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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract uses a number of abbreviations (e.g. “SP device”, “SPL control valve”, and “MPL control valve”) which are not defined or presented in longform when used within the abstract. Care should be taken to avoid expanding the abstract beyond a length of 150 words in editing these abbreviations for clarity. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Similar to the abstract, the specification uses a number of abbreviations without defining them or presenting them in longform when first used (for example, as “global warming potential (GWP) is in ¶ 3 of the specification). Such abbreviations include but may not be limited to “MP device”, “SP device”, “SPL control valve” “SPG control valve”, “MPG control valve”, and “MPL control valve”. Review of the specification and revision to include definitions where these terms are first used are requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 maintenance processing unit” in claim 1, line 24
“a recovery processing unit” in claim 1, line 30
“a setting processing unit” in claim 2, line 3
“an overall stop processing unit” in claim 3, line 3,
“a first report processing unit” in claim 4, line 3
“a second report processing unit” in claim 5, line 3
The specification discussed all of these elements in ¶ 56 and teaches that each of these “units” may be embodied as a predetermined program executed by a CPU of an outdoor control unit, as an integrated circuit implementing a predetermined program or other dedicated hardware performing the claimed “processing” as a dedicated program, or as software functions of an indoor or outdoor control unit. The claim limitations discussed above are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as referring to the embodiments of ¶ 56 or obvious equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
In lines 30-36 of claim 1, there are defined “a recovery processing unit capable of performing recovery processing”, this recovery processing including “causing the compressor to behave in a state where the multi-port liquid-side control valve and the single-port liquid-side control valve are closed to recover the refrigerant remaining in each of the indoor heat exchangers to a side of the compressor”. By the phrasing of this recitation, it is unclear whether the phrase “in a state where the multi-port liquid-side control valve and the single-port liquid-side control valve are closed” describes the behavior required of the compressor (i.e. operate the compressor in a state that causes the valves to become closed in order to recover refrigerant) or merely identifies an operating condition of the system (i.e. operate the compressor to recover the refrigerant while the system is in a state where the valves are close). If it is taken as the latter, it is further unclear whether the closure of the valves is also an element of the recovery control (i.e. cause the valves to close and, while the system is in this state, cause the compressor to operate to recover refrigerant) or is a further prerequisite of the recovery operation (i.e. when a leakage detection sensor detects leakage of refrigerant and the valves are closed, control the compressor to recover refrigerant). For this reason, the scope of claim 1 with regard to the recovery processing and the control of the compressor and liquid side control valves therein cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In claim 6, it is taught that “the number of the indoor units that can be connected to the multi-port shut-off valve device is set to more than or equal to two and less than or equal to eight.” It is not clear from this recitation what structure is required of the claimed air-conditioning device or of the multi-port shut-off valve device. It appears that the valve device is required to have at least two ports to be capable of connecting to two or more valves, but it is unclear whether the claim imposes an upper limit on this number or merely teaches that a number of valves “less than or equal to eight” may be connected to the device. For example, it is not clear whether a device having ten ports falls within the scope of the claim as it would be capable of connection to ten valves (which falls outside of the claimed range) but would also be capable of connecting to eight valves using only eight of its ten ports and would thus appear to fall within the scope of the claim. For this reason, the precise scope required by the recitation of claim 6 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as each depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In MPEP 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology, terms are described the use of which may render the scope of a claim indefinite. The term “type” is included, as “addition of the word ‘type’ to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955).” The instant claims are directed to a “multi-type air-conditioning device” (emphasis added by examiner). The instant specification clearly and specifically identifies what is meant by “a multi-type air-conditioning device” for example in ¶ 5 where such a device is identified as a device “in which a plurality of indoor units are connected in parallel in a single refrigeration cycle”. Because the specification defines the term “multi-type air-conditioning device”, the word “type” in the claims has been interpreted as a part of this defined term rather than as an individual relative term which as described in MPEP 2173.05(b) and the instant claims have not been rejected as being indefinite based on this recitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are considered to read the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination as discussed below. However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action. Specifically, the specific control operations required for the claimed recovery processing of claim 1 cannot be positively identified and the claim is rejected as being indefinite. Therefore upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Specifically, independent claim 1 teaches an air-conditioning device having an outdoor unit and a plurality of indoor units having indoor heat exchangers and leakage detection sensors, a single-port shut-off valve device controlling the distribution of refrigerant to a specific one of the indoor units and a multi-port shut-off valve device controlling distribution to a plurality of the indoor units, wherein the a single-port shut-off valve device includes single-port liquid-side and gas control valves controlling distribution of refrigerant in the liquid and gas states, respectively, and the multi-port shut-off valve device includes a multi-port liquid-side and gas control valves controlling distribution of refrigerant in the liquid and gas states respectively. Although the prior art teaches similar structures (see below) claim 1 distinguishes by further teaching of a maintenance processing unit and a recovery processing unit performing control operations. Specifically, the maintenance processing of the maintenance processing unit is performed “in a case where one of the leakage detection sensors provided for the one of the indoor units connected to the single-port shut-off valve detects leakage of refrigerant” and includes closing of the single-port liquid-side and gas control valves to stop operation of the one of the indoor units while leaving the other indoor units operable; and the recovery processing of the recovery processing unit is performed “in a case where any of the leakage detection sensors provided for the plurality of the indoor units connected to the multi-port shut-off valve device detects leakage of the refrigerant” controls the compressor and/or the control valves (see the above rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)) to recover refrigerant from the indoor heat exchangers to a side of the compressor after which the gas control valves are closed and the compressor is stopped.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
692
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2017/0198946 A1 to Takenaka et al. (an English-language equivalent of WIPO Publication No. 2016/017643 A1 cited on applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement of 17 January 2025 and the International Search Report regarding PCT/JP2022/028354) teaches in fig. 8B, shown above, an air-conditioning apparatus including an outdoor unit (A) and three indoor units (C, D, and E) each having an indoor heat exchanger (5c, 5d, and 5e) and a leakage detecting unit (43c, 43d, and 43e). Takenaka further teaches a relay unit (B) including a first branch unit (9b) and a shutoff valve (21) therein disposed on a refrigerant pipe (6) connecting to all of the indoor units (C, D, and E) and also including a second branch unit (9a) including a plurality of flow control valves (10c, 10d, 10e, 10f, 10g, and 10h) disposed on respective pipes connecting a second refrigerant pipe (7) to the indoor units (C, D, and E) so that the valve (21) may be taken as corresponding to one of the claimed multi-port control valves (depending on the position of a switching valve 2 to provide gas or liquid refrigerant flow in the pipe 6) and the valves (10c, 10d, 10e, 10f, 10g, and 10h) may be taken as each being equivalent to one of the claimed single-port control valves (again depending on whether the switching valve 2 provides liquid or gas refrigerant to the pipe 7). Takenaka only teaches one valve in each of the claimed shut-off valve devices as the flow of the refrigerant directed by the switching valve (2) means that neither branch unit will have both a gas valve and a liquid valve at any given time as the other valves provided for controlling flow are merely check valves rather than control valves as claimed.
Takenaka teaches in ¶¶ 80-82 a refrigerant recovery operation in which, when one of the leakage detecting units 43 determines a leak of refrigerant in a single unit (taking indoor unit C as an example) the valve (21) is closed, preventing the supply of liquid refrigerant to all of the indoor units (C, D, and D) and the shut-off valve (22c, equivalent to the valve 10c in the embodiment of fig. 8B) is closed to stop the flow operation of the indoor unit (C) in which a leak was identified while a compressor (1) of the outdoor unit (A) sucks and compresses refrigerant rom the other indoor units (D and E). Takenaka does not teach the separate maintenance and recovery operations of claim 1 as the closing of the valve (21) stops the flow of refrigerant to all indoor units regardless of the unit in which the leak was detected (contrary to the maintenance processing) and cannot control both liquid and gas control valves (according to the recovery processing) as only one such valve may be provided based on the switching of refrigerant according to the structurer taught by Takenaka.
PNG
media_image2.png
518
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
522
782
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US Publication No. 2020/0318875 A1 to Yamada et al. teaches in figs. 2 and 3, shown above, a refrigeration device including an outdoor unit (10) and a plurality of indoor units (30) which each include a refrigerant leak sensor (70) and are each connected to the indoor unit through an intermediate unit (40) which comprises a plurality of switching units (4) corresponding to the respective indoor units (30) and each having a respective set of control valves including one (43) on a liquid pipe (LP) and two (41 and 42) on high and low pressure gas pipes (the branches GLa and GLb of the gas pipe GP). The outdoor unit (10) further includes equivalent valves (11, 12, and 13) arranged on a low pressure gas pipe (51), a high pressure gas pipe (52) and a liquid pipe (53) such that these valves act as the claimed multi-port shut-off valve device as they may control the flow to all of the indoor units (30) rather than to a single corresponding unit as the switching units (4) can.
PNG
media_image4.png
784
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yamada further teaches in fig. 5, shown above, and in ¶¶ 160-169 that when a refrigerant leak is detected (at step S101) for a single indoor unit (30, ¶ 161), a control operation is performed which includes the closing of “the first control valve 41, the second control valve 42, and the third control valve 43 of each switching unit 4” (step S107 and ¶ 167) before the compressor is stopped (step S109). This control differs from that which is claimed as the closure of all of the valves (41, 42, 43) in all of the switching units (4) and the stoppage of the compressor leaves all of the indoor units, including the ones in which a leak was not identified inoperable (contrary to the claimed maintenance processing) and the valves are all closed in a single step, without performing refrigerant recovery prior to the deactivation of the compressor (contrary to the claimed recovery processing).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
