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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 3/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6 and 11-20 are WITHDRAWN from consideration as the claims do not read on the elected species.
Claim 6 does not read on Specie B for reasons including the second valve being a one way check valve not a three-way valve.
Claims 11-20 do not read on Species B for reasons including the charge storage vessel circuit having the bleeder valve tube connects between the first coil and the expansion device.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the first plurality of coils, the second plurality of coils, and the blower are positioned in a first housing and the second plurality of coils and the compressor are positioned in a second housing different than the first housing”. It is unclear how the second plurality of coils is in the first housing and the second housing that is different from the first housing. For purposes of examination “wherein the first plurality of coils, the second plurality of coils, and the blower are positioned in a first housing and the second plurality of coils and the compressor are positioned in a second housing different than the first housing” will be considered - - wherein the first plurality of coils and the blower are positioned in a first housing and the second plurality of coils and the compressor are positioned in a second housing different than the first housing - - .
Claim(s) 8 are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemen et al. (US 20170314830) in view of Okuda et al. (US 20130174595) and Berg et al. (US 20150267951).
Per claim 1, Klemen teaches a heat pump system for charge management, the system comprising:
a first plurality of coils (12) configured to receive a fluid and exchange thermal energy with the fluid;
a blower (see blower adjacent to 12 in figure 1) in fluid communication with an exterior of the first plurality of coils (see figure 1);
a second plurality of coils (16) configured to receive the fluid and exchange thermal energy with the fluid,
the second plurality of coils having a first volume capacity (inherent) larger than a second volume capacity (inherent) of the first plurality of coils;
a compressor (10) in fluid communication with the first plurality of coils and the second plurality of coils (see figure 1);
a charge storage vessel (54, 20) in fluid communication with the first plurality of coils and the second plurality of coils (see figure 1),
the charge storage vessel (54,20) configured to store a volume of the fluid (“Receiver 54 may store refrigerant”, para. 0045),
the charge storage vessel (54,20)in fluid communication with a first expansion valve (14);
a first valve (62) connected to the charge storage vessel at a first end (end of 54,20 closest to 62) of the charge storage vessel and a second valve (22) connected to the charge storage vessel at a second end of the charge storage vessel (end of 54,20 closest to 22),
one or more of the first valve and the second valve configured to selectively transition to a closed position (“Controller 4 may close storage device valve 22, mass removal valve 62”, para. 0054)
but fails to explicitly teach
the first volume capacity being larger than the second volume capacity,
wherein the charge storage vessel is configured to exchange thermal energy with a fluid line extending between the second plurality of coils and the compressor, and
wherein the heat pump system is a ducted heat pump system or a packaged heat pump system.
However, Okuda teaches a heat pump having a first volume (volume of 51) is greater than a second volume (volume of 25) (“because the capacity of the indoor heat exchanger 51 is greater than the capacity of the outdoor heat exchanger 2”, para. 0067) for preventing surplus refrigerant from hindering refrigeration control (para. 0022). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide have a first volume be greater than a second volume, as taught by Okuda in the invention of Klemen, in order to advantageously prevent surplus refrigerant from hindering refrigeration control (para. 0022).
Regarding the fluid line, Berg teaches a heat pump wherein a charge storage vessel (302) is configured to exchange thermal energy with a fluid line (120) between a (second) plurality of coils (118) and a compressor (106) for optimizing a refrigerant charge level (para. 0064). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a charge storage vessel configured to exchange thermal energy with a fluid line between a (second) plurality of coils and a compressor, as taught by in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously optimize a refrigerant charge level (para. 0064).
Regarding the heat pump system being a ducted heat pump system or a packaged heat pump system, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that having a heat pump be a ducted heat pump system is old well known in the art of cooling and refrigeration for directing the cooling and heating potential of the system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a heat pump as a ducted heat pump system in order to advantageously direct the cooling and heating potential of the system.
Per claim 2, Klemen, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Klemen, as modified, teaches wherein the first valve (62) is in fluid communication with the first plurality of coils (12) and the second valve (22) is in fluid communication with the second plurality of coils (16).
Per claim 10, Klemen, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Klemen, as modified, teaches the first and second plurality of coils having a volume capacity ratio (inherent) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the second plurality of coils and the first plurality of coils the have a volume capacity ratio of greater than 2:1.
However, Okuda teaches an air conditioning system wherein a second plurality of coils (51) volume is greater than a first plurality of coils volume (25) (“the capacity of the indoor heat exchanger 51 is greater than the capacity of the outdoor heat exchanger 25”, para. 0067). Further, it is noted that the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a change in proportion. There is no evidence of record that this claimed proportion is critical or produces any unexpended results. In fact, it appears that a device having the claimed proportions would not operate differently than the device disclosed by Klemen, as modified. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second plurality of coils and the first plurality of coils the have a volume capacity ratio of greater than 2:1 since it has been held that changes in size/proportion when the claimed device and a prior art device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, section IV, paragraph A, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemen et al. (US 20170314830) in view of Okuda et al. (US 20130174595) and Berg et al. (US 20150267951) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2013/0255309).
Per claims 7-8, Klemen, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Klemen, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the first plurality of coils and the blower are positioned in a first housing and the second plurality of coils and the compressor are positioned in a second housing different than the first housing (claim 7), wherein the first housing is configured to be positioned within a structure comprising the at least one air duct and the second housing is configured to be positioned outside the structure (claim 8).
However, Wu teaches an HVAC system wherein a first plurality of coils (126) and a blower (130) are positioned in a first housing (structure surrounding 126,130) and a second plurality of coils (118) and a compressor (116) are positioned in a second housing (112) different than the first housing (claim 7), wherein the first housing (structure surrounding 126,130) is configured to be positioned within a structure (2) comprising an air duct (see figure 2 showing air duct through 6) and the second housing (112) is configured to be positioned outside the structure (see figure 2 showing 118 outside 2) (claim 8) for high efficiency air conditioning (para. 0004). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a first plurality of coils and a blower positioned in a first housing and a second plurality of coils and a compressor positioned in a second housing different than the first housing (claim 7), wherein the first housing is configured to be positioned within a structure comprising an air duct and the second housing is configured to be positioned outside the structure (claim 8), as taught by Wu in the invention of Klemen, as modified, in order to advantageously provide high efficiency air conditioning (para. 0004).
Per claim 9, Klemen, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Klemen, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the blower is in fluid communication with at least one air duct.
However, Wu teaches an HVAC system wherein a blower (130) is in fluid communication with an air duct (duct extending through 6 as shown in figure 2) for high efficiency air conditioning (para. 0004). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a blower in fluid communication with an air duct, as taught by Wu in the invention of Klemen, as modified, in order to advantageously provide a high efficiency air conditioning system (para. 0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-5 is/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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kanazawa et al. (US 2014/0318165) teaches a first volume capacity being greater than a second volume capacity.
Aoki (US 20090266093) teaches a heat pump system for charge management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights