DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "power interruption detection unit" in claim 1; and "refrigerant leakage detection unit" in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The “power interruption detection unit” is sufficiently described in the specification as a circuit or photocoupler (see paragraph 25, specification).
The “refrigerant leakage detection unit” is sufficiently described in the specification as a gas sensor (see paragraphs 19, 21, specification).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wycoff et al. (US 2010/0280669 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Wycoff discloses a refrigeration cycle device (see refrigeration system 100, figs. 1; abstract and paragraph 24) comprising: a shutoff valve (valve 102) that is disposed in a pipe (valve 102 between liquid and liquid+vapor pipes, see fig. 1A) connecting an indoor unit (refrigerator case 112 and evaporator114, see fig. 1A and paragraph 26) and an outdoor unit (heat exchanger 118, see fig. 1A) constituting a refrigeration cycle to circulate a refrigerant (vapor compression cycle circulating coolant, see paragraphs 26) and that is opened and closed by power from an alternating-current power source (power source 106, 124 powering controller 110 for valve 104, see figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 24, 28-29);
a backup power source (capacitor bank 208 and battery, see paragraphs 31-32, 35-38 and 40) capable of alternatively supplying power for driving the shutoff valve when a power interruption has occurred in the alternating-current power source (capacitor bank 208 capable of supplying power to the valve via controller 110 when the power is not available through source 106, see figs. 2);
an open and close switch (source switch 304 and Q1, see paragraph 36) that is disposed in a power supply path (see switch 304 and transistor Q1, fig. 3A) from the backup power source to the shutoff valve (current supplied or blocked from capacitor bank 208 by switch 304 and transistor Q1, see paragraphs 36-37 and fig. 3A);
a control circuit (valve controller 110 and power failure controller 122) that controls the shutoff valve (see figs. 1-2) and the open and close switch (output interface with diodes D2, D3, D4 and D6); and
a power interruption detection unit (power failure detector 304, see fig. 3A) that detects a power interruption in the alternating- current power source (see paragraphs 36, 37 and 41), wherein when the power interruption has been detected, the control circuit closes the open and close switch to close the shutoff valve (open interface 206 via path 303 when sufficient power is available, see paragraph 36), and then opens the open and close switch (disallowing current flow by switch 304 and transistor Q1, see paragraphs 36-37; and open interface 206 via path 303 when sufficient power is available, see figs. 3 and paragraph 36).
In regards to claim 2, Wycoff teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that when the power interruption has been detected (power failure detected, see paragraph 37) and an operation of closing the open and close switch to close the shutoff valve is performed (see supplying power through capacitor bank 208 in case of detected power failure, paragraph 37), the control circuit determines whether or not the backup power source has deteriorated (capacitor bank charged, see paragraphs 40, 35; and charge level determined for powering valve during power failure, see paragraphs 38, 40-41 and figs. 3).
In regards to claim 3, Wycoff teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the control circuit keeps the open and close switch open while power is being supplied from the alternating- current power source (pin case of sufficient power from power source, current flow from capacitor bank 208 is disallowed by opening of source switch 304 and transistor Q1, see paragraph 36).
In regards to claim 8, Wycoff teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the shutoff valve (valve 102), the backup power source (capacitor bank 208), the open and close switch (power failure source switch and output interface, see figs. 1-3), the control circuit (valve controller 120, control circuit 204), and the power interruption detection circuit unit (power failure detector 304 and controller 122) are integrated into a shutoff valve device (see figs. 1-3) and housed in a box body (see interface 202, power input 121, control circuit 204, capacitor bank 208 and output interface 206 withing one housing 108, see figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 29-33).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wycoff et al. (US 2010/0280669 A1) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Prosser (US 2013/0193928 A1).
In regards to claim 4, Wycoff teaches the limitations of claim 3 and further discloses a discharging circuit (path 303 through diode D4 and output interface 206 to the valve controller, see fig. 3A) that discharges the backup power source (power discharged from capacitor bank 208 to the valve controller, see paragraphs 36-37), wherein when a period of time during which the power interruption is not detected has reached a predetermined length of time, the control circuit causes the discharging circuit to discharge the backup power source (power supplied to valve controller from at least one capacitor after a period of time 358 has elapsed since a period of time 352 during which power failure was not detected, see fig. 3A and paragraphs 18, 41) to determine whether or not the backup power source has deteriorated (capacitor bank charged, see paragraphs 40, 35; and charge level determined for powering valve, see paragraphs 38, 40-41 and figs. 3).
However, Wycoff does not explicitly teach backup power discharge based on duration of power supply.
Prosser teaches a grid power to charge energy storage battery devices ESD (see distribution grid supplying power to batteries 10, 20, paragraphs 8, 12), and a controller (controller, see paragraphs 15-16) configured to discharge the backup battery power source when a period of time during which the power is not interrupted reaches a predetermined period of time (power supplied to valve controller from at least one capacitor after a period of time 358 has elapsed since a period of time 352 during which power failure was not detected, see figs. 3A-4 and paragraphs 18, 41).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the control circuit of the refrigeration cycle device of Wycoff to cause the discharging circuit of the backup power battery source to discharge the backup power source to determine whether or not the backup power source has deteriorated when a period of time during which the power interruption is not detected has reached a predetermined length of time based on the teachings of Prosser in order to allow the refrigeration cycle device to lower the cost of energy by charging the battery at regular intervals especially in the absence of peak power demand and utilize the energy storage battery/capacitor devices/banks for satisfying energy needs of the valve and refrigeration cycle during cyclic peak power demands (see paragraphs 3-5, Prosser).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wycoff et al. (US 2010/0280669 A1) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Ledden (US 12,313,699 B1).
In regards to claim 5, Wycoff teaches the limitations of claim 2 except sounding an alarm when it is determined that the backup power source has deteriorated.
However, Ladden teaches a control circuit (control module 28, 29, see fig. 1) that is configured to output an alarm (producing an alarm, see col. 9, lines 12-13) when it is determined that the backup power source has deteriorated (alarm based on low battery state or underperforming battery supply 90, see col. 9, lines 7-20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the control circuit of the refrigeration cycle device of Wycoff to output an alarm when it is determined that the backup power source has deteriorated based on the teachings of Ledden in order to make the user aware of the battery deterioration beyond normal use for maintenance and/or replacement of battery.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wycoff et al. (US 2010/0280669 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Park (US 2013/0088900 A1).
In regards to claim 6, Wycoff teaches the limitations of claim 1 except a nickel-metal hydride battery.
However, Park teaches a grid power supply (3) and a backup battery power source (40), where the backup battery power source is a nickel-metal hydride battery (see nickel metal hydride battery, paragraph 57).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the refrigeration cycle device of Wycoff by providing a nickel-metal hydride battery as a backup battery power source in the refrigeration cycle device of Wycoff based on the teachings of Park for the advantages of high energy density, long cycle life, superior thermal stability and environmental friendliness.
Claim(s) 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wycoff et al. (US 2010/0280669 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wakisaka (US 2021/0325068 A1).
In regards to claim 7, Wycoff teaches the limitations of claim 1 except a refrigerant leakage detection sensor unit that detects refrigerant leakage from the indoor unit, wherein the control circuit closes the shutoff valve when the refrigerant leakage detection unit detects refrigerant leakage from the indoor unit.
However, Wakisaka discloses a refrigerant leakage detection sensor unit (refrigerant leakage detection sensor 70, see paragraphs 81, 83 and 87) that detects refrigerant leakage from the indoor unit (see leakage detection sensor 70 within indoor unit 30, fig. 1), wherein the control circuit (controller 35) closes the shutoff valve (closes valve 61 by closing valve controller, see paragraph 124 and figs. 1-2) when the refrigerant leakage detection unit detects refrigerant leakage from the indoor unit (closing valve 61 based on refrigerant leakage, see paragraph 124).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the refrigeration cycle device of Wycoff by a refrigerant leakage detection sensor unit that detects refrigerant leakage from the indoor unit, wherein the control circuit closes the shutoff valve when the refrigerant leakage detection unit detects refrigerant leakage from the indoor unit based on the teachings of Wakisaka in order to isolate most of the refrigerant stored in the refrigerant accumulator/separator, refrigerant pipes, compressor and outdoor unit from the location of the refrigerant leakage by closing valves connecting indoor units to the outdoor units and to prevent spread of flammable refrigerant.
In regards to claim 9, Wycoff as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a shutoff valve unit (valve 102, controllers 108, 110 and power source 106) comprising the shutoff valve (valve 102), the backup power battery source unit (capacitor bank 208) housing the backup power source (see capacitorsC1-C4 within 208, fig. 3A) and the open and close switch (source switch with transistor Q1, see fig. 3A and paragraphs 36-37) are separate (see figs. 1-3).
In regards to claim 10, Wycoff as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 and further discloses that the control circuit (control circuit 204) is housed in the shutoff valve unit (control circuit 204 housed within controller 108, see figs. 2A).
In regards to claim 11, Wycoff as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 and further discloses that the control circuit (controllers 110, 108 and circuit 204, see figs. 1-3) is divided into two parts: a shutoff valve control circuit (valve controller 110) that controls the shutoff valve (see valve controller 110 controls valve 102, paragraph 24 and fig. 2A) and a switch control circuit (controllers 108 and 204) that controls the open and close switch (see controller 108 controls power failure detection and source switch 304 and transistor Q1, figs. 1-3), the shutoff valve control circuit is disposed in the shutoff valve unit (see controller 110 part of the valve 102 and controllers 108, 110 set, figs. 1-3), and the switch control circuit (controller 204) is disposed in the backup power source unit (control circuit 204 within backup power control unit 108, see figs. 1-3), and the shutoff valve control circuit and the switch control circuit communicate with each other (via output interface 206, controllers 110 and controller 204, 108 communicate with each other, see figs. 1-3, 5-7; and paragraph 31).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERAJ A SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3027. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 9:00-1:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 571-270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MERAJ A SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights