Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/690,623

AIR-CONDITIONING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 08, 2024
Priority
Nov 11, 2021 — nonprovisional of PCTJP2021041566
Examiner
NORMAN, MARC E
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
1127 granted / 1341 resolved
+14.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1376
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.9%
+14.9% vs TC avg
§102
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1341 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . 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. For the record, “load device” and “heat source device” have NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since the respective terms “load” and “heat source” impart particular structure. 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. Claims 1-10 are 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. The limitation “Cv” is recited throughout the claims. The limitation “Cv” is not a clearly recognized term of art, and has not been clearly defined in the specification. While the specification does show an equation as to how “Cv” can be derived (see equation 4 at para. 0039), it is unclear what “Cv” actually is. Accordingly, it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application as to the metes and bounds of the limitation “Cv,” thus rendering the claims indefinite. Appropriate clarification and correction are required. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per independent claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the system combination as recited, and in particular the controller being configured to fix the opening degree of the bypass valve at a full close opening degree and acquire a heat source side flow rate indicating a flow rate of the heat medium flowing through the heat source device and the bypass pressure difference being measured by the pressure difference gauge, the heat source side flow rate and the bypass pressure difference being measured when the bypass valve is set at the full close opening degree, fix the opening degree of the bypass valve at a full open opening degree, acquire the heat source side flow rate and the bypass pressure difference, the heat source side flow rate and the bypass pressure difference being measured when the opening degree of the bypass valve is at the full open opening degree, and calculate a Cv value of the bypass valve when the opening degree of the bypass valve is at the full open opening degree based on the bypass pressure difference and the heat source side flow rate measured when the bypass valve is set at the full close opening degree and the bypass pressure difference and the heat source side flow rate measured when the bypass valve is set at the full open opening degree. Cited Prior Art The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention. Tamaki et al. (US 2023/0069910 A1) teach an air conditioning system comprising bypass valve 60 and differential pressure gauge 201. Ouchi et al. (US 2015/0211753 A1) teach an air conditioning system with bypass valve 7 controlled based on differential pressure (para. 0062; etc.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F. 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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. /MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 08, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
May 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12636940
VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM
2y 3m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12629984
VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONER
2y 6m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12617251
POWER DRIVE SYSTEM AND VEHICLE
2y 8m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12594816
SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE
2y 8m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584653
AIR CONDITIONER HAVING WATER NOZZLE CLEANING SYSTEM AND WATER NOZZLE CLEANING METHOD USED THEREIN
2y 8m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 7m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1341 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month