to the second heat exchanger via the bypass line and the expansion device (see Fig. 1, which notes the flow path by the darken arrow) the bypass line extending from the discharge line to bypass the first heat exchanger (see Fig. 1);
wherein the vehicle comprises at least one of: a prime mover configured such that the compressor is mechanically coupled to the prime mover; and an electric motor configured such that the compressor is mechanically coupled to the electric motor (see paragraph [0025]).
wherein the controller is configured to control the expansion device based on a superheat of working fluid discharged from the second heat exchanger in the defrost mode.
Miyakoshi teaches a vehicle air conditioner (Miyakoshi, Title) which teaches controlling the expansion vlave based on the superheat degree of the outlet of a heat exchanger (Miyakoshi, paragraph [0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Kasamatsu with controlling the expansion device based on a superheat of working fluid discharged from the second heat exchanger, as taught by Miyakoshi, in order to improve the energy efficiency of the system.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu in view of Weyna (US 2021/0268875).
Regarding claim 13, Kasamatsu as modified teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 7, but does not teach a condenser control valve configured to prevent working fluid circulating along a path including the first heat exchanger in a closed state, wherein the condenser control valve is disposed at a location to permit circulation of working fluid along a path including the bypass line and the compressor when in the closed state.
Weyna teaches a refrigerant system (Weyna, Title) which features a condenser control valve (Weyna, 196, Fig. 3, paragraph [0073]) configured to prevent working fluid circulating along a path including the first heat exchanger in a closed state, wherein the condenser control valve is disposed at a location to permit circulation of working fluid along a path including the bypass line and the compressor when in the closed state (Weyna, 192, Fig. 3, paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Kasamatsu as modified with a condenser control valve configured to prevent working fluid circulating along a path including the first heat exchanger in a closed state, wherein the condenser control valve is disposed at a location to permit circulation of working fluid along a path including the bypass line and the compressor when in the closed state, as taught by Weyna, in order to provide greater control the flow of fluid as desired in the system.
Regarding claim 14, Kasamatsu as modified teaches the vapour-compression circuit of both claim 7, but does not teach a condenser control valve configured to prevent working fluid circulating along a path including the first heat exchanger in a closed state, wherein the condenser control valve is disposed at a location to permit circulation of working fluid along a path including the bypass line and the compressor when in the closed state; wherein the controller is configured to: maintain the condenser control valve in the closed state while operating the vapour-compression circuit in the defrost mode; and at least one of: maintain the condenser control valve in an open state while operating the vapour-compression circuit in the heating mode; and actuate the bypass line control valve to prevent flow of working fluid through the bypass line while operating the vapour-compression circuit in the heating mode.
Weyna teaches a refrigerant system (Weyna, Title) which features a condenser control valve (Weyna, 196, Fig. 3, paragraph [0073]) configured to prevent working fluid circulating along a path including the first heat exchanger in a closed state, wherein the condenser control valve is disposed at a location to permit circulation of working fluid along a path including the bypass line and the compressor when in the closed state (Weyna, 192, Fig. 3, paragraph [0074]), and maintain the condenser control valve in an open state while operating the vapour-compression circuit in the heating mode; and actuate the bypass line control valve to prevent flow of working fluid through the bypass line while operating the vapour-compression circuit in the heating mode (drawn to intended use as Weyna teaches opening the bypass valve 194 to help with defrost in paragraph [0074], while in heating mode 196 must be open to facilitate flow to the condenser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Kasamatsu as modified with a condenser control valve and the recited control configurations as noted above, as taught by Weyna, in order to provide greater control the flow of fluid as desired in the system.
Regarding claim 15, Kasamatsu as modified teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 13, comprising the condenser control valve configured to prevent working fluid circulating along a path including the first heat exchanger in a closed state (if the valve if closed, fluid is prevented from entering the condenser in Weyna), wherein the condenser control valve is disposed at a location to permit circulation of working fluid along a path including the bypass line and the compressor when in the closed state (Weyna, Fig. 3);
wherein the controller is configured to: maintain the condenser control valve in the closed state while operating the vapour-compression circuit in the defrost mode (met through the combination as in Kasamatsu defrost mode bypasses the first heat exchanger); and
at least one of: maintain the condenser control valve in an open state while operating the vapour-compression circuit in the heating mode; and actuate the bypass line control valve to prevent flow of working fluid through the bypass line while operating the vapour-compression circuit in the heating mode (drawn to intended use as Weyna teaches opening the bypass valve 194 to help with defrost in paragraph [0074], while in heating mode 196 must be open to facilitate flow to the condenser).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu in view of Galansky (US 2017/0274732).
Regarding claim 18, Kasamatsu as modified teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 7, but does not teach the controller is configured to terminate operation of the vapour-compression circuit in the defrost mode based on a signal received from a sensing arrangement relating to a temperature of working fluid discharged from an outlet of the second heat exchanger to an inlet of the compressor.
Galansky teaches a system for defrosting a heat exchanger (Galansky, Title) which terminates defrost mode based off the suction temperature of the compressor (Galansky, paragraph [0017], [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Katamatsu with terminating the defrosting mode based on a temperature at the inlet of the compressor, as taught by Galansky, in order to assess how this control benefits the desired optimization of the system.
Regarding claim 19, Kasamatsu as modified teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 18, but does not specifically teach the controller is configured to terminate operation of the vapour-compression circuit in the defrost mode when the signal is indicative of the temperature of working fluid discharged from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to the inlet of the compressor being at or above a temperature threshold, and wherein the temperature threshold is between 15°C and 20°C.
However, the claimed temperature range is merely a result effective variable, the general conditions of which are recognized by the prior art. Namely, the claim requires terminating the defrost mode based on a signal indicative of the temperature of working fluid discharged from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to the inlet of the compressor, the general conditions of which are recognized by the prior art. Therefore, it is not patentably distinguishable to claim an application specific temperature range. Thus, making it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide Katamatsu with the temperature threshold being between 15°C and 20°C, in order to assess the desired optimization of the system.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu in view of Katoh (US 2013/0081419).
Regarding claim 16, Kasamatsu as modified teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 7, but does not teach the vapour-compression circuit is configured such that a direction of flow of working fluid through the second heat exchanger is the same in both the defrost mode and the heating mode.
Katoh teaches a heat pump cycle (Katoh, Title) wherein fluid flow is identical through the frosted heat exchanger during defrost mode as it is during heating/cooling (Katoh, see Figs. 1-2, see claim 27 at least). It would beobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide Katamatsu with flow of working fluid through the second heat exchanger is the same in both the defrost mode and the heating mode, as taught by Katoh, in order to assess the desired optimization of the system.
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.
Claims 7, 10-12, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasamatsu (US 2019/0032979 – provided by Applicant in the IDS)
Regarding claim 7, Kasamatsu teaches a vapour-compression circuit for circulating a working fluid, the vapour-compression circuit comprising a compressor (11, Fig. 1), a first heat exchanger (12, Fig. 1), an expansion device (15, Fig. 1), a second heat exchanger (16, Fig. 1), a discharge line (see line between 11 and 12 in Fig. 1), a bypass line (13a, Fig. 1) and a controller (40, Fig. 1),
wherein the discharge line extends from an outlet of the compressor to an inlet of the first heat exchanger (see Fig. 1); the vapour-compression circuit is configured to operate in a heating mode in which the first heat exchanger operates as a condenser and the second heat exchanger operates as an evaporator (drawn to intended use); and
the vapour-compression circuit is configured to operate in a defrost mode in which the working fluid is directed from the compressor to the second heat exchanger via the bypass line and the expansion device (see Fig. 1, which notes the flow path by the darken arrow), the bypass line extending from the discharge line to bypass the first heat exchanger (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Kasamatsu teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 7, wherein the second heat exchanger is exposed to an ambient environment and is configured to facilitate heat exchange between the ambient environment and working fluid circulated by the vapour-compression circuit (Kasamatsu, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 11, Kasamatsu teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 7, wherein the expansion device is a main expansion device; the vapour-compression circuit comprises a liquid line extending from the first heat exchanger to the main expansion device (see Kasamatsu which shows a line connecting 12 and 15 in Fig. 1), and a distribution line extending from the main expansion device to an inlet of the second heat exchanger (Kasamatsu, see Fig. 1 showing connection between 15 and 16 in Fig. 1)..
Regarding claim 12, Kasamatsu teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 7, comprising a bypass line control valve, wherein the bypass line control valve is configured to control flow of working fluid through the bypass line (13, Fig. 1, paragraph [0028]); and the controller is configured to actuate the bypass line control valve to permit flow of working fluid through the bypass line for operation of the vapour-compression circuit in the defrost mode (see paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 17, Kasamatsu teaches the vapour-compression circuit of claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to switch the vapour-compression circuit from the heating mode to the defrost mode; and the controller is configured to continuously operate the compressor to compress working fluid as the vapour-compression circuit is switched between the defrost mode and the heating mode (see paragraphs [0046]-[0050]).
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
Prosecution Insights