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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "as a condenser" should be changed to -- as a condenser; --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 is interpreted such that said limitation (“in particular, a refrigerant circuit for a heat pump for heating and cooling a building”) is given no patentable weight. Claims 2-16 are similarly rejected.
At least claims 8-9 recite the limitation "the first position". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Any claims reciting insufficient antecedent basis are similarly rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leuthner (US7100384).
Regarding claim 1,
Referring to Figs. 1-2, Leuthner teaches a refrigerant circuit , in particular a refrigerant circuit for a heat pump for heating and cooling a building, comprising a first heat exchanger 10 which is configured to function as an evaporator or as a condenser; a second heat exchanger 14, which is also configured to function as a condenser or as an evaporator; a compression section (e.g. the section comprising compressor 18) arranged downstream of the first heat exchanger or downstream of the second heat exchanger; an expansion section (e.g. the section comprising expansion device 20) arranged downstream of the second heat exchanger or downstream of the first heat exchanger; a first way valve 22 (wherein “way valve” is interpreted to refer to a reversing valve or a 4-way valve) configured to supply refrigerant to the expansion section and to discharge refrigerant from the expansion section; and a second way valve 24 configured to supply refrigerant to the compression section and discharge refrigerant from the compression section.
Regarding claim 2,
Leuthner teaches wherein the first and second way valves 22, 24 are configured to switch synchronously from a first position to a second position and vice versa (see col 3, lines 28-61; col 5, lines 36-39; col 7, lines 56-60; col 8, lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 3,
Leuthner teaches wherein the first and second way valves 22, 24 have a common actuating element (see col 3, lines 28-61; col 5, lines 36-39; col 7, lines 56-60; col 8, lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 4,
Leuthner teaches wherein the first and second way valves are designed as one component (e.g. as both valves comprise a switching component for module 26 and are actuated synchronously as one component).
Regarding claim 5,
Leuthner teaches wherein the expansion section is flowed through in the same direction in both positions of the first and second way valves (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claims 6-11,
Leuthner teaches a refrigerant circuit, and therefore all elements (e.g. any of the four connections of the first or second way valves, the heat exchangers, the expansion section, and compression section etc.) are connected.
Regarding claim 16,
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. The structure taught in Leuthner, is furthermore inherently capable of being utilized as a heat pump for heating and cooling a building.
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.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leuthner.
Regarding claims 12-13, 15,
Leuthner teaches wherein the expansion section comprises at least one expansion valve 20.
Leuthner teaches wherein the expansion section comprises a third heat exchanger 28 which is connected to the first connection of the first way valve and the first connection of the second way valve.
Leuthner teaches wherein the third heat exchanger is additionally connected to a suction gas pipe of a compressor 18 in the compression section (see Fig. 1)
Leuthner does not teach the expansion section comprises a refrigerant receiver, wherein the third heat exchanger is connected to an inlet of the refrigerant receiver in the expansion section.
However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of, and advantages of a refrigerant receiver (e.g. a flash tank), wherein said refrigerant receiver is directly connected to an inlet an expansion would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Leuthner (e.g. to comprise a refrigerant receiver wherein the third heat exchanger is connected to an inlet of the refrigerant receiver in the expansion section) with the motivation of, for example, holding a refrigerant charge of the system to guarantee proper operation of the system.
Regarding claim 14,
Leuthner teaches wherein the third heat exchanger is configured to transfer thermal energy from a high-pressure pipe (e.g. the pipe of connection 34, see Fig. 1) to a low-pressure pipe of the refrigerant circuit (e.g. pipe of connection 40, see Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yu, Jones teaches a single housed multi-way valve. TOMOMITSU teaches a heat pump with two 4-way valves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE S TANENBAUM whose telephone number is (313)446-6522. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 AM - 7 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, 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.
/Steve S TANENBAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3763