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 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 1, 2, and 4-14 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.
In lines 22-23 of claim 1, the recitation of “the retrieved amount of variation” lacks antecedent basis. Although the claim includes previous recitations of “an amount of variation” in line 19, there is no recitation of this amount being “retrieved” and lines 19-20 teach that the controller is configured to “identify” the amount of variation. Because there is no preceding recitation of “the retrieved amount of variation” or of a step of “retrieving” an amount of variation, it is unclear whether the amount taught in this passage is intended to be the same amount of variation which was “identified” or whether another “amount of variation” must be retrieved for a teaching to fall within the scope of claim 1 (and from where or in what way it must be “retrieved”). For this reason, the scope of claim 1 cannot be positively ascertained and claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the amount of variation which the controller is configured to “identify” has been found to fall within the scope of “the retrieved amount of variation”, but not to limit “the retrieved amount of variation” to only this identified value.
Claims 2 and 4-14 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication No. 2021/106193 A1 to Ito et al. in view of Japanese Publication No. 2010-276276 A to Suehiro et al.
European Publication No. 4067765 B1 is presented as an English-language equivalent for Ito, being a European publication of the same international application and an English-translation of Suehiro is provided with this Office Action. Citations to particular passages and paragraphs of Ito and Suehiro are directed to these English-language documents rather than to the Japanese-language originals.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ito teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, and fig. 3, shown below, a refrigeration cycle system comprising:
a heat source apparatus (including the heat source apparatus 10 taught in ¶ 20 and the relay unit 20 taught in ¶ 25 which both include parts of the refrigerant circuit 40) having a refrigerant circuit (40, as shown in fig. 1), the heat source apparatus being configured to cool or heat a heat medium (flowing in the heat medium circuit 50) through refrigerant flowing through the refrigerant circuit (as taught in ¶ 20); and
PNG
media_image3.png
746
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a controller (including heat-source-side control device 17, relay control device 24, and indoor-side control devices 35) configured to control the heat source apparatus (performed particularly by the heat-source side control device 17 as taught in ¶¶ 20-21),
wherein
the heat source apparatus (particularly the relay unit 20) includes
a heat medium heat exchanger (heat-medium-side heat exchanger 21) configured to cause the heat medium (in the circuit 50) and the refrigerant (in the refrigerant circuit 0) to exchange heat with each other (as taught in ¶ 27),
a flow detector (flow switches 31 taught in ¶ 32 and/or pressure sensors 25 and 26) configured to acquire flow rate information indicative of a flow rate of the heat medium that flows through the heat medium heat exchanger (the flow switches 31 determine flow rate in the indoor units 30a, 30b, and 3c which each receive medium from the heat exchanger 21 as taught in ¶ 32 and the pressure sensors are further used by the control devices used to obtain a flow rate of heat medium in the circuit 50 as taught in ¶ 61), and
a compressor (11) configured to compress the refrigerant (taught in ¶ 20), and
the controller (17/24/35) is configured to,
store first correspondence information that associates values of variation of the flow rate with amounts of variation in an operating capacity of the compressor (storing the data, including programming and comparison values used in the method of fig. 3), respectively,
determine, during a first period of time determined in advance and based on the flow rate information, a value of variation of the flow rate (particularly the value obtained from the pressure sensors 25 and 26 as step S10 of the method of fig. 3 as described in ¶ 61),
identify, based on the first correspondence information, an amount of variation in the operating capacity of the compressor associated with the determined value of variation (the increase or reduction to be made in step S12 or S13 as taught in ¶ 63), and
vary the operating capacity of the compressor (11) by the retrieved amount of variation and cause the compressor to operate at the operating capacity thus varied (the actual increasing or reducing of the frequency of the compressor per step S12 or S13 as taught in ¶ 63).
Ito does not teach the flow rate value used in the control of the compressor being a value of variation of the flow rate or this variation being determined during a first period of time determined in advance, or the information associated with the value of variance being stored and the compressor operated based on this stored value. Suehiro teaches in ¶¶ 31-32 and in claim 2, a control device (41) for controlling the rotational speed of a compressor (12) in which a parameter (in the case of Suehiro, an air conditioning load temperature difference) is obtained and a difference between the previous value of this parameter for a preceding duration of time T and the value of the parameter for the duration before the previous duration is obtained and used as a control effect amount for calculating a load upper limit rotational speed for the control of the compressor (that is, if this temperature difference is taken as the function E(i), where i is the most recent time duration T, E(i) and E(i-1) are used in the calculation of the new load upper limit rotational speed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the storage and use of past control input values, including the use of a variation in these values in establishing new control parameters as taught by Suehiro applied to the flow rate measurements of Ito in order to ensure that instant and historical operating conditions are both accounted for in the control of the compressor, allowing trends in addition to instantaneous values to inform the control and thus improving the reliability and effectiveness of the operation of the system.
Ito teaches limitations from claim 8 in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 1, further comprising a circulation pump (23) configured to circulate the heat medium to flow through the heat medium heat exchanger (21, as taught in ¶ 25),
wherein the controller (24) is configured to vary an operating frequency of the circulation pump (23) based on the flow rate information and cause the circulation pump to operate at the operating frequency thus varied (as taught in ¶ 43).
Ito teaches limitations from claim 10, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of the heat source apparatuses (10, per ¶ 18 of Ito (with emphasis by examiner) “It should be noted that Embodiment 1 [shown in fig. 1] will be described by referring to by way of example the case where three indoor units 30a, 30b, and 30c are connected to one heat source apparatus 10. However, the number of heat source apparatuses 10 may be two or more.”)
PNG
media_image4.png
246
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito and Suehiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2002/0108392 A1 to Ichikawa et al.
Regarding claim 2, Ito teaches an air conditioning system in which a heat source apparatus (10) and relay device (20) circulate a refrigerant to an inter-medium heat exchanger (21) to heat or cool a heat medium flowing in a heat medium circuit (50) to heat or cool loads at a number of indoor-side heat exchangers (32) connected to the heat medium circuit (5) and further teaches a flow rate of the heat medium to be used by a controller in determining control of a compressor of the heat source apparatus. Suehiro teaches the use of data collected over a most recent past time interval of duration T in comparison to data from the previous time interval in the control of a compressor’s capacity in a refrigeration cycle air conditioning system. Neither Ito nor Suehiro teaches that in a case in which the flow rate decreases for a period of time, operating frequency of the compressor is also decreased. Ichikawa teaches in ¶ 24 and in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigeration cycle system having a compressor (1), condenser (2), expansion valve (3), and heat exchanger (4) exchanging heat between the refrigerant and a brine or water flowing through the heat exchanger (4). Ichikawa further teaches in ¶ 31 that the capacity of the compressor is controlled by an inverter drive unit “in accordance with the flow rate of the brine” in order to reduce cooling capacity as the flow rate is reduced to decrease or prevent freezing of the brine in the heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the compressor capacity control corresponding to the flow rate of medium in the heat exchanger in order to prevent freezing of the heat exchanger and improve reliability of the system as taught in Ichikawa’s ¶ 31.
Regarding claim 4, neither Ito nor Ichikawa teaches controller operating the compressor such that, when a magnitude of a variation in the decrease of the flow rate is greater than a predetermined limit value, the operating capacity of the compressor is changed to a lower-limit capacity. Ito teaches in their Abstract and in ¶¶ 40-42 that the compressor has a lowest capacity setting which may be used in response to sufficiently low load conditions. In modifying Ito with the flow-rate-responsive compressor control of Ichikawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be an obvious design choice in the implementation of the control to provide a degree of change of the flow rate specifically corresponding to the lowest capacity setting of the compressor in order to ensure that compressor operations are minimized in the event of a significant reduction of medium flow, preventing freezing and allowing for such reductions to be remedied prior to resumption of increased operation of the compressor, thus ensuring effective and reliable operation of the system.
Regarding claim 5, neither Ito nor Ichikawa teaches controller operating the compressor such that, when the flow rate reaches a lower limit value, the operating capacity of the compressor is changed to a lower-limit capacity as taught in claim 5. Ito teaches in their Abstract and in ¶¶ 40-42 that the compressor has a lowest capacity setting which may be used in response to sufficiently low load conditions. In modifying Ito with the flow-rate-responsive compressor control of Ichikawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be an obvious design choice in the implementation of the control to provide a minimum flow rate specifically corresponding to the lowest capacity setting of the compressor in order to ensure that compressor operations are minimized in the event of a significant restriction of medium flow, potentially preventing freezing or allowing for such reductions to be remedied prior to resumption of increased operation of the compressor, thus ensuring effective and reliable operation of the system.
Regarding claim 12, Ito teaches an air conditioning system in which a heat source apparatus (10) and relay device (20) circulate a refrigerant to an inter-medium heat exchanger (21) to heat or cool a heat medium flowing in a heat medium circuit (50) to heat or cool loads at a number of indoor-side heat exchangers (32) connected to the heat medium circuit (5), teaches a flow rate of the heat medium to be used by a controller in determining control of a compressor of the heat source apparatus, and further teaches in ¶ 18 that such a system may include two or more heat source apparatuses (10). Ito does not explicitly teach reducing the number of operating heat source units as the flow rate decreases in a case where multiple such units were operated. Ichikawa teaches in ¶ 24 and in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigeration cycle system having a compressor (1), condenser (2), expansion valve (3), and heat exchanger (4) exchanging heat between the refrigerant and a brine or water flowing through the heat exchanger (4). Ichikawa further teaches in ¶ 31 that the capacity of the compressor is controlled by an inverter drive unit “in accordance with the flow rate of the brine” in order to reduce cooling capacity as the flow rate is reduced to decrease or prevent freezing of the brine in the heat exchanger. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed, in light of Ito’s teaching of multiple heat source units and Ichikawa’s teaching of reducing the cooling capacity of the system in response to reduced flow rate, would have found it to be an obvious mechanical expedient to reduce the cooling capacity, in addition to the compressor reduction taught by Ichikawa, by controlling the system to reduce the number of operating heat source units in a system operating multiple such units as taught by Ito in order to prevent or reduce the risk of freezing of the heat exchangers of the system and improve reliability of the system as taught in Ichikawa’s ¶ 31.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito and Suehiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2020/0064031 A1 to Yamano et al.
PNG
media_image5.png
334
470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ito teaches limitations from claim 6, in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 1, wherein the flow detector is configured to measure a differential pressure that is a difference between a pressure of the heat medium that flows into [a pump] (measured by a pump inlet pressure sensor 25 at an inlet side of the pump 23) and a pressure of the heat medium that flows out from [the pump] (measured by a pump outlet pressure sensor 26, as taught in ¶ 40 and 61), and
the controller (17/24/35) is configured to vary the operating capacity of the compressor (as taught in ¶ 63) based on the differential pressure measured by the flow detector during the first period of time and cause the compressor to operate at the operating capacity thus varied (as taught in ¶¶ 40 and 61, the flow rate is obtained based on a difference in the measured pressure values).
Regarding claim 6, Ito does not teach the pressure difference used being a difference between the pressures at an inlet and outlet of a heat exchanger. Yamano teaches in fig. 1, shown above, an in ¶ 21, refrigeration cycle device including a chilling unit (100) having a compressor (1) and a heat exchanger (7) for cooling a medium in a heat medium circuit (30) using refrigerant compressed by the compressor (1) in the refrigerant circuit 10. Yamano teaches in ¶¶ 31 and 48, the flow rate in the heat medium circuit being determined based on a difference in pressures detected by pressure sensors (33 and 35) located respectively at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger (7) in the heat medium circuit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the heat exchanger pressure sensors taught by Yamano in order to more directly monitor the flow of refrigerant through the heat exchanger for signs of restriction or freezing and to prevent damage to the heat exchanger or loss of performance which results from such conditions.
Ito teaches limitations from claim 7, in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 1, wherein the flow detector is configured to measure a pressure of the heat medium that flows into [a pump] (measured by a pump inlet pressure sensor 25 at an inlet side of the pump 23) and a pressure of the heat medium that flows out from [the pump] (measured by a pump outlet pressure sensor 26, as taught in ¶ 40 and 61), and
the controller (17/24/35) is configured to vary the operating capacity of the compressor (as taught in ¶ 63) based on the pressure of the heat medium that flows into the [pump] and the pressure of heat medium that flows out from the [pump] by the flow detector during the first period of time and cause the compressor to operate at the operating capacity thus varied (as taught in ¶¶ 40 and 61, the flow rate is obtained based on the measured pressure values and particularly on a difference between the values).
Regarding claim 7, Ito does not teach the pressure values measured to determine the flow rate being the pressures at an inlet and outlet of a heat exchanger. Yamano teaches in fig. 1, shown above, an in ¶ 21, refrigeration cycle device including a chilling unit (100) having a compressor (1) and a heat exchanger (7) for cooling a medium in a heat medium circuit (30) using refrigerant compressed by the compressor (1) in the refrigerant circuit 10. Yamano teaches in ¶¶ 31 and 48, the flow rate in the heat medium circuit being determined based on a difference in pressures detected by pressure sensors (33 and 35) located respectively at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger (7) in the heat medium circuit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the heat exchanger pressure sensors taught by Yamano in order to more directly monitor the flow of refrigerant through the heat exchanger for signs of restriction or freezing and to prevent damage to the heat exchanger or loss of performance which results from such conditions.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito and Suehiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WIPO Publication No. 2020/012750 A1 to Okazaki et al.
European Publication No. 4,148,343 A1 to Okazaki is presented as an English-language equivalent for Okazaki, being a European publication of the same international application. Citations to particular passages and paragraphs of this document are directed to these English-language document rather than to the Japanese-language original.
Ito teaches limitations from claim 9 in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 1, wherein
the heat source apparatus (10 and 20) is connected to a load system (one of the indoor units 30a, 30b, or 30c) via a heat medium pipe (the piping of the heat medium circuit 50) through which the heat medium flows (as taught in ¶ 27), the load system being configured to cool or heat a target (at one of the indoor heat exchangers 32 arranged in one of the indoor units 30a, b, c) through the heat medium (as taught in ¶ 30),
the heat source apparatus (10/20 and particularly the heat exchanger 21 of the relay unit 20) forms a heat medium circuit (50) in combination with the load system and the heat medium pipe (as shown in fig. 1),
the [load system] (30) is provided with a [flow control valve] valve (33) configured to regulate a flow rate of the heat medium that flows through the load system (30) (as taught in ¶ 30), and
the controller (particularly indoor controllers 35) is configured to vary an opening degree of the [load system] (30) based on the flow rate information (as taught in ¶ 33).
Ito does not teach the heat medium circuit including a bypass pipe connected in parallel to the load system and provided with a bypass valve which is controlled by the controller to regulate the flow rate of medium through the load system. Okazaki teaches in fig. 1, shown below, and in ¶¶ 11-12, a heat source system (1) having a plurality of heat source units (3) for cooling water to be circulated in water pipes (5 and 6) to a plurality of load devices such as air conditioners) and further teaches the system being provided with a bypass pipe (7) installed in parallel with the load devices (4) and having a bypass valve (2) for controlling the amount of water allowed to flow through the bypass pipe (7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the bypass pipe of Okazaki in order to allow the cooling provided to one or each of the indoor units of Ito to be adjusted without requiring control of the compressor or the heat source system, thus providing greater versatility to the control states the system may use to provide effective and efficient cooling while avoiding overcooling or freezing of water in the heat medium circuit.
Ito teaches limitations from claim 13 in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 9, wherein the plurality of heat source apparatuses (taught in ¶ 18 of Ito) are connected via a heat medium pipe (the pipes of the heat medium circuit 50) of the configured to allow the heat medium to flow to a load system (the indoor units 30) configured to cool or heat a target through the heat medium.
PNG
media_image6.png
610
444
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ito does not teach the heat medium pipe connecting the heat source apparatuses in parallel. Okazaki teaches in fig. 1, shown above, and in ¶¶ 11-12, a heat source system (1) having a plurality of heat source units (3) for cooling water, the units (3) being connected in parallel to a water return pipe (6) and feed pipe (5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the parallel arrangement of the chiller units taught by Okazaki in order to allow the units to be operated individually or together, providing a broad range of cooling capacity levels and allowing wear and tear to be distributed over the heat source apparatuses rather than requiring all to operate as would be the case for a serial installation.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito and Suehiro as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2018/0160570 A1 to Baily et al.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Ito teaches an air conditioning system in which a heat source apparatus (10) and relay device (20) circulate a refrigerant to an inter-medium heat exchanger (21) to heat or cool a heat medium flowing in a heat medium circuit (50) to heat or cool loads at a number of indoor-side heat exchangers (32) connected to the heat medium circuit (5) and further teaches that such a system may include two or more heat source apparatuses (10). Ito does not teach the controller increasing and decreasing the number of operating heat source apparatuses based on a frequency of one of the compressors, increasing the number of apparatuses operating and decreasing the capacity of the compressor of an operating apparatus as taught in claim 14, and storing third correspondence information associated with a number of apparatuses with an amount of decrease in the capacity of the compressor of each apparatus and in increasing the number of apparatuses operating and decreasing the capacity of the compressor as taught in claim 14. Bailey teaches a dynamic cooling system having a plurality of compressors which may be activated and deactivated to provide cooling to a target (in this case, a data center 202) and particular teaches in ¶¶ 8 and 29 that each compressor has an associated range of operating speeds at which it operates most efficiently so that, when the operating load calls for an additional compressor to be activated, a previously operated compressor may be reduced from a previously high speed to operate at its lower efficient operating range as taught in claim 11, this range being inherently stored by the controller of the system of Bailey for the controller to be controlled to the range as taught in claim 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the control associated with multiple units (controlling the compressors of the multiple heat source apparatus according to the compressor control of Bailey) in order to provide for the most efficient operation of the compressors while still allowing for capacity to be effectively scaled to address cooling demand.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 8 of the reply that the amendment to the title of the invention overcomes the objection thereto set forth in the Non-Final Rejection.
In response, examiner agrees and this objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pp. 8-9 that the amendment to the claims removes the claims (particularly claims 1 and 8) from interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) regarding “a flow rate acquisition device” and “a circulation device” and overcomes the rejections of claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In response, examiner agrees. The claims have no longer been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pp. 9-12 of the reply that the combination of Ito and Suehiro does not render obvious the limitations of amended instant independent claim 1.
Particularly, applicant argues on pp. 9-11 that Suehiro does not teach the limitations which are not taught by the system of Ito, particularly regarding the control of the compressor being based on variation in the flow rate of heat medium as Suehiro teaches the use of temperature differences and variance.
In response, while examiner agrees with the broad characterization of the teachings of Suehiro, examiner disagrees with the assertion that the combination of references does not render obvious the claimed invention. Ito teaches the variation of a compressor’s capacity based on sensed values of heating medium flow rate and on the cooling/heating capacity determined to be available based on that flow rate. Suehiro is not relied upon to teach specifically the use of variations in heat medium flow rate but the broader use of not only a sensed value as a control parameter for controlling a compressor, but also the use in a variation in sensed parameters taken over a predetermined period of time. Taken in combination as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the modification to Ito suggested by Suehiro and found to be obvious is the monitoring of sensed parameters (flow rate in the system of Ito) to determine variations over time and the use of these variations rather than or in addition to the raw sensed values in controlling the operation of the system.
Applicant’s arguments have not addressed the combination of teachings or what would be suggested by this combination to one of ordinary skill in the art but have asserted only that nether reference taken alone teaches the control operation recited in the claims, amounting only to a piecemeal attack against the references. For this reason, this argument is not found to be persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 over Ito in view of Suehiro is maintained.
Applicant further argues in pp. 11-12 that the arrangement of parts of Ito differs from that of the present invention, noting that the “heat source apparatus 10” of Ito does not include the inter-medium heat exchanger 21 as it is included in a separate relay device 20.
In response, examiner disagrees with the assertion that this difference distinguishes the instant claims over the teachings of Ito. The claimed structure of the “heat source apparatus” is taught only as “a refrigerant circuit”, a heat medium heat exchanger, a flow detector, and a compressor, and particularly does not teach, for example, that these elements are contained in a single housing or any other specific arrangement or configuration for the claimed structures. In rejecting claim 1, the examiner identified the “heat source apparatus” as “including the heat source apparatus 10 taught in ¶ 20 and the relay unit 20 taught in ¶ 25 which both include parts of the refrigerant circuit 40 [which includes the fluid equivalent to the claimed “heat medium]”. This structure of Ito teaches all of the claimed elements in the refrigerant circuit 50, heat exchanger 21, flow switches 31 and/or pressure sensors 25 and 26, and compressor 11) so that the fact that Ito teaches them in multiple “devices” on unspecified relation or structure rather than in a single apparatus, device, or housing does not distinguish the claimed invention from Ito’s collection of the same elements.
For this reason, this argument is not found to be persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant argues in pp. 12-13 that none of the secondary references relied upon in rejecting the various dependent claims “compensate for the deficiencies of Ito in view of Suehiro as applied to independent clam 1”.
In response, as discussed above, examiner does not agree with the assertion that the rejection of claim 1 is deficient and thus does not find any need for additional references to “compensate” for these alleged deficiencies.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights