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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 (WO2008069265A1 – provided by Applicant in the IDS, previously cited) in view of Minor (US 2012/0216551, previously cited) and FOR2 (JP5921712 – provided by Applicant in the IDS, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, X teaches a refrigeration cycle device (see Title, Abstract) comprising:
an outdoor unit (2, Fig. 1, see Description) including a compressor (21, Fig. 1, see Description); and
a plurality of indoor units (4, 5, Fig. 1, see Description) each including an expansion valve (41, 51, Fig. 1, see Description),
the refrigeration cycle device includes a controller (30, Fig. 1, see Description), and
when some indoor units of the plurality of indoor units are in an operating state, and when a discharge temperature from the compressor is a predetermined temperature or higher, the controller opens the expansion valve of at least one of the indoor units in an operation stop state (S2, Fig. 3, see Description, “If the compressor discharge temperature Td has risen to the upper limit value Tdh, step S2…Next, in step S2, control is performed to increase the opening of the use-side expansion mechanism 51 of the use unit 5 while heating is stopped. More specifically, when the compressor discharge temperature Td rises to the upper limit value Tdh, the opening degree of the use side expansion mechanism 51 is changed to the current opening degree”).
FOR1 does not teach wherein a working medium containing an ethylene-based fluoroolefin is used as refrigerant.
Minor teaches a refrigeration system which utilizes a refrigerant comprising fluoroolefin (Minor, Title, claim 1, Abstract at least). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with a working medium containing an ethylene-based fluoroolefin is used as refrigerant, as taught by Minor, in order to utilize a known composition for refrigerant in the art, in order to assess the benefits fluoroolefin has on the desired optimization of the refrigeration system.
FOR1 as modified does not teach that the controller rotates, of the indoor units in the operation stop state, an indoor fan of the indoor unit in which the expansion valve is in an open state.
FOR2 teaches a refrigeration system (FOR2, Title) which features a control mode wherein the blower of an indoor unit is stopped, then forcibly started while the expansion valve is opened during a mode in which the indoor unit is stopped (FOR2, see Description, “stagnation avoidance priority control (including modifications), the blower of the stopped indoor unit B that has been temporarily stopped is forcibly started, and the indoor heat exchanger of the stopped indoor unit B is caused to act as an evaporator. May be. In addition, the start of the blower of the stop indoor unit B is a start by a slight wind, and then, the expansion valve opening in the stop indoor unit B is slightly opened”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with rotating an indoor fan of the indoor unit in which the expansion valve is in an open state, as taught by FOR2, in order to aid in the rate of heat transfer in the indoor unit.
Regarding claim 2, FOR1 as modified teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1, wherein when any of the indoor units in the operating state is brought into the operation stop state, the controller opens the expansion valve of the indoor unit that is brought into the operation stop state (S2, Fig. 3, see Description, “If the compressor discharge temperature Td has risen to the upper limit value Tdh, step S2…Next, in step S2, control is performed to increase the opening of the use-side expansion mechanism 51 of the use unit 5 while heating is stopped. More specifically, when the compressor discharge temperature Td rises to the upper limit value Tdh, the opening degree of the use side expansion mechanism 51 is changed to the current opening degree”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Minor and FOR2, further in view of FOR3 (WO2015/140887A1 – provided by Applicant in the IDS, previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, FOR1 as modified teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1, but does not teach that the control unit sets, to an extremely small opening degree, an opening degree of the expansion valve of at least one of the indoor units in the operation stop state.
FOR3 teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus (FOR3, Title) wherein the opening degree of the expansion device of the indoor unit is reduced to a small opening when the indoor unit is stopped (FOR3, see Description, “At this time, the expansion device 16 corresponding to the stopped indoor unit 2 is fully closed or set to a small opening”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 as modified with setting, to an extremely small opening degree, an opening degree of the expansion valve of at least one of the indoor units in the operation stop state, as taught by FOR3, in order to assess how this control of the expansion valve impacts the desired optimization of the system.
Regarding claim 5, FOR1 as modified teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 4, wherein the first opening degree is an opening degree smaller than a minimum opening degree of the expansion valve of the indoor units in the operating state (see FOR3, “the expansion device 16 corresponding to the stopped indoor unit 2 is fully closed or set to a small opening at which the refrigerant does not flow” which inherently must be less than the minimum opening for operation as operation necessitates fluid being able to flow).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 (WO2008069265A1 – provided by Applicant in the IDS, previously cited) in view of Minor (US 2012/0216551, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, FOR1 teaches a refrigeration cycle device (see Title, Abstract) comprising:
an outdoor unit (2, Fig. 1, see Description) including a compressor (21, Fig. 1, see Description); and
a plurality of indoor units (4, 5, Fig. 1, see Description) each including an expansion valve (41, 51, Fig. 1, see Description),
when some indoor units of the plurality of indoor units are in an operating state, an opening degree of the expansion valve of at least one of the indoor units in an operation stop state is always set to a first opening degree (S2, Fig. 3, see Description, “If the compressor discharge temperature Td has risen to the upper limit value Tdh, step S2…Next, in step S2, control is performed to increase the opening of the use-side expansion mechanism 51 of the use unit 5 while heating is stopped. More specifically, when the compressor discharge temperature Td rises to the upper limit value Tdh, the opening degree of the use side expansion mechanism 51 is changed to the current opening degree”).
FOR1 does not teach a working medium containing an ethylene-based fluoroolefin is used as refrigerant.
Minor teaches a refrigeration system which utilizes a refrigerant comprising fluoroolefin (Minor, Title, claim 1, Abstract at least). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with a working medium containing an ethylene-based fluoroolefin is used as refrigerant, as taught by Minor, in order to utilize a known composition for refrigerant in the art, in order to assess the benefits fluoroolefin has on the desired optimization of the refrigeration system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOR1 in view of Minor, further in view of Suzuki (US 2019/0017722).
Regarding claim 9, FOR1 as modified teaches the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 8, but does not teach of the indoor units in the operation stop state, an indoor fan of the indoor unit in which the expansion valve is in an open state, is configured to be rotated.
Suzuki teaches operating the indoor fan of the indoor unit when the indoor unit is stopped (Suzuki, paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide FOR1 with operating the indoor fan when the indoor unit is stopped, as taught by Suzuki, in order to assess how operating the fan impacts the desired optimization of the stopped indoor unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
The closest prior art of record is FOR1 (WO2008069265A1 – provided by Applicant in the IDS) in view of Minor (US 2012/0216551), FOR2 (JP5921712), and FOR4 (CN102032669B).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
Regarding claim 6:
wherein the control unit causes, of the indoor units in the operating state, the indoor units having higher pressure losses from the compressor to have a larger opening degree of the expansion valve per condensing capacity or evaporating capacity of each of the indoor units.
Regarding claim 7:
wherein when some indoor units of the plurality of indoor units are in the operating state, and when the discharge temperature is the predetermined temperature or higher, the control unit causes, of the indoor units in the operating state, the indoor units having lower pressure losses from the compressor to have a larger opening degree of the expansion valve.
In the Examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to further modify the prior art structures to arrive at the claimed invention, absent impermissible hindsight. Therefore, rendering dependent claims 6 and 7, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments begin by addressing the 35 USC 112f interpretations made in the previous office action. Applicant has amended the claims to remove the 112f interpretation.
Applicant also makes the same correction with the 35 USC 112 rejections made in the previous office action, therefore the rejections are withdrawn as the 112b term “extremely” is removed from the claims.
Remainder of Applicant’s arguments are directed to the 35 USC 103 rejections made in the previous office action. Applicant asserts that the amendment to claim 1 is not taught by FOR2, which previously was used to reject the claim in the previous office action in the previously presented claim 3. Applicant asserts that FOR2 does not teach that the expansion valve is already in an open state. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the argument is reliant on the specific term “already” which is not present in the claim and therefore provides an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of the limitation. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 5, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights