DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a pressure reducing unit (claims 1 and 10)
a heating unit (claims 1-2, 6 and 10)
a heat source device (claims 1, 3, and 9-10)
a heat amount adjustment unit (claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 10)
a traveling situation estimation unit (claim 8)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furll (US 2013/0152611) in view of Groen (US 2021/0370748) and Dunn (US 2016/0339760).
As to claim 1, Furll teaches a heat pump system comprising:
a heat pump cycle including a compressor 1 to compress refrigerant, a condenser 2 to release heat from refrigerant compressed by the compressor 1, a pressure reducing unit 5a-c to reduce a pressure of refrigerant flowing from condenser 2, and an evaporator 10 to cause refrigerant from pressure reducing unit 5a-b to absorb heat and evaporate (Figs. 2 and 5);
a heating unit 30 configured to heat ventilation air to be blown into a space to be air conditioned by using a heat source that is the heat released form the condenser 2 (Figs. 2 and 5);
a low temperature side heat medium circuit 21/25 configured to circulate a low temperature side heat medium and cause the refrigerant in evaporator 10 to absorb heat of the low temperature side heat medium (Figs. 2 and 5), the circuit 21/25 comprising a heat source device 12/50 configured to heat the low temperature side heat medium, and a heat amount adjustment unit 11 configured to adjust an amount of heat carried by the low temperature side heat medium.
Furll does not explicitly teach a control unit configured to control an operation of the heat amount adjustment unit 11, wherein the control unit is configured to cause an amount of heat transfer in the heating unit to approach a predetermined target value by controlling a rotation speed of the compressor 1 and an operation of at least one of the heat source device 12/50 and the heat amount adjustment unit 11. However, Groen teaches that it is known to use a controller to control a pump in a chiller based on a target amount of heat transfer (paragraph 3). Additionally, Dunn teaches that it is known to use a controller to adjust speed of a compressor to effectuate a desired heat transfer (paragraph 28). In light of these teachings of the prior art it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Furll to utilize a controller configured in the manner as claimed to control an operation of the heat amount adjustment unit 11 to achieve a target heat transfer amount (Groen, paragraph 3) and to control a speed of the compressor to achieve a target heat transfer amount (Dunn, paragraph 28) because it would provide a system operation capable of optimizing flows through the evaporator exchanger 10 to achieve desired conditioning parameters (Dunn, paragraph 28).
As to claim 2, the modified apparatus includes operating to maintain a predetermined temperature of the heat medium (Dunn, paragraph 28) and thus is considered to maintain such a temperature when the ventilation air is heated by the heating unit.
As to claim 5, Furll does not explicitly teach use of a low-temperature side heat medium circuit as claimed. However, Groen includes a heat exchanger 240 (Fig. 2) configured to exchange heat between a low temperature side medium and outside air. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Furll to be configured in the manner as claimed and taught by Groen because it would provide increased versatility for removing heat from the system to achieve desired operating parameters.
As to claim 10, most of the limitations of the claim are addressed in the rejections as discussed above, and additionally Groen teaches the user of a processor and memory in the control unit (paragraph 32).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Furll, Groen, and Dunn as applied above, and further in view of Kurata (US 2019/0152298).
As to claim 6, Furll does not explicitly teach determining two or more upper limit values for compressor speed and determining corresponding coolant temperatures as claimed. However, Kurata teaches that it is known to utilize multiple upper limit values for a compressor to manage noise levels (paragraphs 3 and 47). In light of this teaching it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Furll to operate in the manner as claimed in order to prevent undesirable noise levels while still maintaining desired operating temperatures in the system.
As to claim 7, Furll teaches a vehicle mounted system (paragraph 1), but does not explicitly teach determining a rotation speed upper limit value of the compressor 1 according to a traveling speed of the vehicle. However, Kurata teaches that it is known to determine a rotation speed upper limit value of a compressor according to a traveling speed of a vehicle (paragraph 4). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Furll to operate in the manner as claimed and taught by Kurata in order to prevented undesirable noise in the system operation (Kurata, paragraphs 3 and 47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claims 3-4, while use of a high side heat medium circuit is known in the art, there is nothing in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, lead one of ordinary skill in the art to not only modify Furll to utilize such a high side circuit but to control the system such that the high side fluid approaches a target temperature value determined based on a target value of the amount of heat transfer in the heating unit.
In regards to claims 8-9, there is nothing in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, lead one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Furll to change a target low-temperature side heat medium temperature based on a determined future traveling situation as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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-Daryl 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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763