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 .
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 3/31/2025. Accordingly, claims 1-6 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/31/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the 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 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 1-6 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 recitation of “…a control device that controls a rotation speed of the outdoor fan, wherein the control device determines whether to increase the number of outdoor heat exchangers used in accordance with a requested air conditioning capacity, and determines, when determining that the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is to be increased, the rotation speed of the outdoor fan such that a heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger after an increase in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is equal to or lower than the heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger before the increase in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used, and determines whether to decrease the number of outdoor heat exchangers used in accordance with a requested air conditioning capacity, and
determines, when determining that the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is to be decreased, the rotation speed of the outdoor fan such that a heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger after a decrease in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is equal to or larger than the heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger before the decrease in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a controller that is configured to perform the functional steps of “determining.” However, pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function of “determining whether to increase or decrease a number of outdoor heat exchangers” nor the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function of “determining the rotational speed of the outdoor fan to achieve a required heat exchange amount.”
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “…the control device determines, when determining that the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is to be increased, the rotation speed of the outdoor fan such that the first heat exchange amount is equal to or larger than the second heat exchange amount,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a controller that is configured to perform the functional steps of “determining.” However, pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function of “determining that the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is to be increased.”
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “…the control device determines, when determining that the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is to be decreased, the rotation speed of the outdoor fan such that the first heat exchange amount is equal to or larger than the second heat exchange amount,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a controller that is configured to perform the functional steps of “determining.” However, pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function of “determining that the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is to be decreased.”
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
Regarding Claim 4, the recitation of “…wherein assuming that a value obtaining by dividing the second heat exchange amount by the first heat exchange amount is a heat exchange amount change ratio, the control device determines the rotation speed of the outdoor fan such that the heat exchange amount change ratio is equal to or lower than a predetermined first threshold,” renders the claim unclear.
The use of the limitation “assuming” is not a positive limitation such that one skilled in the art would know where infringement occurs. Additionally, it is unclear what is represented by the limitation “a predetermined first threshold.”
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
Regarding Claim 5, claim 5 depends from claim 4 and is rejected based upon dependency. Additionally, the recitation of “…wherein the control device determines the rotation speed of the outdoor fan such that the heat exchange amount change ratio is equal to or larger than a predetermined second threshold that is a value smaller than the first threshold,” renders the claim unclear because it is unclear what is meant by the limitation “….such that the heat exchange amount change ratio is equal to or larger than a predetermined second threshold that is a value smaller than the first threshold.”
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwasaki et al. (US2022/0325928).
Regarding Claim 1, Iwasaki teaches an air conditioning device [0001], comprising:
an outdoor unit that includes a compressor [1], a plurality of outdoor heat exchangers [10, 20], a plurality of flow path switching valves [11, 21] that are respectively provided to the plurality of outdoor heat exchangers and switch connection of one refrigerant inlet/outlet of each outdoor heat exchanger to a refrigerant discharge port or a refrigerant suction port of the compressor, and an outdoor fan [6] that blows air to the plurality of outdoor heat exchangers [0017-0025; fig 1];
at least one indoor unit [102] that is connected to the outdoor unit via a refrigerant pipe [0040; fig 1]; and
a control device [60] that controls a rotation speed of the outdoor fan [0039], wherein the control device determines whether to increase the number of outdoor heat exchangers used in accordance with a requested air conditioning capacity, and determines, when determining that the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is to be increased, the rotation speed of the outdoor fan such that a heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger after an increase in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is equal to or lower than the heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger before the increase in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used, and determines whether to decrease the number of outdoor heat exchangers used in accordance with a requested air conditioning capacity [0058-0067; figs 3 & 4], and
determines, when determining that the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is to be decreased, the rotation speed of the outdoor fan such that a heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger after a decrease in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is equal to or larger than the heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger before the decrease in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used [0058-0067; figs 3 & 4].
Regarding Claim 2, Iwasaki teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Iwasaki teaches wherein assuming that a maximum value of the heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger before the increase in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is a first heat exchange amount and that a minimum value of the heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger after the increase in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is a second heat exchange amount, the control device determines, when determining that the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is to be increased, the rotation speed of the outdoor fan such that the first heat exchange amount is equal to or larger than the second heat exchange amount [0058-0067; figs 3 & 4].
Regarding Claim 3, Iwasaki teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Iwasaki teaches wherein assuming that a maximum value of the heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger after the decrease in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is a first heat exchange amount and that a minimum value of the heat exchange amount of the outdoor heat exchanger before the decrease in the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is a second heat exchange amount, the control device determines, when determining that the number of outdoor heat exchangers used is to be decreased, the rotation speed of the outdoor fan such that the first heat exchange amount is equal to or larger than the second heat exchange amount [0058-0067; figs 3 & 4].
Regarding Claim 4, the absence of an art‐based rejection for claim 4 is not an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather, is an indicium of the indefiniteness of the claims. Without a clear understanding of what the claims are intended to encompass, the examiner cannot apply prior art to the claims without undue speculation.
Regarding Claim 5, the absence of an art‐based rejection for claim 5 is not an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather, is an indicium of the indefiniteness of the claims. Without a clear understanding of what the claims are intended to encompass, the examiner cannot apply prior art to the claims without undue speculation.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. (US2022/0325928) in view of Akio et al. (JPH0384352A).
Regarding Claim 6, Iwasaki teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the control device uses, as the heat exchange amount, an evaluation index determined on a basis of a volume of each outdoor heat exchanger, a blast volume by the outdoor fan, and a ratio of an air volume flowing into each outdoor heat exchanger to the blast volume.
However, Akio teaches a multi-room air conditioner [0001] having where a control device uses, as the heat exchange amount, an evaluation index determined on a basis of a volume of each outdoor heat exchanger, a blast volume by the outdoor fan, and a ratio of an air volume flowing into each outdoor heat exchanger to the blast volume [0017; 0018; fig 4; where the information of fig 4 can be stored in a controller] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide proper air conditioning while balancing refrigerant supply with respect to capacity of the indoor units and thereby improve the system [0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Bergt to have wherein the control device uses, as the heat exchange amount, an evaluation index determined on a basis of a volume of each outdoor heat exchanger, a blast volume by the outdoor fan, and a ratio of an air volume flowing into each outdoor heat exchanger to the blast volume in view of the teachings of Akio where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide proper air conditioning while balancing refrigerant supply with respect to capacity of the indoor units and thereby improve the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights