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.
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 acquisition module” in claim 14;
“a control module” in claim 14;
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, the acquisition module is not defined, and the control module is not defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 limitation “an acquisition module and a control module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitations each invoke 112f by the recitation of functional language, in this case being “acquisition” and “control,” with the generic placeholder of “module” which does not define the structure or what constitutes what is performing the functions of the claim. Therefore, rendering the claim indefinite.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (CN215295159U – provided by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Oh (US 2005/0081543 – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, FOR1 teaches an air conditioner (see Abstract), comprising an outdoor unit and an indoor unit group (implicit to any air conditioner, see Fig. 1), wherein the indoor unit comprises, and at least one indoor unit comprises:
a main flow path comprising a main pipeline, an electronic expansion valve (9, Fig. 1, see Description) and an indoor heat exchanger connected sequentially through the main pipeline (10, Fig. 1, see Description), wherein at least part of the main pipeline located at a refrigerant inlet end of the electronic expansion valve is defined as a subcooling parallel section (connected with 6 through 12 which is defined as the subcooling parallel section);
a subcooling branch comprising a subcooler (6, Fig. 1, see Description) and connected in parallel with the subcooling parallel section (see Fig. 1); and
a switching connection assembly configured to be controlled to connect at least one of the subcooling parallel section or the subcooling branch with the electronic expansion valve (4, Fig. 1, see Description).
FOR1 does not teach a plurality of indoor units connected in parallel.
Oh teaches an air conditioner (Oh, Title) which features an outdoor unit connected to a plurality of indoor units (Oh, outdoor unit 100, indoor units 114, see Fig. 2, see paragraphs [0058]-[0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with a plurality of indoor units connected in parallel, as taught by Oh, in order to utilize configurations that are known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, FOR1 as modified teaches the multi-split air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the subcooler is disposed at a wind area of an air outlet side of the indoor heat exchanger (FOR1, see Fig. 1 the airflow identified by 5).
Regarding claim 4, FOR1 as modified teaches the multi-split air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the switching connection assembly comprises:
a first solenoid valve disposed at the subcooling parallel section (FOR1, 4, Fig. 1, see Description); and
a second solenoid valve disposed at the subcooling branch (FOR1, 7, Fig. 1, see Description).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-14, 18-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art of record is FOR1 (CN215295159U – provided by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Oh (US 2005/0081543 – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
wherein the indoor unit further comprises:
a main air duct provided with an indoor heat exchanger; and
a subcooling air duct disposed at a downstream air path of the main air duct and connected in series with the main air duct, wherein the subcooler is disposed in the subcooling air duct, and an air inlet of the subcooling air duct is further provided with a damper configured to be controlled to adjust
an opening degree of the air inlet of the subcooling air duct to change the air flow rate flowing through the subcooling air duct from the main air duct.
In the Examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to further modify the prior art structures to arrive at the claimed invention, absent impermissible hindsight. Therefore, rendering claim 3, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of record is FOR1 (CN215295159U – provided by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Oh (US 2005/0081543 – provided by Applicant in the IDS) and Zhai (US 11,732,939).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
A method for controlling the multi-split air conditioner comprising an outdoor unit and an indoor unit group, wherein the indoor unit comprises a plurality of indoor units connected in parrel, and at least one indoor unit comprises:
a main flow path comprising a main pipeline, an electronic expansion valve and an indoor heat exchanger connected sequentially through the main pipeline,
wherein at least part of the main pipeline located at a refrigerant inlet end of the electronic expansion valve is defined as an subcooling parallel section;
a subcooling branch comprising a subcooler and connected in parallel with the subcooling parallel section; and
a switching connection assembly configured to be controlled to connect at least one of the subcooling parallel section and the subcooling branch with the electronic expansion valve, the method comprising:
in response to a cooling mode operation command, obtaining a current first subcooling degree at the refrigerant inlet end of the electronic expansion valve; and
in a case where the current first subcooling degree is less than or equal to the first preset subcooling degree, controlling the switching connection assembly to connect the subcooling branch to the electronic expansion valve.
In the Examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to further modify the prior art structures to arrive at the claimed invention, absent impermissible hindsight. Therefore, rendering independent claim 5, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art of record is FOR1 (CN215295159U – provided by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Oh (US 2005/0081543 – provided by Applicant in the IDS) and Zhai (US 11,732,939).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
A device for controlling the multi-split air conditioner comprising an outdoor unit and an indoor unit group, wherein the indoor unit comprises a plurality of indoor units connected in parrel, and at least one indoor unit comprises: a main flow path comprising a main pipeline, an electronic expansion valve and an indoor heat exchanger connected sequentially through the main pipeline, wherein at least part of the main pipeline located at a refrigerant inlet end of the electronic expansion valve is defined as an subcooling parallel section; a subcooling branch comprising a subcooler and connected in parallel with the subcooling parallel section; and a switching connection assembly configured to be controlled to connect at least one of the subcooling parallel section and the subcooling branch with the electronic expansion valve, the device comprising:
an acquisition module configured to, in response to a cooling mode operation command, obtain
a current first subcooling degree at a refrigerant inlet end of an electronic expansion valve; and
a control module configured to, in a case where the current first subcooling degree is less than or equal to a first preset subcooling degree, control a switching connection assembly to connect a subcooling branch with the electronic expansion valve.
In the Examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to further modify the prior art structures to arrive at the claimed invention, absent impermissible hindsight. Therefore, rendering independent claim 14, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
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