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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
Species A: claims 1-10
Species B: claims 1 and 11-15
Species C: claims 1 and 16-18
Applicant is further required to elect one of the sub-species listed below if applicant elects Species A above.
Sub-species A-1: claims 2-3
Sub-species A-2: claims 2 and 4
Sub-species A-3: claims 2 and 5
Sub-species A-4: claims 2 and 7
Applicant is further required to elect one of the sub-species listed below if applicant elects Species C above.
Sub-species C-1: claims 16-17
Sub-species C-2: claims 16 and 18
The species are independent or distinct because these species and sub-species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1 and 19-20 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species and sub-species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
There are numerous species and sub-species requiring different searching strategies and considerations.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Jiang Li on 07/08/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of species B, claims 1, 11-15 and 19-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 2-10 and 16-18 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 12-15 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 12 recites the limitation "closing the second electronic control valve and the compressor in response to a set condition being satisfied" in lines 10-11 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the compressor can be closed. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as "closing the second electronic control valve and controlling the compressor in response to a set condition being satisfied".
Claim 13-15 are rejected by the virtue dependency of claim 12.
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, 11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (WO2017199345A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto discloses a control method comprising:
determining that refrigerant leakage occurs in an air conditioning system (abstract), and controlling an actuator (the refrigerant loop, the electric discharge valves and the associated discharge outlets 7 and 8) to perform a routine protection operation (discharge the refrigerant from the refrigeration loop to the outside through the valves; abstract and paragraph 2 of page 2; see figures 1-2); and
controlling the actuator (the refrigerant loop, the electric discharge valves and the associated discharge outlets 7 and 8) to perform a backup protection operation (opening the valves of the discharge outlets 7-8) in response to an abnormality (refrigerant leaks) occurring in the routine protection operation (discharge the refrigerant from the refrigeration loop to the outside through the valves; abstract and paragraph 2 of page 2; see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Okamoto discloses the actuator (the refrigerant loop, the electric discharge valves and the associated discharge outlets 7 and 8) includes a refrigerant circulation loop including an outdoor-side flow path (2) and an indoor-side flow path (1) connected to each other by pipelines (see figure 1); and
controlling the actuator (the refrigerant loop, the electric discharge valves and the associated discharge outlets 7 and 8) to perform the backup protection operation (discharge the refrigerant from the refrigeration loop to the outside through the valves) includes recycling refrigerant in the indoor-side flow path (1) to the outdoor-side flow path (2; the refrigerant is recycling in the indoor-side flow path 1 to the outdoor-side flow path 2 through the discharge outlets 7 and 8; abstract and paragraph 2 of page 2; see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, Okamoto discloses a control device comprising:
a memory storing a computer program (see figures 2 and 4); and
a processor (14) configured to execute the computer program (see figures 2 and 4) to:
determine that refrigerant leakage occurs in an air conditioning system (the sensors 5 and 6 determines the refrigerant leakage; abstract and paragraph 2 of page 2), and controlling an actuator (the refrigerant loop, the electric discharge valves and the associated discharge outlets 7 and 8) to perform a routine protection operation (discharge the refrigerant from the refrigeration loop to the outside through the valves; abstract and paragraph 2 of page 2; see figures 1-4); and
control the actuator (the refrigerant loop, the electric discharge valves and the associated discharge outlets 7 and 8) to perform a backup protection operation (opening of the valves associated with the discharge outlets 7 and 8) in response to an abnormality (refrigerant leakage) occurring in the routine protection operation (abstract and paragraph 2 of page 2; see figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 20, Okamoto discloses an air conditioning system comprising:
a control device (14) including: a memory storing a computer program (the control program in figure 2 implies the existence of a memory); and
a processor (14) configured to execute the computer program to:
determine that refrigerant leakage occurs in an air conditioning system (paragraph 3 of page 3), and controlling an actuator (the refrigerant loop, the electric discharge valves and the associated discharge outlets 7 and 8) to perform a routine protection operation (abstract, paragraph 2 of page 2 and paragraphs 3-5 of page3); and
control the actuator (the refrigerant loop, the electric discharge valves and the associated discharge outlets 7 and 8) to perform a backup protection operation in response to an abnormality (the refrigerant leakage) occurring in the routine protection operation (abstract, paragraph 2 of page 2 and paragraphs 3-5 of page3; see figures 1-4).
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN201110058794A).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a control method comprising:
determining that refrigerant leakage occurs in an air conditioning system (abstract), and controlling an actuator (the refrigerant loop, the valve 7 and the discharge flow path associated with the valve 7) to perform a routine protection operation (paragraph [0018]); and
controlling the actuator (the refrigerant loop, the valve 7 and the discharge flow path associated with the valve 7) to perform a backup protection operation (opening the exhaust side solenoid valve 7) in response to an abnormality (fault signal, the fault lamp flicker or sound the fault) occurring in the routine protection operation (paragraph [0018]; see figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses the actuator (the refrigerant loop, the valve 7 and the discharge flow path associated with the valve 7) includes a refrigerant circulation loop including an outdoor-side flow path (A) and an indoor-side flow path (B) connected to each other by pipelines (see figure 1); and
controlling the actuator (the refrigerant loop, the valve 7 and the discharge flow path associated with the valve 7) to perform the backup protection operation includes recycling refrigerant in the indoor-side flow path (B) to the outdoor-side flow path (A; the refrigerant is recycling in the indoor-side flow path B to the outdoor-side flow path B through the discharge valve 7; paragraph [0018]; see figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 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:
Regarding claim 12, Okamoto discloses the indoor-side flow path (1) includes an indoor heat exchanger (1; see figures 1 and 3);
the outdoor-side flow path (2) includes a compressor (3), an outdoor heat exchanger (the heat exchanger of the outdoor unit 2), a first electronic control valve (the valve which associated with the discharge outlet 7), a second electronic control valve (the valve which associated with the discharge outlet 7), and the compressor (3; see figures 1 and 3);
the outdoor heat exchanger (the heat exchanger of the outdoor unit 2), the first electronic control valve (7), the indoor heat exchanger (the indoor heat exchanger of the indoor unit), and the second electronic control valve (8) are sequentially connected by pipelines (see figures 1 and 3).
However, Okamoto fails to disclose recycling refrigerant in the indoor-side flow path to the outdoor-side flow path includes: closing the first electronic control valve and controlling the compressor to operate in response to the refrigerant circulation loop operating in a cooling mode; and closing the second electronic control valve and the compressor in response to a set condition being satisfied.
The primary reference Okamoto or Zhang taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed control feature of control method of the air conditioning system as required in claim 12. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivations to modify the refrigerator of Okamoto or Zhang in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 12-15 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