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 statement (IDS) submitted on 1/23/2025 was filed before the first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 1/23/2025. Accordingly, Claims 1-8 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
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 “An air conditioner is an air conditioner, wherein to a refrigerant circuit in which a refrigerant is circulated…” lacks grammatical 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).
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 1-8 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 “An air conditioner, wherein to a refrigerant circuit in which a refrigerant is circulated…” renders the claim unclear.
In particular, the recitation is grammatically unclear to whether the air conditioner comprises or consists of the proceeding structure. Therefore, 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.
For examination purposes the limitation has been interpreted as - - An air conditioner comprising: a refrigerant circuit in which a refrigerant is circulated - - .
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “that” in “wherein a flow rate of the refrigerant that flows through the one of the expansion valves per unit time is larger during the defrosting heating operation than that during the thermal-storage heating operation” renders the claim unclear.
In particular, the recitation is unclear to what “that” refers to in the claims. 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.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - wherein a flow rate of the refrigerant that flows through the one of the expansion valves per unit time is larger during the defrosting heating operation than a flow rate of the refrigerant that flows through the one of the expansion valves per unit time during the thermal-storage heating operation - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 4 and 5, the recitation of “is adjusted its opening degree…” renders the claim unclear.
Therefore, 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.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - adjusts its opening degree - - for clarity.
Claims 2 and 6-8 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. (US20210095905A1) in view of Suppes (US20030131623A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tashiro teaches an air conditioner [a refrigeration cycle apparatus capable of performing a heating defrosting simultaneous operation, 0001], comprising:
a refrigerant circuit in which a refrigerant is circulated [refrigerant circuit 10, Figure 1],
a compressor [compressor 11, Figure 1] configured to compress the refrigerant [0016],
an indoor heat exchanger [indoor heat exchanger 13, Figure 1] configured to exchange heat between indoor air and the refrigerant [0018],
an outdoor heat exchanger [a first outdoor heat exchanger 15a,Figure 1] configured to exchange heat between outdoor air and the refrigerant [0020],
a third heat exchanger [a second outdoor heat exchanger 15b, Figure 1],
a plurality of expansion valves [expansion valve 14, Figure 1; 0019, and flow control valve 18, where flow control valve 18 is an expansion valve, Figure 1; 0023], an opening degree of which is adjustable [where expansion valve 14 opening degree can be adjusted; 0019, where flow control valve opening degree is controlled by controller 50; 0023], and
a plurality of switching valves [flow switching device 12 and 16, Figure 1] to switch a circulation path of the refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit between a thermal-storage heating operation in which the indoor heat exchanger and the third heat exchanger function as a condenser and the outdoor heat exchanger functions as an evaporator [where a heating defrosting simultaneous operation, second operation, includes where the second outdoor heat exchanger 15b and indoor heat exchanger 13 serve as a condenser and the first outdoor heat exchanger 15a serves as an evaporator; 0035], and a defrosting heating operation in which the indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger function as the condenser and the third heat exchanger functions as the evaporator are connected [where a heating defrosting simultaneous operation, first operation, includes where the first outdoor heat exchanger 15a and indoor heat exchanger 13 serve as a condenser and the second outdoor heat exchanger 15b serves as an evaporator, Figure 4; 0035], and
one of the expansion valves [flow control valve 18, Figure 1] is arranged upstream to the outdoor heat exchanger when the outdoor heat exchanger functions as a condenser [in the first operation of the heating defrosting simultaneous operation, Figure 4], and a refrigerant that flows into the outdoor heat exchanger is depressurized by the one of the expansion valves [where the gas refrigerant diverted to the bypass 38 has its pressure reduced by the flow control valve 18 to an intermediate pressure and then flows into the first outdoor heat exchanger 15a, Figure 4; 0037].
Tashiro does not teach the third heat exchanger [outdoor heat exchanger 15b, Figure 4] is a thermal-storage heat exchanger, configured to exchange heat between a thermal storage material and the refrigerant.
However, Suppes teaches an HVAC apparatus utilizing phase change materials including heat pumps [0003] including a thermal-storage heat exchanger [an evaporator or condenser of a heat pump with phase change material incorporated; 0038], configured to exchange heat between a thermal storage material and the refrigerant [where a phase change material for use in the exterior component of a heat pump is phase change material based on fatty acid derivatives or alternatively water; 0064-0065] 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., where incorporation of the phase change material into the evaporator or condenser can improve efficiency, extend heat pump operation into colder temperatures where it would otherwise not be the preferred option, and reduce the needs for deicing the heat pump evaporator [Suppes; 0038].
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 Tashiro to have a thermal-storage heat exchanger, configured to exchange heat between a thermal storage material and the refrigerant in view of the teachings of Suppes 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., where incorporation of the phase change material into the evaporator or condenser can improve efficiency, extend heat pump operation into colder temperatures where it would otherwise not be the preferred option, and reduce the needs for deicing the heat pump evaporator [Suppes; 0038].
Regarding Claim 2, Tashiro, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the one of the expansion valves [flow control valve 18, Figure 1] is arranged upstream to the thermal-storage heat exchanger [where flow control valve 18 connects to port A of switching device 16, Figure 4, switching device 16 is set in the third state such that port A communicates with port B2 and the port C communicates with port B1; 0040, refer to the rejection of claim 1 in view of Suppes above] when the thermal-storage heat exchanger functions as the condenser [where outdoor heat exchanger 15b serves as a condenser in the second operation of a heating defrosting simultaneous operation; 0035].
Regarding Claim 3, Tashiro, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and further teaches where a flow rate of the refrigerant that flows through the one of the expansion valves [flow control valve 18, Figure 1] per unit time is larger during the defrosting heating operation than a flow rate of the refrigerant that flows through the one of the expansion valves per unit time during the thermal-storage heating operation [where the flow control valve 18 during heating defrosting simultaneous operation, the second flow switching device 16 is set in an open state at a predetermined opening degree; 0023; where controller 50 increases and decreases the opening degree based on temperature signal, Figure 5; 0044-0046].
Claim 3 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “where a flow rate of the refrigerant that flows through the one of the expansion valves per unit time is larger during the defrosting heating operation than a flow rate of the refrigerant that flows through the one of the expansion valves per unit time during the thermal-storage heating operation.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, e.g. a plurality of expansion valves an opening degree of which is adjustable, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) 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.
Regarding Claim 4, Tashiro, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the one of the expansion valves [flow control valve 18, Figure 1] adjusts its opening degree after the thermal-storage heat exchanger is switched from the condenser to the evaporator [to a heating defrosting simultaneous operation, second operation; 0035], when the defrosting heating operation is started [a heating defrosting simultaneous operation, first operation; 0035], switched from the thermal-storage heating operation [where heating defrosting simultaneous operation starts, step S1, and then opening degree of the flow control valve is increased, step S4 or decreased, step S6, Figure 5; 0044-0046].
Claim 4 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “is adjusted its opening degree after the thermal-storage heat exchanger is switched from the condenser to the evaporator, when the defrosting heating operation is started, switched from the thermal-storage heating operation.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure, e.g. a plurality of expansion valves an opening degree of which is adjustable, of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) 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.
Regarding Claim 5, Tashiro, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 wherein the one of the expansion valves [flow control valve 18, Figure 1] adjusts its opening degree before a function of the thermal-storage heat exchanger is switched from the evaporator to the condenser [to a heating defrosting simultaneous operation, first operation; 0035], when the thermal-storage heating operation is started [a heating defrosting simultaneous operation, second operation; 0035], switched from the defrosting heating operation [where heating defrosting simultaneous operation starts, step S1, and then opening degree of the flow control valve is increased, step S4 or decreased, step S6, Figure 5; 0044-0046].
Claim 5 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “wherein the one of the expansion valves is adjusted its opening degree before a function of the thermal-storage heat exchanger is switched from the evaporator to the condenser, when the thermal-storage heating operation is started, switched from the defrosting heating operation.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, e.g. a plurality of expansion valves an opening degree of which is adjustable, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) 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.
Regarding Claim 6, Tashiro, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where a temperature detecting unit [temperature sensor 41a, Figure 1] configured to detect a temperature of the outdoor heat exchanger [outdoor heat exchanger 15a, Figure 1], wherein the one of the expansion valves is adjusted its opening degree based on a temperature detected by the temperature detecting unit during the defrosting heating operation [where the controller 50 determines whether the heat exchanger to be defrosted is higher than 0 degrees based on temperature sensor 41a; 0045; where the controller 50 causes the opening degree of the flow control valve 18 to decrease when the temperature is higher than 0 degrees C; 0046].
Regarding Claim 7, Tashiro, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where a flow rate of the refrigerant passing through the one of the expansion valves [expansion valve 14, Figure 1] per unit time [where the opening degree of valve 14 can be adjusted through control by the controller 50; 0019] during the defrosting heating operation [a first operation of heating defrosting simultaneous operation, Figure 4; 0035] is smaller than a flow rate of the refrigerant passing through an expansion valve [flow control valve 18, Figure 1] that is positioned upstream to the thermal-storage heat exchanger [in bypass flow path 38; 0040, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above in view of Suppes] out of the expansion valves per unit time [where the flow rate of refrigerant diverted to the bypass flow path 38 varies with the opening degree of the flow control valve 18, Figure 5; 0037].
Claim 7 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “a flow rate of the refrigerant passing through the one of the expansion valves per unit time during the defrosting heating operation is smaller than a flow rate of the refrigerant passing through an expansion valve that is positioned upstream to the thermal-storage heat exchanger out of the expansion valves per unit time”. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, e.g. a plurality of expansion valves an opening degree of which is adjustable, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tashiro et al. (US20210095905A1) in view of Suppes (US20030131623A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Nakamura et al. (US20190070929A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Tashiro, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1, wherein a flow rate of the refrigerant passing through an expansion valve [flow control valve 18, Figure 1] that is positioned upstream to the thermal-storage heat exchanger [outdoor heat exchanger 15b, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above in view of Suppes] out of the expansion valves per unit time during the thermal-storage heating operation [second operation of heating defrosting simultaneous operation;0040] is larger than a flow rate of the refrigerant passing through an refrigerant metering device that is positioned downstream to the thermal-storage heat exchanger per unit time [where the refrigerant leaving the second outdoor heat exchanger 15 b is reduced in pressure in the capillary tube 17 b; 0034; where capillary tube 17b is downstream outdoor heat exchanger 15b in second operation of heating defrosting simultaneous operation; 0040].
Tashiro does not teach the refrigerant metering device is an expansion valve.
However, Nakamura teaches an air conditioning device [0001] where the refrigerant metering device [fixed restrictor 28, Figure 1] is an expansion valve [where instead of a fixed restrictor a solenoid valve capable of performing stepwise or continuous adjustment of the opening degree may also be used as a variable restrictor; 0027] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of a known element, a capillary tube, for another, an expansion valve, and yield predictable results, i.e., providing continuous variable adjustment of fluid restriction [Nakamura; 0027].
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 the combined teachings to where the refrigerant metering device is an expansion valve in view of the teachings of Nakamura where the substitution of an element for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing continuous variable adjustment of fluid restriction [Nakamura; 0027].
Claim 8 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “wherein a flow rate of the refrigerant passing through an expansion valve that is positioned upstream to the thermal-storage heat exchanger out of the expansion valves per unit time during the thermal-storage heating operation is larger than a flow rate of the refrigerant passing through an expansion valve that is positioned downstream to the thermal-storage heat exchanger per unit time.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 5:00 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 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights