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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, and 12 recite performing a water injection operation “only” in the cooling mode. There is lack of support within the original disclosure for the term “only.” While the original disclosure does support performing water injection during cooling and not during heating, it does not support the term “only” since a heat pump may possibly operate with spraying in other modes (e.g., defrosting), or spraying may possibly be performed when the system is turned off, which have not been explicitly precluded by the original disclosure. The term “only” should thus be removed from the claims. Claims 2-7 and 9-11 are also rejected since they depend from claims 1 and 8, respectively.
Claim 7 recites “a water injector configured to perform a water injection operation by supplying the refrigerant toward the second outdoor heat exchanger…” It is unclear how a “water injector” controls the supply of “refrigerant” toward the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger. It is believed that “refrigerant” should be changed to “water.” Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
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.
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.
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 22 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-12 remain rejected over Okuda et al. in view of Takegami et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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