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: “injection module” in claim 7.
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.
For the record, “injection module” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described at para. 0035, 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 § 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 1-12 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.
The limitation “second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger” is recited throughout the claims. However, the claims never recite a “first outdoor evaporative heat exchanger,” rather only a “first outdoor heat exchanger.” This renders the claims indefinite since it is unclear whether there is meant to be a “first outdoor evaporative heat exchanger.” The Examiner suggests amending base claims 1 and 8 to change the first recitation of “second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger” to ““second outdoor heat exchanger, wherein the second outdoor heat exchanger is an evaporative heat exchanger….” Thereafter, “second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger” should be changed to simply “second outdoor heat exchanger.”
Claim 7 recites “a water injection module configured to perform a water injection operation by supplying the refrigerant toward the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger in the cooling mode and configured not to perform the water injection operation in the heating mode.” It is unclear how a “water injection module” controls the supply of refrigerant toward the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger. 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 arranged in series on the circulation flow path (Fig. 1; etc.); and a flow path switching valve 4 disposed on the circulation flow path and switching the flow direction of the refrigerant in the circulation flow path so that the refrigerant is evaporated while flowing in the order of the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger and the first outdoor heat exchanger in the heating mode (paras. 0024-0026). Okuda et al. do not teach the second outdoor heat exchanger being an evaporative heat exchanger. (Note that in Applicant’s disclosure, heat exchanger 600 which is designated as the ”outdoor evaporative heat exchanger,” only operates in an evaporative mode during cooling operation (see spray from 610 in Fig. 7), but does not operate in an evaporative mode during heating (see Fig. 8.).) Takegami et al. teach a heat pump arrangement wherein sprayer 33 provides evaporative cooling to outdoor heat exchanger 28 during cooling (para. 0075). 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.
As per claim 2, Okuda et al. disclose wherein the flow path switching valve 4 switches the flow direction of the refrigerant in the circulation flow path so that the refrigerant is condensed while flowing in the order of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor evaporative 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 evaporative heat exchanger includes a water injection module configured to perform a water injection operation by supplying the refrigerant toward the second outdoor evaporative 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 evaporative heat exchanger in the cooling mode and configured not to perform the water injection operation in the heating mode (para. 0075; 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 to be evaporated while flowing in the order of the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger and the first outdoor heat exchanger in the heating mode (paras. 0024-0026; etc.). Again, Okuda et al. do not teach the second outdoor heat exchanger being an evaporative heat exchanger. Also again, Takegami et al. teach a heat pump arrangement wherein sprayer 33 provides evaporative cooling to outdoor heat exchanger 28 during cooling, and thus being an “evaporative” heat exchanger (para. 0075). 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.
As per claim 9, Okuda et al. wherein the refrigerant is controlled to be condensed while flowing in the order of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor evaporative 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 evaporative 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 evaporative 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.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Wong et al. (US 2024/0044555 A1) teach a heat pump system with evaporative outdoor heat exchanger 42.
Wang (US 5946932) teaches a multistage evaporative condenser arrangement.
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
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763