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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/13/2024, 11/8/2024, 1/31/2025 and 3/3/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (JPH05187730A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito teaches a refrigerating and air-conditioning apparatus [fig 1] comprising:
an outdoor unit including a compressor [1] and an outdoor heat exchanger [0002];
a plurality of indoor units each including an indoor expansion valve [6] and an indoor heat exchanger [7; 0002];
a relay unit connected between the outdoor unit and the plurality of indoor units and including a plurality of three-way valves [8], the plurality of three-way valves each being configured to switch flows of refrigerant and to adjust a flow rate of the refrigerant that passes through the three-way valve, the plurality of three-way valves being provided in number relative to the number of the plurality of indoor units the relay unit being configured to distribute the refrigerant in a low-temperature state to each of ones of the plurality of indoor units that perform cooling operations and the refrigerant in a high-temperature state to each of ones of the plurality of indoor units that perform heating operations [0002; 0007]; and
a controller [20] configured to control switching and opening degrees of the plurality of three- way valves [0011],
the plurality of indoor units each including an indoor-side pressure sensor [16] configured to detect an indoor-side pressure, the indoor-side pressure being a pressure of the refrigerant that passes through the indoor heat exchanger [0011],
the controller being configured to control, with reference to the indoor-side pressure of each of ones of the plurality of indoor units that perform cooling operations, the opening degree of a corresponding three-way valve of the plurality of three-way valves such that the controller is configured to adjust the flow rate of the refrigerant passing through the corresponding three-way valve [0012].
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JPH05187730A) in view of Yasuda et al. (JPH10253187A).
Regarding Claim 3, Ito teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the outdoor unit further includes an outdoor expansion valve configured to depressurize and expand the refrigerant, an outdoor-side pressure sensor configured to detect a suction pressure, the suction pressure being a pressure of the refrigerant that is sucked into the compressor, and an outdoor-side temperature sensor configured to detect a suction temperature, the suction temperature being a temperature of the refrigerant that is sucked into the compressor, and wherein the controller is configured to derive an evaporating temperature from the suction pressure, calculate a degree of superheat from the suction temperature and the evaporating temperature, and control an opening degree of at least one of the corresponding three-way valve, the outdoor expansion valve, and the corresponding indoor expansion valve when the degree of superheat is lower than or equal to a set degree of superheat, which is predetermined.
However, Yasuda teaches an air conditioner [0001] wherein the outdoor unit further includes an outdoor expansion valve [4] configured to depressurize and expand the refrigerant [0022],
an outdoor-side pressure sensor [14] configured to detect a suction pressure, the suction pressure being a pressure of the refrigerant that is sucked into the compressor [0022], and
an outdoor-side temperature sensor [13] configured to detect a suction temperature, the suction temperature being a temperature of the refrigerant that is sucked into the compressor [0022], and
wherein the controller [at 0026] is configured to derive an evaporating temperature from the suction pressure, calculate a degree of superheat from the suction temperature and the evaporating temperature [0022], and
control an opening degree of at least one of the corresponding three-way valve, the outdoor expansion valve, and the corresponding indoor expansion valve when the degree of superheat is lower than or equal to a set degree of superheat, which is predetermined [0022; where the outdoor expansion valve is controlled and where the claim is recited in the alternative] 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 a system having operational stability [0028].
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 Ito to have wherein the outdoor unit further includes an outdoor expansion valve configured to depressurize and expand the refrigerant, an outdoor-side pressure sensor configured to detect a suction pressure, the suction pressure being a pressure of the refrigerant that is sucked into the compressor, and an outdoor-side temperature sensor configured to detect a suction temperature, the suction temperature being a temperature of the refrigerant that is sucked into the compressor, and wherein the controller is configured to derive an evaporating temperature from the suction pressure, calculate a degree of superheat from the suction temperature and the evaporating temperature, and control an opening degree of at least one of the corresponding three-way valve, the outdoor expansion valve, and the corresponding indoor expansion valve when the degree of superheat is lower than or equal to a set degree of superheat, which is predetermined in view of the teachings of Yasuda 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 a system having operational stability.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JPH05187730A) in view of Kasahara (JP2007292429A).
Regarding Claim 6, Kasahara teaches the invention of claim 3 above but does not teach wherein the controller is configured to, in a cooling main operation or in a cooling only operation, reduce, when the degree of superheat is lower than or equal to the set degree of superheat, the opening degree of the indoor expansion valve of each of ones of the plurality of indoor units that perform heating operations.
However, Kasahara teaches an air conditioner [0001] having wherein the controller [at 0069] is configured to, in a cooling main operation or in a cooling only operation, reduce, when the degree of superheat is lower than or equal to the set degree of superheat, the opening degree of the indoor expansion valve of each of ones of the plurality of indoor units that perform heating operations [0105-0107; 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. optimizes the ability to determine refrigerant amount and thereby improve the system [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 Ito to have wherein the controller is configured to, in a cooling main operation or in a cooling only operation, reduce, when the degree of superheat is lower than or equal to the set degree of superheat, the opening degree of the indoor expansion valve of each of ones of the plurality of indoor units that perform heating operations in view of the teachings of Sumi 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. optimizes the ability to determine refrigerant amount and thereby improve the system.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JPH05187730A) in view of Sumi et al. (US4941326).
Regarding Claim 8, Ito teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein at least one of the plurality of indoor units is configured to take in outdoor air and blow conditioned air to a corresponding one of the indoor spaces.
However, Sumi teaches an air conditioner having an outdoor air introducing mechanism [col 1, lines 6-11] wherein at least one indoor unit is configured to take in outdoor air and blow conditioned air to a corresponding indoor space [col 2, line 60-col 3, line 38; 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. optimizes the ability to cool outdoor air in response to changes in the cooling load and/or ventilation rate [col 1, lines 6-11].
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 Ito to have wherein at least one of the plurality of indoor units is configured to take in outdoor air and blow conditioned air to a corresponding one of the indoor spaces in view of the teachings of Sumi 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. optimizes the ability to cool outdoor air in response to changes in the cooling load and/or ventilation rate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 5 and 7 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. Claim 5 is objected to because of dependency.
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