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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a plurality of switching valves that switch a circulation path of a refrigerant circuit in claim 1” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a heat storage heat exchanger that exchanges heat between a heat storage material and a refrigerant”. The specification fails to disclose the method or structure of the claimed device in sufficient detail that one of the ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could understand what the actual heat storage material structure is, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved. The specification fails to teach to those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recite “a heat storage heat exchanger that exchanges heat between a heat storage material and a refrigerant”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner what structure constitutes a heat storage material? Is it a PCM or a refrigerant?. Clarity is advised.
Claims 2-7 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagamatsu et al (US 20200200441 A1, hereinafter Nagamatsu) in view of Yamamoto et al (WO 2013084432 A1, hereinafter Yamamoto), Okamoto et al (JP 2005337666 A, hereinafter Okamoto) and Park et al (US 20150184905 A1, hereinafter Park)
Regarding claim 1, Nagamatsu teaches an air conditioner (air conditioner 100) comprising: a compressor (compressor 23) that compresses a refrigerant (paragraph 0051); an indoor heat exchanger (indoor heat exchangers 12A and 12B) that exchanges heat between indoor air and a refrigerant (paragraph 0044); an outdoor heat exchanger (outdoor heat exchanger 24) that exchanges heat between outside air and a refrigerant (paragraph 0044).
Nagamatsu teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach a heat storage heat exchanger that exchanges heat between a heat storage material and a refrigerant; a plurality of switching valves that switch a circulation path of a refrigerant circuit in which a refrigerant circulates between a heat storage heating operation in which the indoor heat exchanger and the heat storage heat exchanger function as a condenser and the outdoor heat exchanger function as an evaporator.
However, Yamamoto teaches a heat storage heat exchanger (heat storage heat exchanger 34) that exchanges heat between a heat storage material (heat storage material 36) and a refrigerant (liquid-phase refrigerant passes through the sixth pipe 38, paragraph 0015); a plurality of switching valves (four-way valve 8) that switch a circulation path (figure 1) of a refrigerant circuit (figure 1) in which a refrigerant circulates between a heat storage heating operation (heating operation) in which the indoor heat exchanger (refrigerant condensed by exchanging heat with the indoor air in the indoor heat exchanger 16, paragraph 0013) and the heat storage heat exchanger function as a condenser (the liquid-phase refrigerant in the heat storage heat exchanger 34 evaporates and vaporizes, paragraph 0015) and the outdoor heat exchanger function as an evaporator (outdoor heat exchanger acts as an evaporator, paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air conditioner in the teachings of Nagamatsu to include a heat storage heat exchanger that exchanges heat between a heat storage material and a refrigerant; a plurality of switching valves that switch a circulation path of a refrigerant circuit in which a refrigerant circulates between a heat storage heating operation in which the indoor heat exchanger and the heat storage heat exchanger function as a condenser and the outdoor heat exchanger function as an evaporator in view of the teachings of Yamamoto in order to yield the predictable result of improving comfort during cooling and heating throughout the year.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach a defrosting heating operation in which the indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger function as a condenser and the heat storage heat exchanger function as an evaporator; a first flow path that connects the indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger; a branch portion that is provided in the first flow path; a second flow path that connects the heat storage heat exchanger and the branch portion.
However, Okamoto teaches a defrosting heating operation (defrosting state, abstract) in which the indoor heat exchanger (indoor heat exchanger 371) and the outdoor heat exchanger (outdoor heat exchanger 312) function as a condenser (indoor heat exchanger 371 and the outdoor heat exchanger 312 are functioned as the condenser, abstract) and the heat storage heat exchanger function as an evaporator (heat exchanger for heat storage 42 is functioned as the evaporator, abstract); a first flow path (pipe 321) that connects the indoor heat exchanger (indoor heat exchanger 371) and the outdoor heat exchanger (outdoor heat exchanger 312); a branch portion (connection point HC2) that is provided in the first flow path (figure 3); a second flow path (figure 3) that connects the heat storage heat exchanger (heat exchanger for heat storage 42) and the branch portion (as shown on figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air conditioner in the combined teachings to include a defrosting heating operation in which the indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger function as a condenser and the heat storage heat exchanger function as an evaporator; a first flow path that connects the indoor heat exchanger and the outdoor heat exchanger; a branch portion that is provided in the first flow path; a second flow path that connects the heat storage heat exchanger and the branch portion in view of the teachings of Okamoto in order to yield the predictable result of providing an air conditioning device capable of heating a room even in a defrosting operation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach a first expansion valve that adjusts a flow rate of a refrigerant flowing through a portion of the first flow path between the indoor heat exchanger and the branch portion; and a second expansion valve that is provided between the indoor heat exchanger and the first expansion valve of the first flow path and decompresses a refrigerant passing therethrough.
However, Park teaches a first expansion valve (expansion valve 160) that adjusts a flow rate of a refrigerant (refrigerant flowing to the indoor expansion valve 160, paragraph 0065) flowing through a portion of the first flow path (flow path exiting expansion valve 160, as shown on figure 1) between the indoor heat exchanger (indoor heat-exchanger 130) and the branch portion (as shown on figure 1); and a second expansion valve (expansion valve 150) that is provided between the indoor heat exchanger (indoor heat-exchanger 130) and the first expansion valve (expansion valve 160) of the first flow path (figure 1) and decompresses a refrigerant passing therethrough (to expand the refrigerant, paragraph 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air conditioner in the combined teachings to include a first expansion valve that adjusts a flow rate of a refrigerant flowing through a portion of the first flow path between the indoor heat exchanger and the branch portion; and a second expansion valve that is provided between the indoor heat exchanger and the first expansion valve of the first flow path and decompresses a refrigerant passing therethrough in view of the teachings of Park in order to yield the predictable result of allowing the refrigerant to pass and expand during cooling/heating operations.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the first expansion valve (outdoor expansion valve 25 of Nagamatsu) is provided in an outdoor equipment (outdoor unit 2 of Nagamatsu) in which the outdoor heat exchanger (outdoor heat exchanger 24 of Nagamatsu) is provided (as shown on figure 1 of Nagamatsu), and the second expansion valve (indoor expansion valves 11A and 11B of Nagamatsu) is provided in an indoor equipment (indoor unit 1 of Nagamatsu) in which the indoor heat exchanger (indoor heat exchangers 12A and 12B of Nagamatsu) is provided (as shown on figure 1 of Nagamatsu).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagamatsu as modified by Yamamoto, Okamoto and Park, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Takayama et al (US 20230134655 A1, hereinafter Takayama).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising: a control unit configured to control the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve such that a liquid-phase refrigerant flows in a flow path portion of the first flow path, the flow path portion being a flow path between the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve when the heat storage heating operation is executed, wherein the control unit controls the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve such that a gas-liquid two- phase refrigerant flows in the flow path portion when the defrosting heating operation is executed.
However, Takayama teaches further comprising: a control unit (controlling circuitry 50) configured to control the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve (paragraph 0038) such that a liquid-phase refrigerant flows in a flow path portion of the first flow path (paragraph 0037), the flow path portion (discharge passage 4) being a flow path between the first expansion valve (expansion valve 11, figure 1) and the second expansion valve (expansion valve 12, figure 1) when the heat storage heating operation is executed (paragraph 0024), wherein the control unit (controlling circuitry 50) controls the first expansion valve (slightly open, figure 3) and the second expansion valve (closed, figure 3) such that a gas-liquid two- phase refrigerant (paragraph 0036) flows in the flow path portion (discharge passage 4) when the defrosting heating operation is executed (hot-gas defrost operation, paragraph 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air conditioner in the combined teachings to include a first expansion valve that adjusts a flow rate of a refrigerant flowing through a portion of the first flow path between the indoor heat exchanger and the branch portion; and a second expansion valve that is provided between the indoor heat exchanger and the first expansion valve of the first flow path and decompresses a refrigerant passing therethrough in view of the teachings of Takayama in order to yield the predictable result of so that a high defrosting ability can be maintained.
Further, it is understood, claim 2 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a third flow path (passage 7 of Takayama) that supplies a refrigerant compressed by the compressor (via compressor 2, figure 1 of Takayama) to the indoor heat exchanger (heat exchanger 6 of Takayama) when the indoor heat exchanger functions as a condenser (refrigerant flowing into the utilization heat exchanger 6 is cooled by the heat medium and condenses, paragraph 0036 of Takayama); a fourth flow path (outlet of compressor 23 of Nagamatsu) that supplies the compressed refrigerant to the outdoor heat exchanger (via four way valve 21, as shown on figure 4 of Nagamatsu) when the outdoor heat exchanger functions as a condenser (paragraph 0072 of Nagamatsu); and a third expansion valve (first outdoor expansion valve 251 of Nagamatsu) that decompresses a refrigerant flowing through the fourth flow path (depressurized and expanded, as further described in paragraph 0072 of Nagamatsu).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagamatsu as modified by Yamamoto, Okamoto, Park and Takayama, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Sugio et al (CN 102378883 A, hereinafter Sugio).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the control unit controls the third expansion valve such that a pressure of a refrigerant flowing through the outdoor heat exchanger becomes lower than a pressure of a refrigerant flowing through the indoor heat exchanger when the defrosting heating operation is executed.
However, Sugio teaches wherein the control unit (control device, paragraph 0041) controls the third expansion valve (paragraph 0041) such that a pressure of a refrigerant flowing through the outdoor heat exchanger becomes lower than a pressure of a refrigerant flowing through the indoor heat exchanger when the defrosting heating operation is executed (a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that as the defrosting heating mode is executed, the outdoor heat exchanger pressure would be lower due to the refrigerant absorbing latent heat from the coil surface and the indoor heat exchanger pressure would be higher than the outdoor heat exchanger due to the refrigerant absorbing heat from the indoor air).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air conditioner in the combined teachings to include wherein the control unit controls the third expansion valve such that a pressure of a refrigerant flowing through the outdoor heat exchanger becomes lower than a pressure of a refrigerant flowing through the indoor heat exchanger when the defrosting heating operation is executed in view of the teachings of Sugio in order to yield the predictable result of improving the defrosting ability, capable of defrosting is finished in a very short time.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a fourth expansion valve (electric expansion valve EV2 of Okamoto) that decompresses a refrigerant flowing through the second flow path (depressurized by the second electric expansion valve EV2, of Okamoto).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 6, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Nagamatsu et al (US 20200200441 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the plurality of switching valves further switch a path in which a refrigerant flows such that a normal heating operation in which the indoor heat exchanger functions as a condenser and the outdoor heat exchanger functions as an evaporator is executed, and the control unit controls the third expansion valve and the fourth expansion valve such that an amount of a refrigerant flowing through the heat storage heat exchanger is reduced and such that a decompression amount at which the fourth expansion valve decompresses a refrigerant is larger than a decompression amount at which the third expansion valve decompresses a refrigerant when the normal heating operation is executed”. The closest prior art, teaches in the cooling operation, may allow the refrigerant passed through the outdoor expansion valve to flow to the indoor expansion valve and the refrigerant passed through the outdoor heat exchanger flow to the auxiliary heat exchanger, and in the heating operation, may allow the refrigerant passed through the indoor expansion valve to flow to the auxiliary heat exchanger and the refrigerant passed through the outdoor expansion valve flow to the outdoor heat exchanger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights