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 08/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okaichi (EP 2615384 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Okaichi discloses an electronic controller (#110 & #118) for controlling a heat pump water heater #100, the electronic controller configured to:
receive a first signal from a first sensor #111, the first signal indicative of a first variable ([0018]);
receive a second signal from a second sensor #112, the second signal indicative of a second variable ([0018]);
determine a target flow rate based on the first variable and the second variable; and
control a water flow rate of the heat pump water heater based on the target flow rate ([0020-0041]. See [0041] in particular).
Regarding claim 13:
Okaichi discloses all the limitations.
Note: “the heat pump water heater” has not been claimed as part of the invention. Thus, the limitation “wherein controlling the water flow rate of the heat pump water heater based on the target flow rate comprises: controlling a flow control valve to operate at a fixed valve position; and adjusting an operating speed of a water pump” constitutes an intended use limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114/Il.)
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawano (US 12498142 B2).
Regarding claim 1:
Kawano discloses an electronic controller #30 for controlling a heat pump water heater #100, the electronic controller configured to:
receive a first signal from a first sensor (any one of the measuring devices discussed in col. 6, L 27 – col. 7, L 27), the first signal indicative of a first variable (col. 6, L 27 – col. 7, L 27);
receive a second signal from a second sensor (another one of any one of the measuring devices discussed in col. 6, L 27 – col. 7, L 27), the second signal indicative of a second variable (col. 6, L 27 – col. 7, L 27);
determine a target flow rate based on the first variable and the second variable (col. 7, L 36-43: “the controller #30 controls the operating frequency of the water pump #22 based on various information from various sensors provided in the heat-pump water heater #100); and
control a water flow rate of the heat pump water heater based on the target flow rate (Note: “the heat pump water heater” has not been claimed as part of the invention. Thus, the limitation “control a water flow rate of the heat pump water heater based on the target flow rate” constitutes an intended use limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114/Il.)
Regarding claim 4:
Kawano further discloses wherein the first variable is a first refrigerant pressure #51 and the second variable is a second refrigerant pressure #52.
Regarding claim 11:
Kawano further discloses wherein the first sensor is a pressure sensor #51 positioned to measure a pressure of a refrigerant as the refrigerant flows from a compressor to an expansion device (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12:
Kawano further discloses wherein the second sensor is a pressure sensor positioned to measure a pressure of a refrigerant as the refrigerant flows from an expansion device to a compressor (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13:
Kawano discloses all the limitations.
“The heat pump water heater” has not been claimed as part of the invention. Thus, the limitation “wherein controlling the water flow rate of the heat pump water heater based on the target flow rate comprises: controlling a flow control valve to operate at a fixed valve position; and adjusting an operating speed of a water pump” constitutes an intended use limitation that does not further limit the structure of the claimed invention. MPEP 2114/Il.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okaichi (EP 2615384 A1) in view of Giubilo (US 9995514 B1).
Regarding claim 2:
Okaichi further discloses wherein the first variable is a water inlet temperature ([0018]).
Okaichi does not specifically discloses wherein the second variable is an ambient temperature.
In the same field of endeavor, Giubilo teaches a water-cooled condenser wherein a water pump is controlled based on ambient temperature (see at least abstract, col. 4, L 1-11, & claim 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Okaichi with the second variable being an ambient temperature; in a similar manner as taught by Giubilo.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided indication for high system loads so as to optimized operation of the system.
Regarding claims 14-15, 17 and 24-26:
If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will perform the claimed process. Thus, the method claims above would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus of claims 1-2, 4, and 11-13. See MPEP 2112.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-10, 16, and 18-23 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:
There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art of record to provide (i) determining the target flow rate based on the first variable and the second variable comprising determining a first estimated refrigerant pressure based on the first variable; determining a second estimated refrigerant pressure based on the second variable; determining an available heating rate based on the first estimated refrigerant pressure and the second estimated refrigerant pressure; and determining the target flow rate based on the available heating rate and an adjustment factor as required by claim 3 as its associated method claim 16; and (ii) determining the target flow rate based on the first variable and the second variable comprising determining an available heating rate based on the first refrigerant pressure and the second refrigerant pressure; and determining the target flow rate based on the available heating rate, a water inlet temperature, and an adjustment factor as required by claim 5 as its associated method claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Swofford (US 11125483 B2), Suzuki (US 9897341 B2), Matsuzawa (US 20150338129 A1), Kleman (US 8385729 B2), Chikami (US 20100319378 A1), Sienel (US 20050268625 A1), and Kuroki (US 20020000094 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights