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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the implied phrase “is provided”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-3, 5-6, and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson (US 5,291,745) in view of Bai (EP 4343218).
As to claim 1, Hanson teaches a method for controlling an integrated air conditioner that comprises a compressor 26, an evaporator 62, and a first damper 93 corresponding to the evaporator 62, wherein the method comprises controlling the damper 93 to close a discharge air path during defrosting (col. 4, lines 55-57).
Hanson does not explicitly teach the particular control steps for the damper as claimed. However, Bai teaches obtaining an evaporator piping temperature during a heating operation (see abstract and Fig. 4, step S10) and increasing the opening of an evaporator damper when the piping temperature is greater than a first preset temperature (Fig. 4, step S30). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hanson to incorporate the method steps as claimed and taught by Bai because it would further ensure that the space is conditioned in a desirable manner.
As to claims 2-3, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP 2111.04, II.). The claims recite only contingent limitations (specifically steps that are only performed “in a case” where a condition exists) and therefore are rejected in view of Hanson and Bai.
As to claim 5, Hanson teaches a fan blade motor for evaporator fan 87. Additionally, as noted above the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP 2111.04, II.). The claimed method steps that are performed “in a case” where specific conditions exist are contingent limitations and thus are rejected in view of the combination of references.
As to claims 6 and 12, Hanson teaches switching operation modes via a switching valve 36 to perform a defrost when it is determined that a defrost condition exists (col. 4, lines 3-34; col. 8, lines 5-7) and is capable of defrosting a condenser 44 in a case of operating in the cooling mode.
As to claims 8-9 and 13-14, Hanson teaches use of a three-way valve rather than a four-way valve. However, Official Notice is taken that use of a four-way switching valve and timed defrost control is a common and typical feature in the art that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the system of Hanson for the purpose of providing an effective defrost operation.
As to claims 10 and 15, Hanson teaches an expansion valve 58, but does not explicitly teach controlling the valve opening as claimed. However, Official Notice is taken that using a controller to set opening positions of an expansion valve during defrost is a common and typical feature in the art that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the system of Hanson for the purpose of providing an effective defrost operation.
As to claims 11, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP 2111.04, II.). The claim recites only contingent limitations (specifically steps that are only performed “in a case” where a condition exists) and therefore is rejected in view of Hanson and Bai.
As to claims 16-18, Hanson, as modified, teaches most of the claimed limitations as noted in the rejections above. Hanson does not explicitly teach use of a processor, memory, and computer program as claimed. However, Official Notice is taken that use of a processor, memory, and programmed instructions is a common and typical feature in the refrigeration controls art that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the system of Hanson for the purpose of providing an easily controllable system.
Claim 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson and Bai as applied above, and further in view of Imaizumi (US 2021/0108805).
As to claims 4 and 7, Hanson teaches a condenser 44 but does not explicitly teach a second damper corresponding to the condenser 44. However, Imaizumi teaches that it is known to utilize a damper 201 for a condenser 20, and to control the damper 201 to be opened or closed to adjust ventilation and user comfort (paragraphs 60-63). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hanson to incorporate a condenser damper and associated control as claimed and taught by Imaizumi in order to further ensure that the space is conditioned in a desirable manner.
Additionally, as noted above the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (see MPEP 2111.04, II.). The claimed method steps that are performed “in a case” where specific conditions exist are contingent limitations and thus are rejected in view of the combination of references.
Furthermore, Hanson does teach opening damper 93 during operation and thus is considered to controlling the damper 93 to a second or third opening degree during a cooling mode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 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.
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