DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 4, 8-9, 12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2018/0238598) in view of Kojima (JP 2010-203673, see English translation included with previous correspondence).
As to claim 1, Xu discloses an air conditioner comprising:
an indoor unit 22 comprising an expansion valve V-4 and an indoor heat exchanger E-4;
an outdoor unit 28 comprising a compressor E-1 configured to supply refrigerant to the indoor unit 22, and a compressor inlet pressure sensor P-2; and
a programmable controller 34 which necessarily has one or more processors and a memory (paragraph 35),
wherein the controller 34 is configured with instructions to:
increase an opening degree of the expansion valve V-4 in response to the compressor inlet pressure becoming less than a defined lower limit during a defrosting operation (paragraph 114), and
decrease the opening degree of the expansion valve V-4 in response to the compressor inlet pressure becoming greater than a defined upper limit during the defrosting operation (paragraph 114).
Xu does not include an accumulator, and thus does not explicitly teach that the sensor P-2 detects pressure of refrigerant entering the compressor from an accumulator. However, Kojima teaches use of a suction pressure sensor 32 that detects compressor inlet pressure of a refrigerant flowing from an accumulator 16 (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Xu to incorporate an accumulator configuration as claimed and taught by Kojima in order to prevent slugging of the compressor.
As to claim 4, Xu teaches reducing an opening degree of expansion valve V-4 in response to entering a defrosting operation (paragraphs 116-117) and adjusting the opening degree of the expansion valve V-4 based on the compressor inlet pressure (paragraph 114). Xu does not explicitly teach adjusting the valve V-4 in a stepwise manner. However, Official Notice is taken that stepwise valve control is a common and typical feature of the art that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the control of Xu for the purpose of providing effective flow control.
As to claim 8, Xu does not explicitly teach detecting inlet pressure at defined periods as claimed. However, Official Notice is taken that periodic detection is a common and typical feature in the art that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the system of Xu for the purpose of preventing the amount of data stored in the memory from becoming too large.
As to claims 9, 12, and 16, if a modified prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would nec-essarily perform the method claimed then the method claimed will be considered to be obvious in view of the modified device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. Thus the methods as claimed would necessarily result from the normal operation of the modified apparatus of Xu.
As to claims 17 and 20, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Kojima as applied above, and further in view of Arai (US 5,499,508).
As to claims 5 and 13, Xu teaches a compressor outlet temperature sensor T-3, but does not explicitly teach reducing the compressor frequency based on discharge temperature exceeding a first threshold. However Arai teaches that it is known to decrease compressor frequency when a discharge temperature exceeds a threshold (col. 5, lines 16-25). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the controller 34 of Xu to operate the system in the manner as claimed and taught by Arai in order to prevent system malfunction.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Kojima, and Arai as applied above, and further in view of Matsusaka (US 2021/0341192).
As to claims 6 and 14, Xu does not explicitly teach terminating a defrost operation based on compressor discharge temperature as claimed. However, Matsusaka teaches that a compressor discharge temperature can be used to determine whether frost has melted (paragraph 45). In light of this teaching it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the controller 34 and Xu to operate in the manner as claimed in order to ensure that a defrost operation is completed and stopped in a desired manner.
Claim 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Kojima, and Arai as applied above, and further in view of Kawai (US 2013/0192284).
As to claim 7, Xu teaches a compressor outlet pressure sensor P-1, but does not explicitly teach using a determined discharged superheat to terminate defrost operation as claimed. However, Kojima teaches using suction or discharge superheat interchangeably, and determining whether a superheat value is below a threshold to make system control determinations (page 5, paragraph 5). Furthermore, Kawai teaches terminating a defrost operation when superheat becomes lower than a threshold (paragraph 14). In light of these teachings it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the controller 34 of Xu to operate in the manner as claimed in order to ensure that a defrost operation is completed and stopped in a desired manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-15, filed 9/28/2026, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Xu (US 2018/0238598) as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
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.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
