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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the preliminary amendments. Claims 2-3 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 4-9 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 and 04/18/2024 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the contact angle in at least claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 5 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the recitation of “...a contact angle between a surface of the second fin of the cooler and water is smaller than a contact angle between a surface of the first fin of the reheater and water…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to what structure Applicant is intending by reciting a contact angle between a fin of a given heat exchanger relative to water. The specification generally references water drainage of the fin surface as a result of dew [¶ 0085], however it is unclear as to how this relates to the claimed invention and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification [MPEP 2111.01]. Thus, it is unclear as to what water Applicant is referring to when describing the contact angle, thereby making the claim difficult to interpret. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitations will be interpreted as providing the plurality of heat exchangers at some different incident angle relative to one another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rafalovich (US 5,689,962 A)
Regarding Claim 1, Rafalovich teaches an air conditioner [Fig. 5] comprising:
a refrigerant circuit [Fig. 5] comprising a compressor [1], a refrigerant flow path switching mechanism [at least 8, 18], an outdoor heat exchanger [2], a first expansion valve [14], a reheater [3 or 5], a second expansion valve [4], and a cooler [3 or 5; opposite the reheater depending on the orientation of at least 18 and the mode of the system], and configured to allow refrigerant to circulate in the refrigerant circuit [Col. 5, 23 – Col. 6, 4]; and
a blower [6] configured to blow air to the reheater and the cooler [Fig. 1; a forced air stream flows over the heat exchangers 3 and 5 via fans or blowers 6],
the refrigerant flow path switching mechanism being configured to switch between a first switching state and a second switching state [Col. 5, 28-34; the device may change between at least a cooling and heating mode], the refrigerant flow path switching mechanism being configured to switch to the first switching state [cooling mode] to allow the refrigerant to flow through the compressor, the refrigerant flow path switching mechanism, the outdoor heat exchanger, the first expansion valve, the refrigerant flow path switching mechanism, the reheater, the second expansion valve, the cooler, and the refrigerant flow path switching mechanism in this order in the refrigerant circuit [Col. 5, 56 – Col. 6, 4; Fig. 5; apparent from inspection],
the refrigerant flow path switching mechanism being configured to switch to the second switching state [heating mode] to allow the refrigerant to flow through the compressor, the refrigerant flow path switching mechanism, the reheater, the second expansion valve, the cooler, the refrigerant flow path switching mechanism, the first expansion valve, the outdoor heat exchanger, and the refrigerant flow path switching mechanism in this order in the refrigerant circuit [Col. 5, 25-56; apparent from inspection], and
the reheater and the cooler being configured to allow the air blown by the blower to pass through the cooler and then pass through the reheater during either of the first switching state and the second switching state [Col. 5, 47-51; cold return air, moved by fan 6, exchanges heat between heat exchangers 5 and 3],
wherein the refrigerant flow path switching mechanism is a six-way valve [Col. 5, 63-67; It is well known in the state of the prior art that a plurality of lower-degree valves may be configured to flow refrigerant in the same manner as a switching device with a higher-degree of valves. Rafalovich further explicitly states that the plurality of four-way valves may be substituted by a single six-way valve].
Regarding Claim 6, Rafalovich teaches the air conditioner according to claim 1 above and Rafalovich further teaches comprising:
an outdoor unit [upper portion of Fig. 5] comprising the compressor [1] and the outdoor heat exchanger [2] [Col. 2, 21-33; the heat pump is provided as a compressor for compressing refrigerant to an outdoor heat exchanger];
an indoor unit [lower portion of Fig. 5] comprising the reheater and the cooler [3 and 5];
a high-pressure pipe [13 or 19]; and
a low-pressure pipe [13 or 19, opposite the high-pressure pipe depending on the orientation of at least 18 and the mode of the system; Col. 5, 23 – Col. 6, 4]; and
the outdoor unit and the indoor unit are connected to each other by the high-pressure pipe and the low-pressure pipe [Col. 5, 28 - Col. 6, 4; member 18 may switch and operate to provide the first flowpath towards either 5 or 3 via 13 and 19 depending on the preferred operation method and parameters].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafalovich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakabe et al. (WO 2020148826 A1, hereinafter “Sakabe”)
Regarding Claim 4, Rafalovich teaches the air conditioner according to claim 1 above, and Rafalovich teaches wherein the reheater comprises a plurality of first heat transfer flow paths arranged in parallel lines, the cooler comprises a plurality of second heat transfer flow paths arranged in parallel lines [Col. 5, 47-50; fan apparent from inspection that fan 6 provides parallel airflow through heat exchangers 3 and 5], however Rafalovich does not explicitly teach wherein the number of the parallel lines of the plurality of second heat transfer flow paths of the cooler is larger than the number of the parallel lines of the plurality of first heat transfer flow paths of the reheater.
However, Sakabe teaches an air conditioner [Fig. 1] comprising a compressor [1], a flow switching mechanism [2], an outdoor heat exchanger [3] [¶ 0013], and a plurality of indoor heat exchangers [52, 54] wherein a blower [5a] induces an airflow through the plurality of indoor heat exchangers [¶ 0022, 0027]. Sakabe further teaches that heat exchanger 54 comprises of two internal flow paths to while heat exchanger 52 comprises one internal flow path [¶ 0028], wherein Sakabe further describes that the number of flow paths, number of heat exchanger tubes, number of fins, and other dimensions are all variable to design change as different combinations may reduce the energy consumption and size of the air conditioner while maintaining the quality of the air conditioner [¶ 0063]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide a cooler and reheater with different dimensions) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. the number of flow paths, heat exchanger tubes, fins, and other dimensions are all variable to design change as different combinations may reduce the energy consumption and size of the air conditioner while maintaining the quality of the air conditioner [¶ 0063].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Rafalovich to have wherein the number of the parallel lines of the plurality of second heat transfer flow paths of the cooler is larger than the number of the parallel lines of the plurality of first heat transfer flow paths of the reheater, in view of the teachings of Sakabe where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. the number of flow paths, heat exchanger tubes, fins, and other dimensions are all variable to design change as different combinations may reduce the energy consumption and size of the air conditioner while maintaining the quality of the air conditioner.
Claims 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafalovich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinohara et al. (JP 2003050061 A1, hereinafter “Shinohara”).
Regarding Claim 5, Rafalovich teaches the air conditioner according to claim 1 above but Rafalovich does not explicitly teach wherein the reheater comprises a first fin, the cooler comprises a second fin, and a contact angle between a surface of the second fin of the cooler and water is smaller than a contact angle between a surface of the first fin of the reheater and water.
However, Shinohara teaches an air conditioner [Figs.1-15] comprising a compressor [2], a flow switching mechanism [at least 3 and 16], an outdoor heat exchanger [4] [¶ 0019], and a plurality of indoor heat exchangers [11, 12] wherein a blower [15] induces an airflow through the plurality of indoor heat exchangers [¶ 0027]. Shinohara further teaches wherein the plurality of heat exchangers are fin tube types [¶ 0042], thereby providing that heat exchangers with respective fins. Furthermore, it is apparent from inspection of at least Figs. 13-15 that the angles of heat exchangers 11 and 12 are different relative to one another, and therefore currently meet the broad limitations of different contact angles [See 112(b) rejection above for claim interpretation]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the heat exchangers as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the heat exchangers 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. heat exchangers in this configuration provide drastically reduced contact heat resistance, thereby improving the performance of the heat exchangers and improving the system [¶ 0042].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Rafalovich to have wherein the reheater comprises a first fin, the cooler comprises a second fin, and a contact angle between a surface of the second fin of the cooler and water is smaller than a contact angle between a surface of the first fin of the reheater and water, in view of the teachings of Shinohara where the elements could have been combined by known methods /applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. heat exchangers in this configuration provide drastically reduced contact heat resistance, thereby improving the performance of the heat exchangers and improving the system.
Regarding Claim 8, Rafalovich teaches the air conditioner according to claim 1 above but Rafalovich does not explicitly teach wherein the refrigerant is a refrigerant mixture.
However, Shinohara teaches an air conditioner [Figs.1-15] comprising a compressor [2], a flow switching mechanism [at least 3 and 16], an outdoor heat exchanger [4] [¶ 0019], and a plurality of indoor heat exchangers [11, 12] wherein a blower [15] induces an airflow through the plurality of indoor heat exchangers [¶ 0027]. Shinohara further teaches that the refrigerant may be a mixture of several kinds of refrigerant wherein it is known that different refrigerants have different characteristics (i.e. pressure loss, flow rate, etc.), thereby providing the capability to increase the heat exchange capacity of the system depending on other design decisions and operation modes [¶ 0040-0041]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide mixed refrigerant) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. it is known that different refrigerants have different characteristics (i.e. pressure loss, flow rate, etc.), thereby providing the capability to increase the heat exchange capacity of the system depending on other design decisions and operation modes [¶ 0040-0041].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Rafalovich to have wherein the refrigerant is a refrigerant mixture, in view of the teachings of Shinohara where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. it is known that different refrigerants have different characteristics (i.e. pressure loss, flow rate, etc.), thereby providing the capability to increase the heat exchange capacity of the system depending on other design decisions and operation modes [¶ 0040-0041].
Regarding Claim 9, Rafalovich, as modified, teaches the air conditioner according to claim 8 above and Rafalovich teaches wherein the reheater and the cooler are configured to allow the refrigerant to flow in an opposite direction to a direction in which the air flows [portion 18 may connect conduit 12 to either 13 or 19, and it may connect conduit 21 to either 13 or 19 as well, thereby providing the capability of refrigerant to flow through the reheater and the cooler in an opposite direction to the airflow depending on the mode of operation [Col. 5, 28-63].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafalovich as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Rafalovich teaches the air conditioner according to claim 1 above and Rafalovich further teaches comprising a sensor on a pipe that connects the first expansion valve [14] and the refrigerant flow path switching mechanism [18] to each other [Col. 5, 31-53; Rafalovich describes device 14 as a metering device, or a thermostatic expansion valve, wherein it is known in the art that thermostatic expansion valves operate based on temperature sensors. Therefore, while Rafalovich does not explicitly disclose the location of the sensor relative to the valve and the switching mechanism, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. to position the sensor before, within, or after the thermostatic expansion valve, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. providing a functional thermostatic expansion valve to enable the system, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007))], wherein
the sensor is configured to measure a pressure or a temperature of the refrigerant in the pipe [Col. 5, 31-53; the metering device is a thermostatic expansion valve].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rafalovich, by trying to position the sensor between the first expansion valve and the refrigerant flowpath mechanism, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763