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
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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:
“a control portion” in line 2 of claim 6, also recited in line 2 of claim 9, line 6 of claim 16, interpreted based on the teachings of ¶¶ 46-47 as a combination of a CPU (central processing unit) and a storage portion which includes a ROM (read only memory) and RAM (a random access memory) and equivalents thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
539
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“a judgment portion” in claim 16, line 8, taught in ¶¶ 49 and 54 of the specification but is taught only in terms of its functions in determining the state of the on-off valve. Fig. 1 (shown above for context) shows the judgement portion as a subcomponent of the control portion (50) and the “judgment portion” is thus interpreted as a “portion” of the control portion (that is, the CPU, RAM, and ROM) or an equivalent thereof.
“a counting portion” in claim 17, line 2, taught in ¶ 56 of the specification but is taught only in terms of its functions in counting instances of disagreement between the control portion and judgment portion. Fig. 1 (shown above for context) shows the counting portion as a subcomponent of the control portion (50) and the “counting portion” is thus interpreted as a “portion” of the control portion (that is, the CPU, RAM, and ROM) or an equivalent thereof.
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 Objections
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5 of claim 2, the word “the” should be inserted between “into” and “anti-freeze pipe”.
In line 5 of claim 3, the word “the” should be inserted between “connected” and “the outdoor heat exchanger”.
In line 4 of claim 12, the phrase “during the four-way valve in a first state” should be corrected to “while the four-way valve is in the first state”, “during operation of the four-way valve in a first state”, or similar (emphasis by examiner).
In the preliminary amendment to claim 14, the word “ends” and the phrase “and performs” have been struck through as deleted in lines 3 and 4 respectively, but the letter “t” in the word “the” which follows each of these deletions is also presented as deleted, leaving a recitation of “to switch from the defrosting operation to the heating operation”.
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.
Claims 3-5, 8 and 11-17 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.
Lines 8-9 of claim 3 teach that “in the second state, the on-off valve is in the open state” but the claim previous defined “the second state” as a state specifically of the four-way valve (in lines 2-3 “a four-way valve switchable between a first state and a second state”) so that it is unclear what operation or structure is required by limitations regarding the on-off valve “in the second state”. For example, this passage could be taken as requiring some control or automation of the system so that, while the four-way valve is in its second state, the on-off valve is controlled to be in its open state, or could be taken as a recitation of intended use, only requiring that the on-off valve be capable of being in its open state while the four-way valve is in its second state. For these reasons, the scope of claim 3 cannot be positively ascertained with regard to the operation of the on-off valve and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 3 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the claim has been interpreted only as requiring that the on-off valve be capable of being opened while the four-way valve is in its second state, rather than as limiting the claim as requiring control elements or operations to bring about these respective positions.
In lines 5-6 of claim 8, there is recited “a pipe which connects the first indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger” and in line 8 recites “a pipe connecting the first indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger”. The recitations appear to refer to a pipe in the same location and connecting the same elements but are recited using slightly different language (“connects” the heat exchangers vs. “connecting” the heat exchangers) and are both recited with the indefinite article “a” rather than “the” or “said”. For this reason, it is unclear whether the pipe of lines 5-6 and the pipe of line 8 refer to the same structure, whether a single pipe may fulfill both of these recitation, or if the claim requires the presence of two pipes connecting between the first indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger. For this reason, the scope of claim 8 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In lines 1-2 of claim 11, the recitation of “the instruction to start the operation of the compressor” lacks antecedent basis as neither this claim nor any of the claims on which it depends (claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 18) include any corresponding teaching of such an instruction. Claim 9 as amended teaches in line 4 of the reply “an instruction to switch on the compressor”, and before this amendment recited “an instruction to start an operation of the compressor”. Because of the difference in wording and the fact that this phrase was amended in claim 9 but not in claim 11, it is unclear whether the instruction of claim 11 is intended to refer to the same instruction recited in claim 9 or to a different instructions and the scope of the claim cannot be positively ascertained. For this reason, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In line 4 of claim 12, the recitation of “the four-way valve” lacks antecedent basis. Such a valve is taught in line 2 of claim 3 and line 4 of claim 8, but claim 12 does not depend on either of these claims, depending on claim 9, and in turn on claims 18, 7, and 1. For this reason, it is not clear whether claim 12 is intended to depend from and include limitations from one of claims 3 and 8 to include this four-way valve and further it is unclear what features of claims 3 and/or 8 should or should not be included in the scope of claim 12 and the scope of the claim is therefore found to be indefinite. For this reason, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In lines 8-11 of claim 16, it is taught that “a judgement portion [is] configured to determine whether the on-off valve is in the open state or the closed state” based in part on “a temperature of the refrigerant flowed into the anti-freeze pipe via the on-off valve” and a temperature difference based on this temperature. It is unclear from these recitations what “the refrigerant flowed into the anti-freeze pipe via the on-off valve” refers to and what temperature would be used in calculating this difference in the case where this valve is in its closed state as claim 18 (on which claim 16 depends) teaches this closed position to block refrigerant from flowing into the anti-freeze pipe. For this reason, the scope of claim 16 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In lines 10-12 of claim 17, it is taught that “when the at least one of times in the first counting state and times in the second counting state counted by the counting portion are not more than predetermined times, the control portion does not control the compressor to stop”. The recitations of “predetermined times” does not clearly identify whether the claim requires a predetermined time for “times in the first counting state” and another predetermined time for “times in the second counting state”, requires a single “number of times” that one or both of the counting states are compared to.
Further, the claim recites that when the condition of the predetermined times is not met, “the control portion does not control the compressor to stop”. It is not clear from this recitation whether the claim requires that the control portion does stope the compressor if the count is more than the predetermined times, or that the control portion refrain from stopping the compressor in all circumstances as long as neither count is more than the predetermined times (e.g. even if a demand for heating or cooling has been satisfied or expired), or merely that under some circumstances, while the count is not more than the predetermined times, the control portion does not stop the compressor, even if it would stop the compressor under other circumstances while the counts remain less than the predetermined times. For this reason, the operation required by claim 17 and the scope of the claim resulting from this operation cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 4, 5, and 13-15 are each rejected as depending upon a base claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
PNG
media_image2.png
546
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2017/0219264 A1 to Song et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
576
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Song teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, a refrigeration cycle device, comprising:
a refrigeration cycle portion comprising a compressor (one or both of the compressors 11 and 13), a first indoor heat exchanger (120), an outdoor heat exchanger (70), and a first expansion valve (41), wherein a discharge portion (the upper side(s) of the compressor(s) as shown in fig. 1, connecting to an oil separator 16 and then to a four-way valve 30) of the compressor (11, 13) is configured to discharge a compressed refrigerant (as taught in ¶ 47);
an outdoor device housing (310 shown in fig. 2) comprising a chassis (the walls of the housing 310, including both the outer walls and the partition wall 316) and configured for accommodating the outdoor heat exchanger (70, as shown in fig. 2); and
an anti-freeze pipe (the hot gas pipe 110) arranged on the chassis (particularly including the auxiliary heat exchanger 90 disposed on this pipe as taught in ¶ 66, and arranged in the housing and on the walls thereof as shown in fig. 2) configured to directly receive the refrigerant discharged from the discharge portion (flowing from the compressors 11, 13 to the hot gas line 110 in a “frosting prevention mode” before the refrigerant passes through the four-way valve 30 as shown in fig. 1, with this “frosting prevention mode” taught “defrosting the heat exchanger sections” in ¶ 95).
Song teaches limitations from claim 2 in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1, the refrigeration cycle device further comprising an on-off valve (hot gas relief valve 111) switchable between a closed state and an open state (as taught in ¶ 98), wherein the refrigerant is blocked from directly flowing into the anti-freeze pipe in the closed state, and the refrigerant directly flows into anti-freeze pipe in the open state (as taught in ¶ 98).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claims 1 and 2 above and further in view of US Publication No. 2021/0207858 A1 to D’Souza et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
548
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
546
730
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Song teaches limitations from claim 3 in figs. 1, 3, and 4, shown above, the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 2, wherein the refrigeration cycle portion further comprises a four-way valve (30) switchable between a first state and a second state, wherein the discharge portion (the outlet sides of the compressors 11, 13) is connected to the first indoor heat exchanger (120) via the four-way valve (30) in the first state (as shown in fig. 1) such that the refrigerant discharged from the discharge portion flows into the first indoor heat exchanger (as shown by the arrows presented in fig. 1), and the discharge portion (the outlet sides of the compressors 11, 13) is connected the outdoor heat exchanger (70) via the four-way valve (30) in the second state (as shown in fig. 4) such that the refrigerant discharged from the discharge portion flows into the outdoor heat exchanger (as shown by the arrows presented in fig. 4), and
the on-off valve (111) is in the open state such that at least part of the refrigerant discharged from the discharge portion (the outlet sides of the compressors 11, 13) flows directly into the anti-freeze pipe (flowing into the pipe 110 before it reaches the three-way valve as shown in fig. 3).
Song does not specifically teach this operation of the on-off valve (111) to be performed while the four-way valve (30) is in its second position (directing discharged refrigerant to the outdoor heat exchanger 70), though in fig. 3, Song shows that while the valve (111) is open in a frosting prevention mode, the refrigerant discharged from the compressors (11, 13) does not flow through the four-way valve (30) (following the dotted-line flow path of fig. 3). D’Souza teaches in ¶ 37 that in a reversible cycle air conditioning system, a defrost cycle may include reversing the direction of refrigerant flow so that hot refrigerant flows to an outdoor heat exchanger from a compressor to melt frost on the outdoor heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Song to include the reversing-valve-based defrost operation taught by D’Souza in order to allow for additional defrosting capacity to be provided to the outdoor heat exchanger (in addition to the air-heating by the auxiliary heat exchanger as taught by Song) increasing the rate at which frost can be melted if emergency defrosting is required. Further, MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness states that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale to support a finding of obviousness. Here, as Song shows that the position of the valve (30) during a defrosting operation does not materially affect the defrosting operation (as the refrigerant flow diverges to the line 110 before it reaches the valve 30) choosing from the two possible positions of the valve is an obvious matter of routine skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Song teaches limitations from claim 4 in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 3, wherein the anti-freeze pipe (110) is connected to a pipe connecting the discharge portion of the compressor (at the outlets of compressors 11, 13) and the four-way valve (30) (at the inlet side of the pipe 110 to the right of the valve 30 as shown in fig. 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
466
468
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Song teaches limitations from claim 5 in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 4, wherein the anti-freeze pipe (110) is connected to a pipe connecting the outdoor heat exchanger (70) and the four-way valve (30) (at the outlet side of the pipe 110, after the auxiliary heat exchanger 90 to the left of the valve 30 as shown in fig. 1).
Claim 6 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2004/0168451 A1 to Bagley.
PNG
media_image7.png
342
440
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Song teaches limitations from claim 6 in figs. 1 and 5, shown above, the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 2, further comprising a control portion (controller 200, described as “a microprocessor capable of achieving logic determination” in ¶ 123) configured for controlling the on-off valve (111), wherein the refrigerant flows into the anti-freeze pipe via the on-off valve (as shown in fig. 1 and taught in ¶ 98).
Song does not teach the control portion to close the on-off valve when a temperature of refrigerant in the hot gas pipe is not below a predetermined temperature. Bagley teaches in fig. 2, shown above, and in ¶ 94, a refrigeration cycle system in which a compressor (10) is provided with a bypass line (formed from a compressor outlet 72 to an expansion valve outlet 74), the bypass being controlled by a hot gas bypass solenoid valve (70) controlled by a microprocessor (60) communicating with a temperature of refrigerant flowing out from the bypass (as measured by a thermocouple 50) to close the valve (70 by operating a solenoid 75) when the measured temperature is above a high temperature setpoint (that is, when it is not below this setpoint as taught in claim 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Song with the temperature-responsive bypass control taught by Bagley in order to monitor the temperature of refrigerant flowing out from the hot gas pipe and thus the heat which has been delivered by this pipe for defrosting so that defrost operations can be terminated by the closing of the hot gas pipe and so that high temperature refrigerant does not flow to the evaporator or compressor for an extended period, potentially causing damage or impeding operations of the system.
Claims 7, 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2019/0017718 A1 to Suzuki et al.
Song teaches limitations from claim 7 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, an air conditioner (the invention of Song is described as an “air conditioner in ¶ 46) comprising:
the refrigeration cycle device according to claim 1 (as discussed above); and
an outdoor fan (350) received in the outdoor device housing (as shown in fig. 2).
PNG
media_image8.png
296
474
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Song does not explicitly teach the air conditioner of his invention including an indoor fan and an indoor device housing receiving the indoor heat exchanger and fan as taught in claim 7, or including a second indoor heat exchanger branched from a pipe between the first indoor heat exchanger and the four-way valve and arranged between the first expansion valve and the first expansion valve, which is located on a pipe between the first indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger; and a second expansion valve between the second indoor heat exchanger and the pipe connecting the first indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger, the first indoor device housing receiving the first expansion valve and a second indoor device housing receiving the second indoor heat exchanger as well as a second indoor fan as taught in instant independent claim 8. Suzuki teaches in fig. 1, shown above, an air conditioner including an outdoor unit (2) and an indoor unit (1C) which includes a housing (not shown but discussed in ¶ 28) which encloses an indoor heat exchanger (7C) and an indoor blower fan (9C) as taught in claim 7. Suzuki further teaches this air conditioner comprising a plurality of indoor units (1A, 1B, 1C) all branching from a pipe that connects an outdoor heat exchanger (5) in the outdoor unit (2) to the heat exchangers (7A, 7B, 7C) of the indoor units such that, for example, the heat exchanger (7B) of the second indoor unit may be taken as the claimed second indoor heat exchanger, connected to the pipe between the first indoor heat exchanger (1C) and the four-way valve (4) on its top side in the orientation of fig. 1, and to the pipe between the first expansion valve (6C) located in the housing of the first indoor unit (1C) and the outdoor heat exchanger (5) on its bottom side and having in its own housing the heat exchanger (7B), fan (9B), and expansion valve (6B) as shown in fig. 1 and as taught in claim 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Song with the indoor unit housing and blower structure taught by Suzuki in order to protect the indoor heat exchanger from damage or contamination while further directing the flow of air through the heat exchanger to both provide effective and efficient heat exchange and direct conditioned air to provide user comfort and to provide multiple such units as taught by Suzuki in order to allow for effective and individually controllable conditioning of a plurality of indoor spaces, increasing the area that can be conditioned and the comfort of individual users in distinct regions of that overall area.
Regarding the limitations of claim 18, refer to the above rejections of claim 7 on which it depends and claim 2 which teaches equivalent limitations.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Suzuki as applied to claims 1, 7, and 18 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2022/0221197 A1 to Xiong.
PNG
media_image9.png
646
510
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Song teaches limitations from claim 9 in fig. 5, shown above, the air conditioner according to claim 18, wherein the air conditioner further comprises a control portion (controller 200, described as “a microprocessor capable of achieving logic determination” in ¶ 123) configured to control the refrigeration cycle portion (including the four-way valve 30 and hot gas valve 111 as shown in fig. 5) … and the on-off valve (111).
Song does not teach the controller of his invention controlling an indoor fan. Suzuki teaches in ¶ 7 that the air conditioning system of his invention includes “a controller which controls the plurality of indoor units” which each include an air-sending fan such that the controller controls the operation of the air-sending fans. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Song with the controlled operation of the indoor fans taught by Suzuki in order to allow the airflow through the indoor units and their respective heat exchangers to be controlled to provide effective and reliable heat exchange, air cooling, and comfort control in the conditioned spaces.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, neither Song nor Suzuki teaches the control portion to receive an instruction to switch on the compressor during a period of inactivity and in response switches on the compressor and opens the hot gas valve as taught in claim 9, or the valve being closed again after a predetermined time has elapsed since the starting of the compressor as taught in claim 10. Xiong teaches in fig. 1, shown above, and in ¶ 39, a refrigeration system having a hot gas defrost circuit (121) including a defrost valve (123) for bypassing refrigerant from an outlet side of a compressor (101) similar to the system of Song, and particularly teaches that, during startup of the compressor (101) the defrost valve (123) is controlled to open to bypass heat exchangers on the high-pressure side of the circuit (equivalent to flowing refrigerant into the hot gas pipe 110 of Song rather than to the indoor heat exchanger 120 in the defrost operation thereof) as taught in claim 9, and further teaches in ¶ 40 that the valve (123) is closed again at a time at least 3 seconds and “before at least 6 seconds” after the startup of the compressor, representing a “predetermined time” as taught in claim 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Song with the bypass valve operation during compressor startup taught by Xiong to control the initial refrigerant pressure in the system during startup to improve efficiency and reliability of the system, limiting leak pressure to be below the system’s design pressure as taught in Xiong’s ¶ 39.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song, Suzuki, and Xiong as applied to claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 18 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2022/0275984 A1 to Yamada.
Regarding claim 11, Song teaches an air conditioner having a refrigerant circuit including a four-way valve for reversing refrigerant flow and a hot gas pipe diverting refrigerant from the outlet of a compressor to flow to an auxiliary heat exchanger to defrost an outdoor heat exchanger of the air conditioner and having an on-off solenoid valve for allowing or blocking the flow of refrigerant through the hot gas pipe. Xiong describes the operation of a hot gas bypass in conjunction with an instruction to start the compressor. Neither teaches the instruction for starting of the compressor in this operation being an instruction to start it while the four-way valve is in a position for a heating mode. Yamada teaches in ¶ 138 a refrigeration system and control method therefore in which a hot gas bypass valve (42) is opened in conjunction with a startup of a compressor (21), particularly while a four-way switching valve (22) is positioned for perform a heating operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to operate the system of Song with the compressor startup operation described by Xiong as discussed above, including in a heating operation as taught by Yamada in order to provide the benefits discussed above with regard to claim 11 in a heating operation as taught by Yamada.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song, Suzuki, and Xiong as applied to claims 1, 7, 18, and 9 above, and further in view of D’Souza.
Song teaches limitations from claim 12 in fig. 3, shown above, the air conditioner according to claim 9, wherein during the four-way valve (30) in a first state (the position shown in fig. 3, enabling a heating operation as discussed above in the rejection of claim 3) to enable a heating operation of the refrigeration cycle portion (with refrigerant following the solid arrows in fig. 3),
when a predefined defrosting condition is satisfied (based on a measured ambient air temperature as taught in ¶ 103), the control portion further control the refrigeration cycle portion to switch from the heating operation to a defrosting operation the control portion further controls the on-off valve to switch to an open state (heating the auxiliary heat exchanger 90 to heat the air channel 313 and the outdoor heat exchanger 70) when performing the defrosting operation, the control portion (200) further controls the on-off valve (111) to switch to an open state (as taught in ¶ 98, with ¶ 95 teaching the “frosting prevention mode” as also being the mode of operation in which the heat exchangers are defrosted in the system of Song, despite being referred to as a “prevention mode”).
Song does not specifically teach this operation of the on-off valve (111) to be performed while the four-way valve (30) is switched to its second position (directing discharged refrigerant to the outdoor heat exchanger 70) from its previous first state (in which the refrigerant flows to the indoor heat exchanger as discussed above 120), though in fig. 3, Song shows that while the valve (111) is open in a frosting prevention mode, the refrigerant discharged from the compressors (11, 13) does not flow through the four-way valve (30) (following the dotted-line flow path of fig. 3). D’Souza teaches in ¶ 37 that in a reversible cycle air conditioning system, a defrost cycle may include reversing the direction of refrigerant flow so that hot refrigerant flows to an outdoor heat exchanger from a compressor to melt frost on the outdoor heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Song to include the reversing-valve-based defrost operation taught by D’Souza in order to allow for additional defrosting capacity to be provided to the outdoor heat exchanger (in addition to the air-heating by the auxiliary heat exchanger as taught by Song) increasing the rate at which frost can be melted if emergency defrosting is required. Further, MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness states that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is an exemplary rationale to support a finding of obviousness. Here, as Song shows that the position of the valve (30) during a defrosting operation does not materially affect the defrosting operation (as the refrigerant flow diverges to the line 110 before it reaches the valve 30) choosing from the two possible positions of the valve is an obvious matter of routine skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Song teaches limitations from claim 13 in fig. 5, shown above, the air conditioner according to claim 12, wherein the control portion (500) switches the on-off valve (111) to the open state when starting the defrosting operation (as discussed in the above rejection of claim 12).
Song teaches limitations from claim 14 in figs. 3 and 5, shown above, the air conditioner according to claim 12, wherein when a predefined defrosting end condition is satisfied when the refrigeration cycle portion is in the defrosting operation (on a determination that defrosting is not required based on an ambient air temperature of air having passed around the heat exchanger 70 per the teachings of ¶ 103), the control portion further controls the refrigeration cycle portion to switch from the defrosting operation to the heating operation, when performing the heating operation, the control portion controls the on-off valve to switch to the closed state (as taught in ¶ 94 and shown in fig. 3, the hot gas relief valve is closed while the system is in a heating mode).
Song teaches limitations from claim 15 in fig. 5, shown above, the air conditioner according to claim 14, wherein the control portion switches the on-off valve (111) to the closed state when starting the heating operation (as taught in ¶ 94 and shown in fig. 3, the hot gas relief valve is closed while the system is in a heating mode).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features including the judgement portion determine, based on a temperature difference between refrigerant in the anti-freeze pipe and refrigerant at the compressor outlet, whether the open-close valve of the anti-freeze pipe is open or closed so that the control portion stops the compressor if the judgment portion has determined the valve’s position to be different from a position to which it has been set by the control portion in claim 16, or the counting of such position errors as taught in claim 17 which depends from claim 16. However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action. Specifically, claim 16 is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on the recitation of a temperature of refrigerant in a passage for which refrigerant flow is blocked and claim 17 is rejected as being indefinite based on a teaching of compressor control which is not controlled while a count is not more than a predetermined number and on the phrase “predetermined times” failing to clearly identify the counted value or values to which it/they are to be compared. Therefore upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Publication No. 2019/0301773 A1 to Fredslund et al. teaches a vapor compression system having a compressor (1) and a gas bypass line having a bypass valve (8) for conveying receiver (5) to a suction side of the compressor. Fredslund further teaches in ¶ 4 that it is conventional in such a system, when it is determined that the gas bypass valve has malfunctioned or become stuck, to shut down the vapor compression system and request immediate service of the system because the degree of opening at which it stuck could otherwise lead to unstable or ineffective operation which cannot provide the required cooling or heating capacity. Fredslund does not teach the determination of whether the valve is stuck or malfunctioning being made on the basis of a difference in sensed refrigerant temperature, or the gas bypass valve being specifically a hot gas bypass valve as is taught by Song so that even if the system of Song were modified with the teachings of Fredslund, the system of instant claim 16 would not result.
Japanese Publication No. 7012867 B2 to Yusuke teaches in ¶ 101 that, in a refrigeration system having a bypass pipe controlled by a solenoid valve (79) and that, when the valve fails to close, a difference between temperatures sensed in the bypass pipe (on either side of a heater 72) becomes small so that a determination of refrigerant shortage or leakage may be made erroneously so that, if this difference is found to be small, the solenoid valve should be judged to have failed. Yusuke does not teach the monitoring of a temperature difference to be performed with regard to a hot gas bypass valve or to involve the temperature of refrigerant discharged from a compressor and does not teach that such a determination of failure should be addressed by the stoppage of the compressor as taught in instant claim 16 and does not teach the counting of such errors or the control based upon such a count taught in claim 17.
An English translation of Yusuke has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Japanese-language original document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights