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 .
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 08/19/2024. Claims 1-8 are pending in this application. Claims 3-4 and 6-8 have been amended.
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:
the limitation “a flow switching device” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “switching” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a flow switching device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a four-way valve” [0021]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a pressure reducing device” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “reducing” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a pressure reducing device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a pressure reducing valve” or “an expansion valve” [0021]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof; and
the limitation “a flow control device” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a flow control device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a flow control valve” see figure 1. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an other outdoor heat exchangers” in line 19 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a first outdoor heat exchanger”, “a second outdoor heat exchanger” or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “an other of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “when the target to be defrosted is switched from one to an other” in lines 21-22 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the limitation “one” and “an other” refer to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “when the target to be defrosted is switched from the one of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger to the other of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “one outdoor heat exchanger” in lines 3 and 6-7 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a first outdoor heat exchanger”, “a second outdoor heat exchanger”, “one of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”, “an other of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger” or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an other outdoor heat exchanger” in lines 4 and 7 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a first outdoor heat exchanger”, “a second outdoor heat exchanger”, “one of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”, “an other of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger” or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the other of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the one outdoor heat exchanger” in lines 2-4 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a first outdoor heat exchanger”, “a second outdoor heat exchanger”, “one of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”, “an other of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger” or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the controller is configured to reduce the opening degree of the flow control device for when the one outdoor heat exchanger provided below is defrosted for a second time smaller than the opening degree of the flow control device for when the one outdoor heat exchanger provided below is defrosted for a first time” which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is not properly written. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the controller is configured to reduce the opening degree of the flow control device when the one of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger provided below is defrosted for a second time smaller than the opening degree of the flow control device when the one of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger provided below is defrosted for a first time”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the one outdoor heat exchanger” in lines 2-4 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a first outdoor heat exchanger”, “a second outdoor heat exchanger”, “one of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”, “an other of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger” or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the other outdoor heat exchanger” in lines 4-5 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a first outdoor heat exchanger”, “a second outdoor heat exchanger”, “one of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”, “an other of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger” or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the other of the first outdoor heat exchanger and the second outdoor heat exchanger”.
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected by the virtual dependency of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda et al. (JP2019184207A) discloses an air-conditioning apparatus comprising:
a circuit in which a compressor (1), a flow switching device (2), an indoor heat exchanger (5), a pressure reducing device (3), and a first outdoor heat exchanger (4-1) and a second outdoor heat exchanger (4-2) connected in parallel with each other are connected by pipes and through which refrigerant flows (see figure 1);
a bypass circuit (20) having a bypass pipe (39, 37-1 and 37-2) that connects a discharge side of the compressor (1) to a point between the flow switching device (2) and the first outdoor heat exchanger (4-1) and to a point between the flow switching device (2) and the second outdoor heat exchanger (4-2) and allows part of the refrigerant discharged from the compressor (1) to be diverted into the bypass pipe and flow through the bypass pipe (39, 37-1 and 37-2; see figure 1);
a flow control device (8) provided to the bypass pipe (39, 37-1 and 37-2) and configured to adjust a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through the bypass pipe (39, 37-1 and 37-2; see figure 1); and
a controller (90) configured to control the flow switching device (2), the pressure reducing device (3), and the flow control device (8), the air-conditioning apparatus being configured to operate in a normal heating operation mode in which the first outdoor heat exchanger (4-1) and the second outdoor heat exchanger (4-2) operate as evaporators (paragraph 4 of page 5) and in a heating-defrosting operation mode in which one of the first outdoor heat exchanger (4-1) and the second outdoor heat exchanger (4-2) is defrosted as a target to be defrosted and an other outdoor heat exchanger operates as an evaporator (the last paragraph of page 5 to paragraph 1 of page 6).
Ikeda also discloses an indoor temperature sensor (94) and an indoor pressure sensor (91; see figure 1); wherein the controller configured to switch an operation mode from normal heating mode to heating defrost operation mode when the temperature of the room air approaches the set room temperature (the last paragraph of page 6) and the indoor temperature detection unit (91) detects the condensation temperature (Tc) of the normal heating operation (paragraph 1 of page 6), increase in the refrigerant flow rate based on the change in the frequency of the compressor is the defrost target parallel heat exchangers (4-1 and 4-2) adjusts the opening of the flow rate adjusting device so as to flow (paragraph 2 of page 14).
However, Ikeda fails to disclose the controller (90) being configured to, during the heating-defrosting operation mode, compare a first condensing temperature obtained when the target to be defrosted is switched from one to an other with a second condensing temperature obtained when an operation mode is switched from the normal heating operation mode to the heating-defrosting operation mode, reduce, when the first condensing temperature is less than the second condensing temperature, an opening degree of the flow control device smaller than an initial opening degree being set when the normal heating operation mode is shifted to the heating-defrosting operation mode, and increase, when the first condensing temperature is greater than the second condensing temperature, the opening degree of the flow control device larger than the initial opening degree.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe et al. (WO2017/199289A1) discloses an air-conditioning apparatus comprising:
a circuit in which a compressor (1), a flow switching device (2), an indoor heat exchanger (11a and 11b), a pressure reducing device (7-1 and 7-2), and a first outdoor heat exchanger (3-1) and a second outdoor heat exchanger (3-2) connected in parallel with each other are connected by pipes and through which refrigerant flows (see figure 1);
a bypass circuit having a bypass pipe (39, 37-1 and 37-2) that connects a discharge side of the compressor (1) to a point between the flow switching device (2) and the first outdoor heat exchanger (3-1) and to a point between the flow switching device (2) and the second outdoor heat exchanger (3-2) and allows part of the refrigerant discharged from the compressor (1) to be diverted into the bypass pipe and flow through the bypass pipe (39, 37-1 and 37-2; see figure 1);
a flow control device (8) provided to the bypass pipe (39, 37-1 and 37-2) and configured to adjust a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through the bypass pipe (39, 37-1 and 37-2; see figure 1); and
a controller (90) configured to control the flow switching device (2), the pressure reducing device (3), and the flow control device (8; see figure 1), the air-conditioning apparatus being configured to operate in a normal heating operation mode in which the first outdoor heat exchanger (3-1) and the second outdoor heat exchanger (3-2) operate as evaporators (paragraph 3 of page 10) and in a heating-defrosting operation mode in which one of the first outdoor heat exchanger (3-1) and the second outdoor heat exchanger (3-2) is defrosted as a target to be defrosted and an other outdoor heat exchanger operates as an evaporator (paragraph 4 of page 14).
Watanabe also discloses temperature sensors (92b and 92c) which detects the temperature of air flowing into the indoor heat exchangers (11b and 11c; the last paragraph of page 32; see figure 1); wherein the controller (90) being configured to, reduce, when the room temperature is less than the set temperature, an opening degree of the flow rate control devices (7-1 and 7-2) smaller than an initial opening degree being set (paragraph 6 of page 33, and increase, when the room temperature is greater than the set temperature, the opening degree of the flow control device larger than the initial opening degree (paragraph 6 of page 33 and paragraph 3 of page 34).
However, Watanabe fails to disclose the controller (90) being configured to, during the heating-defrosting operation mode, compare a first condensing temperature obtained when the target to be defrosted is switched from one to an other with a second condensing temperature obtained when an operation mode is switched from the normal heating operation mode to the heating-defrosting operation mode, reduce, when the first condensing temperature is less than the second condensing temperature, an opening degree of the flow control device smaller than an initial opening degree being set when the normal heating operation mode is shifted to the heating-defrosting operation mode, and increase, when the first condensing temperature is greater than the second condensing temperature, the opening degree of the flow control device larger than the initial opening degree.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reference Ikeda or Watanabe taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed control feature of the air-conditioning apparatus as required in claim 1-8. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivations to modify the air-conditioning apparatus of Ikeda or Watanabe in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 1-8 is currently in condition for allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. 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.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763