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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II, Claims 1-10 and Species 1, Figure 14 in the reply filed on 29 November 2025 and 22 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions can be examined without serious burden and that the species are that the claims of the elected invention include generic claim coverage that is readable on both disclosed embodiments. In particular, independent claim 1 does not require placement of the solar heater at a specific location within the refrigeration loop and encompasses multiple disclosed configurations. The distinctions identified in the Restriction Requirement relate to particular implementations of the solar heater within the refrigeration cycle rather than to materially different methods of control.
This is not found persuasive with respect to the inventions at least because of the distinctions between the inventions set forth in the restriction/election requirement, and in view that each invention will raise different issues under 35 U.S.C. 112, both of which create a burden. This is not found persuasive with respect to the species, since, in addition to the location(s) of the solar heater, the species of Figure 15 is directed at a different control method based on fewer sensors/determinations. Examiner agrees that claims 1-10 currently read on both the elected invention and the elected species due to the breadth of the claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-28, 31, and 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 29 November 2025 and 22 January 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference characters #60 and #80 are reversed; reference character #51 appears to be in error for #61. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “160” has been used to designate both reversing valve and chamber(s). 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “152” has been used to designate both sensor and casing. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 110 and 116 as discussed with respect to Figure 14. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because it appears that #152 and #128 on Figure 15 may be mislabeled, perhaps for #154 and #127. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that there are numerous inconsistencies with respect to numbering between the drawings and text of the disclosure, Applicant’s assistance in correcting any errors that Applicant may become aware of is apprecited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the evaporator and before the compressor”. Does Applicant intend for this to be an additional measure distinct from the pressure or temperature after the solar heater? If so, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the pressure” in this context, if not, the claim should be amended to relate the determining to require pressure be the required measurement from claim 1. Examiner believes that the art will read on either interpretation in view that the primary reference can measure both temperature and pressure through the sensor(s). Claim 5 also recites the limitation “controlling the speed of the variable speed motor […]”. Is the controlling of the speed of the variable speed motor the same or different from that in claim 1? It is believed that additional language linking the based at least in part on language of claim 1 to the controlling in claim 5 would address the issue.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the evaporator and before the compressor”. Does Applicant intend for this to be an additional measure distinct from the pressure or temperature after the solar heater? If so, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the pressure” in this context, if not, the claim should be amended to relate the determining to require pressure be the required measurement from claim 1. Examiner believes that the art will read on either interpretation in view that the primary reference can measure both temperature and pressure through the sensor(s). Claim 6 also recites the limitation “controlling the speed of the variable speed motor […]”. Is the controlling of the speed of the variable speed motor the same or different from that in claim 1? It is believed that additional language linking the based at least in part on language of claim 1 to the controlling in claim 6 would address the issue.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the solar panel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is believed to be in error for “the solar heater”. Claim 7 also recites the limitation “determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the compressor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the pressure” in this context. Claim 7 also recite the limitation “determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the solar panel”. Is this intended to restrict the temperature or pressure determined in claim 1 to pressure? If so, language linking the determination back to that of claim 1 is needed for clarity. Claim 7 also recites the limitation “controlling the speed of the variable speed motor […]”. Is the controlling of the speed of the variable speed motor the same or different from that in claim 1? It is believed that additional language linking the based at least in part on language of claim 1 to the controlling in claim 7 would address the issue.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the solar panel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is believed to be in error for “the solar heater”. Claim 8 also recites the limitation “determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the condenser but prior to the expansion valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the pressure” in this context. Claim 8 also recite the limitation “determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the solar panel”. Is this intended to restrict the temperature or pressure determined in claim 1 to pressure? If so, language linking the determination back to that of claim 1 is needed for clarity. Claim 8 also recites the limitation “controlling the speed of the variable speed motor […]”. Is the controlling of the speed of the variable speed motor the same or different from that in claim 1? It is believed that additional language linking the based at least in part on language of claim 1 to the controlling in claim 8 would address the issue.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “controlling the speed of the variable speed motor […]”. Is the controlling of the speed of the variable speed motor the same or different from that in claim 1? It is believed that additional language linking the based at least in part on language of claim 1 to the controlling in claim 9 would address the issue.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant directly after the compressor and the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant after the solar panel prior to the expansion valve”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the pressure or temperature directly after the compressor has not been determined and it is unclear if the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant after the solar panel prior to the expansion valve is the same or different from that determined in claim 1? Clarification is requested. Additionally, is the controlling of the speed of the variable speed motor the same or different from that in claim 1? It is believed that additional language linking the based at least in part on language of claim 1 to the controlling in claim 10 would address the issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaiser (US 2020/0378652: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Kaiser shows a method of controlling a refrigeration cycle device that includes refrigerant (see at least paragraph [0009]), a compressor (see at least compressor #112), a condenser (see at least condenser #116), a solar heater (see at least solar thermal chamber #108), a sensor (see at least paragraph [0039]), an expansion valve (see at least beneath evaporator #118 Figure 3a), an evaporator (see at least evaporator #118) and a controller (see at least abstract: controller is required to perform the functions), wherein the compressor is operated by a variable speed motor (see at least motor #114) which is operated by a variable speed drive (see at least drive #115), the method comprising:
compressing the refrigerant using the compressor, wherein the refrigerant exits the compressor as a vapor (see at least compressor #112: inherent to compressor in vapor compression system);
in the condenser, cooling the refrigerant and condensing the refrigerant into a liquid state (see at least condenser #116: inherent to condenser in vapor compression system);
in the solar heater, heating the refrigerant using solar energy (see at least solar thermal chamber #108: inherent to solar thermal chamber);
using the sensor, determining a pressure or a temperature of the refrigerant directly after it has been heated in the solar heater (see at least paragraphs [0009]; [0015]; [0034]; [0039]); and
in the variable speed drive, using a closed-loop control scheme, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based at least in part on the determined pressure or temperature of the refrigerant directly after it has been heated in the solar heater (see at least paragraphs [0034]; [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Kaiser further shows wherein the solar heater is plumbed between the condenser and the expansion valve (see at least Figure 3a: in view that the system is a closed cycle, the solar thermal chamber #108 is between the condenser #116 and the expansion valve).
Regarding claim 3, Kaiser further shows wherein the solar heater is plumbed between the compressor and the condenser (see at least Figure 3a: in view that the system is a closed cycle, the solar thermal chamber #108 is between the compressor #112 and the condenser #116).
Regarding claim 4, Kaiser further shows wherein the solar heater is plumbed between the compressor and a reversing valve in a heat pump (see at least Figure 3a: in view that the system is a closed cycle, the solar thermal chamber #108 is between the compressor #112 and the reversing valve).
Regarding claim 5, Kaiser further shows further comprising:
determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the evaporator and before the compressor (see at least paragraphs [0009]; [0015]; [0034]; [0039]: the sensor(s) may have pressure and/or temperature function and, broadly, the sensor(s) are located within the cycle after the evaporator and before the compressor);
in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on the pressure of the refrigerant after the evaporator and before the compressor (see at least paragraphs [0009]; [0015]; [0034]; [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Kaiser further shows further comprising:
determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the evaporator and before the compressor (see at least paragraphs [0009]; [0015]; [0034]; [0039]: the sensor(s) may have pressure and/or temperature function and, broadly, the sensor(s) are located within the cycle after the evaporator and before the compressor);
in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the pressure of the refrigerant after the evaporator and before the compressor and the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant directly after it has been heated in the solar heater (see at least paragraphs [0009]; [0015]; [0034]; [0039]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshino (US 4,420,947: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 7, Kaiser further discloses further comprising: determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the solar panel (see at least paragraphs [0009]; [0015]; [0034]; [0039]).
Kaiser does not disclose determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the compressor; in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the pressure of the refrigerant after the compressor and after the solar panel, though it is implied that Kaiser likely performs such (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Yoshiro teaches determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the compressor (see at least column 10, lines 43-57); in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the pressure of the refrigerant after the compressor and after the solar panel (see at least column 10, lines 43-57; column 11, lines 24-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Kaiser with determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the compressor; in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the pressure of the refrigerant after the compressor and after the solar panel, as taught by Yoshiro, to improve the method of Kaiser by allowing for improved safety of the system acted on (see at least column 10, lines 43-57).
Regarding claim 8, Kaiser further discloses further comprising: determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the solar panel (see at least paragraphs [0009]; [0015]; [0034]; [0039]).
Kaiser does not disclose determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the condenser but prior to the expansion valve; in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the pressure of the refrigerant after the condenser and after the solar panel, though it is implied that Kaiser likely performs such (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Yoshiro teaches determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the condenser but prior to the expansion valve (see at least column 10, lines 43-57); in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the pressure of the refrigerant after the condenser and after the solar panel, (see at least column 10, lines 43-57; column 11, lines 24-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Kaiser with determining the pressure of the refrigerant after the condenser but prior to the expansion valve; in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the pressure of the refrigerant after the condenser and after the solar panel, as taught by Yoshiro, to improve the method of Kaiser by allowing for improved safety of the system acted on (see at least column 10, lines 43-57).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wallace (US 2014/0048244: cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 9, Kaiser does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
comparing a measured temperature in a conditioned space to a setpoint temperature and determining a difference; in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the difference between the measured temperature in the conditioned space and the setpoint and the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant directly after it has been heated in the solar heater and after the condenser, though it is implied that Kaiser likely performs such (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Wallace teaches another method of controlling a refrigeration cycle device comparing a measured temperature in a conditioned space to a setpoint temperature and determining a difference (see at least paragraphs [0101]; [0107]; [0110]); in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the difference between the measured temperature in the conditioned space and the setpoint and the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant directly after it has been heated in the solar heater and after the condenser (see at least paragraphs [0101]; [0107]; [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Kaiser with further comprising: comparing a measured temperature in a conditioned space to a setpoint temperature and determining a difference; in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the difference between the measured temperature in the conditioned space and the setpoint and the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant directly after it has been heated in the solar heater and after the condenser, as taught by Wallace, to improve the method of Kaiser by improving system efficiency while maintaining user comfort.
Regarding claim 10, Kaiser does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
comparing a measured temperature in a conditioned space to a setpoint temperature and determining a difference; in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the difference between the measured temperature in the conditioned space and the setpoint and both the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant directly after the compressor and the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant after the solar panel prior to the expansion valve, though it is implied that Kaiser likely performs such (see at least paragraph [0030]).
Wallace teaches another method of controlling a refrigeration cycle device comparing a measured temperature in a conditioned space to a setpoint temperature and determining a difference (see at least paragraphs [0101]; [0107]; [0110]); in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the difference between the measured temperature in the conditioned space and the setpoint and both the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant directly after the compressor and the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant after the solar panel prior to the expansion valve (see at least paragraphs [0101]; [0107]; [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the method of Kaiser with further comprising: comparing a measured temperature in a conditioned space to a setpoint temperature and determining a difference; in the controller, controlling the speed of the variable speed motor based on both the difference between the measured temperature in the conditioned space and the setpoint and both the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant directly after the compressor and the pressure or temperature of the refrigerant after the solar panel prior to the expansion valve, as taught by Wallace, to improve the method of Kaiser by improving system efficiency while maintaining user comfort.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAVIA SULLENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30-4:30 Eastern.
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 at 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 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.
/TAVIA SULLENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights