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
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2009/0241569 A1 to Okada et al. in view of US Patent No. 11,698,210 B1 to Vaisman et al.
Okada teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 1, shown above, a heat supplier comprising:
a compressor (3) configured to compress a refrigerant;
a first heat exchanger (air heat exchanger 1) configured to exchange heat between air and the refrigerant (as taught in ¶ 29);
a second heat exchanger (water heat exchanger 2) configured to exchange heat between water and the refrigerant (in a water pipe 15 as taught in ¶ 24);
a switching valve (4) to direct the refrigerant discharged from the compressor (101) into the first heat exchanger (103) or the second heat exchanger (41);
a third heat exchanger (the first internal heat exchanger 9) configured to exchange heat between refrigerant flowing through a liquid pipe (extending along the bottom of fig. 1 between the heat exchangers 1 and 2), which connects the first heat exchanger (1) and the second heat exchanger (2), and refrigerant branched from the liquid pipe (the injection circuit 13 taught in ¶ 23) and expanded (by the third valve 8);
a first expansion valve (7) configured to expand refrigerant flowing from the third heat exchanger (9) to the first heat exchanger (1, as shown in fig. 1); and
a second expansion valve (6) configured to expand refrigerant flowing from the third heat exchanger (9) to the second heat exchanger (2, in a flow direction opposite to that shown in fig. 1 based on switching of the four-way valve 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
512
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Okada does not teach the expansion valves (6 and 7) being controlled to selectively open and close based on the direction of refrigerant flow through the third expansion valve. Vaisman teaches in fig. 1, shown above, and in col. 9, line 32-col. 10, line 18, a refrigeration system (10) having a condenser (34) and an evaporator (24) arranged with a four-way valve (28) for reversing the direction of refrigerant flow between these two heat exchangers and further teaches the refrigeration system including two expansion valves (18a and 18b) arranged between the heat exchangers (24 and 34) to expand refrigerant flowing in one or the other direction. The expansion valves (18a and 18b) may be set into open or closed positions (referred to by Vaisman as an “on state” and an “off state”, respectively) and are each provided with a check valve (35a parallel to the expansion device 18b and 35b parallel to expansion device 18a) so that refrigerant bypasses the closed expansion device through its respective check valve and flows through the open expansion device based on the direction of the refrigerant flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Okada with the alternately open and closed expansion valves taught by Vaisman in order allow only one expansion valve as a controlled and moving part in each of the heating and cooling operations reducing the wear and tear on each expansion valve and simplify the control of the system of Okada. Further, MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identify “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” as an exemplary rationale to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. In this case, the simple substitution of the by-passable open/close valve arrangements of Vaisman for the adjustable but non-closing valves of Okada would produce the predictable result of expanding refrigerant flowing in either direction between the two heat exchangers in a manner equivalent to the original valves of Okada.
Okada teaches limitations from claim 9 in fig. 1, shown above, the heat supplier of claim 1, further comprising:
a branch pipe (injection circuit 13, taught in ¶ 23) branched from the liquid pipe (between the receiver 5 and the lower passage of the heat exchanger 9) to allow refrigerant to flow into the third heat exchanger (on the upper passage of the heat exchanger 9 as shown in fig. 1); and
a third expansion valve (8) disposed on the branch pipe (13) and configured to expand refrigerant flowing therethrough (the valve 8 is taught as a “third expansion valve” in ¶ 23 of Okada).
Okada teaches limitations from claim 11 in fig. 1, shown above, the heat supplier of claim 9, wherein the refrigerant flowing into the third heat exchanger (the upper passage of the heat exchanger 9, receiving refrigerant from the third expansion valve 8 as shown in fig. 1 and taught in ¶ 23) through the branch pipe (13) is supplied to the compressor (at an injection port of the compressor 3 as taught in ¶ 23).
Okada as modified by Vaisman teaches limitation from claim 12 in fig.1 shown above, the heat supplier of claim 1, wherein a size of an aperture of the second expansion valve (6) is greater than a size of an aperture of the first expansion valve (7) (as Okada teaches the expansion valves to have “degrees of opening [which] are variably controlled” in ¶ 29, and Vaisman teaches that the valves of their invention may be closed altogether, the system of Okada as modified by Vaisman is capable of operating in the manner recited in claim 12, adjusting the apertures so that the aperture of the second valve is greater in size than that of the first.)
Okada as modified by Vaisman teaches limitation from claim 13 in fig. 1 of Okada and fig. 1 of Vaisman, shown above, the heat supplier of claim 1, wherein the heat supplier is operated in a heating operation mode (with the four-way valve 4 in the position shown in fig. 1) in which the refrigerant discharged from the compressor (3) is delivered into the second heat exchanger (2, as shown in Okada’s fig. 1), and
wherein the second expansion valve (6) is closed in the heating operation mode (as discussed in the above rejection of claim 1 regarding the modification of Okada with the teachings of Vaisman, the respective valves 6 and 7 of Okada may be closed with refrigerant bypassing the valves through respective check valves), such that the refrigerant flowing from the second heat exchanger (2) to the first heat exchanger (1) passes through the third heat exchanger (9, having bypassed the valve 6 through respective check valve equivalent to the check valve 35a bypassing the expansion valve 18b of Vaisman) and then passes through the first expansion valve (7 of Okada).
Okada as modified by Vaisman teaches limitation from claim 14 in fig. 1 of Okada and fig. 1 of Vaisman, shown above, the heat supplier of claim 1, wherein the heat supplier is operated in a cooling operation mode (with the four-way valve 4 in the position shown in dotted lines for the valve 4 in fig. 1) in which the refrigerant discharged from the compressor (3) is transferred into the first heat exchanger (1), and
wherein the first expansion valve (7) is closed in the cooling operation mode (as discussed in the above rejection of claim 1 regarding the modification of Okada with the teachings of Vaisman, the respective valves 6 and 7 of Okada may be closed with refrigerant bypassing the valves through respective check valves), such that the refrigerant flowing from the first heat exchanger (1) to the second heat exchanger (2) passes through the third heat exchanger (9, having bypassed the valve 7 through respective check valve equivalent to the check valve 35b bypassing the expansion valve 18a of Vaisman) and then passes through the second expansion valve (6 of Okada).
Okada as modified by Vaisman teaches limitation from claim 16 in fig. 1 of Okada and fig. 1 of Vaisman, shown above, the heat supplier of claim 1, wherein the first expansion valve (7) is disposed between the first heat exchanger (2) and the third heat exchanger (9),
wherein the second expansion valve (6) is disposed between the second heat exchanger (2) and the third heat exchanger (9), and
wherein the heat supplier further comprises:
a first bypass pipe (the pipe taught by Vaisman to include the check valve 35a, shown in fig. 1 of Vaisman) to bypass the first expansion valve (7 of Okada/18b of Vaisman);
a second bypass pipe (the pipe taught by Vaisman to include the check valve 35b, shown in fig. 1 of Vaisman) to bypass the second expansion valve (6 of Okada/18a of Vaisman);
a first bypass valve (the check valve 35a of Vaisman) disposed at the first bypass pipe (as shown in Vaisman’s fig. 1); and
a second bypass valve (the check valve 35b of Vaisman) disposed at the second bypass pipe (as shown in Vaisman’s fig. 2).
Okada as modified by Vaisman teaches limitation from claim 17 in fig. 1 of Okada and fig. 1 of Vaisman, shown above, the heat supplier of claim 16, wherein the first expansion valve (7 of Okada/18b of Vaisman) and the first bypass valve (35a) are selectively opened (refer to the table presented below regarding the teachings of the valves being selectively and alternately opened as presented by Vaisman), and
wherein the second expansion valve (6 of Okada/18a of Vaisman) and the second bypass valve are selectively opened (refer to the table presented below regarding the teachings of the valves being selectively and alternately opened as presented by Vaisman).
Valve positions
Citation of Vaisman
Expansion valve 18b open,
Check valve 35a closed
Col. 13, lines 7-10
Expansion valve 18b closed,
Check valve 35a open
Col. 12, lines 3-8
Expansion valve 18a open,
Check valve 35b closed
Col. 12, lines 12-21
Expansion valve 18a closed,
Check Valve 35b open
Col. 12, line 67 - Col. 13, line 5
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada and Vaisman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2015/0096321 A1 to Kawano et al.
Okada teaches limitations from claim 10 in fig. 1, shown above, the heat supplier of claim 9, wherein the branch pipe (injection pipe 13) is branched from the liquid pipe (which extends between the heat exchangers 1 and 2) at a position between the third heat exchanger (9) and the [second expansion valve 6).
Okada does not teach the injection pipe branching from the liquid pipe at a position between the third and first heat exchangers. Kawano teaches in fig. 1, shown below, an air conditioning apparatus (10) refrigeration cycle having a refrigeration cycle generally equivalent to that of Okada and including a compressor (20), a four-way valve (15) an outdoor heat exchanger (30, equivalent to Okada’s air heat exchanger 1 within the refrigeration cycle), an internal heat exchanger (64), and a use-side or indoor heat exchanger (50, equivalent to Okada’s water heat exchanger 2 within the refrigeration cycle). Kawano further teaches the system including an outdoor expansion valve (41) disposed between the outdoor heat exchanger (30) and the internal heat exchanger (64) (equivalent to the expansion valve 7 of Okada and the claimed first expansion valve) and an indoor expansion valve (42) disposed between the indoor heat exchanger (50) and the internal heat exchanger (64) (equivalent to the expansion valve 6 of Okada and the claimed second expansion valve). Kawano teaches in fig. 1 that the branch flow pipe (62) which passes refrigerant through a second passage of the internal heat exchanger (64) branches from a point between the internal heat exchanger (64) and the outdoor expansion valve (41) as taught in instant claim 10. It is noted that the presence of the bridge circuit (70) and receiver (80) allows the system of Kawano to ensure that refrigerant flowing between the indoor and outdoor heat exchangers (50 and 30) flows through the receiver (80), the inlet to the injection circuit (62), and the injection heat exchanger (64) in this (desired) order regardless of the direction of flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Okawa with the placement of the injection circuit inlet (and with the bridge circuit regulating flow in the liquid line) taught by Kawano in order to allow the benefit of the injection circuit of Okada (increased heat exchange capacity and reliability as taught in ¶¶ 6 and 14 of Okada) regardless of the direction of the refrigerant flow (that is, whether the cycle is operated in a hot-water supply/heating operation or a defrost operation as taught in ¶ 22 of Okada, as well as potentially facilitating room-air conditioning for heating and cooling with such benefits of capacity and reliability by the provision of additional indoor heat exchangers 50 parallel to the first as shown in fig. 1 of Kawano).
PNG
media_image3.png
460
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specifically, claims 2 and 8 each teach that the liquid pipe of the system further comprises a first liquid pipe on which the third heat exchanger and first expansion valve are disposed, a second liquid pipe on which the second expansion valve is disposed, and a bypass pipe connecting a first side and a second side of the first liquid pipe.
Okada teaches in fig. 1 (presented below with annotations by the examiner as fig. 1X) that the pipe connecting between the heat exchangers (1 and 2) is broken into first and second pipe sections by the receiver (5) and that one of these sections, equivalent to the claimed first liquid pipe, includes the third heat exchanger (9) and the first expansion valve (7) while the other, equivalent to the claimed second liquid pipe) includes the second expansion valve (6). Okada does not teach or suggest this arrangement further including a bypass pipe connecting a first side and a second side of the liquid pipe on which the heat exchanger (9) and expansion valve (7) are located and no other prior art of record teaches, suggests, or renders obvious such a bypass.
PNG
media_image4.png
435
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Vaisman teaches in fig. 1, shown below with annotations by examiner as fig. 1Y, that the pipe connecting the condenser (34) and evaporator (24) of their invention is divided into two sections by a receiver (15) with one, equivalent to the claimed first liquid pipe, including the expansion device (18b) closer to the condenser (34) and the other, equivalent to the claimed second liquid pipe, including the expansion device (18a) closer to the evaporator (24). Although Vaisman teaches the two liquid pipes of their invention being provided with bypass pipes (including the check valves 35a and 35b), Vaisman does not teach either of the liquid pipes including an internal refrigerant-to-refrigerant heat exchanger and does not provide any teaching, suggestion, or motivation for including such a heat exchanger in the portion of either of the liquid pipes which is bypassed by the respective check valve.
PNG
media_image5.png
510
920
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-8 depend directly or indirectly upon claim 2 and are objected to as containing the same subject matter discussed above with regard to claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image6.png
474
480
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US Patent No. 10,393,417 B2 to Wei teaches in fig. 1, shown above, teaches a heat pump having a refrigeration cycle roughly equivalent to that taught by Okada, including a compressor (2), shell tube heat exchanger (11) which heats water during a heating operation (as taught in col. 6, lines 21-27), an internal heat exchanger (1) arranged on an injection circuit for the compressor (2), and an evaporator (14) and particularly teaches that refrigerant flowing out of the shell tube (11, according to the dotted arrows A which illustrate a heating cycle per col. 5, lines 43-47) flows to the internal heat exchanger (1). Similar to instant claims 2 and 15, Wei teaches the passage of refrigerant piping along which the heat exchanger (1) is disposed to be provided with a bypass pipe (on which the switching element 4 is disposed) but does not teach or suggest this same passage including an expansion valve equivalent to the claimed first expansion valve and which is also bypassed by the bypass pipe as the only expansion valves taught by Wei are disposed along the injection line (valve 5) and along the liquid pipe after the outlet of both the heat exchanger (1) and the bypass line (at the switching element 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763