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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/04/2022 are accepted.
Oath/Declaration
4. For the record, the Examiner acknowledges that the Oath/Declaration submitted on 06/04/2022 has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2022, 12/15/2022 and 12/23/2024 have been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, an initialed and dated copy of Applicant's IDS form SB08 filed 06/04/2022, 12/15/2022 and 12/23/2024 are attached to the instant Office action.
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant filed a Preliminary Amendment dated 1/22/2024. The amendment has been entered. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended and claims 9 and 10 have been newly added. Claims 1-10 are pending, with claims 1 and 5 being independent in the instant application.
Examiner Notes
7. Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Step 1
The claims under Step 1 are directed towards a method (claims 1-4 and 9) and an apparatus (claims 5-8 and 10).
Claim 1 recites:
A degradation determination method of determining degradation of a cooling facility that cools an inside of a box-shaped housing, (field of use) (See Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B)
the degradation determination method comprising: extracting degradation determination reference data before degradation determination and determination data in the period of the degradation determination, from a first data set including a power consumption amount of the cooling facility and an ambient temperature of a heat exchanger that discharges heat to an outside of the cooling facility acquired at each predetermined time interval or at each predetermined time, (data gathering activity)
calculating, from the degradation determination reference data, a first correlation curve indicating a correlation between the power consumption amount and the ambient temperature, and calculating, from the determination data, a second correlation curve indicating a correlation between the power consumption amount and the ambient temperature; (Mathematical concept)
and determining degradation of the cooling facility based on a difference between the first correlation curve and the second correlation curve. (Mathematical concept)
Step 2A, prong 1:
The limitations of claim 1: “calculating, from the degradation determination reference data, a first correlation curve indicating a correlation between the power consumption amount and the ambient temperature, and calculating, from the determination data, a second correlation curve indicating a correlation between the power consumption amount and the ambient temperature;” and “determining degradation of the cooling facility based on a difference between the first correlation curve and the second correlation curve” are recitations of Mathematical concept. According to conventional meaning in the art, the definition of “correlation curve” is typically a scatter plot, visually shows the relationship between two variables. Therefore, calculating first and second correlation curves and determining degradation based on the difference between the first and the second correlation curves, are recitations of mathematical concept because the difference between curves is a mathematical relationship. Accordingly, at step 2A, prong one, claim 1 as a whole is found to recite a judicial exception and is drawn to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim language only recites elements that can practically be performed using mathematical relationship/equations. Therefore, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 has no additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation: “A degradation determination method of determining degradation of a cooling facility that cools an inside of a box-shaped housing” is recitation of field of use, i.e., the preamble amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, the limitation “extracting degradation determination reference data before degradation determination and determination data in the period of the degradation determination, …” is recitations of data gathering activities and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, this limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity because it involves Mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv): Obtaining information about transactions).
Step 2B:
The claim 1 as a whole does not include any further additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element: “A degradation determination method of determining degradation of a cooling facility that cools an inside of a box-shaped housing” is recitation of field of use, i.e., the preamble amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the limitation “extracting degradation determination reference data before degradation determination and determination data in the period of the degradation determination, …” is recitation of data gathering activity. Therefore, these limitations recite insignificant extra-solution activity activities are “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” according to Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (see MPEP §2106.05(d)(ii) Example: “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data … iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”). Accordingly, the abovementioned limitation of claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as a Judicial Exception (JE) since they do not add significantly more than the abstract idea or a practical application.
Claims 2-4 are dependent on independent claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. The limitations of claims 2-4 are recitations of data gathering activities, because the limitations of claims 2-4 (e.g., generating a second, third and fourth data sets and extracting degradation determination reference data) are gathering/obtaining data sets.
Independent Claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale as stated above. Additionally, the claim elements “degradation determination device”, “data extraction unit”, “correlation curve calculation unit” and “degradation determination unit” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer/hardware as per Specification of current application para [0029]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Dependent claims 6-8 are substantially similar to claims 2-4 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale as stated above.
Claims 9 and 10 are dependent on independent claims 1 and 5 respectively and include all the limitations of independent claims. The 1st portion of claim limitations in claims 9 and 10 “the degradation determination reference data including a power consumption amount and an ambient temperature in an operation mode and the determination data including a power consumption amount and an ambient temperature in the operation mode” are recitations of non-functional data descriptions which do not add anything more to overcome the abstract idea. Further, the 2nd portion of claim limitations in claims 9 and 10: “the cooling facility is operated in an operation state that requires less power consumption than usual, in which the cooling facility is operated in an operation state that requires less power consumption than usual” are recitations of recitation of Mental Processes using evaluation or judgement, or using simple math to compare the power consumption amount. Therefore, the abovementioned limitations of claims 9 and 10 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims 1-10 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 set forth in Graham, v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.1.148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
9. Claims 1,2,5,6,9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over an NPL Dissertation “Modelling of domestic refrigerators’ energy consumption under real life conditions in Europe” by Jasmin Geppert (hereinafter Geppert, Dissertation published on 2011) and in view of an NPL paper “Experimental Evaluation of a Residential Refrigerator with a Novel Rotating Heat Exchanger as an Evaporator” by Viral K. Patel (hereinafter Patel, paper published on 2016).
Regarding Claim 1, Geppert teaches a degradation determination method of determining degradation of a cooling facility that cools an inside of a box-shaped housing, (Geppert disclosed in page 43: “All laboratory experiments were carried out under controlled conditions in a climatically controlled chamber. … The energy consumption tests were largely conducted following the European standard for household refrigerating appliances … The dynamically cooled refrigerator (appliance 1) and the statically cooled refrigerator (appliance 4) were set up planar on the floor of the climatically controlled chamber.” In page 103 (2nd para)-104 (1st para): “the effect of diurnal temperature variations was tested in laboratory. The experiments revealed that the energy consumption is highly sensitive to any variations in ambient temperature. As described above, the energy use largely depends on the conduction through the cabinet wall, which is determined, amongst others, by the difference between the ambient and the internal compartment temperature. Diurnal temperature variations induce a temporary increase in this difference and as a consequence, are responsible for additional energy consumption. … effect increases with rising ambient temperatures (Figure 5-20 and Figure 5-21), which can be explained by the fact that the cold air inside the fridge compartment is exchanged by warm and moist air from outside when door is opened. As a consequence, the additional heat load caused by a door opening largely depends on the ambient temperature.”
Geppert teaches the degradation determination method comprising: extracting degradation determination reference data before degradation determination and determination data in the period of the degradation determination, from a first data set including a power consumption amount of the cooling facility (Geppert disclosed in page 104: “The additional energy consumption per litre of net volume was in the same order of size for both appliances. However, differences could be identified in view of the percentage increase in energy use. Whereas the energy consumption rises by 0.4-0.44% per door opening in the case of appliance 1, an increase of 0.12-0.19 % can be observed in the case of appliance 2 within the investigated ranges. These differences can be attributed to the different net volume of both appliances. Moreover, appliance 2 is a fridge-freezer, whose energy consumption is highly dependent on the freezer compartment.”
Further, in page 104-105 section 6.3: “The own developed simulation model is based on the findings of the laboratory experiments and so it incorporates all factors that have a significant impact on refrigerators’ energy consumption. For the purpose of qualitative assessment of the simulation model, the measured energy consumptions were compared to the respective calculated values (Figure 5-22 to Figure 5-27). … The model predicts almost all values within a ±10% deviation band. In this context, it is noteworthy that experimental uncertainties of the conducted energy consumption tests are partially higher than ±10% due to the complexity of the experiments.”).
Geppert teaches calculating, from the degradation determination reference data, a first correlation curve indicating a correlation between the power consumption amount and the ambient temperature, (Geppert disclosed in page 82-83 (on top of Figure 5-18): “The 3D surface graphs illustrated in Figure 5-18 show the energy consumption of refrigerators under diurnal ambient conditions as a function of the ambient temperature and the temperature variation. All of them show a curvilinear profile in accordance to the quadratic model fitted. The graphs demonstrate that both the ambient temperature and the temperature variation exert a significant effect on the refrigerators’ energy consumption. An increase of the ambient temperature (A) without changing the temperature variation (C) leads to an increase of energy consumption. The energy consumption also increases with growing temperature variation. The higher the ambient temperature and the temperature variation, the higher is also the energy consumption. Due to the experiments performed in this experimental series, only the black-shaded surface area can be used for interpretation.” The disclosure “Figure 5-18 show the energy consumption of refrigerators under diurnal ambient conditions as a function of the ambient temperature and the temperature variation; due to the experiments performed in this experimental series, only the black-shaded surface area can be used for interpretation” correspond to claim limitation “calculating, from the degradation determination reference data, a first correlation curve indicating a correlation between the power consumption amount and the ambient temperature”).
and Geppert teaches calculating, from the determination data, a second correlation curve indicating a correlation between the power consumption amount and the ambient temperature; (Geppert disclosed in page 86-87: “The final models in terms of coded factors are presented below (Equation 5-9 to 5-12). … It is clear from these equations that the ambient temperature (A) (main and quadratic effect) has the highest impact on refrigerators’ energy consumption. The internal compartment temperature setting (B) as well as the additional heat load (C) also influences the energy consumption. … Figure 5-19 (1 to 4) illustrates the 3D surface graphs that examine the effects of the two significant factors ambient temperature (A) and additional heat load (C) on refrigerators’ energy consumption. The graph demonstrates once again that both factors exert a significant effect on the response. The steep curvature in the factor ambient temperature shows that the response is highly sensitive to this factor.”).
and Geppert teaches determining degradation of the cooling facility based on a difference between the first correlation curve and the second correlation curve. (Geppert disclosed in page 54-55 section 4.4: “A simplified semiempirical model to predict refrigerators’ energy consumption under real life conditions was developed. … Using equations 4-11 and 4-12 leads to the following equation … This simplified equation serves for calculating the work input required for Carnot refrigerators. … Taking the differences between the two principles into account, equation 4-13 has to be slightly modified so that it can be applied to actual refrigerators. A main difference between the Carnot and the actual vapour-compression refrigeration cycle is the occurrence of heat losses to the surroundings in the actual process. These heat losses, amongst others, lead to a decreased efficiency of the actual process, which can be expressed by an efficiency factor η*. A further difference between both cycles is that the actual one not only consumes energy during the compressor on-cycle but also during the off-cycle.”
The disclosure above discussed the difference between two scenarios e.g., Carnot refrigerators and vapour-compression refrigeration, that shows refrigerators’ energy consumption and eventually discussed about the correlation between two scenarios. The degradation of colling facility is observed above when the heat losses lead to a decreased efficiency of the actual process occurred/happened, i.e., actual refrigerators consume energy both during the compressor on-cycle and during the off-cycle).
However, Geppert do not explicitly teach the limitation “an ambient temperature of a heat exchanger that discharges heat to an outside of the cooling facility acquired at each predetermined time interval or at each predetermined time”.
Patel teaches an ambient temperature of a heat exchanger that discharges heat to an outside of the cooling facility acquired at each predetermined time interval or at each predetermined time; (Patel disclosed in page 1-6 to 1-7 heading ‘Experimental results and discussion’: “The experiment procedure involved first closing and sealing the insulated box and starting the rotating impeller. … the enthalpy at point 1 (evaporator outlet/compressor inlet) was determined from the pressure and temperature measurement, since the refrigerant was superheated as it exited the evaporator. These assumptions were validated during the experiment by programmatically exporting pressure and temperature measurements from the LabVIEW environment into NIST REFPROP software which allowed real-time determination of the thermodynamic state of the refrigerant. … For each experiment, the heat loss rate, recovery rate, coefficient of performance and energy consumption were determined and compared. The experiments were performed in succession over the period of 4 days (24 hours per experiment) to minimize variation in refrigerant charge and mass flow rate. The insulated box temperature (referred to as chamber temperature), evaporator capacity and compressor power for all four experiments are shown in Figure 4 over a period of 4 hours when steady-state conditions were reached. … A summary of the above measurements averaged over the 4-hour period is given in Table 2, along with associated heat loss and recovery rates. The coefficient of performance was defined as the quotient of the evaporator capacity and compressor power.” It has been discussed in page 1-1 under ‘Abstract’ that residential refrigerator designs use Rotating Heat Exchangers (RHX) provide an innovative solution, i.e., rotating heat exchanger evaporator is capable of meeting the 100 W capacity requirement of residential refrigerators).
Therefore, Geppert and Patel are analogous art because they are related to perform experimental evaluation of a Residential Refrigerator’s power/energy consumption. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Geppert and Patel to modify determining power consumption of chamber/compartment in a refrigerator of Geppert, to include determining ambient temperature of a heat exchanger in a refrigerator of Patel and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143(I)(B), Examples 1-11). The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Patel because “In this paper, we present an experimental evaluation of the RHX (Rotating Heat Exchangers) in a benchtop refrigerant loop system showing results for different operating configurations. Cooling capacity, cooling COP, and overall energy consumption are investigated. The results show that the rotating heat exchanger evaporator is capable of meeting the 100 W capacity requirement of residential refrigerators, while offering the potential of significant reduction in defrost energy consumption. At the component level, energy use in a refrigerator can be lowered by improving insulation, using more efficient compressors, using advanced control schemes and improved heat exchanger design. The research presented in this paper mainly focuses on improved heat exchanger design.” (Patel disclosed in page 1-1 heading ‘Abstract’ and ‘Introduction’). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Patel with Geppert to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Regarding claim 2, Geppert and Patel teach the degradation determination method according to Claim 1, wherein Geppert teaches the degradation determination reference data is extracted from the second data set, and the determination data is extracted from the second data set. (Geppert disclosed in page 82-83 (on top of Figure 5-18): “The 3D surface graphs illustrated in Figure 5-18 show the energy consumption of refrigerators under diurnal ambient conditions as a function of the ambient temperature and the temperature variation. All of them show a curvilinear profile in accordance to the quadratic model fitted. The graphs demonstrate that both the ambient temperature and the temperature variation exert a significant effect on the refrigerators’ energy consumption. An increase of the ambient temperature (A) without changing the temperature variation (C) leads to an increase of energy consumption. The energy consumption also increases with growing temperature variation. The higher the ambient temperature and the temperature variation, the higher is also the energy consumption. Due to the experiments performed in this experimental series, only the black-shaded surface area can be used for interpretation.” The disclosure “Figure 5-18 show the energy consumption of refrigerators under diurnal ambient conditions as a function of the ambient temperature and the temperature variation; due to the experiments performed in this experimental series, only the black-shaded surface area can be used for interpretation” correspond to claim limitation “degradation determination reference data is extracted from the second data set”.
Further, Geppert disclosed in page 86-87: “The final models in terms of coded factors are presented below (Equation 5-9 to 5-12). … It is clear from these equations that the ambient temperature (A) (main and quadratic effect) has the highest impact on refrigerators’ energy consumption. The internal compartment temperature setting (B) as well as the additional heat load (C) also influences the energy consumption. … Figure 5-19 (1 to 4) illustrates the 3D surface graphs that examine the effects of the two significant factors ambient temperature (A) and additional heat load (C) on refrigerators’ energy consumption. The graph demonstrates once again that both factors exert a significant effect on the response. The steep curvature in the factor ambient temperature shows that the response is highly sensitive to this factor.”).
further Patel teaches generating a second data set by excluding data during a defrosting operation from the first data set, (Patel disclosed in page 1-9 (2nd para) to 1-10 (1st para): “In addition to the performance study, a preliminary examination of the frost behavior on the RHX fins was conducted and used to elucidate the potential defrost energy savings for each operating condition. Images of frost formation on the impeller fins were captured during separate individual experiments which lasted longer than 24 hrs. … The above results indicate that frost formation was minimal for the cycling impeller case, even after 49 hours of operation. ... As mentioned above, the reason for the lack of frost formation in the cycling impeller experiment is due to the inherent operation of the rotating heat exchanger. High local air velocity in the vicinity of the fins during rotation inhibits the frost growth. The preliminary images and data show that the frequency of defrost cycles would be reduced by as much as 50% for the cycling impellers compared to the stationary impellers. This would result in 50% further energy savings related to defrosting, …”).
Regarding Claim 5, the same ground of rejection is made as discussed in claim 1 for substantially similar rationale, therefore claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geppert and Patel as discussed above for substantially similar rationale. In addition, claim 5 recites following limitations:
Geppert teaches a degradation determination device … comprising: a data extraction unit … a correlation curve calculation unit … and a degradation determination unit (Applicant of current application stated in Specification of current application para [0029], the claim elements “degradation determination device”, “data extraction unit”, “correlation curve calculation unit” and “degradation determination unit” as generic computer/hardware having computer components plurality of processors and a memory connected to the processors. Further a program that implements the functions of data extraction unit, correlation curve calculation unit, and degradation determination unit, when executed.
Geppert disclosed in page 43: “All laboratory experiments were carried out under controlled conditions in a climatically controlled chamber. This chamber is located in the material testing laboratory at the Institute of Agricultural Engineering in Bonn. … The dynamically cooled refrigerator (appliance 1) and the statically cooled refrigerator (appliance 4) were set up planar on the floor of the climatically controlled chamber. … refrigerator’s energy consumption (Wh), power (W), voltage (V) and current (A) were recorded using the measuring device Elcontrol Energy VIP 96 and the corresponding software AMR WINControl.” Further, it has been discussed in page 51 section 4.3.3 that the “Design Expert software” was used for data analysis. Therefore, any person having skills in the art would understand that any software/program works or implemented in a computer system, eventually Geppert teaches about the degradation determination device comprising: a data extraction unit, a correlation curve calculation unit and a degradation determination unit (as software) to perform the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 9, Geppert and Patel teach the degradation determination method according to Claim 1, wherein Geppert teaches the degradation determination reference data including a power consumption amount and an ambient temperature in an operation mode in which the cooling facility is operated in an operation state that requires less power consumption than usual, the determination data including a power consumption amount and an ambient temperature in the operation mode in which the cooling facility is operated in the operation state that requires less power consumption than usual. (Geppert disclosed in page 86-87: “Figure 5-19 (1 to 4) illustrates the 3D surface graphs that examine the effects of the two significant factors ambient temperature (A) and additional heat load (C) on refrigerators’ energy consumption. The graph demonstrates once again that both factors exert a significant effect on the response. The steep curvature in the factor ambient temperature shows that the response is highly sensitive to this factor. It is evident that there is little or no interaction effect between the factors A and C.” It can be seen in Figure 5-19, that ‘Energy consumption’ is less in Fig. 5-19 (3) than in Fig. 5-19 (1), when factor A (Ambient Temp.) little high in Fig. 5-19 (1) than in Fig. 5-19 (3). Therefore, this scenario teaches the claim limitation “power consumption amount and an ambient temperature in the operation mode in which the cooling facility is operated in the operation state that requires less power consumption than usual”).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Geppert and Patel teach the degradation determination device according to Claim 5, are incorporating the rejections of claims 2 and 9 respectively, because claims 6 and 10 have substantially similar claim language as claims 2 and 9, therefore claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geppert and Patel as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Claims 3,4,7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geppert and Patel and further in view of Yamamoto Masaki (JP5362692B2) (hereinafter Masaki, IDS provided by Applicant with document number JP2010243092, dated 12/23/2024).
Regarding claim 3, Geppert and Patel teach the degradation determination method according to Claim 1, however, Geppert and Patel do bot explicitly teach the limitation “generating a third data set by removing, from the first data set, data when an opening and closing door of a cooling chamber connected to the cooling facility is opened, wherein the degradation determination reference data is extracted from the third data set, and the determination data is extracted from the third data set.”
further Masaki teaches generating a third data set by removing, from the first data set, data when an opening and closing door of a cooling chamber connected to the cooling facility is opened, (Masaki disclosed in page 3 heading ‘Embodiment of the present invention’ (3rd-4th para) : “In addition, about the measurement time slot | zone preset as a time slot | zone which measures the power consumption of a refrigerator, in the following description, the midnight time slot | zone (For example, the time slot | zone from 1:00 am to 6:00 am) was illustrated above. However, the present invention is not limited to such a case. For the diagnosis of the degree of deterioration in cooling performance, the power consumption can be measured without opening/closing the refrigerator door, etc. Any time zone may be selected and set as long as it does not disturb the environment in which it is performed. … Diagnostic ratio DR = Tc / Tt
Tc: Total operating time of the compressor 16 in the midnight time zone of 1 day Tt: Total operation time of the refrigerator in the midnight time zone of 1 day.
(Total time of midnight) Here, the midnight time zone of the day is a measurement time zone for measuring the power consumption for the diagnosis of the cooling performance deterioration of the day, and the calculation of the diagnosis ratio DR in the midnight time zone of the day. The reason for performing is to eliminate disturbance factors for the measurement environment due to opening/closing of the refrigerator door, etc., as described above, and the time zone in which the user is not expected to access the refrigerator (for example, from 1 am) This is because the time zone until 6 am is used as the measurement time zone.”).
wherein Masaki teaches the degradation determination reference data is extracted from the third data set, and the determination data is extracted from the third data set. (Masaki disclosed in page 3-4 heading ‘Embodiment of the present invention’ (5th-7th para): “each measurement data regarding the power consumption of the refrigerator measured for every measurement time is determined in the “determination of compressor operation state identification threshold” in (3), and the compressor operation state registered in the recording unit 11. Based on the comparison result compared with the identification threshold value, the operation is divided into the operation state and the stop state of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator, and the respective measurement time (for example, 10 minutes) intervals are assigned as the operation time and the stop time of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator. That is, based on the comparison result comparing each of the preliminary measurement data regarding the power consumption amount of the refrigerator measured at each measurement time with the compressor operation state identification threshold value calculated in step S7, the operation state and the stop state of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator. And the time interval of each measurement time (for example, 10 minutes) is assigned as the operation time and stop time of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator. The cooling performance deterioration diagnosis system 100 pays attention to the fact that the greater the ratio of the operation time of the compressor 16 that drives the refrigeration cycle of the refrigerator to the total operation time of the refrigerator, the greater the deterioration degree of the cooling performance of the refrigerator. Thus, by estimating the operation time of the compressor 16 based on the measurement result of the power consumption of the refrigerator, it is possible to diagnose the degree of deterioration of the cooling performance of the refrigerator.”).
Therefore, Geppert, Patel and Masaki are analogous art because they are related to perform experimental evaluation of a Residential Refrigerator’s power/energy consumption. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Geppert, Patel and Masaki to modify determining power consumption of chamber/compartment in a refrigerator of Geppert, to include generating data set by excluding/removing opening and closing door of a cooling chamber connected to the refrigerator of Masaki and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143(I)(B), Examples 1-11). The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious by Masaki because “The present invention relates to a cooling performance deterioration diagnosis system of a refrigerator and a cooling performance deterioration diagnosis method of a refrigerator having a mechanism capable of reliably diagnosing the degree of deterioration of the cooling performance of the refrigerator by grasping the transition of power consumption of the refrigerator. Based on the measurement result of the power consumption of the refrigerator, the operation time of the compressor of the refrigerator is estimated, and then the ratio of the estimated operation time of the compressor of the refrigerator to the operation time of the refrigerator is calculated as the cooling performance. By calculating as a diagnostic ratio for diagnosing the degree of deterioration of the product, and comparing the calculated diagnostic ratio with the standard normal operation ratio (time when there is no cooling performance degradation), the cooling performance of the refrigerator The main feature is that it is possible to make a diagnosis of the degree of deterioration.” (Masaki disclosed in page 3 heading ‘Features of the present invention’). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Masaki with Geppert and Patel to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Regarding claim 4, Geppert and Patel teach the degradation determination method according to Claim 1, further Patel teaches generating a fourth data set by removing, from the first data set, data during a defrosting operation (Patel disclosed in page 1-9 (2nd para) to 1-10 (1st para): “In addition to the performance study, a preliminary examination of the frost behavior on the RHX fins was conducted and used to elucidate the potential defrost energy savings for each operating condition. Images of frost formation on the impeller fins were captured during separate individual experiments which lasted longer than 24 hrs. … The above results indicate that frost formation was minimal for the cycling impeller case, even after 49 hours of operation. ... As mentioned above, the reason for the lack of frost formation in the cycling impeller experiment is due to the inherent operation of the rotating heat exchanger. High local air velocity in the vicinity of the fins during rotation inhibits the frost growth. The preliminary images and data show that the frequency of defrost cycles would be reduced by as much as 50% for the cycling impellers compared to the stationary impellers. This would result in 50% further energy savings related to defrosting, …”).
and Masaki teaches generating data when an opening and closing door of a cooling chamber connected to the cooling facility is opened, (Masaki disclosed in page 3 heading ‘Embodiment of the present invention’ (3rd-4th para) : “In addition, about the measurement time slot | zone preset as a time slot | zone which measures the power consumption of a refrigerator, in the following description, the midnight time slot | zone (For example, the time slot | zone from 1:00 am to 6:00 am) was illustrated above. However, the present invention is not limited to such a case. For the diagnosis of the degree of deterioration in cooling performance, the power consumption can be measured without opening/closing the refrigerator door, etc. Any time zone may be selected and set as long as it does not disturb the environment in which it is performed. … Diagnostic ratio DR = Tc / Tt
Tc: Total operating time of the compressor 16 in the midnight time zone of 1 day Tt: Total operation time of the refrigerator in the midnight time zone of 1 day.
(Total time of midnight) Here, the midnight time zone of the day is a measurement time zone for measuring the power consumption for the diagnosis of the cooling performance deterioration of the day, and the calculation of the diagnosis ratio DR in the midnight time zone of the day. The reason for performing is to eliminate disturbance factors for the measurement environment due to opening/closing of the refrigerator door, etc., as described above, and the time zone in which the user is not expected to access the refrigerator (for example, from 1 am) This is because the time zone until 6 am is used as the measurement time zone.”).
wherein Masaki teaches the degradation determination reference data is extracted from the fourth data set, and the determination data is extracted from the fourth data set. (Masaki disclosed in page 3-4 heading ‘Embodiment of the present invention’ (5th-7th para): “each measurement data regarding the power consumption of the refrigerator measured for every measurement time is determined in the “determination of compressor operation state identification threshold” in (3), and the compressor operation state registered in the recording unit 11. Based on the comparison result compared with the identification threshold value, the operation is divided into the operation state and the stop state of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator, and the respective measurement time (for example, 10 minutes) intervals are assigned as the operation time and the stop time of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator. That is, based on the comparison result comparing each of the preliminary measurement data regarding the power consumption amount of the refrigerator measured at each measurement time with the compressor operation state identification threshold value calculated in step S7, the operation state and the stop state of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator. And the time interval of each measurement time (for example, 10 minutes) is assigned as the operation time and stop time of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator. The cooling performance deterioration diagnosis system 100 pays attention to the fact that the greater the ratio of the operation time of the compressor 16 that drives the refrigeration cycle of the refrigerator to the total operation time of the refrigerator, the greater the deterioration degree of the cooling performance of the refrigerator. Thus, by estimating the operation time of the compressor 16 based on the measurement result of the power consumption of the refrigerator, it is possible to diagnose the degree of deterioration of the cooling performance of the refrigerator.”).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Geppert and Patel teach the degradation determination device according to Claim 5, is incorporating the rejections of claims 3 and 4 respectively, because claims 7 and 8 have substantially similar claim language as claims 3 and 4, therefore claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geppert, Patel and Masaki as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Conclusion
10. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A journal “Prediction of the energy consumption of household refrigerators and freezers via steady-state simulation” by Christian J.L. Hermes et al. presented a simplified model to assess the energy performance of vapor compression ‘on–off’ controlled refrigerators. A simplified methodology for predicting the energy consumption of refrigerators and freezers using a first-principles steady-state simulation model was proposed and validated against experimental AHAM energy consumption data. The methodology showed similar accuracy to that using more sophisticated dynamic simulation codes, but with lower computational costs. When compared to experimental data, the model predicted AHAM energy consumption tests within a ±5% deviation band. It was shown that the product energy consumption can be decreased by as much as 7.5% by using a lower capacity compressor and at the same time adding six more tube rows in the condenser coil. The numerical analyses also confirmed that there is a fan speed which minimizes the overall energy consumption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUPUR DEBNATH whose telephone number is (571)272-8161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am -4:30 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, Renee D Chavez can be reached on (571)270-1104. 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.
/NUPUR DEBNATH/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186