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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2026 was filed after the filing date of this Application on 03/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
“processing circuitry” 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.
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 1-9 are 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 limitations “processing circuitry”. The term “processing circuitry” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a corresponding structure of the “processing circuitry”. A mere restatement of the function (processing) does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure corresponding to the “processing circuitry”. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected due to dependency.
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 1-9 and 12-15 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “processing circuitry” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe” and “closing of the hot gas valve” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “maintain pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe based on closing of the hot gas valve” will be interpreted as -- maintain a pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe based on the closing of the hot gas valve --
Claim 6 recites the limitations “pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe” and “closing of the hot gas valve” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “increase pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe based on closing of the hot gas valve” will be interpreted as -- increase the pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe based on the closing of the hot gas valve --
Claims 7 and 14 recite the limitation “reception” in lines 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
For examination purposes, the phrase “based on reception of a heating operation signal” will be interpreted as -- based on a reception of a heating operation signal --
Claim 12 recites the limitation “determination” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the phrase “based on determination” will be interpreted as -- based on a determination --
Claim 12 recites the limitations “pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe” and “closing of the hot gas valve” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “maintaining pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe based on closing of the hot gas valve” will be interpreted as -- maintaining a pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe based on the closing of the hot gas valve --
Claim 13 recites the limitations “pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe” and “closing of the hot gas valve” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “increasing pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe based on closing of the hot gas valve” will be interpreted as -- increasing the pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe based on the closing of the hot gas valve --
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the high-pressure valve” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the high-pressure valve” will be interpreted as -- a high-pressure valve --
Claims 2, 4-5, 8-9, 12, and 15 are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (EP2006615A2) In view of Kusaka et al. (JP2006170489A, herein after referred to as Kusaka).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an air conditioner (multi air-conditioner 100 Fig. 1) comprising: an outdoor unit (outdoor unit 200 Fig. 1) including a compressor (compressor 210 Fig. 1) configured to compress a refrigerant (paragraph [0029]); a plurality of indoor units (indoor units 300 Fig. 1) configured to perform at least one of a cooling operation (paragraph [0028]) or a heating operation (paragraph [0028]) by receiving the refrigerant from the outdoor unit (Fig. 4); a mode switching unit (cooling/heating switching unit 400 Fig. 1) comprising circuitry (corresponds to all the components included in cooling/heating switching unit 400 Fig. 1) connected between the outdoor unit and the plurality of indoor units (Fig. 1) and configured to switch an operation mode of the plurality of indoor units (paragraph [0028]); a high-pressure gas pipe (high-pressure gas pipe 410 Fig. 4) connected to an outlet side of the compressor (outlet side of compressor 210 Fig. 4) and the mode switching unit (outlet side of cooling/heating switching unit 400 Fig. 4); a low-pressure gas pipe (low-pressure gas pipe 430 Fig. 4) connected to an inlet side of the compressor (inlet side of compressor 210 Fig. 4) and the mode switching unit (inlet side of cooling/heating switching unit 400 Fig. 4); a hot gas valve (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Kim) provided on a hot gas pipe (first low-pressure pipe 432 Fig. 1) connecting the high-pressure gas pipe and the low-pressure gas pipe (Fig. 1); and a controller (controller 500 Fig. 2) including at least one processor (referring to paragraph [0055] and the logic controls illustrated in Figs. 3A-3C, a person skilled in the art would recognize that controller 500 would include a processor/ processing circuit to perform the different tasks that are disclosed), comprising processing circuitry (referring to paragraph [0055] and the logic controls illustrated in Figs. 3A-3C, a person skilled in the art would recognize that controller 500 would include a processor/ processing circuit to perform the different tasks that are disclosed), individually, configured to: determine whether a combined cooling and heating operation (step 803 Fig. 3A and paragraphs [0056] to [0057] where the disclosed “heating-biased operation” and “cooling-biased operation” correspond to the combined operation) is possible based on a cooling operation rate of the plurality of indoor units (disclosed “heating capacity rate” in paragraph [0055]).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the controller configured to control the hot gas valve based on whether the combined cooling and heating operation is possible”.
However, Kusaka teaches a controller (control device 34 in paragraph [0016]) configured to control a hot gas valve (first bypass on-off valve 42 Fig. 2 corresponds to the hot gas valve of Kim) based on whether a combined cooling and heating operation is possible (paragraph [0005] and Figs. 2-3 where the disclosed combined cooling and heating operation corresponds to that of Kim) to provide noise reduction (paragraph [0030]) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Kim to include “the controller configured to control the hot gas valve based on whether the combined cooling and heating operation is possible” in view of the teachings of Kusaka to provide noise reduction.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the controller configured to determine whether the combined cooling and heating operation is possible based on an indoor temperature”.
However, Kim does teach a controller (controller 500 Fig. 2) configured to: determine whether a combined cooling and heating operation is possible (step 803 Fig. 3A and paragraphs [0056] to [0057] where the disclosed “heating-biased operation” and “cooling-biased operation” correspond to the combined operation), and a controller configured to determine an indoor temperature (step 820 Fig. 3B).
Furthermore, it is understood that claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is configured to determine that the combined cooling and heating operation is possible based on the cooling operation rate being equal to a reference value (corresponds to a value of the heating capacity being between 1% and 49% when performing a cooling-bias operation, or a value between 50% and 99% when performing a heating-bias operation as described in paragraphs [0056] to [0057] of Kim).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the controller is configured to determine that the combined cooling and heating operation is possible based on the indoor temperature being less than or equal to a threshold value”.
However, Kim does teach a controller (controller 500 Fig. 2) configured to: determine whether a combined cooling and heating operation is possible (step 803 Fig. 3A and paragraphs [0056] to [0057] where the disclosed “heating-biased operation” and “cooling-biased operation” correspond to the combined operation), and a controller configured to determine an indoor temperature (step 820 Fig. 3B) and compare the average of that indoor temperature with a threshold value (disclosed “optimum temperature” Fig. 3B and paragraph [0069]).
Furthermore, it is understood that claim 2 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is configured to, based on a determination (step 804 Fig. 3A of Kim) that the combined cooling and heating operation is possible (paragraphs [0056] to [0057] of Kim), close the hot gas valve (Fig. 5 of Kusaka) and maintain a pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe (see below annotated Fig. 5 of Kusaka) based on the closing of the hot gas valve (Figs. 4-5 of Kusaka).
PNG
media_image2.png
758
1270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a liquid pipe (liquid pipe 420 Fig. 4 of Kim) connected to the inlet side of the compressor and the mode switching unit (Fig. 4 of Kim); a bypass pipe (bypass pipe 250 Fig. 1 of Kim) connected to the high-pressure pipe and the liquid pipe (Fig. 1 of Kim); and a high-pressure valve (flow-regulating valve 260 Fig. 1 of Kim) provided on the bypass pipe (Fig. 1 of Kim).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the bypass pipe is provided in the outdoor unit (Fig. 1 of Kim).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is configured to, based on the cooling operation rate being equal to the reference value (paragraphs [0056] to [0057] of Kim), close the hot gas valve (see below annotated Fig. 5 of Kusaka) and increase the pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe based on the closing of the hot gas valve (see below annotated Fig. 5 of Kusaka).
PNG
media_image3.png
758
1270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is configured to, based on a reception of a heating operation signal (corresponds to a command at step 802 Fig. 3A of Kim that results in the system of Kim to operate in the heating-biased operation mode) from at least one of the plurality of indoor units (Fig. 4 of Kim), open the high-pressure valve (step 815 Fig. 3C of Kim) and increase the pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe (referring to paragraph [0041] and Fig. 4 of Kim, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the pressure in high-pressure gas pipe 410 is increased since more refrigerant is added to that line via flow-regulating valve 260 at step 815 Fig. 3C of Kim).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches a method of controlling (corresponds to the method illustrated in Figs. 3A-3C) an air conditioner (multi air-conditioner 100 Fig. 1), the air conditioner including an outdoor unit (outdoor unit 200 Fig. 1) including a compressor (compressor 210 Fig. 1) configured to compress a refrigerant (paragraph [0029]); a plurality of indoor units (indoor units 300 Fig. 1) configured to perform at least one of a cooling operation (paragraph [0028]) or a heating operation (paragraph [0028]) by receiving the refrigerant from the outdoor unit (Fig. 4), a mode switching unit (cooling/heating switching unit 400 Fig. 1) configured to switch an operation mode of the plurality of indoor units (paragraph [0028]), a high-pressure gas pipe (high-pressure gas pipe 410 Fig. 4), a low-pressure gas pipe (low-pressure gas pipe 430 Fig. 4), and a hot gas valve (see below annotated Fig. 1 of Kim) provided on a hot gas pipe (first low-pressure pipe 432 Fig. 1), the control method comprising: receiving an indoor temperature (step 820 Fig. 3B) and a cooling operation rate of the plurality of indoor units (disclosed “heating capacity rate” in paragraph [0055]); determining whether a combined cooling and heating operation (step 803 Fig. 3A and paragraphs [0056] to [0057] where the disclosed “heating-biased operation” and “cooling-biased operation” correspond to the combined operation) is possible based on the cooling operation rate of the plurality of indoor units (paragraphs [0056] to [0057]).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the control method comprising controlling the hot gas valve based on whether the combined cooling and heating operation is possible”.
However, Kusaka teaches a control method (the control method illustrated in Fig. 4 corresponds to the control method of Kim) comprising controlling a hot gas valve (first bypass on-off valve 42 Fig. 2 corresponds to the hot gas valve of Kim) based on whether a combined cooling and heating operation is possible (paragraph [0005] and Figs. 2-3 where the disclosed combined cooling and heating operation corresponds to that of Kim) to provide noise reduction (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Kim to include “the control method comprising controlling the hot gas valve based on whether the combined cooling and heating operation is possible” in view of the teachings of Kusaka to provide noise reduction.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the control method comprising determining whether the combined cooling and heating operation is possible based on the indoor temperature”.
However, Kim does teach a controller (controller 500 Fig. 2) configured to: determine whether a combined cooling and heating operation is possible (step 803 Fig. 3A and paragraphs [0056] to [0057] where the disclosed “heating-biased operation” and “cooling-biased operation” correspond to the combined operation), and a controller configured to determine an indoor temperature (step 820 Fig. 3B).
Furthermore, it is understood that claim 10 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the determining of whether the combined cooling and heating operation is possible comprises: based on the cooling operation rate being equal to a reference value (corresponds to a value of the heating capacity being between 1% and 49% when performing a cooling-bias operation, or a value between 50% and 99% when performing a heating-bias operation as described in paragraphs [0056] to [0057] of Kim), determining that the combined cooling and heating operation is possible (step 804 Fig. 3A of Kim).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach further comprising: based on a determination (step 804 Fig. 3A of Kim) that the combined cooling and heating operation is possible (paragraphs [0056] to [0057] of Kim), closing the hot gas valve (Fig. 5 of Kusaka) and maintaining a pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe (see below annotated Fig. 5 of Kusaka) based on the closing of the hot gas valve (Figs. 4-5 of Kusaka).
PNG
media_image4.png
758
1270
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings teach further comprising: based on the cooling operation rate being equal to the reference value (paragraphs [0056] to [0057] of Kim), closing the hot gas valve (see below annotated Fig. 5 of Kusaka) and increasing the pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe based on the closing of the hot gas valve (see below annotated Fig. 5 of Kusaka).
PNG
media_image5.png
758
1270
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein: the increasing of the pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe comprises: opening a high-pressure valve (heating valve 441 Fig. 4 of Kim) based on a reception of a heating operation signal (corresponds to a command at step 802 Fig. 3A of Kim that results in the system of Kim to switch from operating in the cooling operation mode to the heating-biased operation mode) from at least one of the plurality of indoor units (Fig. 4 of Kim) and increasing the pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe before the plurality of indoor units are switched to the combined operation (referring to the “cooling-refrigerant cycle” disclosed in paragraph [0042] and also referring to Fig. 4 of Kim, a person skilled in the art would recognize that during the cooling operation mode, no refrigerant is flowing through high-pressure gas pipe 410, however when at least one of indoor units 300 is switch to heating by opening heating valve 441, a refrigerant starts flowing through high-pressure gas pipe 410 resulting in higher pressure in the pipe).
Claims 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kusaka as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kim (KR20100036788A, herein after referred to as Kim’88).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is configured to increase the pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe by opening the high-pressure valve (referring to paragraph [0041] and Fig. 4 of Kim, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the pressure in high-pressure gas pipe 410 is increased since more refrigerant is added to that line via flow-regulating valve 260 at step 815 Fig. 3C of Kim).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the controller is configured to open the high-pressure valve in stages”.
However, Kim’88 teaches wherein a controller (indoor control units 81-84 and outdoor control unit 90 Fig. 5 correspond to the controller of Kim) is configured to open a high-pressure valve (high-pressure electronic expansion valve 76 Fig. 1 corresponds to the high-pressure valve of Kim) in stages (paragraph [04] where it is disclosed that the “degree of opening” of high-pressure electronic expansion valve 76 can be adjusted in steps) to prevent collision of the refrigerant during refrigerant flow switching (paragraph [04]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the controller is configured to open the high-pressure valve in stages” in view of the teachings of Kim’88 to prevent collision of the refrigerant during refrigerant flow switching.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is configured to switch the plurality of indoor units from the cooling operation to the combined operation after the pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe increases (referring to the “cooling-refrigerant cycle” disclosed in paragraph [0042] and also referring to Fig. 4 of Kim, a person skilled in the art would recognize that during the cooling operation mode, no refrigerant is flowing through high-pressure gas pipe 410, however when at least one of indoor units 300 is switch to heating, a refrigerant starts flowing through high-pressure gas pipe 410 resulting in higher pressure in the pipe).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach further comprising: increasing the pressure of the high-pressure gas pipe by opening the high-pressure valve (referring to the “cooling-refrigerant cycle” disclosed in paragraph [0042] and also referring to Fig. 4 of Kim, a person skilled in the art would recognize that during the cooling operation mode, no refrigerant is flowing through high-pressure gas pipe 410, however when at least one of indoor units 300 is switch to heating by opening heating valve 441, a refrigerant starts flowing through high-pressure gas pipe 410 resulting in higher pressure in the pipe).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising opening the high-pressure valve in stages”.
However, Kim’88 teaches further comprising opening a high-pressure valve (high-pressure electronic expansion valve 76 Fig. 1 corresponds to the high-pressure valve of Kim) in stages (paragraph [04] where it is disclosed that the “degree of opening” of high-pressure electronic expansion valve 76 can be adjusted in steps) to prevent collision of the refrigerant during refrigerant flow switching (paragraph [04]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “further comprising opening the high-pressure valve in stages” in view of the teachings of Kim’88 to prevent collision of the refrigerant during refrigerant flow switching.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights