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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 September 2026 has been entered.
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 1-7 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.
At claim 1, lines 2-3, the claim recites the limitation “in which a flow direction of a refrigerant is switched depending on a cooling mode or a heating mode.” This limitation constitutes an improperly recited method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bound of the claim unclear. For purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted such that the circulation flow path is structurally capable of being switched.
At claim 1, lines 14-16, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the second outdoor heat exchanger functions as a condenser in the cooling mode and performs the water injection operation, and functions as an evaporator in the heating mode without performing the water injection.” Similarly, this limitation constitutes an improperly recited method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bound of the claim unclear. For purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted such that the second outdoor heater is structurally capable of performing the recited functions.
Claims 2-7 are also rejected since they depend from claim 1.
At claim 2, lines 1-4, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the flow path switching valve switches the flow direction of the refrigerant such that the refrigerant is condensed while flowing in the order of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger in the cooling mode.” Similarly, this limitation constitutes an improperly recited method step within an apparatus claim, rendering the metes and bound of the claim unclear. For purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted such that the flow path switching valve is structurally capable of performing the recited functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US2023/0117450 A1) in view of Takegami et al. (US 2009/0195070 A1).
As per claim 1, Okuda et al. disclose a heat pump (para. 0001; etc.), comprising: a circulation flow path in which a flow direction of a refrigerant is switched depending on a cooling mode (para. 0030-0031; etc.) or a heating mode (paras. 0024-0026; etc.); a first outdoor heat exchanger (5a & 5b) and a second outdoor heat exchanger 5c disposed in series on the circulation flow path (Fig. 1; etc.); and a flow path switching valve 4 disposed on the circulation flow path and configured to switch the flow direction of the refrigerant such that the refrigerant is evaporated while flowing in the order of the second outdoor heat exchanger and the first outdoor heat exchanger in the heating mode (paras. 0024-0026). Okuda et al. do not teach wherein the second outdoor heat exchanger is configured to operate as an evaporative heat exchanger by performing a water injection operation only in the cooling mode, and to operate as an air-cooling type heat exchanger without the water injection operation in the heating mode.
Takegami et al. teach a heat pump arrangement wherein the second outdoor heat exchanger is configured to operate as an evaporative heat exchanger by performing a water injection operation (via sprayer 33) only in the cooling mode (spray operation described only for cooling operation in para. 0075), and to operate as an air-cooling type heat exchanger without the water injection operation in the heating mode (heating mode is described in para. 0108 as being performed without any spray operation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide evaporative cooling to the outdoor heat outdoor heat exchangers (or at least including the second outdoor heat exchanger 5c) during cooling (and thus making heat exchanger 5c an “evaporative” heat exchanger) for the same purpose of increasing the cooling efficiency of the system by providing additional cooling to the condensing heat exchanger, and also not perform the spraying operation during heating operation since as taught by Takegami et al. the spraying is performed specifically to assist cooling of the outdoor heat exchanger when it is operating as a condenser (paras. 0028-0029; etc.), which only occurs during cooling.
Applicant has amended claim 1 the further recite “wherein the second outdoor heat exchanger functions as a condenser in the cooling mode and performs the water injection operation, and functions as an evaporator in the heating mode without performing the water injection.” First, it is noted that this limitation is recited in terms of functional language. Thus, in order to read on this limitation, the prior art need only be structurally capable of performing the function. Again, Okuda et al. do not teach the water spraying function. Also again, Takegami et al. the outdoor heat exchanger functions as a condenser in the cooling mode and performs the water injection operation (para. 0075) and functions as an evaporator in the heating mode without performing the water injection (para. 0108). Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide evaporative cooling to the outdoor heat outdoor heat exchangers (or at least including the second outdoor heat exchanger 5c) during cooling (and thus making heat exchanger 5c an “evaporative” heat exchanger) for the same purpose of increasing the cooling efficiency of the system by providing additional cooling to the condensing heat exchanger, and also not perform the spraying operation during heating operation since as taught by Takegami et al. the spraying is performed specifically to assist cooling of the outdoor heat exchanger when it is operating as a condenser (paras. 0028-0029; etc.), which only occurs during cooling.
As per claim 2, Okuda et al. disclose wherein the flow path switching valve 4 switches the flow direction of the refrigerant such that the refrigerant is condensed while flowing in the order of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger in the cooling mode (Paras. 0030-0031; etc.).
As per claim 3, Okuda et al. disclose wherein the first outdoor heat exchanger is comprised of a first outdoor air-cooling type heat exchanger (5a & 5b; see para. 0020, 0024, 0030, re. heat exchange with outdoor air).
As per claim 4, Okuda et al. disclose wherein the first outdoor air-cooling type heat exchanger includes a tube 91 through which the refrigerant flows and a fin (para. 0045; Figs. 2-3; etc.) disposed on the tube.
As per claim 7, Okuda et al. do not disclose wherein the second outdoor heat exchanger includes a water injector configured to perform a water injection operation by supplying the refrigerant toward the second outdoor heat exchanger in the cooling mode and configured not to perform the water injection operation in the heating mode. Takegami et al. teach wherein the outdoor evaporative heat exchanger includes a water injection module configured to perform a water injection operation by supplying the refrigerant toward the second outdoor heat exchanger in the cooling mode and configured not to perform the water injection operation in the heating mode (paras. 0075, 0108; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly perform such operation with any of the outdoor heat exchangers (including the second heat exchanger) of Okuda et al. for the same purpose of increasing the cooling efficiency of the system by providing additional cooling to the condensing heat exchanger during cooling operation.
As per claim 8, Okuda et al. disclose discloses a control method of a heat pump including a first outdoor heat exchanger (5a & 5b) and a second outdoor heat exchanger 5c arranged in series on a circulation flow path in which a flow direction of a refrigerant is switched depending on a cooling mode (para. 0030-0031; etc.) or a heating mode (paras. 0024-0026; etc.), wherein the refrigerant is controlled such that the refrigerant is be evaporated while flowing in the order of the second outdoor heat exchanger and the first outdoor heat exchanger in the heating mode (paras. 0024-0026; etc.). Again, Okuda et al. do not teach wherein the second outdoor heat exchanger is configured to operate as an evaporative heat exchanger by performing a water injection operation only in the cooling mode, and to operate as an air-cooling type heat exchanger without the water injection operation in the heating mode.
Takegami et al. teach a heat pump arrangement wherein the second outdoor heat exchanger is configured to operate as an evaporative heat exchanger by performing a water injection operation (via sprayer 33) only in the cooling mode (spray operation described only for cooling operation in para. 0075), and to operate as an air-cooling type heat exchanger without the water injection operation in the heating mode (heating mode is described in para. 0108 as being performed without any spray operation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide evaporative cooling to the outdoor heat outdoor heat exchangers (or at least including the second outdoor heat exchanger 5c) during cooling (and thus making heat exchanger 5c an “evaporative” heat exchanger) for the same purpose of increasing the cooling efficiency of the system by providing additional cooling to the condensing heat exchanger, and also not perform the spraying operation during heating operation since as taught by Takegami et al. the spraying is performed specifically to assist cooling of the outdoor heat exchanger when it is operating as a condenser (paras. 0028-0029; etc.), which only occurs during cooling.
Applicant has amended claim 8 the further recite “wherein the second outdoor heat exchanger functions as a condenser in the cooling mode and performs the water injection operation, and functions as an evaporator in the heating mode without performing the water injection.” Again, Okuda et al. do not teach the water spraying function. Also again, Takegami et al. teach the outdoor heat exchanger functions as a condenser in the cooling mode and performs the water injection operation (para. 0075) and functions as an evaporator in the heating mode without performing the water injection (para. 0108). Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide evaporative cooling to the outdoor heat outdoor heat exchangers (or at least including the second outdoor heat exchanger 5c) during cooling (and thus making heat exchanger 5c an “evaporative” heat exchanger) for the same purpose of increasing the cooling efficiency of the system by providing additional cooling to the condensing heat exchanger, and also not perform the spraying operation during heating operation since as taught by Takegami et al. the spraying is performed specifically to assist cooling of the outdoor heat exchanger when it is operating as a condenser (paras. 0028-0029; etc.), which only occurs during cooling.
As per claim 9, Okuda et al. wherein the refrigerant is controlled such that the refrigerant is condensed while flowing in the order of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger in the cooling mode (Paras. 0030-0031; etc.).
As per claims 10 and 12, see similar claims 3 and 7 above, respectively.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. (US2023/0117450 A1) in view of Takegami et al. (US 2009/0195070 A1), and further in view of Shriver et al. (US 3472042).
As per claim 5, Okuda et al. do not teach the specifics of how the first and second outdoor heat exchangers are disposed. Shriver et al. teach the concept of disposing first and second outdoor evaporative heat exchangers adjacent to each other (left and right heat exchange sections as shown in Fig. 4, etc.), and fan 74 disposed therebetween (again, Fig. 4; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly arrange the outdoor heat exchangers of Okuda et al. adjacent to each other with a fan therebetween for the purposes of compact design and efficient airflow control.
As per claim 6, Okuda et al. do not disclose wherein among the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger, at least the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger is disposed to be inclined at a certain angle from a vertical direction on the circulation flow path. Shriver et al. teach wherein among the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger, at least the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger is disposed to be inclined at a certain angle from a vertical direction on the circulation flow path (see inclined heat exchangers in Fig. 4; etc.). .). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly arrange the outdoor heat exchangers of Okuda et al. at an inclined angle for the purposes of both effective airflow control and effective evaporative water flow across the heat exchangers (col. 2, lines 46-67; etc.).
As per claim 11, again Okuda et al. do not teach the specifics of how the first and second outdoor heat exchangers are disposed. Also again, Shriver et al. teach an arrangement wherein plural outdoor heat exchangers share one outdoor fan (Fig. 4; etc.). Further again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly arrange the outdoor heat exchangers of Okuda et al. adjacent to each other with a fan therebetween for the purposes of compact design and efficient airflow control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Okuda et al. fail to teach the second heat exchanger operating evaporatively by means of water injection. This argument is considered moot, since the rejections did not apply Okuda et al. for this teaching.
Applicant further argues that neither Okuda et al. nor Takegami et al. teach the newly added limitation wherein the second outdoor heat exchanger functions as a condenser in the cooling mode and performs the water injection operation, and functions as an evaporator in the heating mode without performing the water injection. However, as applied above, Takegami et al. do teach the outdoor heat exchanger functions as a condenser in the cooling mode and performs the water injection operation (para. 0075) and functions as an evaporator in the heating mode without performing the water injection (para. 0108). Further, such would have been an obvious modification to Okuda et al. for the purposes already stated in the rejections above.
The claim limitations are thus fully addressed in the rejections as applied. The rejections are thus maintained as proper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights