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.
The limitation “pressure reducing means” is recited throughout the claims. As indicated in the specification (see for example para. 0013), this limitation has been interpreted as corresponding the a “reducing valve” or “electronic expansion valve” (see for example para. 0017), and equivalents thereof.
This application also 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: “control 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, “control device” device in interpreted as comprising a controller (para. 0008) and storage unit 51 (para. 0031), 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 2-7 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 2 recites “a plurality of user terminals” in line 2 of the claim. However, claim 1 already recites a “user terminal.” As presented, it is unclear whether the original user terminal of claim 1 is meant to be part of or distinct from the plurality of user terminals of claim 2.
Claims 3-7 are also rejected since they depend from claim 2.
For the record, no rejections have been made regarding the metes and bounds of the limitations “direct contact type terminal,” “forced convention type terminal,” or “natural convection type terminal” since the specification provides support for the corresponding structure (see paras. 0030-0031; etc.).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takasu et al. (JP 2011127878) in view of Pan et al. (US 2022/0412609 A1).
As per claim 1, Takasu et al. disclose a heat pump apparatus, comprising:
a lower stage circuit 1 having a first compressor 11, a first four-way valve 12, a refrigerant- to-refrigerant heat exchanger 14, a first pressure reducing means 15, and a heat source heat exchanger 13, the lower stage circuit being where a first refrigerant circulates;
a higher stage circuit having a second compressor 21, a second four-way valve 22, a water-refrigerant heat exchanger 24, a second pressure reducing means 25, and the refrigerant-to-refrigerant heat exchanger (at 23), the higher stage circuit being where a second refrigerant that exchanges heat with the first refrigerant in the refrigerant-to-refrigerant heat exchanger circulates (Fig. 1; etc.);
a water circuit 3 that has a circulation pump 31 and the water-refrigerant heat exchanger (at 32) and produces warm water by heat exchange with the second refrigerant in the water- refrigerant heat exchanger (Fig. 1; etc.);
a user terminal that is connected to the water circuit and has a user heat exchanger 4; and
a control device 5 that controls the first compressor, the first four-way valve, the first pressure reducing means, the second compressor, the second four-way valve, and the second pressure reducing means, wherein the control device has a controller (para. 0022 states that the control device 5 is a controller) that
controls a refrigerant circuit so as to switch the first four-way valve to start first defrosting operation in a case where the controller determines that frost has been formed at the heat source heat exchanger (para. 0028; etc.), and to further switch the second four-way valve to start second defrosting operation in a case where defrosting is not achieved by the first defrosting operation (paras. 0033-0034; etc.), and
controls the circulation pump to operate the circulation pump in a state so that the warm water flows into the user heat exchanger in a case where the first defrosting operation is started (para. 0034 – pump is operated after the first defrosting operation and the second defrosting operation are started). Takasu et al. do not teach the user terminal comprising a flow regulating valve, or that valve being opened during the circulation operation. Pan et al. teach a cascade refrigerant cycle system wherein the a user terminal arrangement comprises flow regulating valves 11 in conjunction with heat exchangers 12 and pump 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to similarly provide multiple use units for the common purpose of controlling temperature in multiple respective spaces, and further to provide respective fluid control valves to control fluid flow to each particular use unit as desired. Further, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to have the regulating valve open during the fluid flow operation to allow fluid to flow to the respective heat exchanger 12, since such heat exchange to assist defrost is the specific purpose of that operation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takasu et al. (JP 2011127878) in view of Pan et al. (US 2022/0412609 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Iyoshi et al. (US 12410956 B2).
As per claim 8, Takasu et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the user terminal or terminals include a forced convection type terminal or a natural convection type terminal. However, it is noted that the determination whether the user terminal is a forced convection type terminal or a natural convection type terminal is generally based on whether or not there is a corresponding fan facilitating airflow. However, providing a fan next to a heat exchanger is a generally known common practice in the art for improving heat exchange by blowing airflow across a the heat exchanger as shown by fans 53a, 53b, 53c associated with respective use side heat exchangers 52a, 52b, 52c of Iyoshi et al. (US 12410956 B2). Alternatively, it is also generally known, for simplicity or reducing parts, to provide a heat exchanger without such a fan such that heat exchange is simply performed by natural convection. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to provide either of forced convection or natural convection at the user terminals depending on whether the increased heat exchange provided by forced airflow from a fan is desired or not.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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 2, there is not teaching or suggestion in the prior art to further modify the system of Takasu et al. to further comprise a plurality of the user terminals, wherein in a case where a direct contact type terminal is present in the user terminals that are in operation when the first defrosting operation is started, the controller operates the circulation pump in a state where the flow regulating valve is open so that the warm water flows into the user heat exchanger of the direct contact type terminal, and in a case where the direct contact type terminal is not present in the user terminals that are in operation, the controller controls the circulation pump and the flow regulating valves to stop operation of the circulation pump. Claims 3-7 would also be allowable since they depend from claim 2.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Farrar et al. (US 11137185 B2) teach a system and method of defrost control for a multistage cascade refrigeration system.
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