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 03/04/2025 was filed on the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/18/2026 was filed after the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation of “the component” (claim 3, line 2) is believed to be --the components--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“single support member” → a bottom plate portion 15 which is a substantially rectangular plate-like member, and a substantially rectangular frame portion 16 which is formed integrally with the bottom plate portion 15 and is provided perpendicularly to the bottom plate portion 15 on one end side of the bottom plate portion 15 is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“decompression device” → expansion valves 71, 72 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 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 1-4 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.
The recitation of “a single support member that collectively supports a component of the refrigerant circuit” (claim 1, line 2) is unclear. The recitation renders the claim indefinite because the term “collectively” refers to a group, therefore more than one component. For examination purposes, the recitation has been examined as --a single support member that collectively supports components of the refrigerant circuit--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "plurality of the second heat exchangers" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the second heat exchangers” in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --plurality of second heat exchangers--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other one" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, lines 7-8 of the claim has been examined as --…a heat exchange rate of one of the plurality of second heat exchangers is higher than a heat exchange rate of another one of the plurality of second heat exchangers--.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the other side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --another side--.
The recitation of “…and the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger are disposed on another side with respect to the support member” (claim 3, line 4-5) is unclear. The recitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the second heat exchanger from the recitation above refers to at least one of the plurality of the second heat exchangers, or all of the second heat exchangers. For examination purposes, the recitation has been examined as --…and the first heat exchanger and at least one of the plurality of second heat exchangers are disposed on another side with respect to the support member--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the other one" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Based on the rejection of parent claim 1 above and to provide proper antecedent basis, the limitation has been examined as --another one--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westendarp (US 2020/0148028).
Regarding claim 1, Westendarp discloses a refrigerant unit comprising:
a refrigerant circuit (refer to fig.8) and a single support member (single housing 16 including shroud 24 and base 26) that collectively supports components of the refrigerant circuit,
wherein the refrigerant circuit includes a first heat exchanger (50) and a second heat exchanger (44, 144) having different functions (first heat exchanger 50 functions as an evaporator, and the second heat exchanger 44, 144 functions as a condenser),
the first heat exchanger (50) is disposed between a plurality of second heat exchangers (44, 144), and
a heat exchange rate of one of the plurality of second heat exchangers is higher than a heat exchange rate of another one of the plurality of second heat exchangers (refer to par.59, wherein heat exchangers 44 and 144 differ in capacity, therefore, different heat exchange rates).
Regarding claim 3, Westendarp meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Westendarp discloses wherein in the support member (single housing 16 including shroud 24 and base 26), a compressor (40) and a gas-liquid separator (46) which are the components of the refrigerant circuit, are disposed on one side with respect to the support member (refer to fig.8), and the first heat exchanger (50) and at least one of the plurality of second heat exchangers (44, 144) are disposed on another side with respect to the support member (refer to fig.8).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westendarp (US 2020/0148028) in view of Akaiwa (US 2019/0195539).
Regarding claim 2, Westendarp meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Westendarp discloses a decompression device (expansion valve 48) of the refrigerant circuit, but fails to explicitly disclose a decompression device provided in each of a plurality of refrigerant channels connecting the one first heat exchanger and the plurality of second heat exchangers to each other.
However, Akaiwa teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus (refer to figs.1 and 10), comprising a decompression device (4a, 4b) provided in each of a plurality of refrigerant channels (205, 255) connecting one first heat exchanger (7a) and a plurality of second heat exchangers (3a, 3b) to each other, in order to provide a refrigeration cycle apparatus operable in a heating operation state and a cooling operation state (refer to par.44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Westendarp by providing a decompression device in each of a plurality of refrigerant channels connecting the one first heat exchanger and the plurality of second heat exchangers to each other in view of the teachings by Akaiwa, in order to provide a refrigeration cycle apparatus operable in a heating operation state and a cooling operation state.
Regarding claim 4, Westendarp meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 3. Further, Westendarp discloses wherein the support member (single housing 16 including shroud 24 and base 26) has a width necessary and sufficient for disposing the compressor and the gas-liquid separator, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the width allows a width of one of the plurality of second heat exchangers to be greater than a width of another one of the plurality of second heat exchangers.
However, Akaiwa teaches a refrigeration cycle apparatus (refer to fig.10), including a width of one of a plurality of second heat exchangers (3a) to be greater than a width of another one of the plurality of second heat exchangers (3b), in order to adopt a distribution device configuration for efficiently activating a heating operation (refer to par.90).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Westendarp such that the width allows a width of one of the plurality of second heat exchangers to be greater than a width of another one of the plurality of second heat exchangers in view of the teachings by Akaiwa, in order to adopt a distribution device configuration for efficiently activating a heating operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
