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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/24/2024 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Remarks
The recitation in claim 1, lines 4-5 “wherein the heat exchanger includes a hot portion in contact with the vapor, a warm portion in contact with a mixture of the vapor and the liquid, and a cold portion in contact with the liquid” is considered definite because the relative degrees of “hot,” “warm,” and “cold” are known relative to one another (i.e. “hot” is a temperature greater than “warm”, “warm” is a temperature in between “hot” and “cold”, and “cold” is a temperature less than “warm”).
The recitation in claim 10, lines 9-11 “a first heat supply from the heat exchange system to provide low temperature heating; and a second heat supply from the heat exchange system to provide high temperature heating” is considered definite because the relative degrees of “low temperature” and “high temperature” are known relative to one another (i.e. “low” is a temperature below a “high temperature” and “high temperature” is a temperature above a “low temperature”).
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) 2-3, 12, and 14-15 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 2 recites “warm air” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “warm” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination “warm air” will be considered - - air - - .
The term “about” in claims 3, 5, and 14-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the first heat supply receives heat from the hot portion, and wherein the second heat supply receives heat from the warm portion”. However claim 10, from which claim 12 depends, recites “a first heat supply from the heat exchange system to provide low temperature heating” and “a second heat supply from the heat exchange system to provide high temperature heating”. It is unclear how the first heat supply receives heat from the hot portion but also provide “low temperature heating” and the second heat supply receives heat from the warm portion but also provide high temperature heating. For purposes of examination “wherein the first heat supply receives heat from the hot portion, and wherein the second heat supply receives heat from the warm portion” will be considered - - wherein the first heat supply receives heat from the warm, and wherein the second heat supply receives heat from the hot portion - -
Claim(s) 3 is rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8, 10-13, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishihara (JPH08178441).
Per claim 1, Nishihara teaches an apparatus comprising:
a refrigerant inlet (24) to receive a refrigerant as a vapor (vapor from compressor 4);
a heat exchanger (19) to absorb heat from the vapor to form a liquid (“the refrigerant exchanges heat with room air to liquefy R-12”, pg. 3 of translation),
wherein the heat exchanger (19) includes a hot portion in contact with the vapor (see annotated figure below) (“the gas refrigerant is made to flow from the lower side to the upper side in the two passages (22) and (23) of the indoor heat exchanger (19) so that the temperature below the indoor heat exchanger (19) becomes lower than the upper temperature. Is also high. Then, the temperature of the air blown from the
lower side of the machine body is made higher than the temperature of the air blown from the upper side to heat the vicinity of the feet in the room with the high temperature air”, pg. 3 of translation), a warm portion in contact with a mixture of the vapor and the liquid (see annotated figure below), and a cold portion (see annotated figure below) in contact with liquid (“the gas refrigerant is made to flow from the lower side to the upper side in the two passages (22) and (23) of the indoor heat exchanger (19) so that the temperature below the indoor heat exchanger (19) becomes lower than the upper temperature. Is also high. Then, the temperature of the air blown from the lower side of the machine body is made higher than the temperature of the air blown from the upper side to heat the vicinity of the feet in the room with the high temperature air”, pg. 3 of translation);
a refrigerant outlet (25) to release the liquid;
a fluid inlet (20) to receive air proximate to the cold portion of the heat exchanger (upper portion of 19),
wherein the heat exchanger (19) separates the air (air from 20 and 21) from the refrigerant (refrigerant inside 19);
a first fluid (see annotated figure below) outlet proximate to the warm portion of the heat exchanger; and
a second fluid outlet (see annotated figure below) proximate to the hot portion of the heat exchanger,
wherein the air flows in an opposite direction than the refrigerant (see annotated figure below), and
wherein the heat exchanger (19) provides thermal contact between the air and the refrigerant (see figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
921
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nishihara teaches wherein the first fluid outlet is to supply air for space heating (“In this way, the gas refrigerant is made to flow from the lower side to the upper side in the two passages (22) and (23) of the indoor heat exchanger (19) so that the temperature below the indoor heat exchanger (19) becomes lower than the upper temperature. Is also high. Then, the temperature of the air blown from the lower side of the machine body is made higher than the temperature of the air blown from the upper side to heat the vicinity of the feet in the room with the high temperature air”, pg. 3 of translation).
Per claim 4, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nishihara teaches wherein the second fluid outlet is to supply air for an application (i.e. to heat an interior of a vehicle).
Per claim 8, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nishihara teaches a fan (20, 21) to move the air from the fluid inlet to the first fluid outlet and the second fluid outlet (see annotated figure above).
Per claim 10, Nishihara teaches a system comprising:
a closed refrigerant circuit (circuit operated by compressor 4) to circulate refrigerant;
an evaporator (6) disposed on the closed refrigerant circuit to add heat to the refrigerant,
wherein the refrigerant transitions from a liquid to a vapor therein (inherent in an evaporator);
a compressor (4) disposed on the closed refrigerant circuit to receive the vapor and to compress the vapor;
a heat exchange (“b”) system to receive the vapor,
wherein the heat exchange system absorbs heat from the vapor to form a liquid (via 19);
a first heat supply from the heat exchange system to provide low temperature heating (“the gas refrigerant is made to flow from the lower side to the upper side in the two passages (22) and (23) of the indoor heat exchanger (19) so that the temperature below the indoor heat exchanger (19) becomes lower than the upper temperature. Is also high. Then, the temperature of the air blown from the lower side of the machine body is made higher than the temperature of the air blown from the upper side to heat the vicinity of the feet in the room with the high temperature air”, pg. 3 of translation); and
a second heat supply from the heat exchange system to provide high temperature heating (“the gas refrigerant is made to flow from the lower side to the upper side in the two passages (22) and (23) of the indoor heat exchanger (19) so that the temperature below the indoor heat exchanger (19) becomes lower than the upper temperature. Is also high. Then, the temperature of the air blown from the
lower side of the machine body is made higher than the temperature of the air blown from the upper side to heat the vicinity of the feet in the room with the high temperature air”, pg. 3 of translation).
PNG
media_image2.png
719
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 11, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Nishihara teaches wherein the heat exchange system includes a hot portion (see annotated figure above) to receive heat from the refrigerant in a vapor form, and wherein the heat exchange system includes a warm portion (see annotated figure above) to receive heat from the refrigerant in a mixture form.
Per claim 12, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 11. Further, Nishihara teaches wherein the first heat supply receives heat from the warm (see annotated figure above), and wherein the second heat supply receives heat from the hot portion (see annotated figure above).
Per claim 13, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 10. Further, Nishihara teaches an air intake to receive air (see annotated figure above), wherein a first portion of the air is heated to a first temperature by the first heat supply, and wherein a second portion of the air is heated to a second temperature by the second heat supply (see annotated figure above).
Per claim 17, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Nishihara teaches a fan (20,21) to move the air through the heat exchange system.
Per claim 19, claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 10 and is rejected in a similar manner.
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
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) 3, 5, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (JPH08178441).
Per claim 3, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 2. Further, Nishihara teaches the air but fails to explicitly teach wherein the air is 30 degree Celsius. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art using known methods to yield predicable results to have the air be 30 degrees Celsius. Further, there is no change in the respective functions of the claimed system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide air at 30 degrees Celsius in order to advantageously provide a user with air requirements of 30 degrees Celsius.
Per claim 5, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 4. Further, Nishihara teaches the air but fails to explicitly teach wherein the air is 50 degrees Celsius. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art using known methods to yield predicable results to have the air be 50 degrees Celsius. Further, there is no change in the respective functions of the claimed system with the air being 50 degrees Celsius. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide air at 50 degrees Celsius in order to advantageously provide a user with air requirements of 50 degrees Celsius.
Per claim 14, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Nishihara teaches the air but fails to explicitly teach wherein the air is 30 degree Celsius. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art using known methods to yield predicable results to have the air be 30 degrees Celsius. Further, there is no change in the respective functions of the claimed system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide air at 30 degrees Celsius in order to advantageously provide a user with air requirements of 30 degrees Celsius.
Per claim 15, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Nishihara teaches the air but fails to explicitly teach wherein the air is 50 degrees Celsius. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art using known methods to yield predicable results to have the air be 50 degrees Celsius. Further, there is no change in the respective functions of the claimed system with the air being 50 degrees Celsius. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide air at 50 degrees Celsius in order to advantageously provide a user with air requirements of 50 degrees Celsius.
Claim(s) 6-7, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (JPH08178441) in view of Zhou (US 2019/0137129).
Per claims 6-7, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nishihara teaches the air flow to the first fluid outlet and the second fluid outlet but fails to explicitly teach a damper system to control air flow to the first fluid outlet and the second fluid outlet.
However, Zhou teaches an air conditioning system including a damper system (412a, 412b) to control air flow to the first fluid outlet (410a) and the second fluid outlet (410b) (claim 6), and wherein the damper system includes a first damper (412a) disposed at the first fluid outlet (410a) and a second (412b) damper disposed at the second fluid outlet (410b) (claim 7) for quickly conditioning space (para. 0038). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a damper system to control air flow to the first fluid outlet and the second fluid outlet (claim 6), and wherein the damper system includes a first damper disposed at the first fluid outlet and a second damper disposed at the second fluid outlet (claim 7), as taught by Zhou in the invention of Nishihara, in order to advantageously quickly condition a space (para. 0038).
Per claim 16, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Nishihara fails to explicitly teach a damper system to control a ratio between the first portion and the second portion.
However, Zhou teaches an air conditioning system including a damper system (412a, 412b) to control a ratio between a first portion (410a) and a second portion (410b) for quickly conditioning space (para. 0038). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a damper system to control a ratio between a first portion and a second portion, as taught by Zhou in the invention of Nishihara, in order to advantageously quickly condition a space (para. 0038).
Per claim 20, claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 16 and is rejected in a similar manner.
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (JPH08178441) in view of Choi et al. (US 2004/0237571).
Per claim 9, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Nishihara fails to explicitly teach an air exchanger to heat the air prior to entering the fluid inlet.
However, Choi teaches an air conditioner system including an air exchanger (40) to heat air prior to entering a fluid inlet (“The external air introduced into the preheat exchanger 40 flows through the first flow passage 45a. In this instance, since the room air flows through the second flow passage 45b in contact with the first flow passage 45a, the external air flowing through the first flow passage 45a receives heat from the room air, indirectly”, para. 0074) for improved air conditioning efficiency (para. 0081). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an air exchanger to heat air prior to entering a fluid inlet, as taught by Choi in the invention of Nishihara, in order to advantageously improve air conditioning efficiency (para. 0081).
Per claim 18, Nishihara meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Nishihara fails to explicitly teach an air exchanger to heat the air prior to entering the heat exchange system.
However, Choi teaches an air conditioner system including an air exchanger (40) to heat air prior to entering a heat exchange system (“The external air introduced into the preheat exchanger 40 flows through the first flow passage 45a. In this instance, since the room air flows through the second flow passage 45b in contact with the first flow passage 45a, the external air flowing through the first flow passage 45a receives heat from the room air, indirectly”, para. 0074) for improved air conditioning efficiency (para. 0081). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an air exchanger to heat air prior to entering a heat exchange system, as taught by Choi in the invention of Nishihara, in order to advantageously improve air conditioning efficiency (para. 0081).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Biesecker (US 4,044,823) teaches an air conditioner system with a damper control system.
Uselton et al. (US 2017/0219225) teaches an air conditioner system.
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
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763