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 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: "compression unit," which is interpreted as a unit for compression, in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The “compression unit” is sufficiently described in the specification as first, second and third compressors (see paragraph 16, specification).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (US 2010/0126211 A1) and in view of Inoue (JP 2013164242 A) and further in view of Taras (US 2010/0199694 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Okamoto discloses a heat source unit (outdoor unit 20, see abstract and fig. 1), comprising: a refrigerant circuit (refrigerant circuit 11) including a compression unit (compression unit 30 with compressors 32a, 32b, see fig. 12), a heat-source-side heat exchanger (outdoor heat exchanger 21), a subcooling-side decompression valve (gas injection electronic expansion valve 44a, see paragraph 128 and fig. 1), and a subcooling heat exchanger (internal heat exchanger 24, fig. 1) having a first flow path (pipe 41, 42 and section 24a) and a second flow path (pipe 44 and section 24b), where the first flow path is a flow path through which a refrigerant having dissipated heat in the heat-source-side heat exchanger flows (pipe 41, 42 and 24a receiving refrigerant from outdoor heat exchanger 21 through valve CV-3 and pipe 41, see figs. 1-9 and 12), and where the second flow path is a flow path through which a refrigerant passing through the first flow path (refrigerant passing through pipe 44 after passing through pipe 41, see figs. 1-9 and 12) and then decompressed by the subcooling-side decompression valve flows (refrigerant passing through section 24b after passing through pipe 44 and valve 44a, see figs. 1-9 and 12); and a controller (control section 80, see figs. 1-4 and paragraph 133) configured to control the subcooling-side decompression valve (adjusting the opening of valve 44a, see paragraphs 147, 161) according to a degree of subcooling of a refrigerant flowing out of the first flow path of the subcooling heat exchanger (flow of refrigerant regulated by valve 44a to achieve subcooling at the subcooling heat exchanger 24, see paragraph 162).
However, Okamoto does not explicitly teach determining shortage of refrigerant in the circuit based on opening degree of valve becoming large.
Inoue discloses a heat source unit (refrigeration system R, fig. 1), comprising: a refrigerant circuit (refrigerant circuit 1) including a compressor (compressor 11), a heat-source-side heat exchanger (gas cooler heat exchanger 30), a subcooling-side decompression valve (expansion valve 35), and a subcooling heat exchanger (intermediate heat exchanger 40, see fig. 1) and a controller (control units C1, C2, see fig. 2) configured to control the subcooling-side decompression valve (control unit C1 adjusting the opening degree of valve 35, see paragraph 32) according to a degree of subcooling of a refrigerant flowing out of the first flow path of the subcooling heat exchanger (adjusting opening of expansion valve 35 to achieve a degree of subcooling of the refrigerant leaving heat exchanger 40, see paragraph 32), wherein based on a fact that an opening degree of the subcooling-side decompression valve becomes larger (increasing the opening of expansion valve 35, paragraph 69), the controller determines whether there is a shortage of a refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit (second determination unit 92 of control unit C1 determines that the amount of refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit 1 is insufficient based on the opening of the expansion valve 35 increasing for a certain period of time, see paragraph 70).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Okamoto to control the subcooling-side decompression valve according to a degree of subcooling of a refrigerant flowing out of the first flow path of the subcooling heat exchanger, and determine whether there is a shortage of a refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit based on a fact that an opening degree of the subcooling-side decompression valve becomes larger based on the teachings of Inoue in order to achieve the required degree of subcooling at the intermediate heat exchanger by supplying sufficient amount of refrigerant to the intermediate heat exchanger because insufficient amount of refrigerant would not allow the intermediate heat exchanger and the refrigerant circuit to achieve target value of subcooling (see paragraph 70, Inoue).
Okamoto also does not explicitly teach a third compressor or compression stage.
Taras discloses a refrigerant system (20) including a multistage compression unit (see compression stages, fig. 2) with three compressors (three compressor stages 122, 122A and 124, see fig. 2 and paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the compression unit of Inoue by providing at least three compressors or compressor stages based on the teachings of Taras for the advantage of supplying low pressure refrigerant from the separator to the point between compressor stages, which enhances refrigerant system performance capacity and efficiency (see paragraph 25, Taras).
In regards to claim 2, Okamoto as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Inoue further discloses that under a condition that the opening degree of a subcooling-side decompression valve is equal to or greater than a predetermined opening degree (opening of the expansion valve 35 reaches a predetermined constant opening, see paragraph 70), the controller determines that there is a shortage of a refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit (92 determines insufficient refrigerant after valve 35 reaches constant opening, see paragraph 70).
In regards to claim 3, Okamoto as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2 and Inoue further discloses that under a condition that the opening degree of a subcooling-side decompression valve continues to remain equal to or greater than a predetermined opening degree for a predetermined duration time or more (10 minutes or more, see paragraph 70), the controller determines that there is a shortage of a refrigerant (92 determines insufficient refrigerant after valve 35 remains open for a certain period of time (e.g. 10 minutes) after reaching the constant opening, see paragraph 70).
In regards to claim 4, Okamoto as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3 and Inoue further discloses that under a condition that the opening degree of a subcooling-side decompression valve continues to remain equal to or greater than a first opening degree for a first duration time or more, the controller determines that there is a shortage of a refrigerant (92 determines insufficient refrigerant after valve 35 remains open for a certain period of time (e.g. 10 minutes) after reaching the constant opening, see paragraph 70), or
under a condition that the opening degree of the subcooling-side decompression valve continues to remain equal to or greater than a second opening degree for a second duration time or more, the controller determines that there is a shortage of a refrigerant (this is an alternative limitation, see MPEP 2173.05 (h); however, Inoue teaches increasing the opening of expansion valve 35 from a closed or reduced state, see paragraphs 34-35, 39-43, wherein the increased opening of expansion valve 35 is equivalent to an opening degree that achieves intermediate pressure of the refrigerant, see paragraphs 42-43), the controller determines that there is a shortage of a refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit (large amount of refrigerant flow through channel 40B due to increased opening of the expansion valve indicates insufficient refrigerant flow to evaporator 82, see paragraph 42), the second duration time is longer than the first duration time (time duration for a normal split cycle utilization of refrigerant circuit is longer than first duration of 10 minutes, see paragraphs 70 and 30), and the second opening degree is smaller than the first opening degree (opening degree of valve 35 increases gradually until valve opening reaches determination valve opening degree, see paragraphs 70 and 74).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Okamoto to determine that there is a shortage of refrigerant, under a condition that the opening degree of the subcooling-side decompression valve continues to remain equal to or greater than a first opening degree for a first duration time or more, or under a condition that the opening degree of the subcooling-side decompression valve continues to remain equal to or greater than a second opening degree for a second duration time or more, and wherein the second duration time is longer than the first duration time, and the second opening degree is smaller than the first opening degree based on the teachings of Inoue in order to accurately establish that the refrigerant circuit of Okamoto is filled with sufficient/insufficient amounts of refrigerant to achieve sufficient cooling efficiency (see paragraph 73-74, Inoue) by gradually increasing the opening degree of the subcooling-side decompression valve after a second duration of time for a further shorter amount of first duration of time because establishing a shortage of refrigerant based on a degree of opening of the subcooling-side decompression valve would be confirmed with accuracy by a greater degree of opening of the subcooling-side decompression valve.
In regards to claim 5, Okamoto as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Inoue further discloses that under a condition that the opening degree of a subcooling-side decompression valve is the opening degree of the subcooling-side decompression valve that is fully opened, the controller determines that there is a shortage of a refrigerant in the refrigerant circuit (controller C1 including determination unit 92 is configured to determine shortage of refrigerant based on the opening degree of the expansion valve being a determination valve opening degree of 180 pulses or more, which includes the fully open state of the expansion valve 35, which is equivalent to 480 pulses, see paragraph 70).
In regards to claim 6, Okamoto as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Okamoto further discloses that the refrigerant circuit is configured to be able to perform a refrigeration cycle in which a high pressure is equal to or greater than a critical pressure (compressor 32 compresses the refrigerant to critical pressure or higher, see paragraph 120, 141 and 148).
In regards to claim 7, Okamoto as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Okamoto further discloses that the refrigerant circuit is provided with a gas-liquid separator (separator 22) between the heat-source-side heat exchanger (HX 21) and the first flow path (42) of the subcooling heat exchanger (separator 22 between HX 21 and first flow path 42, see figs. 1-5).
In regards to claim 8, Okamoto as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Okamoto further discloses a refrigeration apparatus (refrigerating air conditioner 10), comprising: the heat source unit (outdoor unit 20); and a utilization unit (indoor units 50a, 50b, 50c including evaporators 51a, 51b, 51c, see figs. 1 and 5-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERAJ A SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3027. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 9:00-1:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 571-270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MERAJ A SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights