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 of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 5/14/2026. Claims 1 -16 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The objections to the abstract have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed.
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 1-16 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 1, the recitation of “…a memory storing one or more programs, which when executed, cause the processor to: detect whether a predetermined reference indicating a possibility of frosting in the second heat exchanger is satisfied based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger while the second heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator, increase a temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger to prevent frosting in the second heat exchanger, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional steps of “detecting” and “increasing.” However, pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” or the function of “increasing”.
Particularly, adding the claim limitation “based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” does not cure the defect because the limitation does not recite the step of obtaining said parameter.
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 2, the recitation of “…wherein the processor outputs a signal for controlling an air conditioner provided in the indoor space to control the temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional step of “outputting.” Where one skilled in the art would recognize that a determination of whether a reference is satisfied involves detecting the value of said reference.
Pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
Particularly, adding the claim limitation “based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” does not cure the defect because the limitation does not recite the step of obtaining said parameter but simply recites what the parameter is based upon.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” when the reference is satisfied.
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 3, the recitation of “…when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on the at least one parameter relating to the state of the second heat exchanger,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional step of “detecting.” Where one skilled in the art would recognize that a determination of whether a reference is satisfied involves detecting the value of said reference.
Pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” when the reference is satisfied.
Particularly, adding the claim limitation “based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” does not cure the defect because the limitation does not recite the step of obtaining said parameter but simply recites what the parameter is based upon.
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 4, the recitation of “…wherein the processor drives the ventilation device when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on the at least one parameter relating to the state of the second heat exchanger,” renders the claim unclear.
Pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” when the reference is satisfied.
Particularly, adding the claim limitation “based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” does not cure the defect because the limitation does not recite the step of obtaining said parameter but simply recites what the parameter is based upon.
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 5, the recitation of “…when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on the at least one parameter relating to the state of the second heat exchanger,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional step of “detecting.” Where one skilled in the art would recognize that a determination of whether a reference is satisfied involves detecting the value of said reference.
Pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” when the reference is satisfied.
Particularly, adding the claim limitation “based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” does not cure the defect because the limitation does not recite the step of obtaining said parameter but simply recites what the parameter is based upon.
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 6, the recitation of “…wherein the processor controls the first guide to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the third air flow path when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on the at least one parameter relating to the state of the second heat exchanger,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional step of “detecting.” Where one skilled in the art would recognize that a determination of whether a reference is satisfied involves detecting the value of said reference.
Pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” when the reference is satisfied.
Particularly, adding the claim limitation “based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” does not cure the defect because the limitation does not recite the step of obtaining said parameter but simply recites what the parameter is based upon.
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 7, the recitation of “…wherein the processor controls the first ventilation device to increase the air volume flowing to the first heat exchanger and controls the second ventilation device to increase the air volume flowing to the second heat exchanger compared to before the predetermined reference is satisfied, upon assuming that the predetermined reference is satisfied in response to receiving a signal indicating to perform a defrosting operation
For example, it is unclear how a processor can “assume[jng] that a predetermined reference is satisfied.
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 8, the recitation of “…wherein the processor controls the guide-to-guide air to the second heat exchanger through the bypass flow path when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on the at least one parameter relating to the state of the second heat exchanger,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional step of “detecting.” Where one skilled in the art would recognize that a determination of whether a reference is satisfied involves detecting the value of said reference.
Pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” when the reference is satisfied.
Particularly, adding the claim limitation “based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” does not cure the defect because the limitation does not recite the step of obtaining said parameter but simply recites what the parameter is based upon.
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 9, the recitation of “…wherein the processor implements control to stop the compressor and to control the ventilation device to cause air that has passed through the second air flow path to flow to the second heat exchanger, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on the at least one parameter relating to the state of the second heat exchanger,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional step of “detecting.” Where one skilled in the art would recognize that a determination of whether a reference is satisfied involves detecting the value of said reference.
Pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” when the reference is satisfied.
Particularly, adding the claim limitation “based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” does not cure the defect because the limitation does not recite the step of obtaining said parameter but simply recites what the parameter is based upon.
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 the processor controls the first heat exchanger such that a temperature of air that has passed through the first heat exchanger becomes lower than a temperature set in an air conditioner provided in the indoor space, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on the at least one parameter relating to the state of the second heat exchanger,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional step of “detecting.” Where one skilled in the art would recognize that a determination of whether a reference is satisfied involves detecting the value of said reference.
Pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
Particularly, adding the claim limitation “based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” does not cure the defect because the limitation does not recite the step of obtaining said parameter but simply recites what the parameter is based upon.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” when the reference is satisfied.
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 11, the recitation of “…wherein the processor implements control to throttle the third valve part compared to before the predetermined reference is satisfied, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on the at least one parameter relating to the state of the second heat exchanger, while the second heat exchanger functions as an evaporator,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional step of “detecting.” Where one skilled in the art would recognize that a determination of whether a reference is satisfied involves detecting the value of said reference.
Pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” when the reference is satisfied.
Particularly, adding the claim limitation “based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” does not cure the defect because the limitation does not recite the step of obtaining said parameter but simply recites what the parameter is based upon.
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 13, the recitation of “…a memory storing one or more programs, which when executed, cause the processor to: detect whether a predetermined reference indicating a possibility of frosting in the second heat exchanger is satisfied based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger; in response to detecting that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on the at least one parameter relating to the state of the second heat exchanger, increase a temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger to prevent frosting from occurring in the second heat exchanger, or control an operation to defrost the second heat exchanger after frosting has occurred in the second heat exchanger, based on power consumption of the ventilation apparatus and the air conditioner required for increasing the temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger to prevent frosting from occurring in the second heat exchanger and power consumption of the ventilation apparatus and the air conditioner required for defrosting the second heat exchanger after frosting has occurred in the second heat exchanger; and continuously perform the ventilation operation without stopping, by supplying the air to the indoor space through the first air flow path and exhausting the air to the outdoors through the second air flow path, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied based on the at least one parameter relating to the state of the second heat exchanger,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional steps of “detecting” and/or “controlling.” However, pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” and/or the function of “controlling”.
Particularly, adding the claim limitation “based on at least one parameter relating to a state of the second heat exchanger,” does not cure the defect because the limitation does not recite the step of obtaining said parameter but simply recites what the parameter is based upon.
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 14, the recitation of “…a memory storing one or more programs, which when executed, cause the processor to: start the compressor when the second heat exchanger functions as an evaporator; in response to determining that a low pressure of the refrigerant circuit or an evaporation temperature of the second heat exchanger or a temperature of the indoors or a temperature of the outdoors has dropped below a first threshold with respect to the low pressure of the refrigerant circuit or the evaporation temperature of the second heat exchanger or the temperature of the indoors or the temperature of the outdoors, perform first control to raise the low pressure of the refrigerant circuit by adjusting a flow of the refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit or adjusting the air to the second heat exchanger; and continuously perform a ventilation operation without stopping, by supplying the air from the outdoors to the indoors with the air supply fan and exhausting the air from the indoors to the outdoors with the exhaust fan.,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional steps of “detecting” and/or “controlling.” However, pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure or steps that accomplish the function of “detecting” and/or the function of “controlling”.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
Claims 1-11, 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights