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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second air check valve in at least claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
Control unit in at least claims 1-2 and 5-6
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 review of the specification show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
-
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “control unit” in line 12 of page 1 of the claims. The term “unit,” being a non-structural term that is a substitute for the term "means," invokes a claim interpretation under the guise of 35 USC § 112(f), which requires a reliance on the corresponding disclosure to provide the limits on the structure, material or act that performs the claimed function. The disclosure must show with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed. Possession is shown by describing the claimed invention with all limitations. Here, the control unit, including its function, is discussed in at least ¶ 0041, 0045-0047 and 0049. However, the corresponding structure that is capable of performing the claimed function (i.e. to control; opening and closing of valves) of the unit is not provided in the specification. A mere restatement of the function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function, is a failure to provide adequate written description for a § 112(f) limitation claim interpretation. Because the specification fails to provide an adequate description of a structure for the control unit, the boundary of claim is not clearly defined. A claim without clearly defined boundaries is rendered indefinite. Therefore, the claim, and all claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 1-12 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.
The limitation “control unit” in claim 1 render the claim(s) indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not understand the structural scope of the claimed invention when read in light of the specification. The lack of structural disclosure regarding the limitation "control unit” as called for in independent claim 1 creates such an inconsistency between the claims and the description that it prevents a skilled artisan from understanding the scope of the independent claims (MPEP § 2173.03). Therefore the claim, and all claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "every first determination time period" in line 14 of page 1 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear how multiple (i.e. every) first determination periods exist without the disclosure of at least a singular or a first determination time period.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 recites “…the control unit opens…” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “opens”. Claim 1 recites an apparatus claim (an air conditioner) and the limitation of "the control unit opens the supply valve" or "the control unit opens the air check valve" or "the control unit opens the first air check valve" is a method step of using the apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since it is unclear if infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows a control unit to open valve, or whether infringement occurs when the control unit executes the action to open a valve, see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). As such, the claims are indefinite as failing to particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the invention. The claims and all depending therefrom are therefore rejected.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim limitations as if they read, "…the control unit is capable of opening…”.
Claim 7 recites “…the control unit maintains…” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “maintains”. Claim 1 recites an apparatus claim (an air conditioner) and the limitation of "the control unit maintains the supply valve" is a method step of using the apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since it is unclear if infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows a control unit to maintain a valve, or whether infringement occurs when the control unit executes the action to maintain a valve, see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). As such, the claims are indefinite as failing to particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the invention. The claims and all depending therefrom are therefore rejected.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim limitation as if it read, "…the control unit is capable of maintaining…”.
Claim 1 recites a method and an apparatus in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. MPEP 2173,05(p) (11); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In particular, independent claim 1 recites “an air conditioner”. The limitation “air conditioner” is treated as an apparatus; however, the subsequent limitations require the performance of a method (i.e. when the compressor stops driving). The method limitations are drafted as steps (i.e. when the compressor stops driving, the control unit opens the supply valve) performed by the “air conditioner”. As such, the claims recite both an apparatus and method steps using the apparatus in the same claim and are thus indefinite. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are rejected.
Claim 2 recites a method and an apparatus in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. MPEP 2173,05(p) (11); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In particular, independent claim 1 recites “an air conditioner”. The limitation “air conditioner” is treated as an apparatus; however, the subsequent limitations require the performance of a method (i.e. when the compressor starts driving). The method limitations are drafted as steps (i.e. when the compressor starts driving, the control unit opens the supply valve) performed by the “air conditioner”. As such, the claims recite both an apparatus and method steps using the apparatus in the same claim and are thus indefinite. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are rejected.
Claim 5 recites a method and an apparatus in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. MPEP 2173,05(p) (11); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In particular, independent claim 1 recites “an air conditioner”. The limitation “air conditioner” is treated as an apparatus; however, the subsequent limitations require the performance of a method (i.e. when the drainage valve is opened while the supply valve is closed…). The method limitations are drafted as steps (i.e. when the drainage valve is opened while the supply valve is closed…the control unit opens the air check valve) performed by the “air conditioner”. As such, the claims recite both an apparatus and method steps using the apparatus in the same claim and are thus indefinite. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are rejected.
Claim 6 recites a method and an apparatus in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. MPEP 2173,05(p) (11); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In particular, independent claim 1 recites “an air conditioner”. The limitation “air conditioner” is treated as an apparatus; however, the subsequent limitations require the performance of a method (i.e. when the drainage valve is opened while the supply valve is closed…). The method limitations are drafted as steps (i.e. when the drainage valve is opened while the supply valve is closed…the control unit opens the first air check valve…) performed by the “air conditioner”. As such, the claims recite both an apparatus and method steps using the apparatus in the same claim and are thus indefinite. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are rejected.
Claim 7 recites a method and an apparatus in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. MPEP 2173,05(p) (11); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In particular, independent claim 1 recites “an air conditioner”. The limitation “air conditioner” is treated as an apparatus; however, the subsequent limitations require the performance of a method (i.e. when the driving of the compressor ends). The method limitations are drafted as steps (i.e. when the driving of the compressor ends, the control unit maintains the supply valve…) performed by the “air conditioner”. As such, the claims recite both an apparatus and method steps using the apparatus in the same claim and are thus indefinite. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are rejected.
Regarding Claim 7, the recitation of “...a fourth determination time period…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to how a fourth determination time period may exist without the existence of a second through third determination time period. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "every first determination time period" in line 11 of page 3 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear how multiple (i.e. every) first determination periods exist without the disclosure of at least a singular or a first determination time period.
Regarding Claim 9, the recitation of “...when the compressor is restarted for less than the first determination time period after the driving end operation…,” renders the claim unclear. Respectfully, the claim language cannot be followed, and it is unclear to the examiner what specifically is being claimed, so much so that the uncertainty makes the claim difficult to examine in view of the prior art. Specifically, the phrase “restarted”, in this context may be interpreted in multiple ways as “activating” the compressor or “leaving the compressor off”, as it is “after the end driving end operation”. The claims appears to be generally narrative as it may be a direct translation into English from a foreign document. Any lack of prior art should not be construed as allowable subject matter, rather a testament to the extent of the Examiner’s uncertainty. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 12, the recitation of “...a fourth determination time period…,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to how a fourth determination time period may exist without the existence of a second through third determination time period. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. 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.
Regarding Claim 12, the recitation of “...includes a cooling operation of maintaining the water supply operation for a fourth determination time period shorter than the first time period…,” renders the claim unclear. Respectfully, the claim language cannot be followed, and it is unclear to the examiner what specifically is being claimed, so much so that the uncertainty makes the claim difficult to examine in view of the prior art. Specifically, the phrase “a cooling operation”, in this context implies reference to a system capable of cooling (i.e. a vapor compression system). However, the phrase “maintaining the water supply operation” is understood as water distribution. It is therefore unclear how a cooling operation is providing a water supply operation. The claims appears to be generally narrative as it may be a direct translation into English from a foreign document. Any lack of prior art should not be construed as allowable subject matter, rather a testament to the extent of the Examiner’s uncertainty. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20220082629 A, hereinafter “Kim”), and further in view of Kinoshita et al. (JP 2023070881 A, hereinafter “Kinoshita”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches an air conditioner [100; Figs. 1-4] including an evaporator [130] through which a refrigerant circulates [¶ 0026], an expansion valve [120], a compressor [140], an evaporative condenser [110], and a water supply module [¶ 0027; not annotated; see left-side portion of Figs. 1-4 including the components connected to at least the water supply source [WS] and the evaporative condenser [110] that may be considered the water supply module] configured to spray water into the evaporative condenser [¶ 0027, 0031; the water supply module provides water to a cooling passage of the evaporative condenser],
wherein the water supply module includes:
a supply line [at least W1] connected to a water supply source [WS] [¶ 0036], and including a passage [at least W2] through which water is supplied from the water supply source [¶ 0027; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection];
a discharge unit connected to one end of the supply line and including a water nozzle configured to supply water to the evaporative condenser [¶ 0027; Kim discloses that the evaporative condenser 140 has structure capable of spraying water on the surface of the condenser; therefore, the structure capable of “spraying water” must necessarily comprise some discharge unit with a nozzle for spraying water].
While Kim generally discloses a control unit [160] [¶ 0045], Kim does not explicitly disclose a supply valve configured to open and close the passage through which water is supplied from the water supply source; a control unit connected to the supply valve, wherein, when the compressor stops driving, the control unit opens the supply valve in every first determination time period and supplies water to the water nozzle for a predetermined period of time.
However, Kinoshita teaches a cooling device [10; Fig. 1] comprising a compressor [112], an expansion valve [114], an evaporator [111] and a condenser [113] [¶ 0016], wherein the condenser is configured to receive a water spray via a supply valve [122a], such that the supply valve may open and close a passage [122] through which water is supplied from a water supply source [12] [¶ 0022-0023]. Kinoshita further discloses the valve corresponds to a sprinkler (discharge unit) connected to one end of the supply line wherein the sprinkler supplies water from the source to the condenser [¶ 0023, 0027, 0032]. Kinoshita further teaches a controller [20] configured to operate the valve [¶ 0023], such that a command may be given to the sprinkler valve to open for a preset time [¶ 0032-0035; also see S104, Fig. 2]. Note, the limitation “when the compressor stops driving” is considered to be intended use because it only describes a generic point-in-time trigger to execute the function of “the control unit opens the supply valve” and does not itself imply any structure, and therefore does not impart patentable weight [MPEP 2111.02]. Kinoshita further teaches that providing a control means to the amount of water being sprayed onto a heat exchanger enables the system to store the water when the predetermined control conditions are not met and to enable the flow of spray water when said conditions are met, thereby improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the condenser and suppressing the occurrence of abnormal cooling, thus improving the system [¶ 0054, 0061]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the supply valve and controller as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the supply valve and controller 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. improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the condenser and suppressing the occurrence of abnormal cooling, thus improving the system [¶ 0054, 0061].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have a supply valve configured to open and close a passage through which water is supplied from the water supply source; a control unit connected to the supply valve, wherein, when the compressor stops driving, the control unit opens the supply valve in every first determination time period and supplies water to the water nozzle for a predetermined period of time, in view of the teachings of Kinoshita where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a control means to the amount of water being sprayed onto a heat exchanger enables the system to store the water when the predetermined control conditions are not met and to enable the flow of spray water when said conditions are met, improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the condenser and suppressing the occurrence of abnormal cooling, thus improving the system.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim, as modified, teaches the air conditioner of claim 1 above and Kinoshita teaches wherein, when driving of the compressor ends [Note: the limitation “when the driving of the compressor ends” is considered to be intended use because it only describes a generic point-in-time trigger to execute the function of “the control unit maintains the supply valve” and does not itself imply any structure, and therefore does not impart patentable weight [MPEP 2111.02]], the control unit maintains the supply valve to be in an open state for a fourth determination time period shorter than the first determination time period, and closes the supply valve [¶ 0032-0034; the valve is capable of opening for a preset time, then closing after said preset time; accordingly the valve is capable of being controlled by the controller and the controller is capable of utilizing time as a trigger condition, thereby providing structure capable of the function claimed by the air conditioner].
While Kinoshita does not explicitly teach a determination time period of varying length, Kinoshita does explicitly teach that the control unit is operated according to any generic programs or prestored data to implement the opening/closing control [¶ 0027-0028]. Kinoshita further teaches that the valve is capable of opening for a preset time, then closing after a preset time; accordingly the valve is capable of being controlled by the controller and the controller is capable of utilizing time as a trigger condition, thereby providing structure capable of the function claimed by the air conditioner [¶ 0032-0034]. Based on the above teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the control operations regarding time period can only be arranged in a finite combination as follows: (A) longer determination time period, (B) shorter determination time period or (C) same determination time period.
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. (A), (B) or (C), a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the condenser and suppressing the occurrence of abnormal cooling, thus improving the system [¶ 0054, 0061], it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim teaches a method of controlling a water supply module, the method comprising:
a driving start operation of starting driving of a compressor [140] [¶ 0045, 0058, 0063];
a water supply operation of spraying water to a heat exchanger [110] through a water nozzle [¶ 0027; Kim discloses that the evaporative condenser 140 has structure capable of spraying water on the surface of the condenser; therefore, the structure capable of “spraying water” must necessarily comprise some discharge unit with a nozzle for spraying water] of a water supply module [¶ 0027; not annotated; see left-side portion of Figs. 1-4 including the components connected to at least the water supply source [WS] and the evaporative condenser [110] that may be considered the water supply module];
a driving end operation of ending driving of the compressor [¶ 0026; the compressor is controlled by an inverter and is commonsensically capable of turning off]; and
a supply operation of supplying water to the water nozzle [¶ 0036; water supply passage W1 connects to another water passage W2 configured to towards the evaporative condenser].
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the supply operation supplies water to the water nozzle for a predetermined period of time every first determination time period after the driving end operation.
However, Kinoshita teaches a cooling device [10; Fig. 1] comprising a compressor [112], an expansion valve [114], an evaporator [111] and a condenser [113] [¶ 0016], wherein the condenser is configured to receive a water spray via a supply valve [122a], such that the supply valve may open and close a passage [122] through which water is supplied from a water supply source [12] [¶ 0022-0023]. Kinoshita further discloses the valve corresponds to a sprinkler (discharge unit) connected to one end of the supply line wherein the sprinkler supplies water from the source to the condenser [¶ 0023, 0027, 0032]. Kinoshita further teaches a controller [20] configured to operate the valve [¶ 0023], such that a command may be given to the sprinkler valve to open for a preset time [¶ 0032-0035; also see S104, Fig. 2]. Kinoshita does explicitly teach that the control unit is operated according to any generic programs or prestored data to implement the opening/closing control [¶ 0027-0028]. Kinoshita further teaches that the valve is capable of opening for a preset time, then closing after a preset time; accordingly the valve is capable of being controlled by the controller and the controller is capable of utilizing time as a trigger condition, thereby providing structure capable of performing the method claimed [¶ 0032-0034]. Kinoshita further teaches that providing a control means to the amount of water being sprayed onto a heat exchanger enables the system to store the water when the predetermined control conditions are not met and to enable the flow of spray water when said conditions are met, thereby improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the condenser and suppressing the occurrence of abnormal cooling, thus improving the system [¶ 0054, 0061]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the supply valve and controller as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the supply valve and controller 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. improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the condenser and suppressing the occurrence of abnormal cooling, thus improving the system [¶ 0054, 0061].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kim to have a supply operation of supplying water to the water nozzle for a predetermined period of time every first determination time period after the driving end operation, in view of the teachings of Kinoshita where the methods could have been combined by known techniques with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a control means to the amount of water being sprayed onto a heat exchanger enables the system to store the water when the predetermined control conditions are not met and to enable the flow of spray water when said conditions are met, improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the condenser and suppressing the occurrence of abnormal cooling, thus improving the system.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim, as modified, teaches the method of claim 8 above and Kinoshita teaches wherein the water supply operation is performed when the compressor is restarted for less than the first determination time period after the driving end operation [See below analysis and 112(b) rejection above].
Kinoshita teaches that the control unit is operated according to any generic programs or prestored data to implement the opening/closing control [¶ 0027-0028]. Kinoshita further teaches that the valve is capable of opening for a preset time, then closing after a preset time; accordingly the valve is capable of being controlled by the controller and the controller is capable of utilizing time as a trigger condition, thereby providing structure capable of the function claimed by the air conditioner [¶ 0032-0034]. Kinoshita further discloses the known need in the art of providing sprinkler cooled condensers to improve the efficiency of the system, thereby attempting to suppress compressor stoppage (i.e. restarting for less time) [¶ 0061]. Based on the above teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the control operations regarding time period can only be arranged in a finite combination as follows: (A) restarted for more than the first determination time period, (B) restarted for less than the first determination time period or (C) restarted for the same determination time period.
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e. (A), (B) or (C), a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the condenser and suppressing the occurrence of abnormal cooling, thus improving the system [¶ 0054, 0061], it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim, as modified, teaches the method of claim 8 above and Kim teaches wherein the method further includes a cooling operation [R1; ¶ 0026; air conditioner 100 comprises of a refrigerant cycle R1, in communication with the water supply via at least evaporative condenser 110] of maintaining the water supply operation for a fourth determination time period shorter than the first time period [¶ 0032-0034; the valve is capable of opening for a preset time, then closing after said preset time; accordingly the valve is capable of being controlled by the controller and the controller is capable of utilizing time as a trigger condition, thereby providing structure capable of the function claimed by the air conditioner].
Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Kinoshita as in claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 216953597 U, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim, as modified, teaches the air conditioner of claim 1 above and Kinoshita teaches wherein, when the compressor starts driving [Note: the limitation “when the compressor starts driving” is considered to be intended use because it only describes a generic point-in-time trigger to execute the function of “the control unit opens the supply valve” and does not itself imply any structure, and therefore does not impart patentable weight [MPEP 2111.02]], the control unit opens the supply valve, closes the supply valve after a second determination time period, and opens the supply valve again after a third determination time period [¶ 0032-0034; the valve is capable of opening for a preset time, then closing after said preset time; accordingly the valve is capable of being controlled by the controller and the controller is capable of utilizing time as a trigger condition, thereby providing structure capable of the function claimed by the air conditioner].
Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the water supply module includes a water filter unit disposed between the supply valve and the discharge unit in the supply line.
However, Wang discloses an integrated evaporative cooling direct expansion machine set [Figs. 1-3], with a water distribution system comprising a water distribution device [7] configured to spray onto an evaporative condenser [1], wherein the water may drain into a water source [4], the system comprising a drainage pipeline [10] upstream of a descaler [6] (filter), such that water flows from the descaler to the distribution device [¶ 0027-0032]. Wang further teaches that the descaler removes impurities in the water received from the water source [¶ 0035], thereby necessarily improving the lifespan and reducing wear of components in the water loop and improving the invention [¶ 0035]. While Wang does not explicitly disclose the filter in relation to a valve, a person of ordinary skill in the art may commonsensically dispose the filter of Wang into the combined system of Kim in one of two configurations, either upstream or downstream of the valve, thus a finite number of combinations exist to arrive at the claimed configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the filter as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the filter 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. providing a means to descale (or remove particulates from) the water in the loop necessarily improves the lifespan by removing impurities in the water, thus reducing wear of components in the water loop and improving the invention [¶ 0035]
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have wherein the water supply module includes a water filter unit disposed between the supply valve and the discharge unit in the supply line, in view of the teachings of Wang where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to descale (or remove particulates from) the water in the loop necessarily improves the lifespan by removing impurities in the water, thus reducing wear of components in the water loop and improving the invention.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim, as modified, teaches the air conditioner of claim 2 above and Wang teaches wherein the water filter unit includes a granular resin filter [at least descaler 6] including a plurality of granular resin filter media accommodated therein [While Wang is silent regarding the configuration of the sediment filter having a plurality of resin filters, the limitation requiring a plurality of filters may be considered an obvious design choice regarding a duplication of parts [MPEP 2144.04 VI.B], as a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. After review of Applicant’s specification, no criticality regarding the number of granular resin filters could be found, therefore the limitation requiring a plurality of filters is considered obvious and does not have patentable weight].
Regarding Claim 10, Kim, as modified, teaches the method of claim 8 above and Kinoshita teaches wherein the method further includes an initial driving operation of temporarily supplying water to a supply line of the water supply module, and cutting water off after the driving start operation and the water supply operation [¶ 0032-0034; the valve is capable of opening for a preset time, then closing after said preset time; accordingly the valve is capable of being controlled by the controller and the controller is capable of utilizing time as a trigger condition, thereby providing structure capable of the function claimed by the method].
Kinoshita does not explicitly teach in which a water filter unit including a granular resin filter medium accommodated therein is disposed.
However, Wang discloses an integrated evaporative cooling direct expansion machine set [Figs. 1-3], with a water distribution system comprising a water distribution device [7] configured to spray onto an evaporative condenser [1], wherein the water may drain into a water source [4], the system comprising a drainage pipeline [10] upstream of a descaler [6] (granular resin filter), such that water flows from the descaler to the distribution device [¶ 0027-0032]. Wang further teaches that the descaler removes impurities in the water received from the water source [¶ 0035], thereby necessarily improving the lifespan and reducing wear of components in the water loop and improving the invention [¶ 0035]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the filter as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the filter 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. providing a means to descale (or remove particulates from) the water in the loop necessarily improves the lifespan by removing impurities in the water, thus reducing wear of components in the water loop and improving the invention [¶ 0035]
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kim to have a water filter unit including a granular resin filter medium accommodated therein is disposed, in view of the teachings of Wang where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to descale (or remove particulates from) the water in the loop necessarily improves the lifespan by removing impurities in the water, thus reducing wear of components in the water loop and improving the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim, as modified, teaches the method of claim 10 above and Kinoshita teaches wherein, in the initial driving operation, water is supplied to the supply line after the driving start operation, water is cut off after a second determination time period, and the water supply operation is performed after a third determination time period [¶ 0032-0034; the valve is capable of opening for a preset time, then closing after said preset time; accordingly the valve is capable of being controlled by the controller and the controller is capable of utilizing time as a trigger condition, thereby providing structure capable of the function claimed by the method; commonsensically the inclusion of multiple predetermined times appears to be simply linking multiple versions of Kinoshita’s methodology utilizing predetermined times (Figs. 2-4); as such the duplication of time parameters may be considered an obvious design choice regarding automation of a manual activity [MPEP 2144.04 III], as the claimed method appears to only be duplicating the time parameters to automate a manual activity, wherein Kinoshita has established the known advantage of utilizing time to regulate spray amounts when controlling a water supply module above].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Kinoshita and Wang as in claim 2 above, and further in view of Yi et al. (KR 20200075244 A, hereinafter “Yi”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim, as modified, teaches the air conditioner of claim 2 above and Kinoshita teaches wherein the water supply module includes:
a drainage line [123], and including a drainage valve [123a] configured to open and close a passage for draining water in the discharge unit externally [¶ 0024-0025].
Kim, as modified, does not teach a pressure reducing valve disposed between the supply valve and the discharge unit in the supply line; and wherein the drainage line is connected between the water filter unit and the pressure reducing valve in the supply line.
However, Yi teaches a water supplying and spraying system for an evaporative cooler [Figs. 1-6] comprising at least a spray system [200] with a water inflow line [L1], a direct water valve [261] for controlling the inflow of water towards a supply line [L2] [¶ 0064], wherein the water may flow towards a water pipe [230] with micro-injection nozzles [240] configured to spray onto the evaporative cooler body [100] [¶ 0047-0049, 0055-0058] The spray system further comprises a drain line [L7] controlled via a drain valve [263] [¶ 0067]. Yi further discloses a flow rate adjustment unit [220] disposed downstream of the direct water valve while upstream of the T-junction [262] formed with the drain line, wherein Yi discloses that the flow rate adjustment unit may be a valve [¶ 0055, 0060]. Yi further teaches the disclosed drain line and pressure reducing valve configuration provide a means for water to drain into L7 from both inflow line L1 and water remaining in pipes upstream of the junction (L2-L4), thereby preventing a negative pressure from occurring in the drain passage this ensuring smooth drainage without clogging, thus improving the system [¶ 0071]. Yi also discloses that providing a flow control unit provides the known benefit of regulating pressure suitable for spray water [¶ 0059-0060]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the pressure reducing valve and drain location as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the pressure reducing valve and drain location 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. provide a means for water to drain from both upstream and downstream of the junction, thereby preventing a negative pressure from occurring in the drain passage this ensuring smooth drainage without clogging, as well as a means to regulate pressure for spray, thus improving the system [¶ 0059-0060, 0071].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have a pressure reducing valve disposed between the supply valve and the discharge unit in the supply line; and wherein the drainage line is connected between the water filter unit and the pressure reducing valve in the supply line, in view of the teachings of Yi where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a means for water to drain from both upstream and downstream of the junction, thereby preventing a negative pressure from occurring in the drain passage this ensuring smooth drainage without clogging, as well as a means to regulate pressure for spray, thus improving the system.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Kinoshita, Wang and Yi as in claim 4 above, and further in view of Kabe et al. (US 20220196695 A1, hereinafter “Kabe”).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim, as modified, teaches the air conditioner of claim 4 above but Kim does not teach wherein the water supply module includes an air check valve disposed between the supply valve and the pressure reducing valve in the supply line, and the air check valve provides atmospheric pressure into the supply line, and wherein, when the drainage valve is opened while the supply valve is closed during drainage through the drainage line, the control unit opens the air check valve.
However, Kabe teaches a system [Fig. 2A] comprising a water supply pump [204] configured to flow water towards a path [211], wherein the fluid may flow towards a flow path [205], wherein the path may further flow into a drain tank [206]. The water pathway passes over a valve [214] for controlling flow through the pathway, and an atmosphere opening part [217] [¶ 0028], wherein the system comprises a control computer [123] for controlling the operation of each mechanism [¶ 0021]. Kabe teaches that providing a means to vent a liquid duct is necessary to enable to drainage, as a closing of the pressure upstream (i.e. valve 214) may inhibit the flow of liquid to expel from the conduit, thereby enabling the system to drain under such conditions [¶ 0028]. where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the air check valve and that in combination, the air check valve 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. providing a means to vent a liquid duct is enables drainage, as a closing of the pressure upstream may inhibit the flow of liquid to expel from the conduit, thereby enabling the system to drain under such conditions [¶ 0028].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have wherein the water supply module includes an air check valve disposed between the supply valve and the pressure reducing valve in the supply line, and the air check valve provides atmospheric pressure into the supply line, and wherein, when the drainage valve is opened while the supply valve is closed during drainage through the drainage line, the control unit opens the air check valve, in view of the teachings of Kabe, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to vent a liquid duct is enables drainage, as a closing of the pressure upstream may inhibit the flow of liquid to expel from the conduit, thereby enabling the system to drain under such conditions.
Regarding Claim 6, Kim, as modified, teaches the air conditioner of claim 1 above but Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the water supply module includes a first air check valve disposed between the supply valve and the pressure reducing valve in the supply line and a second air check valve disposed on an end of the discharge unit, and wherein, when the drainage valve is opened while the supply valve is closed during drainage through the drainage line, the control unit opens the first air check valve and the second air check valve.
However, Kabe teaches a system [Fig. 2A] comprising a water supply pump [204] configured to flow water towards a path [211], wherein the fluid may flow towards a flow path [205], wherein the path may further flow into a drain tank [206]. The water pathway passes over a valve [214] for controlling flow through the pathway, and an atmosphere opening part [217] [¶ 0028], wherein the system comprises a control computer [123] for controlling the operation of each mechanism [¶ 0021]. Kabe teaches that providing a means to vent a liquid duct is necessary to enable to drainage, as a closing of the pressure upstream (i.e. valve 214) may inhibit the flow of liquid to expel from the conduit, thereby enabling the system to drain under such conditions [¶ 0028]. where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the first air check valve and that in combination, the first air check valve 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. providing a means to vent a liquid duct is enables drainage, as a closing of the pressure upstream may inhibit the flow of liquid to expel from the conduit, thereby enabling the system to drain under such conditions [¶ 0028].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kim to have wherein the water supply module includes a first air check valve disposed between the supply valve and the pressure reducing valve in the supply line and a second air check valve disposed on an end of the discharge unit, and wherein, when the drainage valve is opened while the supply valve is closed during drainage through the drainage line, the control unit opens the first air check valve and the second air check valve, in view of the teachings of Kabe, where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to vent a liquid duct is enables drainage, as a closing of the pressure upstream may inhibit the flow of liquid to expel from the conduit, thereby enabling the system to drain under such conditions.
Furthermore, while Kabe is silent regarding the second air check valve, the limitation requiring a plurality of valves may be considered an obvious design choice regarding a duplication of parts [MPEP 2144.04 VI.B], as a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Specifically, an additional air check valve in the discharge unit would likely provide the same expected result or advantage (i.e. further facilitate pressure equalization to drain water in a conduit with a closed valve upstream). After review of Applicant’s specification, no criticality regarding the number of air check valves could be found, therefore the limitation requiring a plurality of air check valves is considered obvious and does not have patentable weight. Also see drawing objection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights