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: “switching device,” “expansion device,” and “opening and closing device” used throughout the claims.
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.
For the record:
“Switching device” has been interpreted as corresponding to 4-way valve 13, and equivalents thereof.
“Expansion device” has been interpreted as being an electronic expansion valve (para. 0009, etc.), and equivalents thereof.
“Opening and closing device” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structures described at para. 0023, 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 1-11 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 "all indoor units" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-11 are also rejected since they depend from claim 1.
Claims 7-10 each recites “an indoor unit.” It is unclear whether this meant to be one of the “all indoor units” of claim 1, of a distinct indoor unit. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. (JP 62-129659 A) in view of Shinozaki et al. (US 2019/0383535 A1).
As per claim 1, Matsuda discloses an air-conditioning apparatus comprising: a refrigerant circuit (Fig. 1; etc.) that has a compressor 1 configured to compress and discharge refrigerant, a heat-source-side heat exchanger 5 configured to function as an evaporator in a heating only operation mode (see for example page 4/9, lines 25-30 of the English translation provided by Applicant) in which all indoor units in operation perform heating operation (indoor unit at heat exchanger 3 provides heating operation), a refrigerant flow switching device 2 configured to switch flow passages of the refrigerant according to an operation mode, a load-side heat exchanger 3 configured to function as a condenser when indoor air is sent during heating operation, and an expansion device 17 configured such that the refrigerant flowing from the load-side heat exchanger functioning as a condenser and flowing into the heat-source-side heat exchanger functioning as an evaporator flows through the load-side expansion device, that is formed by the compressor 1, the heat- source-side heat exchanger 5, the load-side expansion device 17, and the load-side heat exchanger 3 being connected by a refrigerant pipe, and through which the refrigerant circulates; a bypass pipe (pipe comprising valve 18) that has one end that is an inlet-side end connected to a point in the refrigerant circuit located between a discharge outlet of the compressor and the refrigerant flow switching device and an other end that is an outlet-side end connected to a point in the refrigerant circuit located between the load-side expansion device and the heat-source-side heat exchanger (Fig. 1; etc.); a first opening and closing device 18 provided in the bypass pipe and configured to open and close a flow passage of the refrigerant at a place at which the first opening and closing device is installed (Fig. 1); a controller 23 configured to control the refrigerant flow switching device, the load-side expansion device, and the first opening and closing device; and an outdoor unit mounted with the compressor, the heat-source-side heat exchanger, the refrigerant flow switching device, the bypass pipe, and the first opening and closing device, the controller being configured to, when a condition is met for executing a defrosting operation mode of defrosting the heat-source-side heat exchanger in the heating only operation mode, cause a flow passage of the refrigerant through the refrigerant flow switching device to be a flow passage through which the refrigerant discharged from the compressor flows into the load-side heat exchanger (flow direction in maintained), change the first opening and closing device from a closed state to an open state (page 6/9, line 14 of English translation), change the load-side expansion device from an open state to a closed state (page 6/9, lines 14-15 re. closed after a fixed time), cause the refrigerant discharged from the compressor to flow into the heat-source-side heat exchanger from the bypass pipe (result of valve 18 being opened), and executing a defrosting operation (page 6/9, lines 5, 13, etc.) mode while the refrigerant present between the refrigerant flow switching device and the load-side expansion device during the heating only operation mode is caused to be retained between the refrigerant flow switching device and the load-side expansion device (this is simply a natural effect of valve 18 being opened and valve 17 being opened, along with the refrigerant pressure generated by the compressor; since the refrigerant flows of Mitsubishi are the same as the claimed invention, the retainment of refrigerant between the refrigerant flow switching device and the load-side expansion device should be the same).
Matsuda does not teach expansion valve 17 being a “load-side” expansion device, and also does not teach stopping the indoor air from being sent to the load-side heat exchanger. Regarding the positioning of the expansion valve, Shinozaki et al. teaches a similar refrigeration cycle wherein expansion valves 7a and 7b are “load-side” expansion valves (Fig. 1). Such expansion valve placement is generally common in the art, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply to the refrigeration circuit of Matsuda et al. as a simple repositioning of existing parts and further for the purpose of conveniently associating the expansion valve with the load-side heat exchanger. Regarding stopping the indoor air from being sent to the load-side heat exchanger, it is noted that in closing expansion valve 17, refrigerant flow through the load-side heat exchanger is stopped. Accordingly, it would have been obvious mechanical expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply to stop the flow of load-side air during the defrost operation of Matsuda et al. for the simple purpose of saving energy by not operating a load-side fan when there is no associated load-side refrigerant flow for heat exchange.
As per claim 2, Matsuda et al. disclose wherein the controller is configured to, in executing the defrosting operation mode, bring the load-side expansion device into a closed state after bringing the first opening and closing device into an open state (page 6/9, lines 13-16).
As per claim 3, Matsuda et al. do not teach the system further comprising a discharge temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the refrigerant discharged from the compressor, wherein the controller is configured to control a driving frequency of the compressor, and the controller is configured to, in the defrosting operation mode, lower the driving frequency of the compressor when a temperature detected by the discharge temperature sensor is higher than or equal to a specified temperature. Shinozaki et al. teach a discharge temperature sensor 3 configured to measure a temperature of the refrigerant discharged from the compressor, wherein the controller is configured to control a driving frequency of the compressor, and the controller is configured to, in the defrosting operation mode, lower the driving frequency of the compressor when a temperature detected by the discharge temperature sensor is higher than or equal to a specified temperature (paras. 0054, 0056, 0059, 0061). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide such discharge temperature compressor controls within the system of Matsuda et al. for the same purpose of maintaining discharge superheat at a desired level for optimal defrost efficiency.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. (JP 62-129659 A) in view of Shinozaki et al. (US 2019/0383535 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0232693 A1).
As per claim 6, Matsuda et al. do not teach further comprising a container
in which to accumulate an excess of the refrigerant, wherein the container is present between the refrigerant flow switching device and a suction port of the compressor or between the heat-source-side heat exchanger and the load-side expansion device, and a capacity of the container is smaller than a volume of the refrigerant that is charged into the refrigerant circuit when all of the refrigerant is in liquid form. Watanabe et al. teach a refrigeration cycle comprising a container in which to accumulate an excess of the refrigerant (accumulator 6), wherein the container is present between the refrigerant flow switching device 2 and a suction port of the compressor 1 (Fig. 1; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly situate an accumulator within the refrigeration circuit of Matsuda et al. for the same purpose of preventing liquid refrigerant from entering the compressor regardless of the direction of refrigerant flow through the circuit.
As per claim 7, Matsuda et al. do not teach further comprising an indoor unit mounted with the load-side expansion device and the load-side heat exchanger. Shinozaki et al. teach an indoor unit (e.g., 32a) mounted with a load-side expansion device 7a and a load-side heat exchanger 6a. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide such an indoor unit for the load-side heat exchanger and expansion valve of Matsuda et al. as a common expedient for conveniently maintaining and locating these components as a single functional unit.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. (JP 62-129659 A) in view of Shinozaki et al. (US 2019/0383535 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ishimura et al. (US 2015/0300714 A1).
As per claim 10, Matsuda et al. do not teach wherein the load-side heat exchanger is a heat exchanger in which the refrigerant circulating through the refrigerant circuit and a heat medium exchange heat with each other, the air-conditioning apparatus further comprising: an indoor heat exchanger through which the heat medium subjected to heat exchange with the refrigerant in the load-side heat exchanger flows; an indoor unit mounted with the indoor heat exchanger; and a relay unit that is mounted with the load-side expansion device and the load-side heat exchanger and that connects the outdoor unit with the indoor unit. Ishimura et al. teach a refrigerant system wherein the load-side heat exchanger (15a, 15b) is a heat exchanger in which the refrigerant circulating through the refrigerant circuit and a heat medium exchange heat with each other, the air-conditioning apparatus further comprising: an indoor heat exchanger (26a-26d) through which the heat medium subjected to heat exchange with the refrigerant in the load-side heat exchanger flows; an indoor unit (2a-2d) mounted with the indoor heat exchanger (Fig. 2; etc.); and a relay unit 3 that is mounted with the load-side expansion device (25a-25d) and the load-side heat exchanger and that connects the outdoor unit with the indoor unit (Fig. 2; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply these features to the system of Matsuda et al. for the purpose of effectively utilizing the system to effectively and efficiently control and direct heat exchange to a plurality indoor units.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-9, and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 4 (and claim 5 which depend therefrom), there is no teaching or motivation in the art to further modify the system of Matsuda et al. to further include the combined second opening and closing device controls as recited.
As per claims 8-10, there is no teaching or motivation in the art to further modify the system of Matsuda et al. to further include the combined relay unit details and controls as recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763 18842820