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: "indoor heat exchange unit," "external heat exchange unit," "air -conditioning unit," "control device that controls," "decompression unit," and "a hot gas decompression unit" in claims 1-5.
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 “indoor heat exchange unit” is sufficiently described in the specification as indoor heat exchanger(s) (21, 22, see paragraph 16, specification);
The “external heat exchange unit” is sufficiently described in the specification as a heat exchanger (11, see paragraph 16, specification);
The “air-conditioning unit” is sufficiently described in the specification as air conditioning device with refrigerant circuit and indoor heat exchanger(s) (see paragraphs 12, 16, 24, specification);
The “control device” is not sufficiently described in the specification other than a box (100, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 22-24, specification); and
The “decompression units” are sufficiently described in the specification as plurality of expansion valves (see paragraphs 18, specification).
Claim limitation “control device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The “control device” is described as a box (100, fig. 2), which is configured to receive plurality of signals from variety of temperature, occupancy and pressure sensors and control the operation of valves, blowers and pumps within the refrigerant circuit (see fig. 2 and claims 2-5); however, the claimed term “device” or the described “unit/component/box” are mere placeholders for a control means of receiving plurality of signals and control operation of plurality of components of the refrigerant circuit. The original disclosure does not contain any corresponding structural element/machine that is capable of receiving variety of signals and controlling a plurality of components. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamamoto (US 2016/0075214 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Hamamoto discloses vehicle air-conditioning device (see fig. 1 and abstract) comprising: a refrigerant circuit (see refrigerant circuit 20, 40, 41, fig. 1) including a compressor (compressor 30, fig. 1 and paragraph 89), an indoor heat exchange unit (interior heat exchangers 31, 32, see fig. 1), and an external heat exchange unit (exterior heat exchanger 33); an air-conditioning unit (heat pump 20) in which the indoor heat exchange unit is disposed (see fig. 1); and a control device (controller 22) that controls the refrigerant circuit and the air-conditioning unit (see fig. 2, where controller 22 controls blower, fan valves based on detected values from sensors), wherein the refrigerant circuit has a hot gas bypass (bypass pipe BP and refrigerant line with valve 53, see figs. 7 and 1) that decompresses at least part of refrigerant compressed by the compressor (see refrigerant discharged via line 40 passed through bypass line BP, fig. 7) without the refrigerant passing through the indoor heat exchange unit (without passing through interior heat exchanger 32, fig. 1 and 7) and the external heat exchange unit (see heat exchanger 33 bypassed, figs. 7 and 1), and returns the decompressed refrigerant to the compressor (see refrigerant returning to compressor 30, figs. 7 and 1), and the control device is capable of executing a hot gas heating operation (see heating operations, figs. 6-7) of heating an inside of a cabin (with opening switching doors 64 by actuator and controller 22, see paragraph 119, heating the interior of the vehicle cabin, see paragraphs 12, 17 and 20) by causing part of the refrigerant compressed by the compressor to dissipate heat in the indoor heat exchange unit (refrigerant passed through heat exchanger 31, see figs. 6-7) without causing the refrigerant to absorb heat in the external heat exchange unit (refrigerant bypassing external heat exchanger 33, see figs. 6-7), and adjusts a heating capacity by opening and closing at least one of a decompression unit (opening and closing one of the valves 50, 51, 52, 53 and 56, see figs. 1-7) provided between the indoor heat exchange unit and the compressor (valves 50, 51, 52, 53 and 56 provided between one of heat exchangers 31 and 32 and compressor 30, see figs. 6-7) or a hot gas decompression unit (opening and closing one of the valves 51, 53 and 56, see figs. 6-7) provided in the hot gas bypass (valves 51, 53 and 56 connected to and on the bypass BP and refrigerant lines 41, 42, 46, see figs. 6-7) during the hot gas heating operation (see opening and closing of valves 51, 53 and 56 during heating, figs. 6-7).
In regards to claim 5, Hamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the control device adjusts the decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit to close in response to an instruction to increase a capacity in the hot gas heating operation (operation of closing valve 56 by blocking refrigerant flow through bypass line BP during heating operation, see fig. 5 and paragraphs 138-140; Also see closing valve 50 towards refrigerant pipe 41 without bypassing pipe 44 and heat exchanger 32 during hot gas heating operation, figs. 6 and 8). In addition, Hamamoto teaches closing of one of the valves (valve 50 towards pipe 41 to bypass heat exchanger 32 during refrigerant-heated heating mode, see fig. 8) when the volume of air blown by blower (65) increases during heating operation compared to the defrosting operation (see paragraphs 195-198 and fig. 14, where the controller is configured to close valve 53 and valve 50 towards pipe 41 at step SA8 during hot gas heating operation and increase the volume of airflow by blower 65 during heating operation; Also see 1-2).
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) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamoto et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Miyakoshi (US 2018/0236845 A1).
In regards to claim 2, Hamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the control device adjusts the decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit to open in response to an instruction to increase a capacity in the hot gas heating operation (operation of valve 56 varies flow rate of refrigerant through bypass line BP, see paragraph 109, wherein valve 56 is controlled by controller 22, see fig. 2).
However, Hamamoto does not explicitly teach adjusting expansion valve opening when compressor speed is close to a value.
Miyakoshi teaches a vehicle air-conditioning device (see fig. 1 and abstract) comprising a decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit (expansion valves 30, 6, 8, fig. 1) and a controller (32, fig. 2) configured to adjust the decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit to open (opening position of valve 30 adjusted by controller 32, see fig. 2 and paragraph 121) in response to an instruction to increase a capacity in the hot gas heating operation (opening degree of valve 30 adjusted in response to instruction to increasing capacity of the hot gas operation by controlling refrigerant superheat degree with respect to the target value, see paragraph 122 and fig. 7) when a rotation speed of the compressor is close to an upper limit value (when the number of revolution NC of the compressor 2 is below a predetermined value N1, see paragraphs 126, 121, 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reprogram the control device of the refrigeration system of Hamamoto to adjust the decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit to open in response to an instruction to increase a capacity in the hot gas heating operation when a rotation speed of the compressor is close to an upper limit value based on the teachings of Miyakoshi in order to improve the cabin comfort condition by providing sufficient amount of refrigerant to the indoor heat exchanger to heat the supply of cabin air.
In regards to claim 4, Hamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the control device adjusts the decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit to close in response to an instruction to increase a capacity in the hot gas heating operation (operation of closing valve 56 by blocking refrigerant flow through bypass line BP during heating operation, see fig. 5 and paragraphs 138-140; Also see closing valve 50 towards refrigerant pipe 41 without bypassing pipe 44 and heat exchanger 32 during hot gas heating operation, figs. 6 and 8). In addition, Hamamoto teaches closing the decompression valve or the hot gas decompression valve (valves 50 toward pipe 41 and valve 56 towards bypass BP, see figs. 8 and 5 respectively) when discharge pressure of the compressor (30) is high (see fig. 10 and paragraphs 148, 160-161, where expansion valve 52 is closed when compressor 30 discharge pressure is high).
However, Hamamoto does not explicitly teach closing the valve after determining that discharge pressure is an upper limit value.
Miyakoshi teaches a vehicle air-conditioning device (see fig. 1 and abstract) comprising a decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit (expansion valves 30, 6, 8, fig. 1) and a controller (32, fig. 2) configured to adjust the decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit to close (closing valve 30, see fig. 2 and paragraph 128) when a discharge pressure of the compressor is an upper limit value (closing expansion valve 30 when compressor discharge pressure PCi is high and comparable to the upper level of the compressor discharge target value PCO, see paragraphs 81, 87, 127-128 and figs. 7-8; Also see adjusting expansion valve 6 opening based on target compressor discharge pressure PCO, which is compressor discharge pressure upper level value, see paragraphs 118-119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reprogram the control device of the refrigeration system of Hamamoto to adjust the decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit to close in response to an instruction to increase a capacity in the hot gas heating operation when a discharge pressure of the compressor is an upper limit value based on the teachings of Miyakoshi in order to control injection of refrigerant into the compressor from radiator/heater within an efficient range to improve heating capability of the radiator by increasing the refrigerant discharged from the compressor while maintaining a path for heat absorption at the outdoor heat exchanger.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamoto et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hasegawa (US 2025/0224157 A1).
In regards to claim 3, Hamamoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that the control device adjusts the decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit to close in response to an instruction to increase a capacity in the hot gas heating operation (operation of closing valve 56 by blocking refrigerant flow through bypass line BP during heating operation, see fig. 5 and paragraphs 138-140; Also see closing valve 50 towards refrigerant pipe 41 without bypassing pipe 44 and heat exchanger 32 during hot gas heating operation, figs. 6 and 8). In addition, Hamamoto teaches closing of one of the valves (valve 50 towards pipe 41 to bypass heat exchanger 32 during refrigerant-heated heating mode, see fig. 8) in response to pressure reduction at suction side of the compressor (see paragraph 198 and fig. 14, where closing valve 50 towards pipe 41 at step SA8 depends upon compressor suction pressure reduction during first hot gas heating at SA4; Also see claims 1-2).
However, Hamamoto does not explicitly teach closing a valve when suction pressure of the compressor is an upper limit value.
Hasegawa teaches a vehicle air-conditioning device (see fig. 1; abstract; and paragraphs 13, 38) comprising a decompression valve unit (valves 14a-14e) or the hot gas decompression valve unit (valves 22a-22d) and a controller (60, see fig. 3) configured to adjust the decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit to close during hot gas heating mode (closing valves 22b, 22c 22d, see figs. 1-9 and paragraph 204) when a suction pressure of the compressor is an upper limit value (closing valves 22b, 22c when suction pressure of the compressor is a set target pressure value, see paragraph 201-208).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reprogram the control device of the refrigeration system of Hamamoto to adjust the decompression unit or the hot gas decompression unit to close in response to an instruction to increase a capacity in the hot gas heating operation when a suction pressure of the compressor is an upper limit value based on the teachings of Hasegawa in order to control injection of refrigerant vapor into the compressor from radiator/heater within an efficient range to improve heating capability of the radiator while preventing liquid refrigerant from entering the compressor.
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