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: “expansion device” used throughout the claims.
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.
For the record, “expansion device” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described in the specification (see for example para. 0024) as being a pressure reducing valve or an expansion valve, or 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.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation "the refrigerant having a low temperature" in lines 8-9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the term “low” in this limitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the refrigerant having a high temperature" in lines 9-10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the term “high” in this limitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the refrigerant that flows out from the heat-source-side unit" in lines 12-13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the refrigerant that flows out from the associated one of the load-side units" in lines 14-15 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 improperly recite method steps within an apparatus claim, rendering the intended metes and bounds unclear. For purposes of prosecution, these claims have been interpreted such that the prior art need simply to be capable of performing these functions in order to read on the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one load-side unit" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation was originally introduced in claim 2, but claim 5 depends directly from claim 1.
Claims 5, 9, and 10 each recite “the expansion device of the at least one load-side unit is caused to be in a closed state.” The metes and bounds of this limitation are further unclear, since it recites only a single expansion but potentially more than one load-side unit. The Examiner suggests amending this limitation to read “the respective expansion device of each of the at least one load-side unit is caused to be in a closed state.”
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Okochi (US 2017/0370608 A1).
As per claim 1, Okochi discloses a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising:
a heat-source-side unit (51, 151) including a compressor (1, 101) and a heat-source-side heat exchanger (2, 102); a plurality of load-side units (53a, 53b) including respective expansion devices (23a, 23b) and respective load- side heat exchangers (22a, 22b); and a relay unit 52 (the flow dividing controller as shown in Figs. 1-2 is considered the equivalent of a relay unit) including a plurality of three-way valves (para. 0055 re. valves 12 and 13 being replaceable by 3-way valves) connected between the heat-source- side unit and the load-side units (Fig. 1; etc.), the three-way valves being each provided in association with an associated one of the load-side units (Figs. 1-2; etc.) and configured to switch a flow direction of refrigerant between plural flow directions (para. 0055; etc.), the relay unit being configured to supply the refrigerant having a low temperature to one of the load-side units that performs a cooling operation and supply the refrigerant having a high temperature to one of the load-side units that performs a heating operation (para. 0053, etc. re. mixed cooling and heating operations), wherein each of the three-way valves is configured to switch the flow direction of the refrigerant that flows out from the heat-source-side unit such that the refrigerant flows into an associated one of the load-side units or switch the flow direction of the refrigerant that flows out from the associated one of the load-side units such that the refrigerant flows into the heat-source- side unit, depending on an operating state (para. 0055 re controlling valves 12 and 13 according to operating state).
As per claim 3, Okochi discloses wherein when at least one of the load-side units performs the heating operation, at least one of the three-way valves that is associated with the at least one load-side unit switches the flow direction of the refrigerant that flows out from the heat-source-side unit such that the refrigerant flows into the at least one load- side unit (see controls of valves 12 and 13 in Fig. 2 and described at para. 0061; note again that Okochi discloses valves 12 and 13 being replaceable by 3-way valves).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okochi (US 2017/0370608 A1).
As per claim 2, Okochi discloses the heating valve arrangement in Fig. 2 and para. 0061 (see discussion of claim below), and further teaches controlling the valves 12 and 13 to switch between heating and cooling modes (para. 0055; etc.) While Okochi does not explicitly discuss the details of the cooling operation wherein when at least one of the load-side units performs the cooling operation, at least one of the three-way valves that is associated with the at least one load-side unit switches the flow direction of the refrigerant that flows out from the at least one load-side unit such that the refrigerant flows into the heat-source-side unit; given these teaching and the structural arrangements of Figs. 1 and 2, one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application would have easily understood that switching the opened and closed positions of valves 12 and 13 would provide the cooling operation as claimed, and would found it obvious to similarly perform such controls via a 3-way valve (again see para. 0055 re. valves 12 and 13 being replaceable by 3-way valves) for the same purpose of utilizing the system to provide cooling at the load-side units.
As per claim 6, see similar claim 3, above.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okochi (US 2017/0370608 A1)in view of Yamada et al. (US 2022/0221205 A1).
As per claims 4, 7, and 8, Okochi does not disclose wherein in a partial load stopped operation in which at least one of the load-side units is stopped, a state of at least one of the three-way valves that is associated with the at least one load-side unit is switched such that the at least one three-way valve shuts off the flow of the refrigerant. Yamada et al. teach the concept of wherein in a partial load stopped operation in which at least one of the load-side units is stopped, a state of at least one of the valves that is associated with the at least one load-side unit is switched such that the at least one valve shuts off the flow of the refrigerant (Fig. 2; para. 0082-83 when only one of the load-side units requires heating or cooling operation; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly control the three-way valves of Okochi (which are already controlling flow to the respective load-side units as discussed above) in this same manner for the same purpose of preventing refrigerant flow to load-side units that are not needed to be in operation during partial load conditions.
As per claims 5, 9, and 10, Okochi does not disclose wherein the expansion device of the at least one load-side unit is caused to be in a closed state. Yamada et al. teach wherein the expansion device of the at least one load-side unit is caused to be in a closed state (again: Fig. 2; paras. 0082-0083; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly control expansion valves 23 of Okochi et al. for the same purpose of preventing refrigerant flow to load-side units that are not needed to be in operation during partial load conditions.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Zhang et al. (US 2021/0333027 A1) teach an air conditioning system with partial load valve controls (para. 0031; etc.).
Shen et al. (US 2021/0318045 A1) teach an air conditioning system with multiple 3-way valves 330 within relay unit 300.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763