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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“expansion mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, 18-20 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 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-3, 5-9, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (JP H01256762), hereinafter referred to as Matsumoto, in view of Matsubayashi (JP 2006125722), hereinafter referred to as Matsubayashi.
Re claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a refrigeration device configured to be used in a heating mode and a cooling mode, comprising:
a compressor (e.g. 1), a plurality of utilization side heat exchangers (e.g. 19 and 23), an expansion mechanism (e.g. 15) and a heat source side heat exchanger (e.g. 10) fluidly connected in series to constitute a refrigeration circuit (see Fig 2),
a first refrigerant pipe (e.g. 22), which extends from the compressor to a first utilization side heat exchanger (e.g. 23) of the plurality of utilization side heat exchangers and comprises a first valve (e.g. 25) configured to at least fully open and fully close the first refrigerant pipe,
a second refrigerant pipe (e.g. 2), which extends from the compressor to a second utilization side heat exchanger (e.g. 19) of the plurality of utilization side heat exchangers and comprises a second valve (e.g. 6) configured to at least fully open and fully close the second refrigerant pipe,
a controller (Fig. 3), which is configured to control the operation of the first valve and the second valve (e.g. description, “In this operation, the first solenoid valve 6 is opened, the second solenoid valve 25 is closed”),
Matsumoto does not teach the limitation of wherein when the first utilization side heat exchanger and the second utilization side heat exchanger are both operated when the refrigeration device is used in the heating mode, the controller is configured to compare a predetermined capacity of the heat source side heat exchanger and/or the compressor with a required capacity of the first utilization side heat exchanger and the second utilization side heat exchanger, and when the required capacity exceeds the predetermined capacity, the controller is configured to close the first valve or the second valve.
However, Matsubayashi teaches a refrigeration device comprising wherein when a first utilization side heat exchanger (21) and the second utilization side heat exchanger (3a) are both operated when the refrigeration device is used in a heating mode, the controller is configured to compare a predetermined capacity of the heat source side heat exchanger and/or the compressor with a required capacity of the first utilization side heat exchanger and the second utilization side heat exchanger, and when the required capacity exceeds the predetermined capacity, the controller is configured to close the first valve or the second valve (e.g. description “when hot water supply and heating are requested to operate simultaneously, the priority of operation is the order of hot water supply and heating, and the required total heat quantity of hot water supply and heating exceeds the heat pump maximum heat quantity (maximum capacity) In addition, the operation control means controls to temporarily stop the heating operation and perform only the hot water supply operation. By this control, restrictions during hot water supply operation due to a shortage of heat supplied by the heat pump are suppressed, so that it is possible to minimize the ease of use and comfort”; the examiner notes that the way Matsubayashi stops the operation of one side heat exchanger is to close the valve).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Matsumoto and integrated wherein when the first utilization side heat exchanger and the second utilization side heat exchanger are both operated when the refrigeration device is used in the heating mode, the controller is configured to compare a predetermined capacity of the heat source side heat exchanger and/or the compressor with a required capacity of the first utilization side heat exchanger and the second utilization side heat exchanger, and when the required capacity exceeds the predetermined capacity, the controller is configured to close the first valve or the second valve, as suggested by Matsubayashi, in order to increase performance during simultaneous operation (see Matsubayashi abstract).
Re claim 2, Matsumoto, as modified, teaches the refrigeration device according to claim 1. Matsubayashi further teaches wherein the predetermined capacity is a maximum capacity of the heat source side heat exchanger and/or the compressor (e.g. description, “heat pump maximum heat quantity (maximum capacity) ”).
Re claim 3, Matsumoto, as modified, teaches the refrigeration device according to claim 1. Matsumoto, as modified, further teaches wherein the controller is configured to close the first valve or the second valve based on a predetermined user priority (e.g. Matsubayashi description “when hot water supply and heating are requested to operate simultaneously, the priority of operation is the order of hot water supply and heating”).
Re claim 5, Matsumoto, as modified, teaches the refrigeration device according to claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches wherein the first and second refrigerant pipes extend in parallel from the compressor (see Fig 2), preferably via a branching pipe arranged on a downstream side of the compressor (see 112b above).
Re claim 6, Matsumoto, as modified, teaches the refrigeration device according to claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches wherein the first utilization side heat exchanger is a hot water supply unit (e.g. Y), preferably a coil in a water tank (see 112b above), for producing domestic hot water, when the refrigeration device is used in a heating mode (e.g. description “has an indoor cooling/heating/air conditioning function and a hot water heating function”).
Re claim 7 and 17, Matsumoto, as modified, teaches the refrigeration device according to claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches wherein a second utilization side heat exchanger is an air conditioning indoor unit for heating a space in which the second utilization side heat exchanger is positioned when the refrigeration device is used in a heating mode and/or for cooling the space in which the second utilization side heat exchanger is positioned when the refrigeration device is used in a cooling mode (see Fig 2).
Re claim 8 and 18-19, Matsumoto, as modified, teaches the refrigeration device according to claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches wherein, downstream of the second valve in the second refrigerant pipe, a plurality of second utilization side heat exchangers are arranged in parallel (see Fig 2, A-D).
Re claim 9, Matsumoto, as modified, teaches the refrigeration device according to claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches wherein the refrigeration device further comprises a switching device (4), preferably a four-way switching valve (4), and wherein the switching device is configured to switch the refrigeration circuit from the heating mode to the cooling mode (see Fig 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10-16, 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 02/04/2026