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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2025 and 05/27/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. vapor injection module in at least claim 1.
b. first expansion unit and second expansion unit in at least claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
a. vapor injection module is interpreted to cover a first expansion unit, a gas-liquid separator, and a second expansion unit as per claim 8; and equivalents thereof.
b. first expansion unit and second expansion unit are each interpreted to cover a ball valve as per para [0053] and [0061] of applicant specification; and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 8-15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 calls for the limitation “a first expansion unit which blocks a flow of a condensed refrigerant or expands and transfers the condensed refrigerant according to a first heating mode…”; which limitation is indefinite for the following reasons:
I. the scope is not understood. In the limitation, two alternatives are provided: (i) blocks a flow of a condensed refrigerant and (ii) expands and transfers the condensed refrigerant. However, the second alternative requires the specifics of the first alternative (i.e. the condensed refrigerant). Thus, it is unclear how the second alternative would be practice on its own; given that it requires limitations that are clearly optional. It appears that (i) and (ii) should be claimed as sequential steps; rather than distinct alternative. Appropriate correction is required.
II. is “according to a first heating mode …” directed to only the second alternative of “expanding and transfers the condensed refrigerant”? or is it also directed to the first alternative of “blocking a flow of a condensed refrigerant”? it is uncertain. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
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, 6, and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohishi (WO 2015111116 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Ohishi discloses an operation method of a vapor injection heat pump system which includes a compressor #11, an indoor heat exchanger #12, a vapor injection module (#15, #16, & #19), an outdoor heat exchanger #20, and an evaporator #22, the operation method comprising an operation of performing control in one of:
a first heating mode which is a non-vapor injection heating mode in which a refrigerant introduced into the vapor injection module is introduced into the outdoor heat exchanger (see Fig. 1 and associated description thereof); and
a second heating mode which is a vapor injection heating mode in which some of the refrigerant introduced into the vapor module is introduced into the compressor (Fig. 2, via #14b) and the remaining refrigerant is introduced into the outdoor exchanger (Fig. 2, via #17) (see direction of refrigerant flow in Fig. 2; and associated description thereof);
wherein, in the operation of performing control, a flow of the refrigerant is maintained in the vapor injection module when the first heating mode is switched to the second heating mode or the second heating mode is switched to the first heating mode (see Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 6:
Ohishi further discloses wherein the operation of performing control performs control in the first heating mode for a predetermined time and then control in the second heating mode (the mode of Fig. 1 is performed for a predetermined time, prior to mode of Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8:
Ohishi discloses a vapor injection heat pump system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a compressor #11;
an indoor heat exchanger #12;
a vapor injection module (see details below for the components);
an outdoor heat exchanger #20;
an evaporator #22; and
a controller #40,
wherein the vapor injection module includes:
a first expansion unit #15 which blocks a flow of a condensed refrigerant (“expansion valve 15 is a variable throttling mechanism comprising a valve body configured to change the throttling opening and an electric actuator consisting of a stepping motor that changes the throttling opening of the valve body”) or expands and transfers the condensed refrigerant according to a first heating mode which is a non-vapor injection heating mode in which the refrigerant introduced into the vapor injection module is introduced into the outdoor heat exchanger or a second heating mode which is a vapor injection heating mode in which some of the refrigerant introduced into the vapor module is introduced into the compressor and the remaining refrigerant is introduced into the outdoor exchanger (this limitation is directed to alternative(s). Because Ohishi discloses “a first expansion unit which blocks a flow of a condensed refrigerant”; these alternative(s) and optional limitation(s) are considered met);
a gas-liquid separator #16 which separates the refrigerant received from the first expansion unit into a gas phase refrigerant and a liquid phase refrigerant (“gas-liquid separator 16 is a gas-liquid separator that separates the gas and liquid of the refrigerant, which has been reduced in pressure by the first heating expansion valve 15 until it becomes an intermediate-pressure refrigerant”); and
a second expansion unit #19 which allows the condensed refrigerant to pass therethrough (Fig. 1. “The second heating expansion valve 19 is the same as that of the first heating expansion valve 15”) or expand or allows the liquid phase refrigerant separated in the gas-liquid separator to expand according to the first heating mode or the second heating mode (this limitation is directed to alternative(s)), and
the controller controls the first expansion unit and the second expansion unit according to the first heating mode or the second heating mode and controls the flow of the refrigerant to be maintained in the vapor injection module when the first heating mode is switched to the second heating mode or the second heating mode is switched to the first heating mode (see at least Fig. 1-2 and associated description thereof).
Regarding claim 9:
Ohishi further discloses wherein the controller sets a control time for the first expansion unit and a control time for the second expansion unit to be the same (“in the first heating mode, the air conditioning control device 40 throttles the first heating expansion valve 15, fully closes the second heating expansion valve 19”. This implies that the time at which the controller set the first expansion unit and the second expansion unit is the same; the time of the first heating mode).
Regarding claim 10:
Ohishi further discloses wherein the controller sets a control time for the first expansion unit and a control time for the second expansion unit to be the same (“in the first heating mode, the air conditioning control device 40 throttles the first heating expansion valve 15, fully closes the second heating expansion valve 19”. This implies that the time at which the controller set the first expansion unit and the second expansion unit is the same; the time of the first heating mode).
Regarding claim 11:
Ohishi further discloses wherein the controller performs control in the first heating mode for a predetermined time or perform direct control in the second heating mode according to a pressure difference between an inlet side pressure and an outlet side pressure of the compressor (this limitation is directed to an alternative in claim 1. Because Ohishi discloses the alternative that does not require the first heating mode and the second heating mode; the instant alternative is not required by the claim). Thus, the limitation of claim 11 are considered met.
Regarding claim 12:
Ohishi further discloses wherein the controller performs control in the second heating mode when the pressure difference between the inlet side pressure and the outlet side pressure of the compressor is greater than a predetermined reference pressure; and control in the first heating mode when the pressure difference is smaller than or equal to the predetermined reference pressure (this limitation is directed to an alternative in claim 1. Because Ohishi discloses the alternative that does not require the first heating mode and the second heating mode; the instant alternative is not required by the claim). Thus, the limitation of claim 12 are considered met.
Regarding claim 13:
Ohishi further discloses wherein in the first heating mode, the first expansion unit blocks the refrigerant, the second expansion unit expands the refrigerant (this limitation is directed to an alternative in claim 1. Because Ohishi discloses the alternative that does not require the first heating mode and the second heating mode; the instant alternative is not required by the claim). Thus, the limitation of claim 13 are considered met.
Regarding claim 14:
Ohishi further discloses wherein in the second heating mode, the first expansion unit expands the refrigerant, the second expansion unit expands the refrigerant (this limitation is directed to an alternative in claim 1. Because Ohishi discloses the alternative that does not require the first heating mode and the second heating mode; the instant alternative is not required by the claim). Thus, the limitation of claim 14 are considered met.
Regarding claim 15:
Ohishi further discloses wherein in the second heating mode, the first expansion unit expands the condensed refrigerant as a middle-pressure refrigerant, the second expansion unit expands the condensed refrigerant as a low-pressure refrigerant (this limitation is directed to an alternative in claim 1. Because Ohishi discloses the alternative that does not require the first heating mode and the second heating mode; the instant alternative is not required by the claim). Thus, the limitation of claim 15 are considered met.
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohishi (WO 2015111116 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Ohishi discloses all the limitations, but does not specifically disclose wherein, in the operation of performing control, a start time of the second heating mode is set to not be earlier than an end time of the first heating mode.
However, Ohishi clearly discloses that the two heating modes have different flow paths (see Fig. 1-2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the method of Ohishi with a start time of the second heating mode is set to not be earlier than an end time of the first heating mode.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have prevented the two heating modes from overlapping in time (which could cause the refrigerant flow to become unstable due to conflicting commands to the expansion units); thereby, preventing refrigerant pressure disturbance.
Regarding claims 3-5:
The subject matter claimed here is substantially similar to that of claim 2; addressing different start time for the respective modes. Thus, for sake of simplicity, conciseness, and brevity, please refer to the rejection of claim 2 above for the rejection of claims 3-5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
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 Ohishi so that the operation of performing control performs control in the second heating mode when the pressure difference between the inlet side pressure and the outlet side pressure of the compressor is greater than a predetermined reference pressure; and control in the first heating mode when the pressure difference is smaller than or equal to the predetermined reference pressure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishikawa (WO 2015107876 A1), He (US 20200039323 A1), Itou (US 20140238067 A1), and Kozasa (US 11320170 B2).
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