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 § 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 1-5 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 claim recites the limitation, “cause the valve to perform a predetermined operation when a period during which the valve is not operated exceeds a threshold value” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what “a period” is referring to, whether it is a time period or an operational state, and what the threshold value is measuring. Further, it is unclear how the cause the valve to perform a predetermined operation when the valve is not being operated. Clarification is requested. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to mean that when a value exceeds a threshold value, the valve goes from closed to open.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the valve includes…a first valve…a second valve” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how the valve can include a plurality of valves.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyoshi (US 2023/0324085) in view of Archibald (US 2023/0142053).
Regarding claim 1, Iyoshi teaches a refrigerant circulation device comprising: a primary flow path that allows circulation of a primary refrigerant (5a, Fig. 1, paragraph [0170]); a secondary flow path that allows circulation of a secondary refrigerant (10, Fig. 1, paragraph [0170]); a valve that is provided in the primary flow path or the secondary flow path, and includes an opening degree that is adjustable (46a, Fig. 1, paragraph [0170]); and a controller configured or programmed to control operation of the valve (20, paragraph [0084], [0090]).
Iyoshi does not specifically teach “cause the valve to perform a predetermined operation when a period during which the valve is not operated exceeds a threshold value.”
Archibald teaches a coolant distribution unit (Archibald, Title) which features a primary and secondary loop, with a valve that is opened after a maximum allowable pressure is exceeded (Archibald, paragraph [0009], claim 14, the Examiner notes that under the 112b interpretation of the limitation, Archibald reads on the claim as best understood currently). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Iyoshi with causing the valve to perform a predetermined operation when the valve is not operated exceeds a threshold value, as taught by Archibald, in order to provide a control logic which programs the valve to operate as desired per the optimization of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Iyoshi as modified teaches the refrigerant circulation device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a heat exchanger connected to the primary flow path and the secondary flow path (Iyoshi, 35, Fig. 3, paragraph [0130]);
the primary flow path including: a main flow path that connects an inflow port and an outflow port that are for the primary refrigerant via the heat exchanger (see inlet/outlet of 35 connected to 5a in Fig. 3); and
a bypass flow path that branches from the main flow path at a position upstream of the heat exchanger and merges with the main flow path at a position downstream of the heat exchanger (Iyoshi, 35, Fig. 3, paragraph [0130]); and
the valve including:
a first valve connected to the main flow path at a position not only downstream of a branch position of the bypass flow path in the main flow path but also upstream of the heat exchanger (Iyoshi, 33, Fig. 3); and
a second valve connected to the bypass flow path (Iyoshi, 46a, Fig. 3); wherein while one of the first valve and the second valve performs the predetermined operation, the controller is configured or programmed to cause the other of the first valve or the second valve to open (met through the combination with Archibald).
Regarding claim 4, Iyoshi as modified teaches the refrigerant circulation device according to claim 1, further comprising: a pressure sensor provided in the primary flow path (Iyoshi, 78, Fig. 3, paragraph [0083]); wherein the controller is configured or programmed to determine whether to cause the predetermined operation to be performed in accordance with a measurement value of the pressure sensor and an opening degree of the valve (see Archibald which opens bypass in response to exceeding pressure values).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyoshi in view of Archibald, further in view of Yang (US 2024/0085048).
Regarding claim 5, Iyoshi as modified teaches the refrigerant circulation device according to claim 1, comprising a sensor provided in the primary flow path or the secondary flow path (Iyoshi, 78, paragraph [0083]); but does not teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to check whether the sensor normally operates based on change in measurement values of the sensor during the predetermined operation.
Yang teaches determining whether a sensor is at fault by assessing a fault parameter value in the temperature values recorded by the temperature sensor (Yang, paragraph [0112]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Iyoshi as modified with check whether the sensor normally operates based on change in measurement values of the sensor, as taught by Yang, in order to maintain functional equipment in the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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 NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights