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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/9/2024 was filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 the abstract contains the title. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “…a controller configured to: receive a call for conditioning, wherein the call for conditioning is indicative of a load demand of a thermal load; determine an operating mode of the heat pump based on the load demand; and adjust operation of the first compressor, the second compressor, and the valve to operate the heat pump in the operating mode,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a controller that is configured to perform the functional steps of “receiving” and “determining.” However, pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function of “receiving” or the function of “determining”.
Where one skilled in the art would recognize that at least an input and/or sensors would be indicative of said structure needed to accomplish said function.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-11 are held to be rejected based upon dependency.
Regarding Claim 12, the recitation of “…a controller communicatively coupled to the first compressor, the second compressor, the first control valve, and the second control valve, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a call for conditioning associated with a conditioned space; determine a conditioning demand of the conditioned space based on the call for conditioning; and control operation of the first compressor, the second compressor, the first control valve, and the second control valve in an operating mode based on the conditioning demand,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function of “receiving” or the function of “determining”.
Where one skilled in the art would recognize that at least an input and/or sensors would be indicative of said structure needed to accomplish said function<.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 13-15 are held to be rejected based upon dependency.
Regarding Claim 16, the recitation of “…wherein the controller is configured to: receive a call for conditioning associated with a space configured to be conditioned by the HVAC system; determine a conditioning demand of the space based on the call for conditioning; and based on a comparison of the conditioning demand to one or more threshold demand levels, adjust operation of: a first compressor of the heat pump configured to direct a working fluid along a working fluid circuit of the heat pump, a second compressor of the heat pump configured to direct the working fluid along the working fluid circuit,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function of “receiving” or the function of “determining”.
Where one skilled in the art would recognize that at least an input and/or sensors would be indicative of said structure needed to accomplish said function<.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 17-20 are held to be rejected based upon dependency.
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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al. (JPS5946456A) in view of Itou (JPH09295510A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshikawa teaches a heat pump for a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system [fig 8], comprising:
a first compressor [1] configured to direct a working fluid along a working fluid circuit of the heat pump [0018];
a second compressor [2] configured to direct the working fluid along the working fluid circuit [0018];
a valve [29] disposed along a suction conduit portion of the working fluid circuit extending between a first suction inlet of the first compressor and a second suction inlet of the second compressor [0018; fig 8].
Yoshikawa does not teach a controller configured to: receive a call for conditioning, wherein the call for conditioning is indicative of a load demand of a thermal load; determine an operating mode of the heat pump based on the load demand; and adjust operation of the first compressor, the second compressor, and the valve to operate the heat pump in the operating mode.
However, Itou teaches an air conditioner having a first and second compressors [1, 7] in parallel with valve 8b between the respective compressor inlets [0001; 0014; 0015; fig 1] having a controller [14] configured to:
receive a call for conditioning, wherein the call for conditioning is indicative of a load demand of a thermal load [0015-0020];
determine an operating mode of the heat pump based on the load demand; and adjust operation of the first compressor, the second compressor, and the valve to operate the heat pump in the operating mode [0015-0020; where the system operates in various cooling modes based on demand and operation of the valve 8b and the compressors] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide where operating or stopping an auxiliary compressor as described, it is possible to hold the interior temperature at all times to the required cooling temperature [0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Yoshikawa to have a controller configured to: receive a call for conditioning, wherein the call for conditioning is indicative of a load demand of a thermal load; determine an operating mode of the heat pump based on the load demand; and adjust operation of the first compressor, the second compressor, and the valve to operate the heat pump in the operating mode in view of the teachings of Itou where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide where operating or stopping an auxiliary compressor as described, it is possible to hold the interior temperature at all times to the required cooling temperature.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou (JPH09295510A) in view of Omura et al. (JP2009002576A).
Regarding Claim 16, Itou teaches a controller for a heat pump of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system [0016; fig 1; at least controller 14], wherein the controller is configured to:
receive a call for conditioning associated with a space configured to be conditioned by the HVAC system [0015-0020];
determine a conditioning demand of the space based on the call for conditioning [0015-0020]; and
based on a comparison of the conditioning demand to one or more threshold demand levels, adjust operation of: a first compressor of the heat pump configured to direct a working fluid along a working fluid circuit of the heat pump, a second compressor of the heat pump configured to direct the working fluid along the working fluid circuit [0015-0020], and a valve [at least valve 8b] disposed along the working fluid circuit between a first suction conduit fluidly coupling the working fluid circuit to a first inlet of the first compressor and a second suction conduit fluidly coupling the working fluid circuit to a second inlet of the second compressor [0013-0016; fig 1].
Itou does not explicitly teach wherein the first compressor comprises a first capacity and the second compressor comprises a second capacity greater than the first capacity.
However, Omura teaches a heat pump having parallel compressors [11, 12; 0038; 0128; fig 1] having wherein the first compressor comprises a first capacity and the second compressor comprises a second capacity greater than the first capacity [0037] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a structure where appropriate heat exchange can be performed even if the heat load of the cycle changes [0064].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Itou to have wherein the first compressor comprises a first capacity and the second compressor comprises a second capacity greater than the first capacity in view of the teachings of Omura where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a structure where appropriate heat exchange can be performed even if the heat load of the cycle changes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is cited for containing allowable subject matter.
Claims 2, 13 and 17 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No 12,163,700, hereinafter the “700 Patent”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding Claim 1, the 700 Patent teaches a heat pump for a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system [700 Patent at Claims 1 & 2], comprising:
a first compressor configured to direct a working fluid along a working fluid circuit of the heat pump [700 Patent at Claims 1 & 2];
a second compressor configured to direct the working fluid along the working fluid circuit [700 Patent at Claims 1 & 2];
a valve disposed along a suction conduit portion of the working fluid circuit extending between a first suction inlet of the first compressor and a second suction inlet of the second compressor [700 Patent at Claims 1 & 2]; and
a controller configured to: receive a call for conditioning, wherein the call for conditioning is indicative of a load demand of a thermal load [700 Patent at claim 2];
determine an operating mode of the heat pump based on the load demand; and adjust operation of the first compressor, the second compressor, and the valve to operate the heat pump in the operating mode [700 Patent at claim 2].
Regarding Claim 12, the 700 Patent teaches a heat pump for a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system [700 Patent at Claims 10 & 4], comprising:
a first compressor fluidly coupled to a working fluid circuit [700 Patent at Claims 10-14];
a second compressor fluidly coupled to the working fluid circuit, wherein the first compressor and the second compressor are arranged in parallel with one another, and a first capacity of the first compressor is less than a second capacity of the second compressor [700 Patent at Claims 10-14];
a first control valve fluidly coupled to the working fluid circuit and configured to adjust flow of working fluid to the first compressor or the second compressor [700 Patent at Claims 10-14];
a second control valve fluidly coupled to the working fluid circuit and configured to adjust flow of working fluid to a heat exchanger disposed along the working fluid circuit, wherein the heat exchanger is configured to place a first flow of working fluid in a second heat exchange relationship with a second flow of working fluid [700 Patent at Claims 10-14]; and
a controller communicatively coupled to the first compressor, the second compressor, the first control valve, and the second control valve, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a call for conditioning associated with a conditioned space [700 Patent at Claims 10-14];
determine a conditioning demand of the conditioned space based on the call for conditioning [700 Patent at Claims 10-14]; and
control operation of the first compressor, the second compressor, the first control valve, and the second control valve in an operating mode based on the conditioning demand [700 Patent at Claims 10-14].
Claims 2-11 and 13-15 are subject to Double Patenting rejection based upon dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights