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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicants’ election without traverse of the first species or the embodiment of Figures 1 through 8, readable on claims 1 through 3 and 6 through 9 in the reply filed on August 19, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4 and 5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected second through fifth species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 19, 2026.
As noted in the previous Office action, claims 10 through 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected invention of Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 4, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 25, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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 it does not avoid phrases which can be implied (i.e., “The present subject matter provides”, “according to an embodiment of the present enclosure”; note that the first sentence of an abstract need not be a complete sentence) and because it does not summarize the salient structural and functional elements of the instant invention (i.e., the phrase “may include” precedes all of the summarized characterizing features of the instant invention and renders all of these optional as opposed to salient) 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).
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0014] of the specification, there is a reference to “the second outdoor evaporative condenser” but no such second outdoor evaporative condenser has been mentioned earlier in the specification and there also has been no mention earlier in the specification that the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger can function as an evaporative condenser, thus rendering this portion of the specification insufficiently clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “water injection module” in claim 9.
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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 recites “a water injection module configured to supply cooling water toward the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger to perform a water injection operation in the cooling mode and configured not to perform a water injection operation in the heating mode” However, the originally filed drawings merely shows a water injection module 610 schematically without any details, while the originally specification merely states that the water injection module 610 includes “a spray portion configured to supply cooling water toward the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger 600” without providing any further details relating to the particular configuration of the water injection module 610. The specification thus fails to fully and clearly describe the water injection module 610 sufficiently to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and to clearly show that the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as recited in claim 9 of the instant application.
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 through 3 and 6 through 9 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example, claim 1 recites the limitations “to switch a flow direction of a refrigerant according to a cooling mode or a heating mode” but it is not clear whether the refrigerant whose flow direction is to be switched is necessarily located in the circulation flow path or is located elsewhere, thus rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim and by all claims depending therefrom.
Also for example, claim 2 recites the limitations “which is opposite to the first expansion valve” but it is not clear to which previously recited element(s) the indeterminate term “which” is intended to refer and it is also not clear which particular location is intended to be encompassed by the phrase “opposite to the first expansion valve”, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by claim 2 and by all claims depending therefrom. As an aside, it is recommended to avoid using the indeterminate term “which” anywhere in the claims.
Additionally, claim 3 recites the limitations “a first heating mode of controlling the refrigerant to be evaporated while flowing in the order of the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger and the first outdoor heat exchanger” and “a second heating mode of controlling the refrigerant to be evaporated while flowing in the order of the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger and the first connection flow path”. The aforementioned limitations are unclear because (a) there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the refrigerant to be evaporated” as recited in each of the aforementioned limitations and because (b) each of the aforementioned limitations are written in a run-on fashion and include various idiomatic informalities (i.e., “in the order of…”).
Regarding each of claims 6 and 7 as written, the phrase "-type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regard to claim 8 as written, it is not clear exactly what is intended to be encompassed by the phrase “is included” at the end of the claim.
There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for the limitation “the second outdoor evaporative condenser” in lines 1-2 of claim 9, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim.
Lastly, due to the lack of a clear and detailed corresponding to the limitation “a water injection module” as recited in claim 9, it is not at all clear which particular structural elements and equivalents thereof are intended to be encompassed by “a water injection module”, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maruyama et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,371,755 B2).
With regard to base claim 1 as written, Maruyama et al. discloses a heat pump or air conditioning apparatus 100, comprising: a circulation flow path in which a flow path switching valve or flow switching device 2a configured to switch a flow direction of a refrigerant according to a cooling mode or a heating mode (i.e., see column 4, lines 51-64) is disposed; and a first outdoor heat exchanger 3a and a second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger 3b disposed on the circulation flow path, wherein the circulation flow path includes a first connection flow path or bypass pipe 25, arranged in parallel with the first outdoor heat exchanger 3a (i.e., as shown at least in Figure 1) and in which a first opening/closing valve or flow rate control device 26 configured to open and close a flow path is disposed to bypass the first outdoor heat exchanger 3a. See column 6, lines 28-61.
The reference thus reads on the claims.
Alternately for claim 1 and as best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,268,743 B2).
With regard to base claim 1 as written, Watanabe et al. discloses a heat pump or air conditioning apparatus 100, comprising: a circulation flow path in which a flow path switching valve or cooling-heating switching device 2 configured to switch a flow direction of a refrigerant according to a cooling mode or a heating mode is disposed; and a first outdoor heat exchanger (i.e., one of heat exchangers 5-1 through 5-4 as shown in at least Fig.1) and a second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger (i.e., another one of heat exchangers 5-1 through 5-4 as shown in Fig. 1) disposed on the circulation flow path, wherein the circulation flow path includes a first connection flow path or bypass pipe 37, arranged in parallel with the first outdoor heat exchanger 5-1 and in which a first opening/closing valve or open-close device (i.e., one of open-close devices 9-1 through 9-4) is configured to open and close a flow path is disposed to bypass the first outdoor heat exchanger 5-1 (i.e., see column 8, lines 20-29).
With regard to claim 6 of the instant application, Watanabe et al. discloses the heat pump or air conditioning apparatus 100 according to claim 1, wherein the first outdoor heat exchanger is comprised of a first outdoor air-cooling type heat exchanger (i.e., one of outdoor heat exchangers 5-1 through 5-4 as shown in Figure 2).
With regard to claim 7 of the instant application, Watanabe et al. discloses the heat pump or air conditioning apparatus 100 according to claim 6, wherein the first outdoor air-cooling type heat exchanger includes a tube 5a through which refrigerant flows and a fin 5b is disposed on the tube 5a.
The reference thus reads on the claims.
Alternately for claims 1, 6, and 7, and as best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1 through 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fisher (U.S. Patent No. 4,553,401).
With regard to base claim 1 of the instant application as written, Fisher discloses a heat pump system 10, comprising: a circulation flow path in which a flow path switching valve reversing valve 14 configured to switch a flow direction of a refrigerant according to a cooling mode or a heating mode is disposed (i.e., see column 5, lines 23-32); and a first outdoor heat exchanger 20 and a second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger 24 disposed on the circulation flow path, wherein the circulation flow path includes a first connection flow path 22c, which may be arranged in parallel with the first outdoor heat exchanger 20 and in which a first opening/closing valve or open-close device (i.e., solenoid valve 102; see column 7, lines 12-52) is configured to open and close a flow path is disposed to bypass the first outdoor heat exchanger 20 (i.e., see column 8, lines 20-29).
With regard to claim 2 of the instant application as written, Fisher discloses the heat pump according to claim 1, wherein the first outdoor heat exchanger 20 and the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger 24 are connected to each other in series on the circulation flow path (i.e., as shown in the Figures, via lines 22d and 22e), a first expansion valve 18a is disposed between the first outdoor heat exchanger 20 and the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger 24 on the circulation flow path, and a second expansion valve 19 is disposed on one side of the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger 24, which is opposite to the first expansion valve 20, and the circulation flow path includes a bypass flow path 34, which may be arranged in parallel with the first expansion valve 18a and in which a second opening/closing valve 104 configured to open and close a flow path is disposed to bypass the first expansion valve (i.e., see column 7, lines 12-52) .
With regard to claim 3 of the instant application as written, Fisher discloses the heat pump according to claim 2, wherein the heating mode includes: a first heating mode of controlling the refrigerant to be evaporated while flowing in the order of the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger 24 and the first outdoor heat exchanger 20; and a second heating mode of controlling the refrigerant to be evaporated while flowing in the order of the second outdoor evaporative 24 heat exchanger and the first connection flow path 22c (i.e., see column 6, lines 6-37).
With regard to claim 6 of the instant application, Fisher discloses the heat pump system 10 according to claim 1, wherein the first outdoor heat exchanger or coil 20 is inherently comprised of a first outdoor air-cooling type heat exchanger; outdoor heat exchanger coils in heat pumps are inherently air-cooling type heat exchangers.
With regard to claim 7 of the instant application, Fisher discloses the heat pump system 10 according to claim 6, wherein the first outdoor air-cooling type heat exchanger or coil 20 inherently includes at least one tube through which refrigerant flows and at least one fin disposed on the at least one tube; outdoor heat exchanger coils in heat pumps are inherently coiled tubes with fins.
The reference thus reads on the claims.
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.
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (U.S. Patent No. 4,553,401).
As noted in greater detail above in the instant Office action, Fisher discloses a heat pump 10 essentially as claimed, including a first outdoor heat exchanger 20 and the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger 24 adjacently disposed to each other (i.e., at least as broadly interpreted as required for pending claims) within the heat pump 10. While Fisher does not explicitly disclose an outdoor fan located between the first outdoor heat exchanger 20 and the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger 24, Official Notice is taken hereby that it is (and has been even prior to the effective filing date of the instant application) well known in the art of designing outdoor heat pump units to have an outdoor fan disposed centrally and between the outdoor heat exchangers as evidenced by a majority of residential heat pump units with indoor and outdoor units currently in use in townhouses and stand-alone houses with heat pumps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the configuration of the outdoor units of Fisher in order to specifically have an outdoor fan disposed between the first outdoor heat exchanger 20 and the second outdoor evaporative heat exchanger 24 in order to efficiently use the space in the outdoor unit of the heat pump 10 while providing enhanced convective heat transfer through the outdoor heat exchangers.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claim 9 may be allowable if rewritten without patentably significant broadening to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not show nor reasonably suggest a heat pump including, in combination, all of the various elements which are structurally and functionally interrelated as noted in claim 9 of the instant application, for example.
Conclusion
The additional related and/or prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights