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 12/30/2024. Claims 1-7 are pending in this application. Claims 3 and 7 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 communication unit” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with function “communication” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a communication unit” can be implemented in various ways, such as “an interface” or “a communication module” [0055]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a refrigerant circuit selection unit” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with function “selection” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a refrigerant circuit selection unit” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a hardware switch”, “a dip switch”, “a toggle switch” or “a software switch” [0054]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a switching operation unit” in claim 2 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” 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 switching operation unit” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a hardware switch”, “a dip switch”, “a toggle switch” or “a software switch” [0054]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a first flow path switching means” in claim 7 includes a generic/nonce term “means” 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 first flow path switching means” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a first three-way valve” see figure 1. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a second flow path switching means” in claim 7 includes a generic/nonce term “means” 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 second flow path switching means” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a second three-way 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toya et al. (2014/0026603).
Regarding claim 1, Toya discloses an air conditioning device, comprising:
a plurality of outdoor units (2a and 2b);
a plurality of indoor units (8a-8e); and
a plurality of connection pipes that connects each of the indoor units (8a-8e) to the plurality of outdoor units (2a-2b) in parallel (see figure 1), the air conditioning device being capable of selecting either a first refrigerant circuit state (individually operation) or a second refrigerant circuit state (simultaneously operation), each of the indoor units (8a-8e) being capable of individually performing a cooling operation and a heating operation in the first refrigerant circuit state (individually operation; paragraph [0005]), each of the indoor units (8a-8e) being capable of simultaneously performing a cooling operation or a heating operation (paragraph [0005]),
each of the plurality of outdoor units (2a-2b) including a communication unit (130a and 130b) that communicates with each other and a refrigerant circuit selection unit (110a and 110b) that selects either the first refrigerant circuit state (individually state) or the second refrigerant circuit state (simultaneously state; paragraph [0005]; see figure 1),
the communication unit (130a and 130b) of one of the plurality of outdoor units (2a and 2b) transmitting, when the one outdoor unit (2a or 2b) has selected either the first refrigerant circuit state (individually state) or the second refrigerant circuit state (simultaneously state), a state signal including information relating to the selected refrigerant circuit state to the communication unit (130a or 130b) of a different outdoor unit (2a or 2b), the different outdoor unit (2a or 2b) that has received the state signal selecting the same refrigerant circuit state as the refrigerant circuit state selected by the one outdoor unit (2a or 2b; paragraph [0058]-[0059]; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Toya discloses each of the plurality of outdoor units (2a and 2b) includes a compressor (21a and 21b), an outdoor heat exchanger (24a and/or 25a and 24b and/or 25b), a first flow path switching means (22a and 23a), and a second flow path switching means (22b and 23b), one refrigerant inlet/outlet of the outdoor heat exchanger (24a and/or 25a and 24b and/or 25b) is selectively connected to a refrigerant suction pipe or a refrigerant discharge pipe of the compressor (21a and 21b) via the first flow path switching means (22a and 23a), three connection pipes including a first gas pipe (the first gas pipe which associated with valve 44a) and a second gas pipe (the second gas pipe which associated with valve 45a) that are selectively connected to the refrigerant suction pipe or the refrigerant discharge pipe (the discharge pipe of the compressor) via the second flow path switching means (22b and 23b) and a liquid pipe (the liquid pipe which associated with valve 46a) that is connected to the other refrigerant inlet/outlet of the outdoor heat exchanger (24a and/or 25a and 24b and/or 25b) are used as the plurality of connection pipes in the first refrigerant circuit state (individually operation), and two connection pipes including the first gas pipe (the first gas pipe which associated with valve 44a) and the liquid pipe (the liquid pipe which associated with valve 46a) are used as the plurality of connection pipes in the second refrigerant circuit state (simultaneously state; paragraph [0005]; see figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-6 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 primary reference Toya taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed operation feature of the air conditioning device as required in claims 2-6. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivations to modify the air conditioning device of Toya in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 2-6 are allowable.
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
Prosecution Insights