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 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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 (JP2008175430A – provided by Applicant in IDS, previously cited) in view of Yajima (US 2020/0240686, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, FOR1 teaches an air-conditioning apparatus (see Title) comprising:
a refrigerant circuit (32, Fig. 1) in which a compressor (11, Fig. 1, see Description), an outdoor heat exchanger (13, Fig. 1, see Description), an expansion valve (14, Fig. 1, see Description), and an indoor heat exchanger (15, 18, Fig. 1, see Description) are successively connected by refrigerant pipes, and refrigerant is circulated (see Fig. 1);
a branch circuit branching off from the refrigerant circuit at a first connection point that is located between the outdoor heat exchanger and the expansion valve in the refrigerant circuit (28, Fig. 1, see Description) and is closer to the outdoor heat exchanger than the expansion valve (see the branch point at the bottom of Fig. 1 at 12), and
joining the refrigerant circuit at a second connection point that is located between the outdoor heat exchanger and the expansion valve and is closer to the expansion valve than the outdoor heat exchanger (see the branch point at the bottom of Fig. 1 at 19 and 20);
a refrigerant heat exchanger configured to cause heat exchange to be performed between refrigerant that flows in a first flow passage in the refrigerant circuit and refrigerant that flows in a second flow passage in the branch circuit, the first flow passage being located between the compressor and the indoor heat exchange (21, Fig. 1, see Description);
a refrigerant flow control valve connected to the branch circuit and configured to adjust a flow rate of refrigerant that flows in the branch circuit (19, Fig. 1, see Description);
a controller configured to increase an opening degree of the refrigerant flow control valve (see Description which notes a remote controller and further recites how the controller is used to open/close the valve 19 during operation modes).
FOR1 does not teach a temperature detector configured to detect a temperature of refrigerant that flows on a suction side of the compressor; and when the temperature detected by the temperature detector is higher than or equal to a threshold temperature determined in advance.
Yajima teaches a refrigeration apparatus (Yajima, Title) which features suction temperature sensor for the compressor (Yajima, 71, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0103]) and a branch point between the outdoor heat exchanger and the expansion valve (Yajima, 50, Fig. 1) which features a flow control valve (Yajima, 51, Fig. 1) wherein when the suction temperature of the compressor is too high, the controller reduces the opening degree of the flow control valve (Yajima, paragraph [0103] which notes that the superheat exceeds an upper limit value then the valve is controlled, however, the Examiner notes that superheat and suction temperature are directly correlated and therefore reads on the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with a temperature detector configured to detect a temperature of refrigerant that flows on a suction side of the compressor; and when the temperature detected by the temperature detector is higher than or equal to a threshold temperature determined in advance, as taught by Yajima, in order efficiently maintain the energy efficiency of the system by maximizing the systems ability to absorb heat.
Regarding claim 2, FOR1 as modified teaches the air-conditioning apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a check valve provided at the branch circuit, and configured to allow the refrigerant to flow from a first connection point side where the first connection point is located to a second connection point side where the second connection point is located, and shut off a flow of the refrigerant from the second connection point side to the first connection point side (FOR1, 20, Fig. 1, see Description).
Regarding claim 4, FOR1 teaches an air-conditioning apparatus (see Title) comprising:
a refrigerant circuit (32, Fig. 1) in which a compressor (11, Fig. 1, see Description), an outdoor heat exchanger (13, Fig. 1, see Description), an expansion valve (14, Fig. 1, see Description), and an indoor heat exchanger (15, 18, Fig. 1, see Description) are successively connected by refrigerant pipes and refrigerant is circulated, the outdoor heat exchanger and the expansion valve being directly connected to each other (see Fig. 1);
a branch circuit branching off from the refrigerant circuit at a first connection point that is located between the outdoor heat exchanger and the expansion valve and is closer to the outdoor heat exchanger than the expansion valve (28, Fig. 1, see Description, see the branch point at the bottom of Fig. 1 at 12), and joining the refrigerant circuit at a second connection point that is located between the outdoor heat exchanger and the expansion valve and is closer to the expansion valve than the outdoor heat exchanger (see the branch point at the bottom of Fig. 1 at 19 and 20);
a refrigerant flow control valve connected to the branch circuit and configured to adjust a flow rate of refrigerant that flows in the branch circuit (19, Fig. 1, see Description);
a controller configured to increase an opening degree of the refrigerant flow control valve (see Description which notes a remote controller and further recites how the controller is used to open/close the valve 19 during operation modes).
Yajima teaches a refrigeration apparatus (Yajima, Title) which features suction temperature sensor for the compressor (Yajima, 71, Fig. 1, see paragraph [0103]) and a branch point between the outdoor heat exchanger and the expansion valve (Yajima, 50, Fig. 1) which features a flow control valve (Yajima, 51, Fig. 1) wherein when the suction temperature of the compressor is too high, the controller reduces the opening degree of the flow control valve (Yajima, paragraph [0103] which notes that the superheat exceeds an upper limit value then the valve is controlled, however, the Examiner notes that superheat and suction temperature are directly correlated and therefore reads on the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with a temperature detector configured to detect a temperature of refrigerant that flows on a suction side of the compressor; and when the temperature detected by the temperature detector is higher than or equal to a threshold temperature determined in advance, as taught by Yajima, in order efficiently maintain the energy efficiency of the system by maximizing the systems ability to absorb heat.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Yajima further in view of Yamashita (US 2015/0362235).
Regarding claim 5, FOR1 as modified teaches the air-conditioning apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach the refrigerant circuit further comprises an accumulator positioned on a suction side of the compressor. Yamashita teaches an air conditioning apparatus (Yamashita, Title) which features an accumulator arranged on the suction side of the compressor (Yamashita, paragraph [0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with an accumulator positioned on a suction side of the compressor, as taught by Yamashita, in order to prevent liquid slugging.
Regarding claim 6, FOR1 as modified teaches the air-conditioning apparatus of claim 4, but does not teach the refrigerant circuit further comprises an accumulator positioned on a suction side of the compressor. Yamashita teaches an air conditioning apparatus (Yamashita, Title) which features an accumulator arranged on the suction side of the compressor (Yamashita, paragraph [0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with an accumulator positioned on a suction side of the compressor, as taught by Yamashita, in order to prevent liquid slugging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to the 35 USC 103 rejections made in the previous office action. Applicant argues that Yajima does not teach a branch circuit as claimed, but rather a bypass pipe that joins the suction of the compressor. Further, Applicant argues that the control of the valve of Yajima is with regard to refrigerant recovery and therefore unrelated to the claimed invention. See Applicant Remarks, pg. 8. The Examiner has considered the argument and respectfully finds the argument unpersuasive. Specifically, the argument hinges on attacking Yajima without addressing the combination as a whole. Yajima teaches an analogous branch circuit based on the defined parameters in the claim which notes where the branch circuit is positioned. Therefore, as Yajima meets what is outlined by the claim as to where the branch circuit is positioned, and is in the same field of endeavor, Yajima is therefore analogous art. Ultimately, FOR1 teaches the branch circuit and the valve, while Yajima teaches that such controls are known in the art. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 Valve 3763