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 Status
Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1-7 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a comma after wherein in line 1.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: has terms in parenthesis. These should be deleted (i.e. (PA), (PB), and (PC)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-7 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the expansion valve" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the expansion valve" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (EP 3868280 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Wolf,” in view of Wang et al. (CN 105402438 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Wang,” and Koishi et al. (JP 2011099620 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Koishi.”
Regarding Claim 1: Wolf teaches a refrigeration system (abstract, refrigerant compressor and expansion element) comprising: a first metal pipe (22 or 23); a second metal pipe (the other of 22 or 23) with a higher electric potential than the first metal pipe (last page of machine translation, either pipe can be either material of aluminum or copper); and a first component (12) including a first end and a second end (12, see Figures 2-4), the first metal pipe (22 or 23) being directly connected to the first end of the first component (12, see Figures 2-4) and the second metal pipe (the other of 22 or 23) directly being connected to the second end of the first component (12, see Figures 2-4), so that a refrigerant passage (14) is formed from the first metal pipe (22 or 23) to the second metal pipe (the other 22 or 23) through the first component (see Figures 2-4), and the first component being one of a filter, a muffler, an expansion valve (12, see Figure 2-4), a refrigerant storage, and a diverter.
Wolf fails to teach an air conditioner; and a first component made of stainless steel.
Wang teaches an air conditioner (page 7 of the machine translation) and a first component (expansion valve 100) made of stainless steel (valve body 110 is made of stainless steel, page 7 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an air conditioner and a first component made of stainless steel to the structure of Wolf as taught by Wang in order to advantageously provide an improved expansion valve (see Invention content on page 2 of the machine translation of Wang).
Koishi teaches a first metal pipe (53 or 2a) made of aluminum (page 2 of the machine translation) and a second metal pipe (52, 13) made of copper (page 2 of the machine translation) and a component (51 or 10) made of stainless steel (page 2 of the machine translation) connected directly between the first metal pipe (53) and second metal pipe (52, see Figures 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an a first metal pipe made of aluminum and a second metal pipe made of copper and a component connected directly between the first metal pipe and second metal pipe made of stainless steel to the structure of Wolf modified supra as taught by Koishi in order to advantageously provide materials good for connection and flexibility (see Koishi, abstract).
Regarding Claim 2: Wolf modified supra fails to teach the first end is located above the second connecting part end.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to change shape/rearrangement of the elements of the structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided varying the rearrangement of assembly components. Furthermore, absent evidence of criticality, rearrangement of parts is merely design choice and would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 VI A., B. and C.
Regarding Claim 3: Wolf modified supra teaches wherein an end portion of the first end (end of expansion unit 100 made of stainless steel page 7 of Wang machine translation) is inserted into (as taught by Figure 5 of Koishi) the first metal pipe (22 or 23 of Wolf).
Regarding Claim 6: Wolf teaches wherein, the first component (12) is the expansion valve (see Figures 2-4), the first metal pipe (22 or 23) is made of aluminum (last page of the machine translation), and the second metal pipe is made of copper (the other of 22 or 23, last page of the machine translation).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. (EP 3868280 A1, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Wolf,” in view of Wang et al. (CN 105402438 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Wang,” and Koishi et al. (JP 2011099620 A, machine translation), hereafter referred to as “Koishi,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ukai (JP 2009014247 A, machine translation previously provided) and Masui (US 2014/0360222 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: Wolf teaches the first metal pipe (22 or 23) is a refrigerant pipe connected to an outdoor heat exchanger (11) and made of aluminum (last page of machine translation) and a pipe made of copper (last page of machine translation).
Wolf modified supra fails to teach wherein, the first component is a diverter, and the expansion valve and a stop valve are provided on the opposite side of the outdoor heat exchanger over the diverter, and a pipe between the diverter and the expansion valve and a pipe between the expansion valve and the stop valve are made of copper.
Ukai teaches an outdoor heat exchanger (2), a diverter (24g), and an expansion valve (25) connected by piping (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the first component is a diverter, and the expansion valve are provided on the opposite side of the outdoor heat exchanger over the diverter to the structure of Wang modified supra as taught by Ukai in order to advantageously provide flow control in the system (see Ukai, page 3 of machine translation previously provided).
Masui teaches a stop valve (17, 18) on a liquid and gaseous side of an air conditioner (paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a stop valve are provided on a pipe with the stop valve to the structure of Wang modified supra as taught by Masui in order to advantageously provide flow control on both side of the system (see Masui, paragraph [0044]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and amended without any patentably significant broadening of the claims and including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mislak (US 2018/0156512 A1).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights