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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/1/2025, 7/3/2024 and 6/14/2024 were 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.
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 contains line numbers which are not a part of the abstract. 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 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 while the second heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator, and to control a temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger such that the second heat exchanger will have a temperature at which frosting does not occur in the second heat exchanger, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional steps of “detecting” and “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” 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “…teaches wherein the processor detects whether the predetermined reference is satisfied while the second heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator, and 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,” 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.
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,” 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.
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 “…a second ventilation device configured to adjust an air volume flowing to the second heat exchanger upon flowing through the second air flow path, wherein the processor drives the second ventilation device when an air temperature in the indoor space becomes higher than a second threshold, after outputting the signal for controlling the air conditioner,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, ‘a second ventilation device’ creates an antecedent basis issue when a first ventilation device has not been claimed.
Additionally, 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. See MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims
In this instance, the disclosure at 0041-0043 and 0064 when read together does not support adjusting an air volume to the second heat exchanger based upon an air temperature in the indoor space becoming higher than a second threshold. At best, there is a suggestion that the air volume is increased at the second heat exchanger when the aforementioned predetermined reference is surpassed.
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.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - a predetermined reference is satisfied
Regarding Claim 5, the recitation of “…wherein the processor implements control to cause the refrigerant that has been compressed at the compressor to flow to the second heat exchanger via the bypass pipe, when the predetermined reference is satisfied,” 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.
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 predetermined reference is satisfied,” 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.
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 determining that the predetermined reference is satisfied when a signal indicating to perform a defrosting operation is received from an air conditioner provided in the indoor space, while the second heat exchanger is functioning 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.
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 second guide to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the bypass flow path when the predetermined reference is satisfied,” 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.
Additionally, the recitation of “…a second guide configured to switch between whether or not to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the bypass flow path,” creates an antecedent basis issue with respect to “a second guide” where “a first guide” has not been claimed.
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 second ventilation device to cause air that has passed through the second air flow path to flow to the second heat exchanger, when the predetermined reference is satisfied,” 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.
Additionally, the recitation of “…a second ventilation device” creates an antecedent basis issue as “…a first ventilation device” has not been claimed and/or established.
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 predetermined reference is satisfied,” 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.
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 predetermined reference is satisfied, when 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.
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 “…cause the processor to: detect whether a predetermined reference indicating a possibility of frosting in the second heat exchanger is satisfied, and when the predetermined reference is determined to be satisfied, the processor controls a temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger such that the second heat exchanger will have a temperature at which frosting does not occur in the second heat exchanger, or controls 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 the air conditioner required for controlling the temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger such that the second heat exchanger will have a temperature at which frosting does not occur in the second heat exchanger and power consumption of the ventilation apparatus the air conditioner required for defrosting the second heat exchanger after frosting has occurred in 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”.
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 “…cause the processor to: start the compressor when the second heat exchanger functions as an evaporator, and when the processor determines 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, the processor performs first control to raise the low pressure of the refrigerant circuit.,” 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.
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) 1, 2, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (US5337574) in view of Imaizumi et al. (US2021/0108805).
Regarding Claim 1, Dick teaches a ventilation apparatus [fig 1] comprising:
a processor [implicit at col 8, lines 58- col 9 line15]; a compressor [12; col 7, lines 19-45];
a first heat exchanger configured to function as a condenser or an evaporator [col 7, line 63-col 8, line 12; col 9, line 43-col 10, line 2];
a first air flow path configured to supply air taken in from outdoors to an indoor space after passing through the first heat exchanger [col 14, lines 12-53];
a second heat exchanger configured to function as a condenser or an evaporator [col 7, line 63-col 8, line 12; col 9, line 43-col 10, line 2];
a second air flow path configured to exhaust air taken in from the indoor space to the outdoors after passing through the second heat exchanger [col 14, lines 12-53];
a refrigerant circuit through which a refrigerant flows, the refrigerant circuit being connected to the compressor, the first heat exchanger, and the second heat exchanger by a refrigerant pipe [col 7, line 28-col 8, line 37; fig 1]; and
a memory storing one or more programs [implicit at col 8, lines 58- col 9 line15].
Dick does not explicitly teach where the processor detects whether a predetermined reference indicating a possibility of frosting in the second heat exchanger is satisfied while the second heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator, and to control a temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger such that the second heat exchanger will have a temperature at which frosting does not occur in the second heat exchanger, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied.
However, Imaizumi teaches an air conditioner ventilation device [0001] having where a controller [70] detects whether a predetermined reference indicating a possibility of frosting in a heat exchanger [20] is satisfied while the heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator [0066], and to control a temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the heat exchanger such that the heat exchanger will have a temperature at which frosting does not occur in the heat exchanger, when the controller detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied [0056-0066; 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. prevents frosting on the outdoor heat exchanger [0066].
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 Dick to have where the processor detects whether a predetermined reference indicating a possibility of frosting in the second heat exchanger is satisfied while the second heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator, and to control a temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger such that the second heat exchanger will have a temperature at which frosting does not occur in the second heat exchanger, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied in view of the teachings of Imaizumi 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. prevents frosting on the outdoor heat exchanger.
Regarding Claim 2, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Imaizumi teaches wherein the processor detects whether the predetermined reference is satisfied while the second heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator, and 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 [0056-0066; fig 3].
Regarding Claim 14, Dick teaches a ventilation system [fig 1] comprising: a processor [implicit at col 8, lines 58- col 9 line15];
a refrigerant circuit through which a refrigerant flows, the refrigerant circuit being connected to a compressor [12], a first heat exchanger [10, 16], and a second heat exchanger [10, 16] by a refrigerant pipe [col 7, line 28-col 8, line 37; fig 1];
an air supply fan configured to supply air from outdoors to indoors through the first heat exchanger [col 7, line 63-col 8, line 12; col 9, line 43-col 10, line 2; col 14, lines 12-53; figs 2 & 3]; an exhaust fan configured to exhaust air from the indoors to the outdoors through the second heat exchanger [col 7, line 63-col 8, line 12; col 9, line 43-col 10, line 2; col 14, lines 12-53; figs 2 & 3]; and
a memory storing one or more programs, which when executed, causes processing by the processor [implicit at col 7, line 8-col 9, line 15].
Dick does not explicitly teach where the processor causes the processor to: start the compressor when the second heat exchanger functions as an evaporator, and when the processor determines 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, the processor performs first control to raise the low pressure of the refrigerant circuit.
However, Imaizumi teaches an air conditioner ventilation device [0001] having where a controller [70] starts a compressor [31] when a second heat exchanger [20] functions as an evaporator, and when the controller determines that a temperature of the outdoors has dropped below a first threshold with respect the temperature of the outdoors, the controller performs first control to raise the low pressure of the refrigerant circuit [0056-0066; fig 3; 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. prevents frosting on the outdoor heat exchanger [0066].
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 Dick to have where the processor causes the processor to: start the compressor when the second heat exchanger functions as an evaporator, and when the processor determines 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, the processor performs first control to raise the low pressure of the refrigerant circuit in view of the teachings of Imaizumi 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. prevents frosting on the outdoor heat exchanger.
Regarding Claim 16, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14 above and Imaizumi teaches wherein the processor causes the second heat exchanger to take in air having a temperature higher than a second threshold with respect to an intake air temperature, in the first control [0056-0066; fig 3].
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (US5337574) and Imaizumi et al. (US2021/0108805) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imasaka et al. (JPH03213938A).
Regarding Claim 3, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 above but does not teach wherein the processor outputs a signal for increasing a temperature currently set for the air conditioner, with respect to the air conditioner provided in the indoor space, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied.
However, Imasaka teaches an air conditioning apparatus [0001] having where a controller [7] outputs a signal for increasing a temperature currently set for the air conditioner, with respect to the air conditioner provided in the indoor space, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied [0004-0006; where the air conditioner set temperature is increase via an increase of the discharge temperature] 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. suppress frost formation during low-temperature operation [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 Dick to have wherein the processor outputs a signal for increasing a temperature currently set for the air conditioner, with respect to the air conditioner provided in the indoor space, when the processor detects that the predetermined reference is satisfied in view of the teachings of Imasaka 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. suppress frost formation during low-temperature operation.
Regarding Claim 4, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 above but does not teach a ventilation device configured to adjust an air volume flowing to the second heat exchanger upon flowing through the second air flow path, wherein the processor drives the second ventilation device when the predetermined reference is satisfied.
However, Imasaka teaches an air conditioning apparatus [0001] having where a ventilation device [14] is configured to adjust an air volume flowing to the second heat exchanger [at least the outdoor heat exchanger] upon flowing through the second air flow path, wherein a processor [7] drives the second ventilation device when the predetermined reference is satisfied [0004-0007] 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. suppress frost formation during low-temperature operation [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 Dick to have a ventilation device configured to adjust an air volume flowing to the second heat exchanger upon flowing through the second air flow path, wherein the processor drives the second ventilation device when the predetermined reference is satisfied in view of the teachings of Imasaka 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. suppress frost formation during low-temperature operation.
Regarding Claim 7, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Dick teaches a first ventilation device configured to adjust an air volume flowing to the first heat exchanger upon flowing through the first air flow path [col 10, lines 5-15]; and a second ventilation device configured to adjust an air volume flowing to the second heat exchanger upon flowing through the second air flow path [col 10, lines 5-15].
Dick does not teach 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 determining that the predetermined reference is satisfied when a signal indicating to perform a defrosting operation is received from an air conditioner provided in the indoor space, while the second heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator.
However, Imasaka teaches an air conditioning apparatus [0001] having where a processor [7] controls a first ventilation device [14, 15] to increase the air volume flowing to a first/second heat exchanger and controls the second ventilation device [14, 15] to increase the air volume flowing to a first/second heat exchanger compared to before the predetermined reference is satisfied, upon determining that the predetermined reference is satisfied when a signal indicating to perform a defrosting operation is received from an air conditioner provided in the indoor space, while the second heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator [0004-0007] 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. suppress frost formation during low-temperature operation [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 Dick to have 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 determining that the predetermined reference is satisfied when a signal indicating to perform a defrosting operation is received from an air conditioner provided in the indoor space, while the second heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator in view of the teachings of Imasaka 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. suppress frost formation during low-temperature operation.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (US5337574) and Imaizumi et al. (US2021/0108805) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andersson US2015/0292786).
Regarding Claim 5, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the refrigerant circuit includes a bypass pipe configured to pass the refrigerant to the second heat exchanger without involving the first heat exchanger while the second heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator, wherein the processor implements control to cause the refrigerant that has been compressed at the compressor to flow to the second heat exchanger via the bypass pipe, when the predetermined reference is satisfied.
However, Andersson teaches a method of defrosting a heat exchanger [0001] having where a refrigerant circuit includes a bypass pipe [28] configured to pass the refrigerant to a second heat exchanger [1, 29] without involving a first heat exchanger [6, 30] while the second heat exchanger is functioning as an evaporator [0033-0035], wherein a processor [implicit] implements control to cause the refrigerant that has been compressed at the compressor to flow to the second heat exchanger via the bypass pipe, when the predetermined reference is satisfied [0033-0035] 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 where the time of defrosting is reduced while achieving a more stable supply air temperature at the same time as the defrosting [0009].
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 Dick to have a ventilation device configured to adjust an air volume flowing to the second heat exchanger upon flowing through the second air flow path, wherein the processor drives the second ventilation device when the predetermined reference is satisfied in view of the teachings of Andersson 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 where the time of defrosting is reduced while achieving a more stable supply air temperature at the same time as the defrosting.
Regarding Claim 15, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14 above but does not teach wherein the refrigerant circuit includes: a bypass pipe configured to connect a discharge pipe of the compressor and the second heat exchanger or a liquid pipe connected to the second heat exchanger; and a valve provided in the bypass pipe, wherein the processor opens the valve in the first control.
However, Andersson teaches a method of defrosting a heat exchanger [0001] having where a refrigerant circuit includes a bypass pipe [28] configured to connect a discharge pipe of a compressor [5] and a second heat exchanger [1, 29] or a liquid pipe connected to the second heat exchanger; 0033-0035]; and a valve [13] provided in the bypass pipe, wherein the processor opens the valve in a first control [0033-0035; where the valve is opened in a defrost and heating mode of operation] 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 where the time of defrosting is reduced while achieving a more stable supply air temperature at the same time as the defrosting [0009].
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 Dick to have wherein the refrigerant circuit includes: a bypass pipe configured to connect a discharge pipe of the compressor and the second heat exchanger or a liquid pipe connected to the second heat exchanger; and a valve provided in the bypass pipe, wherein the processor opens the valve in the first control in view of the teachings of Andersson 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 where the time of defrosting is reduced while achieving a more stable supply air temperature at the same time as the defrosting.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (US5337574) and Imaizumi et al. (US2021/0108805) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schlichtig (US2829504).
Regarding Claim 6, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach a third air flow path configured to take in air from a space that is different from a space from which the second air flow path takes in air in the indoor space, and to pass the taken in air to the second heat exchanger; and a first guide configured to switch between whether or not to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the third air flow path, wherein the processor controls the first guide to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the third air flow path when the predetermined reference is satisfied.
However, Schlichtig teaches an HVAC system [fig 1] having a [third] air flow path [at 28] configured to take in air from a space [13] that is different from a space from which the second air flow path takes in air in the indoor space, and to pass the taken in air to a [second] heat exchanger [18; col 2, lines 40-65]; and
a first guide [82] configured to switch between whether or not to guide air to the [second] heat exchanger through the third air flow path, wherein a processor [figs 6 & 7] controls the first guide to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the third air flow path when the predetermined reference is satisfied [at least when a defrosting condition is determined; col 2, lines 40-65; 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. for the obvious advantage of enhancing a defrost operation.
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 Dick to have a third air flow path configured to take in air from a space that is different from a space from which the second air flow path takes in air in the indoor space, and to pass the taken in air to the second heat exchanger; and a first guide configured to switch between whether or not to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the third air flow path, wherein the processor controls the first guide to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the third air flow path when the predetermined reference is satisfied in view of the teachings of Schlichtig 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. for the obvious advantage of enhancing a defrost operation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (US5337574) and Imaizumi et al. (US2021/0108805) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coutu et al. (US2014/0260367).
Regarding Claim 8, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach a bypass flow path configured to guide air that has undergone heat exchange by the first heat exchanger to the second heat exchanger; and a guide configured to switch between whether or not to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the bypass flow path, wherein the processor controls the guide to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the bypass flow path when the predetermined reference is satisfied.
Coutu teaches an HVAC air handling system [0002] having a bypass flow path [at 74] configured to guide air that has undergone heat exchange by a first heat exchanger [28] to a second heat exchanger [62; 0069; 0078-0081]; and a guide [74] configured to switch between whether or not to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the bypass flow path [0069], wherein the processor controls the guide to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the bypass flow path when the predetermined reference is satisfied [0069; 0078-0081; where the predetermined reference is the temperature at which supply air is no longer needed in the living space] 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. for the obvious advantage of exhausting heat to the second heat exchanger.
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 Dick to have a bypass flow path configured to guide air that has undergone heat exchange by the first heat exchanger to the second heat exchanger; and a guide configured to switch between whether or not to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the bypass flow path, wherein the processor controls the guide to guide air to the second heat exchanger through the bypass flow path when the predetermined reference is satisfied in view of the teachings of Coutu 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. for the obvious advantage of exhausting heat to the second heat exchanger.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (US5337574) and Imaizumi et al. (US2021/0108805) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (WO2012/177072A2).
Regarding Claim 9, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach a ventilation device configured to adjust an air volume flowing to the second heat exchanger upon flowing through the second air flow path, wherein the processor implements control to stop the compressor and to control the second ventilation device to cause air that has passed through the second air flow path to flow to the second heat exchanger, when the predetermined reference is satisfied.
However, Hong teaches a dehumidification type air cleaner [para 1] having a ventilation device [130] configured to adjust an air volume flowing to a heat exchanger [121] upon flowing through an air flow path, wherein a processor [140] implements control to stop a compressor [122] and to control the ventilation device to cause air that has passed through the air flow path to flow to the heat exchanger, when the predetermined reference is satisfied [para 140-145] 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. for the obvious advantage of removing frost from 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 Dick to have a ventilation device configured to adjust an air volume flowing to the second heat exchanger upon flowing through the second air flow path, wherein the processor implements control to stop the compressor and to control the second ventilation device to cause air that has passed through the second air flow path to flow to the second heat exchanger, when the predetermined reference is satisfied in view of the teachings of Hong 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. for the obvious advantage of removing frost from the evaporator.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (US5337574) and Imaizumi et al. (US2021/0108805) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Makino et al. (US2017/0321939).
Regarding Claim 10, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach 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 predetermined reference is satisfied.
However, Makino teaches an air conditioner [0001] having wherein a processor [40] controls a first heat exchanger [23] 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 predetermined reference is satisfied [0069-0076; fig 2; where one skilled in the art would recognize that reducing compressor speed necessarily provides where the temperature of air that passes through the first heat exchanger is lower than a set temperature of the air conditioner] 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. reliably defrost the outdoor heat exchanger while reducing stress on the compressor [0011].
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 Dick to have 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 predetermined reference is satisfied in view of the teachings of Makino 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. reliably defrost the outdoor heat exchanger while reducing stress on the compressor.
Regarding Claim 11, Dicks, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach a third valve part provided downstream from the second heat exchanger in a flow of the refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit when the second heat exchanger functions as an evaporator, wherein the processor implements control to throttle the third valve part compared to before the predetermined reference is satisfied, when the predetermined reference is satisfied, when the second heat exchanger functions as an evaporator.
However, Makino teaches an air conditioner [0001] having wherein a third valve part [24] provided downstream from a second heat exchanger [23] in a flow of the refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit when the second heat exchanger functions as an evaporator, wherein the processor implements control to throttle the third valve part compared to before the predetermined reference is satisfied, when the predetermined reference is satisfied, when the second heat exchanger functions as an evaporator [0069-0076; 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. reliably defrost the outdoor heat exchanger while reducing stress on the compressor [0011].
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 Dick to have a third valve part provided downstream from the second heat exchanger in a flow of the refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit when the second heat exchanger functions as an evaporator, wherein the processor implements control to throttle the third valve part compared to before the predetermined reference is satisfied, when the predetermined reference is satisfied, when the second heat exchanger functions as an evaporator in view of the teachings of Makino 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. reliably defrost the outdoor heat exchanger while reducing stress on the compressor.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (US5337574), Imaizumi et al. (US2021/0108805) and Makino et al. (US2017/0321939) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wakamoto et al. (US2013/0098092).
Regarding Claim 12, Dick, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 11 above but does not teach a third heat exchanger configured to function as a condenser or an evaporator; and a fourth air flow path configured to exhaust, to the outdoors, air obtained by performing heat exchange between air of the outdoors and the refrigerant flowing through the third heat exchanger, wherein the refrigerant circuit is connected to the third heat exchanger by the refrigerant pipe in addition to the compressor, the first heat exchanger, and the second heat exchanger.
However, Wakamoto teaches a heat pump [0001] having a [third] heat exchanger [at least one of heat exchanger 4] configured to function as a condenser or an evaporator; and a fourth air flow path configured to exhaust, to the outdoors, air obtained by performing heat exchange between air of the outdoors and the refrigerant flowing through the third heat exchanger [0077; 0080-0098; fig 18], wherein the refrigerant circuit is connected to the [third] heat exchanger by a refrigerant pipe [at least pipe 6] in addition to the compressor, the first heat exchanger [2], and the second heat exchanger [at least the other of heat exchanger 4; 0077; 0080-0098; fig 18] 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. provides a structure whereby the outdoor heat exchangers are reliably defrosted.
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 Dick to have a third heat exchanger configured to function as a condenser or an evaporator; and a fourth air flow path configured to exhaust, to the outdoors, air obtained by performing heat exchange between air of the outdoors and the refrigerant flowing through the third heat exchanger, wherein the refrigerant circuit is connected to the third heat exchanger by the refrigerant pipe in addition to the compressor, the first heat exchanger, and the second heat exchanger in view of the teachings of Wakamoto 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. provides a structure whereby the outdoor heat exchangers are reliably defrosted.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (US5337574) and Imaizumi et al. (US2021/0108805) in view of Wakamoto et al. (US2013/0098092).
Regarding Claim 13, Dick teaches an air conditioning system [fig 1] comprising:
a processor [implicit at col 7, line 8-col 9, line 15]; a ventilation apparatus including:
a compressor [12] configured to operate when a heat recovery ventilation operation is performed [col 7, lines 19-45; col 28, lines 27-38];
a first heat exchanger configured to function as a condenser or an evaporator [col 7, lie 63-col 8, line 12; col 9, line 43-col 10 line 2];
a first air flow path configured to supply air taken in from outdoors to an indoor space after passing through the first heat exchanger; a second heat exchanger configured to function as a condenser or an evaporator [col 14, lines 12-53];
a second air flow path configured to exhaust air taken in from the indoor space to the outdoors after passing through the second heat exchanger [col 14, lines 12-53]; and
a refrigerant circuit through which a refrigerant flows, the refrigerant circuit being connected to the compressor, the first heat exchanger, and the second heat exchanger by a refrigerant pipe [col 7 line 28-col 8, line 37; fig 1], an air conditioner including: a third heat exchanger configured to function as a condenser or an evaporator; and an air conditioning indoor device configured to exhaust, to the indoor space, air obtained by performing heat exchange between air of the indoor space and the refrigerant flowing through the third heat exchanger, and
a memory storing one or more programs, which when executed, causes processing by the processor [implicit at col 7, line 8-col 9, line 15].
Dick does not explicitly teach where the processor detects whether a predetermined reference indicating a possibility of frosting in the second heat exchanger is satisfied, and when the predetermined reference is determined to be satisfied, the processor controls a temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger such that the second heat exchanger will have a temperature at which frosting does not occur in the second heat exchanger, or
controls 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 the air conditioner required for controlling the temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger such that the second heat exchanger will have a temperature at which frosting does not occur in the second heat exchanger and power consumption of the ventilation apparatus the air conditioner required for defrosting the second heat exchanger after frosting has occurred in the second heat exchanger.
However, Wakamoto teaches a heat pump [0001] having a [third] heat exchanger [at least one of heat exchanger 4] configured to function as a condenser or an evaporator; and an air conditioning indoor device [2] configured to exhaust, to the indoor space, air obtained by performing heat exchange between air of the indoor space and the refrigerant flowing through the third heat exchanger [at least the other of heat exchanger 4; 0077; 0080-0098; fig 18] 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. provides a structure whereby the outdoor heat exchangers are reliably defrosted.
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 Dick to have a third heat exchanger configured to function as a condenser or an evaporator; and an air conditioning indoor device configured to exhaust, to the indoor space, air obtained by performing heat exchange between air of the indoor space and the refrigerant flowing through the third heat exchanger in view of the teachings of Wakamoto 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. provides a structure whereby the outdoor heat exchangers are reliably defrosted.
Also, Imaizumi teaches an air conditioner ventilation device [0001] having where a controller [70] detects whether a predetermined reference indicating a possibility of frosting in a second heat exchanger [20] is satisfied, and when the predetermined reference is determined to be satisfied, the processor controls a temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger such that the second heat exchanger will have a temperature at which frosting does not occur in the second heat exchanger [0056-0066; fig 3; 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. prevents frosting on the outdoor heat exchanger [0066].
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 Dick to have where the processor detects whether a predetermined reference indicating a possibility of frosting in the second heat exchanger is satisfied, and when the predetermined reference is determined to be satisfied, the processor controls a temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger such that the second heat exchanger will have a temperature at which frosting does not occur in the second heat exchanger, or
controls 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 the air conditioner required for controlling the temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the second heat exchanger such that the second heat exchanger will have a temperature at which frosting does not occur in the second heat exchanger and power consumption of the ventilation apparatus the air conditioner required for defrosting the second heat exchanger after frosting has occurred in the second heat exchangerin view of the teachings of Imaizumi 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. prevents frosting on the outdoor heat exchanger.
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