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.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the Amendment filled on 04/10/2026. The amendment has been entered. Claims 1,5,9 and 10 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are pending, with claims 1 and 5 being independent in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed on 04/10/2026 on page 6-9 regarding
35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are found unpersuasive in view of the amended claims and presented Arguments/Remarks by the Applicant.
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks in page 8-9 stated: “Applicant notes that claim 1 recites features directly tied to the improvement described in the specification, … which directly relate the above-described improvement over conventional technologies.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument/remark. Applicants argued that the claim features tied to improvement over conventional technologies, according to specification. However, no technological improvement being recited in amended claim limitation. The amended claim limitation related to extracting steps are recitations of data gathering activities (See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 1 as a whole is found to recite a judicial exception and is drawn to an abstract idea.
Therefore, the previous rejections regarding 35 U.S.C.101 are being amended in this current office action. (See analysis below Claim Rejections-35 U.S.C. §101).
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed on pages 9-12 regarding 35 U.S.C. 103
rejections have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims and presented Arguments/Remarks by the Applicant. Specifically, Examiner agrees with the Arguments/Remarks that features of claim 1 are not being taught by prior art Geppert. However, a new ground of rejections is necessitated by Applicant's claim amendments. Therefore, the previous rejections regarding 35 U.S.C.103 are being amended in this current office action. (See analysis below Claim Rejections-35 U.S.C. §103).
Examiner Notes
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.
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 from a first data set for a first time period before a degradation determination period, the 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)
extracting determination data from the first data set for a second time period, the second time period being the degradation determination period; (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 for the first time period before the degradation determination period; (Mathematical concept)
calculating, from the determination data, a second correlation curve indicating a correlation between the power consumption amount and the ambient temperature for the second time period, the second time period being the degradation determination period; (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 limitations “extracting degradation determination reference data from a first data set for a first time period …; extracting determination data from the first data set for a second time period …” are 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 limitations “extracting degradation determination reference data from a first data set for a first time period …; extracting determination data from the first data set for a second time period …” are recitations of data gathering activities 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 includes a power consumption amount and an ambient temperature in an operation mode and the determination data includes 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.
7. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto Masaki et al. (JP5362692B2) (hereinafter Masaki, IDS provided by Applicant with document number JP2010243092, dated 12/23/2024) 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, Masaki teaches a degradation determination method of determining degradation of a cooling facility that cools an inside of a box-shaped housing, (Masaki disclosed in page 3 heading ‘(Embodiment of the present invention)’ (3rd para): “an example is explained about an embodiment to a cooling performance degradation diagnostic system of a refrigerator and a cooling performance degradation diagnostic method of a refrigerator concerning the present invention. Here, the refrigerator targeted by the cooling performance deterioration diagnosis system and the cooling performance deterioration diagnosis method of the refrigerator according to the present invention compresses the refrigerant by a thermostat that detects the internal temperature of the refrigerator compartment or the freezer compartment and freezes the refrigerant.”).
Masaki teaches the degradation determination method comprising: extracting degradation determination reference data from a first data set for a first time period before a degradation determination period, the first data set including a power consumption amount of the cooling facility at each predetermined time; (Masaki disclosed in page 6 (last para): “A first technical means is a cooling performance deterioration diagnosis system for a refrigerator that diagnoses the degree of deterioration of the cooling performance of the refrigerator, and includes a power measurement unit that measures the power consumption of the refrigerator in a built-in or external form, … Based on the results of calculating the ratio of the total operating time of the compressor to the total time of the measurement time zone as a diagnostic ratio for each day, and comparing the calculated diagnostic ratio with a ratio set in advance as a reference value, to diagnose the deterioration degree of the refrigerator cooling performance, as the ratio to be used for the reference value, … The new diagnostic ratio for the refrigerator is used, and the new diagnostic ratio is calculated within a predetermined time period as a preliminary measurement period for measuring the power consumption of the refrigerator when new. It is an average value in the preliminary measurement period of the diagnostic ratio for each day calculated based on the power consumption of the refrigerator measured by the power measurement unit for each measurement time, and each measurement time in the preliminary measurement period Compressor operating state identification threshold value for identifying whether the compressor is in an operating state or in a stopped state by multiplying the average value of the power consumption of the refrigerator measured every time by a predetermined margin magnification.”).
Masaki teaches extracting determination data from the first data set for a second time period, the second time period being the degradation determination period; (Masaki disclosed in page 8-9 heading ‘(Features of the present invention)’: “ First, after purchase and installation of the refrigerator, a pre-measurement period for measuring the power consumption of the refrigerator during normal operation, such as a period of a new article that is assumed to be operating normally without deterioration in cooling performance. Predetermined as Further, a time zone in which the measurement environment is not disturbed and the power consumption can be accurately measured, for example, a midnight time zone (for example, a time zone from 1 am to 6 am) is set in advance as a measurement time zone. Next, by measuring the power consumption of the refrigerator as the preliminary measurement data every predetermined measurement time, for example, every 10 minutes, in the predetermined measurement time zone, over the predetermined preliminary measurement period, for example, one year … Further, by comparing the power consumption for each measurement time, for example, every 10 minutes, measured as the preliminary measurement data, with the compressor operation state identification threshold, the compressor operation state and the stop state for each measurement time, for example, every 10 minutes. And the respective measurement times, for example, time intervals of 10 minutes are estimated as compressor operation time and stop time. The percentage of total operating time integrating the compressor for all the preliminary measurement data of the preliminary measurement period refrigerator total operation time (i.e. length of time of the measurement time zone), … In the operation period after the preliminary measurement period, the degree of deterioration in the cooling performance of the refrigerator This is the ratio that serves as a reference value when diagnosing. … In this way, the compressor operating time is ascertained from the measured power consumption, and the deterioration of the cooling performance of the refrigerator that progresses gradually over the years of use based on the determined compressor operating time. Prior to a situation where the performance falls to a state where the performance has been extremely reduced, the degree of cooling performance degradation was diagnosed in the order of normal state at the time of new purchase immediately after purchase installation, from caution state to warning state to deterioration state.”).
Masaki teaches calculating, from the degradation determination reference data, a first correlation curve indicating a correlation between the power consumption amount and the ambient temperature for the first time period before the degradation determination period; (Under BRI and as per the claim language, Examiner would construe the claim term “correlation curve” as “correlation between the power consumption amount and the ambient temperature”.
Masaki disclosed in page 9-10 heading ‘(Embodiment of the present invention)’ (1st, 3rd para in page 9 and 6th para in page 10): “an embodiment to a cooling performance degradation diagnostic system of a refrigerator and a cooling performance degradation diagnostic method of a refrigerator concerning the present invention. Here, the refrigerator targeted by the cooling performance deterioration diagnosis system and the cooling performance deterioration diagnosis method of the refrigerator according to the present invention compresses the refrigerant by a thermostat that detects the internal temperature of the refrigerator compartment or the freezer compartment and freezes the refrigerant. … as shown in FIG. FIG. 1 is a block configuration diagram showing an example of a block configuration of a cooling performance degradation diagnosis system for a refrigerator according to the present invention. Instead of the temperature sensing unit 15 in the conventional self-diagnosis system 100A for a refrigerator shown in FIG. A power measuring unit 17 that measures the power consumption of the refrigerator is provided ... The compressor 16 is automatically controlled to start and stop based on the result of measuring the internal temperature of the refrigerator compartment or freezer compartment by a control from the control unit 10 or by a thermostat, and the drive of the motor is controlled. In order to cool the internal temperature to the set temperature, the high-temperature and high-pressure gaseous refrigerant obtained by compressing the low-pressure gas refrigerant is circulated or stopped as a refrigeration cycle, so that the refrigerator compartment or the freezer compartment It operates to maintain the internal temperature of the container at a desired set temperature.”).
Masaki teaches calculating, from the determination data, a second correlation curve indicating a correlation between the power consumption amount and the ambient temperature for the second time period, the second time period being the degradation determination period; (Masaki disclosed in page 10 (7th, 9th and 10th para): “ In addition, the power measurement unit 17 newly provided in the cooling performance deterioration diagnosis system 100 according to the present embodiment is controlled by the control unit 10 for every predetermined measurement time (for example, every 10 minutes). And output the measured power consumption to the control unit 10. … A constant-speed compressor type refrigerator equipped with the cooling performance deterioration diagnosis system 100 of FIG. 1 generally has a compressor 16 according to the detection result of the thermostat when the internal temperature of the refrigerator compartment or freezer compartment rises and exceeds a desired set temperature. Is automatically activated to cool the inside of the refrigerator compartment or freezer compartment, and when the inside temperature of the refrigerator compartment or freezer compartment drops to a desired set temperature, the thermostat automatically operates the compressor 16. … Here, if the cooling performance of the refrigerator is significantly deteriorated, even if the internal temperature of the refrigerator compartment or the freezer compartment exceeds the desired set temperature, and the compressor 16 is automatically started based on the detection result of the thermostat. Since the internal temperature of the refrigerator compartment or freezer compartment does not decrease easily, the operation time of the compressor 16 becomes relatively long, and the power consumption of the refrigerator increases. Therefore, if the power consumption of the refrigerator is monitored, it is possible to diagnose the degree of deterioration of the cooling performance of the refrigerator.”
and Masaki teaches determining degradation of the cooling facility based on a difference between the first correlation curve and the second correlation curve. (Masaki disclosed in page 12 (bullet point (4), (6) and last para of page 12): “Investigation of the operating status of the compressor 16 during the operation period After that, when the operation period after the preliminary measurement period, for example, one year has elapsed, a midnight time period (for example, 1:00 am set in advance as the measurement time period) is reached. In the time zone until 6 am), the power consumption of the refrigerator is measured as measurement data for grasping the operation status of the compressor 16 every predetermined measurement time (for example, 10 minutes). …. Calculating the diagnostic ratio DR during the operation period when calculating the total operation time of the compressor 16 in the midnight time zone of the day by “calculation of the total operation time of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator during the operation period” of (5), … the ratio of the total operation time of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator to the total operation time of the refrigerator main body (that is, the total time of the midnight time zone) is obtained. Here, in general, the diagnostic ratio DR gradually increases according to the years of use of the refrigerator, and the larger the diagnostic ratio DR, the greater the proportion of operating time of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator. Thus, it can be diagnosed that the deterioration of the cooling performance of the refrigerator is in a more advanced state. … Thus, by comparing the gradually increasing diagnostic ratio DR with the reference ratio, the degree of cooling performance deterioration is determined to determine the “attention state” that should alert the user. Or the warning status should be given to the user, or the user should be informed that the cooling performance has deteriorated so that the freshness of food stored in the refrigerator cannot be maintained. In addition, if the ratio of the standard value is greatly exceeded, the cooling performance of the refrigerator will deteriorate to a limit value and require repair or replacement can be determined.”
The disclosure “diagnostic ratio DR”, that means “by comparing the gradually increasing diagnostic ratio DR with the reference ratio, the degree of cooling performance deterioration is determined to determine the attention state that should alert the user” corresponds to claim limitation “determining degradation of the cooling facility based on a difference”,).
However, Masaki doesn’t 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”.
and 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; (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).
Masaki 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 Masaki and Patel to modify determining power consumption of chamber/compartment in a refrigerator of Masaki, to include determining ambient temperature of a heat exchanger in a refrigerator of Patel. 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’).
Regarding claim 2, Masaki and Patel teach the degradation determination method according to Claim 1, wherein Masaki teaches the degradation determination reference data is extracted from the second data set, and the determination data is extracted from the second data set. (Masaki disclosed in page 8-9 heading ‘(Features of the present invention)’: “First, after purchase and installation of the refrigerator, a pre-measurement period for measuring the power consumption of the refrigerator during normal operation, such as a period of a new article that is assumed to be operating normally without deterioration in cooling performance. Predetermined as Further, a time zone in which the measurement environment is not disturbed and the power consumption can be accurately measured, for example, a midnight time zone (for example, a time zone from 1 am to 6 am) is set in advance as a measurement time zone. Next, by measuring the power consumption of the refrigerator as the preliminary measurement data every predetermined measurement time, for example, every 10 minutes, in the predetermined measurement time zone, over the predetermined preliminary measurement period, for example, one year … Further, by comparing the power consumption for each measurement time, for example, every 10 minutes, measured as the preliminary measurement data, with the compressor operation state identification threshold, the compressor operation state and the stop state for each measurement time, for example, every 10 minutes. And the respective measurement times, for example, time intervals of 10 minutes are estimated as compressor operation time and stop time. The percentage of total operating time integrating the compressor for all the preliminary measurement data of the preliminary measurement period refrigerator total operation time (i.e. length of time of the measurement time zone), … In the operation period after the preliminary measurement period, the degree of deterioration in the cooling performance of the refrigerator This is the ratio that serves as a reference value when diagnosing. … In this way, the compressor operating time is ascertained from the measured power consumption, and the deterioration of the cooling performance of the refrigerator that progresses gradually over the years of use based on the determined compressor operating time. Prior to a situation where the performance falls to a state where the performance has been extremely reduced, the degree of cooling performance degradation was diagnosed in the order of normal state at the time of new purchase immediately after purchase installation, from caution state to warning state to deterioration state.”).
However, Masaki doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “generating a second data set by excluding data during a defrosting operation from the first data set,”
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, …”).
Masaki 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 Masaki and Patel to modify determining power consumption of chamber/compartment in a refrigerator of Masaki, to include determining ambient temperature of a heat exchanger in a refrigerator of Patel. 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’).
Regarding claim 3, Masaki and Patel teach the degradation determination method according to Claim 1, 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.”).
Regarding claim 4, Masaki and Patel teach the degradation determination method according to Claim 1, 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.”).
However, Masaki doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation “generating a fourth data set by removing, from the first data set, data during a defrosting operation”.
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, …”).
Masaki 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 Masaki and Patel to modify determining power consumption of chamber/compartment in a refrigerator of Masaki, to include determining ambient temperature of a heat exchanger in a refrigerator of Patel. 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’).
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 Masaki and Patel as discussed above for substantially similar rationale. In addition, claim 5 recites following limitation:
Masaki teaches a degradation determination device that determines degradation of a cooling facility … 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.
Masaki disclosed in page 3 heading ‘(Embodiment of the present invention)’ (1st and 2nd para): “an embodiment to a cooling performance degradation diagnostic system of a refrigerator and a cooling performance degradation diagnostic method of a refrigerator concerning the present invention. … The control unit 10 includes a microprocessor, and controls the operation of the entire refrigerator while performing control for diagnosing deterioration of the cooling performance of the refrigerator as the cooling performance deterioration diagnosis system 100 by the operation of the control program.” The disclosures “cooling performance degradation diagnostic system of a refrigerator” and “control unit 10 includes a microprocessor, and controls the operation of the entire refrigerator” correspond to claim limitation “degradation determination device comprising: a data extraction unit”).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Masaki 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 Masaki and Patel as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Masaki and Patel the degradation determination method according to Claim 1, wherein Masaki teaches the degradation determination reference data includes 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, (Masaki disclosed in page 12 (bullet point (2) and (3)): “Calculation of average power consumption amount Next, after the preliminary measurement period has elapsed, the measured power consumption amount from the power consumption amount of the preliminary measurement data measured over the preliminary measurement period. In order to remove the abnormal value in, the power consumption amount of the preliminary measurement data that exceeds the temporary threshold value (e.g., 50W) for the power consumption amount set in advance to a larger value is removed, and the power consumption amount of the refrigerator below the temporary threshold value are selected, and an average value (for example, 3 W) is obtained for the power consumption of the selected refrigerator. The average value (for example, 3 W) of the power consumption of the refrigerator is an average value of the power consumption of the refrigerator at the time of a new article that is assumed to be operating normally without deterioration in cooling performance. (3) Determination of threshold value for compressor operation state identification Next, + 20% to the average value (for example, 3 W) of the power consumption of the refrigerator obtained in “Calculation of average value of power consumption” in (2) + 30% power consumption including a margin of about 30% (for example, + 20% margin value of 3.6W to 3W to + 30% margin value of 3.9W), and the compressor 16 operates to reduce the power consumption amount from the average value. Compressor operating state for identifying whether the compressor 16 of the refrigerator is in the operating state or in the stopped state, and sets the power consumption amount including the margin with respect to the average value.”).
and wherein Masaki teaches the determination data includes 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. (Masaki disclosed in page 13 heading ‘(Second Embodiment)’ bullet point (1): “(1) Calculation of the operation time and stop time of the compressor 16 of the refrigerator within the preliminary measurement period it is measured every measurement time (for example, 10 minutes) in “(1) Preliminary measurement of power consumption” in the first embodiment. For each power consumption amount of the refrigerator during the preliminary measurement period, the compressor operation state identification threshold value determined in “(3) Determination of compressor operation state identification threshold value” in the first embodiment (that is, the refrigerator during the preliminary measurement period) power consumption that further includes a margin of about + 20% to + 30% in the average value of power consumption (for example, 3.6W of + 20% margin value relative to average value 3W to 3.9 W of + 30% margin value relative to average value 3W). Based on the same method as “(4) Investigation of the operation status of the refrigerator during the operation period” in the first embodiment. The operation time and stop time of the compressor 16 in the refrigerator are obtained.”).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Masaki 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 Masaki and Patel as discussed above for substantially similar rationale.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights