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 .
Drawings
Figures 1A-1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 3, at line 6, improperly refers to a specific claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17, the claim recites “the” first through fourth shutoff valves. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (US 2022/0363109) in view of Coombs (US 4,238,933), Noguchi (US 5,927,093), and Bonifaccino (US 2018/0010832).
As to claim 1, Zimmerman teaches a heat pump (Figs. 7-8) comprising a first heating circuit and a second heating circuit, said heat pump comprising:
an evaporator 7;
expansion valves 8;
a compressor 2;
a first condenser 4 arranged in the first heating circuit and a second condenser 5 arranged in the second heating circuit, wherein the circuits share a common line through the evaporator 7 and the compressor 2 (Figs. 7-8);
wherein during normal operation, one circuit is active and one circuit is inactive (paragraph 85); and
a distributor 3/9 comprising at least two valves (Figs. 7-8) and comprising a controller (paragraph 40) configured to utilize the valves to redistribute a refrigerant charge between the two circuits (paragraphs 84-85).
Zimmerman does not explicitly teach that the controller selectively redistributes the refrigerant charge from one circuit to the other dependent on actual operating conditions to actively optimize the amount of refrigerant used in the active circuit and temporarily store refrigerant that is not needed for optimal operation in the inactive circuit. However, Coombs teaches that a utilizing proper volume and pressure of refrigerant in an active condenser circuit and storing excess refrigerant provides optimum operation (col. 4, line 54 – col. 5, line 4). Additionally, Noguchi teaches controlling a distributor to provide optimal amounts of refrigerant to branched heat exchangers (col. 6, lines 6-10) and Bonifaccino teaches using a controller to operate a flow controller to increase or decrease a refrigerant charge level to an optimal level (paragraph 25). In light of these teachings it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the controller of Zimmerman to be configured to selectively redistribute the refrigerant charge from one circuit to the other dependent on actual operating conditions in the manner as claimed because it would optimize the charge in the active circuit provide the most effective and/or efficient operation of the system.
As to claim 8, the modified apparatus includes a further heating circuit as claimed (Noguchi, Fig. 2, see branch 13C).
As to claim 9, Zimmerman teaches a branch downstream of the compressor 2 as claimed (Figs. 7-8).
As to claim 10, Zimmerman taches a combiner section at valves 9 upstream of the evaporator 7 (Figs. 7-8).
As to claim 11, Zimmerman teaches a three-way valve 3 (Fig. 7).
As to claim 12, Zimmerman does not explicitly teach a further three-way valve. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the reference by having a further three-way valve as claimed, since applicant has not disclosed that having a particular type of valve combining the circuits solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the circuit would perform equally well with any means of combining the branched circuits.
As to claims 13-14, Zimmerman teaches two expansion valves 8 operable as shutoff valves (Figs. 7-8). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious design choice to replace check valves 9 with shutoff valves to provide more versatile flow control capabilities of the system.
As to claims 15-17, Zimmerman teaches shutoff valves 3/8/9 to control circuit flow (Fig. 8; paragraphs 84-85).
Claims 2-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied above, and further in view of Seggerman (US 2015/0033779).
As to claims 2-4, the modified apparatus does not explicitly include redistributing the refrigerant charge based on subcooling in the manner as claimed. However, Seggerman teaches controlling refrigerant charge based on subcooling by removing refrigerant from an active loop when a determined degree of subcooling is above an upper threshold and adding refrigerant to the loop when a determined degree of subcooling is below a lower threshold (paragraph 134). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Zimmerman to control the refrigerant charge based on subcooling in the manner as claimed and taught by Seggerman in order to ensure desirable system operation.
As to claims 5-7 and 19-20, Seggerman teaches threshold temperature ranges (paragraph 134) but does not teach the specific claimed ranges. However, the specific degree of subcooling is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a certain degree of subcooling will optimize system operations. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the claimed ranges for threshold temperature differences.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights