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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/8/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 7/8/2026. Claims 9 and 11-14 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN109579364A) in view of Che et al. (CN111256290A) and Sulc et al. (US2003/0037553).
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) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN109579364A) in view of Che et al. (CN111256290A) and Sulc et al. (US2003/0037553).
Regarding Claim 9, Duan teaches a heat pump HVAC system [fig 1] comprising:
an inside coil [5; 0035]; a compressor [6; 0035]; and
an outside coil [1; 0035], the outside coil includes first and second interlaced circuits [0053; 0054; fig 3];
in a cooling mode both of the first and the second interlaced circuits are used as condensers [0054];
where in a heating mode only the first interlaced circuit is used as an evaporator [0041-0049; where to counteract the formation of ice…only one branch continues heating and the other is used as an evaporator];
in the heating mode heat is applied to the second interlaced circuit to counteract the formation of ice on the outside coil [0041-0049].
Duan does not teach wherein the system is arranged to apply heat to the second interlaced circuit by directing hot discharge from the compressor to the second interlaced circuit; and
wherein the hot discharge from the compressor is directed to the second interlaced circuit by way of a pulse valve.
However, Che teaches a heat pump air conditioner having an outdoor heat exchanger assembly comprising a first outdoor heat exchanger and a second outdoor heat exchanger [171; 172; 0067; 0068] wherein the system is arranged to apply heat to a second interlaced circuit [172] by directing hot discharge from the compressor to the second interlaced circuit [0067; 0068]; and
wherein the hot discharge from the compressor is directed to the second interlaced circuit by way of a pulse valve [at least valve 182; 0067; 0068; fig 3; where one skilled in the art would recognize that at least valve 182 is controlled to allow refrigerant to flow to at least one of heat exchangers 171, 172 and is an art recognized equivalent to a pulse valve as witnessed by Sulc at 0055 where it is disclosed that valves having opening and closing controls such as the valve 182 in Che can alternatively be a pulse valve] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the steps as disclosed by known techniques and that in combination, each step would provide the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides an improved defrosting process [0030].
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 system of Duan to have wherein the system is arranged to apply heat to the second interlaced circuit by directing hot discharge from the compressor to the second interlaced circuit; and
wherein the hot discharge from the compressor is directed to the second interlaced circuit by way of a pulse valve in view of the teachings of Che where the steps could have been combined by known techniques with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides an improved defrosting process.
See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose
Regarding Claim 12, Duan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 above and Che teaches an expansion valve [161] associated with the inside coil [0038; fig 1]; an expansion valve associated with the outside coil [at least valves 162, 163 associated with outside heat exchanger assembly 171; 172; 0038] wherein the controller [see 0013] controls the operation of the expansion valves and also controls the operation of the compressor [0013; where the control of the compressor is implicit].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN109579364A), Che et al. (CN111256290A) and Sulc et al. (US2003/0037553) as applied to claim10 above, and further in view of Kenichi (JPH10232073A).
Regarding Claim 11, Duan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 above but does not teach wherein the pulse valve is arranged to operate based on the output of a temperature sensor that is associated with the outside coil.
However, Kenichi teaches an air conditioner [0001] having wherein a valve [4b] is arranged to operate based on the output of a temperature sensor [6a] that is associated with an outside heat exchanger [3a; 0014; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide defrosting operation while performing heating operation with improved comfort [0001; 0004].
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 Duan to have a railway locomotive including a heat pump HVAC system in view of the teachings of Kenichi 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. provide defrosting operation while performing heating operation with improved comfort.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN109579364A), Che et al. (CN111256290A) and Sulc et al. (US2003/0037553) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Fluder et al. (US4043143).
Regarding Claim 13, Duan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 above but does not teach a railway locomotive including a heat pump HVAC system.
However, Fluder teaches a railway locomotive having an air conditioning system [col 2, lines 14-17; fig 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide efficient cooling [col 1, lines 59-68]
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 Duan to have a railway locomotive including a heat pump HVAC system in view of the teachings of Fluder 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. provide efficient cooling.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al. (CN109579364A), Che et al. (CN111256290A) and Sulc et al. (US2003/0037553) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Glickman (US3394561).
Regarding Claim 14, Duan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 above and teaches the first and second interlaced circuit [1; fig 1] and the inside coil [5; fig 1] but does not explicitly teach wherein the first and the second interlaced circuits are sized so that together they are 30% larger than the inside coil.
However, Glickman teaches an air conditioning system [fig 1] having where an outdoor condenser [25] is sized so that it can be 30% larger than an inside evaporator [22; col 4, lines 1-21; see where the outdoor condenser can be as much as 250% larger] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide where the system operates more efficiently [col 4, lines 1-21].
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 Duan to have wherein the first and the second interlaced circuits are sized so that together they are 30% larger than the inside coil in view of the teachings of Armstrong 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. provide where the system operates more efficiently.
Response to Arguments
On pages 5-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues with respect to claim 9 that Duan et al. (CN109579364A) as modified by Che et al. (CN111256290A) does not teach “…wherein the hot discharge from the compressor is directed to the second interlaced circuit by way of a pulse valve.” In particular, Applicant argues that Che does not “direct hot discharge from the compressor.” Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, that Che does not direct hot discharge from the compressor, Applicant is reminded that is well-known in the art of refrigeration that refrigerant discharged from a compressor is a ‘hot discharge’ i.e. a high temperature gas compressed by a compressor. See Duan at 0046. With respect to Che, one skilled in the art would recognize that refrigerant discharged from compressor 11 to the heat exchanger 172 branch having valve 188 is a hot discharge. The fact that the hot discharge is augmented by heat storage device 13 does not negate the existence of a hot discharge from the compressor. Lastly, the claims are sufficiently broad such that the prior art reads upon the recited claim language.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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