DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
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 it contains the implied phrase “is provided”. 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 § 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.
Claim 1-4, 8-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima (JP 2010-203673, see attached English translation).
As to claim 1, Kojima teaches an air conditioner comprising:
an indoor unit 2 comprising an expansion valve 14 and an indoor heat exchanger 13;
a compressor 11 configured to supply a refrigerant to the indoor unit 2;
a compressor inlet pressure sensor 32 detecting suction pressure of the compressor of refrigerant flowing from an accumulator 16; and
a controller 40, wherein the controller 40 adjusts the opening degree of the expansion valve 14 based on the compressor inlet pressure during a defrosting operation (page 4, last paragraph).
Kojima is silent regarding the specific construction of the controller 40 and thus does not explicitly teach a memory and processor as claimed. However, Official Notice is taken that a programmable controller having a memory and processor is a common and typical feature in the art that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the system of Kojima for the purpose of providing convenient and effective control of the system.
As to claim 2, Kojima teaches adjusting the opening degree of the expansion valve 14 to allow the compressor inlet pressure to be maintained within a defined pressure range (page 4, last paragraph).
As to claim 3, Kojima teaches increasing/decreasing the opening degree of the expansion valve 14 to maintain suction pressure between upper and lower limits (page 5, paragraph 2).
As to claim 4, Kojima teaches reducing an opening degree of an expansion valve at the start of defrosting (page 4, 2nd paragraph), and adjusting the opening degree based on compressor inlet pressure as discussed above.
As to claim 8, Kojima 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 Kojima for the purpose of preventing the amount of data stored in the memory from becoming too large.
As to claims 9-12 and 16-20, 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 Kojima as applied above, and further in view of Arai (US 5,499,508).
As to claims 5 and 13, Kojima teaches a compressor outlet temperature sensor 33, 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 40 of Kojima to operate the system in the manner as claimed and taught by Arai in order to prevent system malfunction.
Claims and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima and Arai as applied above, and further in view of Matsusaka (US 2021/0341192).
As to claims 6 and 14, Kojima 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 40 of Kojima to operate in the manner as claimed in order to ensure that a defrost operation is stopped completed and stopped in a desired manner.
Claim 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima and Arai as applied above, and further in view of Kawai (US 2013/0192284).
As to claim 7, Kojima teaches a compressor outlet pressure sensor 31, but does not explicitly teach using a determined discharged superheat to terminate defrost operation as claimed. However, Kojima does teach using suction or discharge superheat interchangeably, and determining whether a superheat values 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 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 40 of Kojima to operate in the manner as claimed in order to ensure that a defrost operation is completed and stopped in a desired manner.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights