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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the word “may” in line 1. 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “wherein the plurality of expansion valves comprise a first expansion valve and a second expansion valve” is understood to include a grammatical error and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein the plurality of expansion valves comprises a first expansion valve and a second expansion valve --
Claims 18-20 are also objected to due to dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-16 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a combination thereof” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes the phrase “a combination thereof” will be interpreted as -- the combination thereof --
Claims 12-16 are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigott (US 20220099363 A1) in view of Kohler et al. (US 20170191718 A1, herein after referred to as Kohler).
Regarding claim 1, Bigott teaches a refrigerant circuit (refrigeration system 34 Fig. 6) comprising: a flow (paragraph [0019] where it is disclosed that a refrigerant is moved) of a refrigerant (paragraph [0019]); and a plurality of expansion valves (expansion valves 45 Fig. 6), wherein the plurality of expansion valves comprise at least a first expansion valve (expansion valve 45 of first cooling coil 26 Fig. 6) and a second expansion valve (expansion valve 45 of second cooling coil 28 Fig. 6), wherein the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve are configured to receive the flow of the refrigerant (Fig. 6), wherein the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve are disposed in a parallel arrangement in the refrigerant circuit (Fig. 6).
Bigott teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve”.
However, Kohler teaches wherein a parameter of a first expansion valve (size of left expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where left expansion valve 100 corresponds to the first expansion valve of Bigott) is different than a parameter of a second expansion valve (size of right expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where right expansion valve 100 corresponds to the second expansion valve of Bigott) to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator (paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Bigott to include “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve” in view of the teachings of Kohler to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator.
Regarding claim 9, Bigott teaches a heat pump (refrigeration system 34 Fig. 6) comprising: a first expansion valve (expansion valve 45 of first cooling coil 26 Fig. 6); and a second expansion valve (expansion valve 45 of second cooling coil 28 Fig. 6), wherein the first expansion valve, the second expansion valve, or a combination thereof (corresponds to the combination of both expansion valves 45 Fig. 6) is configured to receive a flow (paragraph [0019] where it is disclosed that a refrigerant is moved) of a refrigerant (paragraph [0019]), wherein the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve are disposed in a parallel arrangement in the heat pump (Fig. 6).
Bigott teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve”.
However, Kohler teaches wherein a parameter of a first expansion valve (size of left expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where left expansion valve 100 corresponds to the first expansion valve of Bigott) is different than a parameter of a second expansion valve (size of right expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where right expansion valve 100 corresponds to the second expansion valve of Bigott) to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator (paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Bigott to include “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve” in view of the teachings of Kohler to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator.
Regarding claim 17, Bigott teaches a method (the method described in paragraphs [0024] to [0026]) to operate a refrigerant circuit (refrigeration system 34 Fig. 6) comprising a plurality of expansion valves (expansion valves 45 Fig. 6) and at least one control valve (refrigerant metering valves 44 Fig. 6) configured to control a flow (paragraph [0019] where it is disclosed that a refrigerant is moved) of a refrigerant (paragraph [0019]) to one or more of the plurality of expansion valves (paragraph [0020]), the method comprising: determining at least a refrigerant circuit interior portion temperature (understood to be the temperature of the corresponding receiver 20 as described in paragraph [0025]); and directing, based on at least the refrigerant circuit interior portion temperature, the refrigerant to one or more of the plurality of expansion valves (paragraphs [0020] and [0025]), wherein the plurality of expansion valves comprises a first expansion valve (expansion valve 45 of first cooling coil 26 Fig. 6) and a second expansion valve (expansion valve 45 of second cooling coil 28 Fig. 6), wherein the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve are disposed in a parallel arrangement in the refrigerant circuit (Fig. 6).
Bigott teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve”.
However, Kohler teaches wherein a parameter of a first expansion valve (size of left expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where left expansion valve 100 corresponds to the first expansion valve of Bigott) is different than a parameter of a second expansion valve (size of right expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where right expansion valve 100 corresponds to the second expansion valve of Bigott) to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator (paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Bigott to include “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve” in view of the teachings of Kohler to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 18, the combined teachings teach wherein the parameter of the first expansion valve comprises a first expansion valve size (paragraph [0024] of Kohler), and wherein the parameter of the second expansion valve comprises a second expansion valve size (paragraph [0024] of Kohler).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach further comprising at least one control valve (refrigerant metering valves 44 Fig. 6 of Bigott) configured to control the flow of the refrigerant to one or more of the plurality of expansion valves (paragraph [0020] of Bigott).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one control valve comprises: a first control valve (refrigerant metering valve 44 of first cooling coil 26 Fig. 6 of Bigott) configured to control the flow of the refrigerant to the first expansion valve (paragraph [0020] of Bigott); and a second control valve (refrigerant metering valve 44 of second cooling coil 28 Fig. 6 of Bigott) configured to control the flow of the refrigerant to the second expansion valve (paragraph [0020] of Bigott).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the first control valve and the second control valve are solenoid valves (paragraph [0020] of Bigott).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the combined teachings teach further comprising a controller (controller 102 Fig. 8 of Bigott) communicatively connected with the at least one control valve (Fig. 8 and paragraph [0025] of Bigott).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is configured to activate the at least one control valve (paragraph [0025] of Bigott) based on at least a refrigerant circuit interior portion temperature (understood to be the temperature of the corresponding receiver 20 as described in paragraph [0025] of Bigott).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach further comprising at least one control valve (refrigerant metering valves 44 Fig. 6 of Bigott) configured to control the flow of the refrigerant to the first expansion valve (paragraph [0020] of Bigott), the second expansion valve (paragraph [0020] of Bigott), or the combination thereof (paragraph [0020] of Bigott).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one control valve comprises a first control valve (refrigerant metering valve 44 of first cooling coil 26 Fig. 6 of Bigott) and a second control valve (refrigerant metering valve 44 of second cooling coil 28 Fig. 6 of Bigott).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach further comprising: controlling the flow of the refrigerant to the first expansion valve via the first control valve (paragraph [0020] of Bigott); and controlling the flow of the refrigerant to the second expansion valve via the second control valve (paragraph [0020] of Bigott).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigott and Kohler as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 6382256 B2, herein after referred to as Kim).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the at least one control valve is configured to direct the flow of the refrigerant to the first expansion valve in a first control valve operation mode, wherein the at least one control valve is configured to direct the flow of the refrigerant to the second expansion valve in a second control valve operation mode, and wherein the at least one control valve is configured to direct the flow of the refrigerant to the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve in a third control valve operation mode”.
However, Kim teaches wherein at least one control valve (three-way flow control valve 40 Fig. 2 corresponds to the one control valve of Bigott) is configured to direct a flow of a refrigerant (Col. 5 lines 1-9 where the disclosed “refrigerant flow” corresponds to the flow of the refrigerant of Bigott) to a first expansion valve (Col. 5 lines 1-9 and Fig. 2 where expansion means 51 corresponds to first expansion valve of Bigott) in a first control valve operation mode (corresponds to the mode that allows refrigerant to flow to evaporator 11 as described in Col. 5 lines 1-9), wherein the at least one control valve is configured to direct the flow of the refrigerant to a second expansion valve (Col. 5 lines 1-9 and Fig. 2 where expansion means 52 corresponds to second expansion valve of Bigott) in a second control valve operation mode (corresponds to the mode that allows refrigerant to flow to evaporator 12 as described in Col. 5 lines 1-9), and wherein the at least one control valve is configured to direct the flow of the refrigerant to the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve in a third control valve operation mode (corresponds to the mode that allows refrigerant to flow to both evaporators 11 and 12 as described in Col. 5 lines 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the at least one control valve is configured to direct the flow of the refrigerant to the first expansion valve in a first control valve operation mode, wherein the at least one control valve is configured to direct the flow of the refrigerant to the second expansion valve in a second control valve operation mode, and wherein the at least one control valve is configured to direct the flow of the refrigerant to the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve in a third control valve operation mode” in view of the teachings of Kim to reduce the number of parts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights