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 .
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 5/23/2024. Accordingly, claims 1-19 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/24/2024 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not concise. Language such as ‘…A heat pump pool heater system is disclosed which may include a heat pump,” is not concise. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 9 and 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.
Regarding Claim 9, the recitation of “…wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a reversing valve to reverse a direction of the flow of refrigerant through the heat pump,” renders the claim unclear.
In particular, claim 9 depends from claim 1 where claim 1 describes a defrost operation where the compressor ceases operation. Applicant later in claim 9 describes a defrost operation where the flow of refrigerant is reversed. Thus, the claims are conflicting.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. MPEP 2173.03
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation of “…wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a valve to open and direct the flow of refrigerant directly from the compressor to the evaporator coil, thereby bypassing the condenser coil,” renders the claim unclear.
In particular, claim 9 depends from claim 1 where claim 1 describes a defrost operation where the compressor ceases operation. Applicant later in claim 9 describes a defrost operation where the flow of refrigerant is diverted. Thus, the claims are conflicting.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. MPEP 2173.03
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
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) 1-3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Na et al. (US2007/0079436).
Regarding Claim 1, Na teaches a heat pump pool heater system [fig 2] comprising:
a heat pump comprising a refrigerant circuit fluidly connecting a compressor [52], a condenser coil [54], a thermal expansion valve [56], and an evaporator coil [58] via refrigerant conduit such that refrigerant can pass therethrough [0025];
one or more supplemental heat sources [90] configured to output heat [0036];
a water pump [38] configured to draw water from a pool, pass the water across the condenser coil and the one or more supplemental heat sources, and flow heated water from the condenser coil and/or the one or more supplemental heat sources to the pool [0025];
a controller [102] configured to selectively transition the heat pump between a water heating mode and a defrost mode, the defrost mode comprising ceasing a flow of refrigerant through the condenser coil and engaging the one or more supplemental heat sources to output heat to the water [0013; 0038; 0037; See Table I].
Regarding Claim 2, Na teaches the invention of claim 2 above and Na teaches wherein the water heating mode comprises (i) refrigerant flowing sequentially through the compressor, the condenser coil, the thermal expansion valve, and the evaporator coil and (ii) the one or more supplemental heat sources being deactivated such that heat is provided to the water solely by the heat pump [0036; 0038; 0039; Table I].
Regarding Claim 3, Na teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Na teaches a water temperature sensor [thermostat 104] configured to measure a temperature of water associated with the pool, wherein the controller [102] is further configured to: receive water temperature data from the water temperature sensor; determine that a current water temperature is less than a target water temperature; and output instructions for at least one of the heat pump or the one or more supplemental heat sources to provide heat to the water [0025; 0036; 0038; claim 24; claim 27].
Regarding Claim 12, Na, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Na teaches wherein the one or more supplemental heat sources [90] comprises an electrical resistance heating element [0036].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US6212894).
Regarding Claim 14, Brown teaches a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors [col 2, line 58-col 3, line 57], cause a controller [20] to:
receive water temperature data from a water temperature sensor [34] of a heat pump pool heating (HPPH) system [col 7, lines 8-41; col 10, lines 10-16];
determine that a current water temperature is less than a target water temperature [col 8, lines 18-53];
output instructions for at least one of a heat pump of the HPPH system or a supplemental heat source of the HPPH system to provide heat to the water [col 8, lines 18-53];
receive sensor data from one or more sensors [68] configured to measure one or more corresponding characteristics at or near an evaporator coil [66] of the HPPH system [col 9, lines 50-65];
determine that a current sensor value fails to satisfy a corresponding target value [col 9, line 38-col 10, line 16]; and
transition the HPPH system to a defrost mode by: outputting instructions for ceasing a flow of refrigerant through a condenser coil of the HPPH system; and outputting instructions for the one or more supplemental heat sources to generate heat for heating pool water [col 9, line 38-col 10, line 16].
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) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US2007/0079436) in view of Brown et al. (US6212894).
Regarding Claim 4, Na teaches the invention of claim 3 above but does not explicitly teach one or more sensors configured to measure one or more corresponding characteristics at or near the evaporator coil, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive sensor data from the one or more sensors; determine that a current sensor value fails to satisfy a corresponding target value; and transition the heat pump to the defrost mode.
However, Brown teaches a heat pump system that heats a pool [col 1, lines 13-24] having one or more sensors [68] configured to measure one or more corresponding characteristics at or near the evaporator coil [col 9, lines 50-65], wherein a controller [20] is further configured to: receive sensor data from the one or more sensors; determine that a current sensor value fails to satisfy a corresponding target value; and transition the heat pump to the defrost mode [col 9, line 50-col 10, line 10; see also Abstract where the anti-freeze protection control is also a defrost control] 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. reducing ice on the evaporator.
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 Na to have teach one or more sensors configured to measure one or more corresponding characteristics at or near the evaporator coil, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive sensor data from the one or more sensors; determine that a current sensor value fails to satisfy a corresponding target value; and transition the heat pump to the defrost mode in view of the teachings of Brown 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. reducing ice on the evaporator.
Regarding Claim 6, Na, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above and Brown teaches wherein: the one or more sensors [68] comprises an ambient temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of ambient air at or near the evaporator coil, the current sensor value is a current ambient temperature, the corresponding target value is an ambient temperature threshold, and determining that the current sensor value fails to satisfy the corresponding target value comprises determining that the current ambient temperature is less than the ambient temperature threshold [col 9, line 50-col 10, line 10; see also Abstract where the anti-freeze protection control is also a defrost control and where operation of the defrost/anti-freeze protection control is indicative of the ambient temperature being less than a threshold] .
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US2007/0079436) and Brown et al. (US6212894) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fudono et al. (US5003786).
Regarding Claim 5, Na, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above but does not teach wherein: the one or more sensors comprises a coil temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the refrigerant in or near the evaporator coil, the current sensor value is a current coil temperature, the corresponding target value is a coil temperature threshold, and determining that the current sensor value fails to satisfy the corresponding target value comprises determining that the current coil temperature is less than the coil temperature threshold.
However, Fudono teaches a refrigeration apparatus having defrosting capability [col 1, lines 6-10] having wherein: the one or more sensors comprises a coil temperature sensor [11] configured to measure a temperature of the refrigerant in or near the evaporator coil, the current sensor value is a current coil temperature, the corresponding target value is a coil temperature threshold, and determining that the current sensor value fails to satisfy the corresponding target value comprises determining that the current coil temperature is less than the coil temperature threshold [col 3, lines 43-66; fig 2] 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
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 Na to have wherein: the one or more sensors comprises a coil temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the refrigerant in or near the evaporator coil, the current sensor value is a current coil temperature, the corresponding target value is a coil temperature threshold, and determining that the current sensor value fails to satisfy the corresponding target value comprises determining that the current coil temperature is less than the coil temperature threshold in view of the teachings of Fudono 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US2007/0079436) and Brown et al. (US6212894) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US20090241561).
Regarding Claim 7, Na, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above but does not teach wherein: the one or more sensors comprises an ambient temperature sensor configured to measure a humidity of ambient air at or near the evaporator coil, the current sensor value is a current ambient humidity, the corresponding target value is an ambient humidity threshold, and determining that the current sensor value fails to satisfy the corresponding target value comprises determining that the current ambient humidity is less than the ambient humidity threshold.
However, Han teaches a refrigerator and a defrost control method [0002] having wherein: the one or more sensors comprises an ambient temperature sensor configured to measure a humidity of ambient air at or near the evaporator coil, the current sensor value is a current ambient humidity, the corresponding target value is an ambient humidity threshold, and determining that the current sensor value fails to satisfy the corresponding target value comprises determining that the current ambient humidity is less than the ambient humidity threshold [0049; 0064-0075; fig 3] 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
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 Na to have wherein: the one or more sensors comprises an ambient temperature sensor configured to measure a humidity of ambient air at or near the evaporator coil, the current sensor value is a current ambient humidity, the corresponding target value is an ambient humidity threshold, and determining that the current sensor value fails to satisfy the corresponding target value comprises determining that the current ambient humidity is less than the ambient humidity threshold in view of the teachings of Han 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 8, Na, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above and Na teaches wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for the compressor to cease operation [0013; 0031].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US2007/0079436) and Brown et al. (US6212894) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Elliott (EP1510768A1).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Na, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above but does not teach wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a reversing valve to reverse a direction of the flow of refrigerant through the heat pump.
However, Elliott teaches a defrost method of a dehumidifier [0002] where transitioning the dehumidifier to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a reversing valve to reverse a direction of the flow of refrigerant through the dehumidifier [0003] 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
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 Na to have wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a reversing valve to reverse a direction of the flow of refrigerant through the heat pump in view of the teachings of Elliott 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US2007/0079436) and Brown et al. (US6212894) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sanders et al. (US2006/0233929).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Na, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above but does not teach wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a valve to open and direct the flow of refrigerant directly from the compressor to the evaporator coil, thereby bypassing the condenser coil.
However, Sanders teaches a defrost method of a cooling system [0006; 0007; fig 3] wherein transitioning the cooling system to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a valve [58] to open and direct the flow of refrigerant directly from the compressor [54] to the evaporator coil [50], thereby bypassing the condenser coil [52; 0011; 0015; 0018] 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
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 Na to have wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a valve to open and direct the flow of refrigerant directly from the compressor to the evaporator coil, thereby bypassing the condenser coil in view of the teachings of Sanders 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US2007/0079436) and Brown et al. (US6212894) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US2021/0010740).
Regarding Claim 11, Na, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 4 above but does not teach a supplemental defrost heat source; and a fan configured to pass air across the evaporator coil, wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for the supplemental defrost heat source to output heat and for the fan to pass air across the evaporator coil.
However, Lee teaches a refrigerator and a defrost method [0060-0063] having a supplemental defrost heat source [70]; and a fan [51, 120] configured to pass air across the evaporator coil, wherein transitioning the refrigerator to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for the supplemental defrost heat source to output heat and for the fan to pass air across the evaporator coil [0086-0089] 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
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 Na to have a supplemental defrost heat source; and a fan configured to pass air across the evaporator coil, wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for the supplemental defrost heat source to output heat and for the fan to pass air across the evaporator coil in view of the teachings of Lee 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US2007/0079436) in view of Lackstrom (US5509274).
Regarding Claim 13, Na teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the one or more supplemental heat sources comprises a combustion- type heating device.
However, Lackstrom teaches a pool heating system having a heat pump and a gas fired heater [col 5, lines 35-55; fig 1] wherein the one or more supplemental heat sources comprises a combustion- type heating device [16; col 5, lines 35-55; 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. provide a heating structure that heats water of the pool when the heat pump circuit would be inefficient [col 6, lines 36-60].
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 Na to have a supplemental defrost heat source; and a fan configured to pass air across the evaporator coil, wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for the supplemental defrost heat source to output heat and for the fan to pass air across the evaporator coil in view of the teachings of Lee 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 heating structure that heats water of the pool when the heat pump circuit would be inefficient.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US6212894) in view of Fudono et al. (US5003786)
Regarding Claim 15, Brown teaches the invention of claim 14 above but does not teach wherein: the one or more sensors comprises a coil temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the refrigerant in or near the evaporator coil, the current sensor value is a current coil temperature, the corresponding target value is a coil temperature threshold, and determining that the current sensor value fails to satisfy the corresponding target value comprises determining that the current coil temperature is less than the coil temperature threshold.
However, Fudono teaches a refrigeration apparatus having defrosting capability [col 1, lines 6-10] having wherein: the one or more sensors comprises a coil temperature sensor [11] configured to measure a temperature of the refrigerant in or near the evaporator coil, the current sensor value is a current coil temperature, the corresponding target value is a coil temperature threshold, and determining that the current sensor value fails to satisfy the corresponding target value comprises determining that the current coil temperature is less than the coil temperature threshold [col 3, lines 43-66; fig 2] 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
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 Brown to have wherein: the one or more sensors comprises a coil temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the refrigerant in or near the evaporator coil, the current sensor value is a current coil temperature, the corresponding target value is a coil temperature threshold, and determining that the current sensor value fails to satisfy the corresponding target value comprises determining that the current coil temperature is less than the coil temperature threshold in view of the teachings of Fudono 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US6212894) in view of Na et al. (US2007/0079436).
Regarding Claim 16, Brown teaches the invention of claim 14 above but does not teach wherein transitioning the HPPH system to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a compressor of the HPPH system to cease operation.
However, Na teaches a pool and a defrost method [0013; 0030; 0031; fig 2] wherein transitioning the HPPH system to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a compressor of the HPPH system to cease operation [0013; 0030; 0031] 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
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 Brown to have wherein transitioning the HPPH system to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a compressor of the HPPH system to cease operation in view of the teachings of Na 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US6212894) in view of Elliott (EP1510768A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Brown teaches the invention of claim 14 above but does not teach outputting instructions for a reversing valve of the HPPH system to reverse a direction of the flow of refrigerant through the heat pump.
However, Elliott teaches a defrost method of a dehumidifier [0002] where transitioning the dehumidifier to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a reversing valve to reverse a direction of the flow of refrigerant through the dehumidifier [0003] 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
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 Brown to have wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a reversing valve to reverse a direction of the flow of refrigerant through the heat pump in view of the teachings of Elliott 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US6212894) in view of Sanders et al. (US2006/0233929).
Regarding Claim 18, Brown teaches the invention of claim 14 above but does not teach wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a valve of the HPPH system to open and direct the flow of refrigerant directly from a compressor of the HPPH system to the evaporator coil, thereby bypassing the condenser coil.
However, Sanders teaches a defrost method of a cooling system [0006; 0007; fig 3] wherein transitioning the cooling system to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a valve [58] to open and direct the flow of refrigerant directly from the compressor [54] to the evaporator coil [50], thereby bypassing the condenser coil [52; 0011; 0015; 0018] 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
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 Brown to have wherein transitioning the heat pump to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for a valve of the HPPH system to open and direct the flow of refrigerant directly from a compressor of the HPPH system to the evaporator coil, thereby bypassing the condenser coil in view of the teachings of Sanders 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US6212894) in view of Lee et al. (US2021/0010740).
Regarding Claim 19, Brown teaches the invention of claim 14 above but does not teach outputting instructions for (i) a supplemental defrost heat source of the HPPH system to output heat and (ii) a fan of the HPPH system to pass heated air from the supplemental defrost heat source across the evaporator coil.
However, Lee teaches a refrigerator and a defrost method [0060-0063] having a supplemental defrost heat source [70]; and a fan [51, 120] configured to pass air across the evaporator coil, wherein transitioning the refrigerator to the defrost mode comprises outputting instructions for the supplemental defrost heat source to output heat and for the fan to pass air across the evaporator coil [0086-0089] 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
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 Brown to have outputting instructions for (i) a supplemental defrost heat source of the HPPH system to output heat and (ii) a fan of the HPPH system to pass heated air from the supplemental defrost heat source across the evaporator coil in view of the teachings of Lee 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 defrosting operation and improve the efficiency of the system.
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
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights