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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saruwatari US 20090320507 A1 in view of CN ‘ 089 (CN112556089A).
Re claim 1, Saruwatari teach a diagnostic method of a system having a controller, two or more heating devices each having a heat exchanger (116), a valve (115) disposed upstream of the heat exchanger (noting everything is either upstream or downstream in a loop during operation), a device under test fault is raised (para 95).
Saruwatari fail to explicitly teach diagnostic method details.
CN ‘ 089 teach and a temperature sensor disposed downstream of the heat exchanger (para 101), said diagnostic method comprising, using the controller (page 1 last three paragraphs) to:
(a) identify active heating devices of the two or more heating devices in the system
to result in two or more active heating devices (page 1 last three paragraphs);
(b) determine at least one test to be performed on said two or more active heating
devices, said at least one test involves a unique pairing of said two or more
active heating devices, wherein said unique pairing comprises a first heating
device comprising a first valve and a first temperature sensor and a second
heating device comprising a second valve and a second temperature sensor (page 1 last three paragraphs);
(c) send a first command to open the first valve, obtain a response of the first heating device as indicated by the first temperature sensor to said first command and determine the existence of a first temperature rise as indicated by the first temperature sensor, wherein if the first temperature rise does not exist, a first deviation exists ( , noting “a temperature rise” is considered a delta, and naturally using a controller to detect a fault of any different bounds others than the expected delta teach the limitations of “determine the existence of a first temperature rise as indicated by the first temperature sensor, wherein if the first temperature rise does not exist, a first deviation exists”; page 1 last three paragraphs); and
(d) send a second command to open the second valve, obtain a response of the
second heating device as indicated by the second temperature sensor to said
second command and determine the existence of a second temperature rise as
indicated by the second temperature sensor, wherein if the second temperature
rise does not exist, a second deviation exists, wherein if both said first deviation
and said second deviation exist, a cross-wire fault is raised (page 3) and if only one of said first deviation and said second deviation exists (page 1 last three paragraphs, page 3), a fault indicating that one of said two or more heating devices is faulty is raised (page 3) to compare differences between activating two separate valves in parallel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include diagnostic method details as taught by CN ‘ 089 in the Saruwatari invention in order to advantageously allow for an efficient error method for two electronic expansion valves that are independently controlled (page 1 line 11, page 1 lines 8-21).
Saruwatari , as modified, fail to explicitly teach duplication details.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include and (e) repeat steps (c)-(d) until said at least one test has been completed to advantageously allow for repeated diagnosing since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, part B.
Re claim 2, Saruwatari teach further comprising sending a first command to open the first valve as part of a normal operation of the first valve (page 4 first paragraph).
Re claim 3, Saruwatari teach further comprising sending a first command to open the first valve as part of an exerciser (page 4 first paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see reply, filed 8/04/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that two independent processes wherein the first valve is tested with a consequent temperature raise and then the next independent process is performed in the second valve with a temperature raise is not taught in the prior art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art teach two separate independent processes s1 and s2. Both expansion valves naturally have their own actuator and each actuator naturally requires a command from a controller to open or closer the degree, in addition to two temperature sensors for each first and second calve (“The air-conditioning system includes a first electronic expansion valve, a second electronic expansion valve, a first temperature sensor, a second temperature sensor, and a third A temperature sensor and a fourth temperature sensor, the first electronic expansion valve adjusts its opening according to the first temperature difference between the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor, and the second electronic expansion valve adjusts the opening according to the third temperature sensor and the fourth sensor The second temperature difference adjustment opening degree, the method includes the following steps:” page 1). In step one the first valve is opened and temperatures are taken (page 1) which meets the broad claim requirements of claim 1 step c. In step 2 the second valve is opened and temperatures are taken (page 1) which meets the broad limitations required in step d of claim 1. Page 4 and 5 of the prior art details complicated temperature measuring process which meets the broad limitation of the last line of step c in claim 1.
The applicant argues that CN ‘089 teach a different algorithm that is not independent. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 1 and 2 of the prior art teach independent processes which also details independent steps when the algorithm of step 1 and 2 are detailed in the prior art at length (pages 4-6). Further, the prior art clearly teach two independently controlled valves (page 1 line 11).
Additionally, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., independently or independent) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues that examiner uses teachings from applicants own specification. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection above clearly cites the prior art to teach the claims limitations (see rejection above, and applicant has not provide where in the OA this occurs).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., independently evaluated deviations from expected responses) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, as examiner has stated above, the independent s1 and s2 and independent controlled valves are in fact independently evaluated deviations from expected responses.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., two different fault classes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The applicant argues that xxx. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., using the combined existence of those independently determined deviations as the basis for distinguishing between a fault associated with…) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights