DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 06/02/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 08/28/2025. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-18 remain pending for consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL. —The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 18, Applicant has added the limitation “wherein the excessive condensation occurs in a state in which the refrigerant is condensed more than that of a normal state in which a temperature of a freezing compartment is maintained between a temperature range of -30 degrees Celsius (C) to -15 degrees C”. However, on paragraph [0132] of the originally filed specification, Applicant discloses “The temperature of the first evaporator 180a corresponding to the first storage compartment 11a corresponding to the refrigerating compartment and the temperature of the second evaporator 180b corresponding to the second storage compartment 11b corresponding to the freezing compartment may be maintained at −15° C. and −30° C., respectively, under normal conditions in which the excessive condensation does not occur in the condenser 160”. There is nothing in the originally filed claims, specification or drawings to support this newly added limitation. Thus, the newly added limitation is deemed to be NEW MATTER.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “wherein the excessive condensation occurs in a state in which the refrigerant is condensed more than that of a normal state in which a temperature of a freezing compartment is maintained between a temperature range of -30 degrees Celsius (C) to -15 degrees C” which renders the claim indefinite. Referring to paragraph [0132] of the originally filed specification, Applicant discloses “The temperature of the first evaporator 180a corresponding to the first storage compartment 11a corresponding to the refrigerating compartment and the temperature of the second evaporator 180b corresponding to the second storage compartment 11b corresponding to the freezing compartment may be maintained at −15° C. and −30° C., respectively, under normal conditions in which the excessive condensation does not occur in the condenser 160”. Therefore, the drawings and specification do not support a freezing compartment that is “maintained between a temperature range of -30 degrees Celsius (C) to -15 degrees C”. More clarity is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redlich (US6266968B1) in view of Sakai et al. (JP5194742B2, herein after referred to as Sakai).
Regarding claim 1, Redlich teaches a refrigerator (disclosed “refrigerator” in the abstract) comprising: a plurality of storage compartments (CH1 and CH3 Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5); a plurality of evaporators (EVAP1 and EVAP3 Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5) arranged in series with each other (Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5) and provided to correspond to each of the plurality of storage compartments (Col. 3 lines 1-5); a compressor (Fig. 1) configured to compress a refrigerant (Col. 2 lines 52-65) evaporated by the plurality of evaporators (Col. 2 lines 52-65); a condenser (Fig. 1) configured to condense the compressed refrigerant (Col. 2 lines 52-65); a plurality of evaporator temperature sensors (temperature sensors SE1 and SE2 Fig. 1) configured to detect a temperature (Col. 3 lines 22-42) of each of the plurality of evaporators (Col. 3 lines 22-42); and a controller (EV control Fig. 1) configured to: determine that excessive condensation (understood to be the condition where superheat exceeds the disclosed “preset value” Col. 3 lines 22-42) has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference (Col. 3 lines 22-42) between the plurality of evaporators (Col. 3 lines 22-42) being greater than or equal to a predetermined value (disclosed “preset value” in Col. 3 lines 22-42).
Redlich teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser; and the controller configured to adjust an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser”.
However, Sakai teaches a heat dissipation fan (first cooling fan 30 Fig. 3) configured to cool a condenser (paragraph [0043] and Fig. 3 where outdoor heat exchanger 7 corresponds to the condenser of Redlich); and a controller (referring to paragraph [0062], a person skilled in the art would recognize that the method described to operate first cooling fan 30 would require a controller which would correspond to the controller of Redlich) configured to adjust an off-time of the heat dissipation fan (corresponds to the period in which first cooling fan 30 Fig. 3 is off as described in paragraph [0062]) to be increased (referring to paragraph [0062], a person skilled in the art would recognize that the off-time of first cooling fan 30 is zero when the outside air temperature is higher than 15 degrees Celsius since it is turned on and then the off-time is increased to be equal to the period for which first cooling fan 30 stays off when the outside air temperature is lower than 15 degrees Celsius) based on a determination that an excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (referring to paragraphs [0025] and [0062], a person skilled in the art would recognize that the system of Sakai determines the occurrence of excessive condensation when the outside air temperature is lower than 15 degrees Celsius and first cooling fan 30 is on) to suppress a shortage of refrigerant (paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Redlich to include “a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser; and the controller configured to adjust an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser” in view of the teachings of Sakai to suppress a shortage of refrigerant.
Further, it is understood that claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configure to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach further comprising: an external temperature sensor (air temperature sensor 120 Fig. 2 of Sakai) configured to detect an external temperature of outside air (paragraph [0062] of Sakai), wherein in response to the external temperature being less than a reference temperature (disclosed “15℃” in paragraph [0062] of Sakai), the controller is further configured to determine whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (paragraphs [0063] and [0064] of Sakai where supercooling of external heat exchanger 7 is determined to occur at an outside temperature that is below 15℃ prompting the stoppage of first cooling fan 30).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach further comprising: a plurality of internal temperature sensors (temperature sensors S1 and S3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) configured to detect an internal temperature (Col. 6 lines 17-19 of Redlich) of each of the plurality of storage compartments (Col. 6 lines 17-19 of Redlich), wherein the controller is further configured to determine to start an operation (understood to be the operation described in Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich) for determining whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the operation disclosed in Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich does not start until the compressor starts to run, and referring to Fig. 2 and Col. 4 lines 1-23 of Redlich, the compressor does not start to run until at least one compartment CHn is above a target temperature SPn) based on an internal temperature (understood to be the internal temperature of compartment CH3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) of a reference storage compartment (compartment Ch3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) corresponding to a reference evaporator (EVAP3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) located at an end (Fig. 1 of Redlich) with respect to a refrigerant flow (refrigerant flow disclosed in Fig. 1 of Redlich), between the plurality of evaporators (Fig. 1 of Redlich).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to the internal temperature of the reference storage compartment being greater than a reference temperature (set point temperature SPn Fig. 2 of Redlich), determine to start an operation (understood to be the operation described in Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich) for determining whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the operation disclosed in Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich does not start until the compressor starts to run, and referring to Fig. 2 and Col. 4 lines 1-23 of Redlich, the compressor does not start to run until at least one compartment CHn is above a target temperature SPn).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein, in response to a continuous operation (understood to be the continuous operation of the compressor after startup for 2 minutes Col. 4 lines 9-23 of Redlich) of the compressor for a predetermined time (disclosed “2 minutes” in Col. 4 lines 9-23 of Redlich), the controller is further configured to identify whether the internal temperature of the reference storage compartment is greater than a reference temperature (disclosed “evaporator temperature signal TE” in Col. 4 lines 9-23 of Redlich).
Regarding claim 11, Redlich teaches a control method (understood to be the method used to determine the superheat value in Col. 3 lines 22-42) of a refrigerator (disclosed “refrigerator” in the abstract) that includes a plurality of storage compartments (CH1 and CH3 Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5), a plurality of evaporators (EVAP1 and EVAP3 Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5) arranged in series with each other (Fig. 1 and Col. 3 lines 1-5) and provided to correspond to each of the plurality of storage compartments (Col. 3 lines 1-5), a compressor (Fig. 1) configured to compress a refrigerant (Col. 2 lines 52-65) evaporated by the plurality of evaporators (Col. 2 lines 52-65), a condenser (Fig. 1) configured to condense the compressed refrigerant (Col. 2 lines 52-65), and a plurality of evaporator temperature sensors (temperature sensors SE1 and SE2 Fig. 1) configured to detect a temperature (Col. 3 lines 22-42) of each of the plurality of evaporators (Col. 3 lines 22-42), the control method comprising: determining that excessive condensation (understood to be the condition where superheat exceeds the disclosed “preset value” Col. 3 lines 22-42) has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference (Col. 3 lines 22-42) between the plurality of evaporators (Col. 3 lines 22-42) being greater than or equal to a predetermined value (disclosed “preset value” in Col. 3 lines 22-42).
Redlich teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the control method includes a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser, the control method comprising: and based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser, adjusting an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased”.
However, Sakai teaches a control method (the control method described in paragraph [0062] corresponds to the control method of Redlich) that includes a heat dissipation fan (first cooling fan 30 Fig. 3) configured to cool a condenser (paragraph [0043] and Fig. 3 where outdoor heat exchanger 7 corresponds to the condenser of Redlich), the control method comprising: and based on a determination that an excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (referring to paragraphs [0025] and [0062], a person skilled in the art would recognize that the system of Sakai determines the occurrence of excessive condensation when the outside air temperature is lower than 15 degrees Celsius and first cooling fan 30 is on), adjusting an off-time of the heat dissipation fan (corresponds to the period in which first cooling fan 30 Fig. 3 is off as described in paragraph [0062]) to be increased (referring to paragraph [0062], a person skilled in the art would recognize that the off-time of first cooling fan 30 is zero when the outside air temperature is higher than 15 degrees Celsius since it is turned on and then the off-time is increased to be equal to the period for which first cooling fan 30 stays off when the outside air temperature is lower than 15 degrees Celsius) to suppress a shortage of refrigerant (paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Redlich to include “the control method includes a heat dissipation fan configured to cool the condenser, the control method comprising: and based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser, adjusting an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased” in view of the teachings of Sakai to suppress a shortage of refrigerant.
Further, it is understood that claim 11 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configure to...”. The Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach further comprising: starting the determining of whether the excessive condensation occurs (a person skilled in the art would recognize that the superheat determination disclosed by Redlich is not started until the compressor is running, and referring to Fig. 2 and Col. 4 lines 1-23 of Redlich, the compressor does not start to run until at least one compartment CHn is above a target temperature SPn) based on an internal temperature (understood to be the internal temperature of any of the CHn compartments Fig. 1 of Redlich) of a reference storage compartment (understood to be any of the CHn compartments Fig. 1 of Redlich) reaching a target temperature (setpoint temperature SPn Fig. 2 and Col. 3 lines 53-63 of Redlich).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach wherein the operating time of the heat dissipation fan is intermittent (paragraph [0062] of Sakai where first cooling fan 30 is on when the outside temperature is above 15℃ and off when the outside temperature is below 15℃).
Claims 4, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redlich, in view of Sakai, and in further view of Yuasa et al. (US20040050083A1, herein after referred to as Yuasa).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the plurality of storage compartments comprises: a refrigerating compartment (disclosed “fresh food compartments” in Col. 1 lines 17-20 of Redlich), and a freezing compartment (disclosed “freezer” in Col. 1 lines 17-20 of Redlich), wherein the plurality of evaporators comprises: a first evaporator (EVAP1 Fig. 1 of Redlich) configured to receive a refrigerant from the condenser (Col. 3 lines 1-21 of Redlich), and a second evaporator (EVAP3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) configured to receive a refrigerant from the first evaporator (Col. 3 lines 1-21 of Redlich), and wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich) between the first evaporator and the second evaporator being greater than or equal to the predetermined value (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first evaporator provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment, and the second evaporator provided to correspond to the freezing compartment”.
However, Yuasa teaches the first evaporator (first evaporator 104 Fig. 1 which corresponds to the first evaporator of Redlich) provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment (cold storage compartment 102 Fig. 1 which corresponds to the refrigerating compartment of Redlich), and the second evaporator (second evaporator 105 Fig. 1 which corresponds to the second evaporator of Redlich) provided to correspond to the freezing compartment (freezer compartment 103 Fig. 1 which corresponds to the freezing compartment of Redlich) as a designer choice to have an evaporator for each compartment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the first evaporator provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment, and the second evaporator provided to correspond to the freezing compartment” in view of the teachings of Yuasa as a designer choice to have an evaporator for each compartment.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the plurality of storage compartments comprises: a refrigerating compartment (disclosed “fresh food compartments” in Col. 1 lines 17-20 of Redlich), and a freezing compartment (disclosed “freezer” in Col. 1 lines 17-20 of Redlich), wherein the plurality of evaporators comprises: a first evaporator (EVAP1 Fig. 1 of Redlich) configured to receive a refrigerant from the condenser (Col. 3 lines 1-21 of Redlich), and a second evaporator (EVAP3 Fig. 1 of Redlich) configured to receive a refrigerant from the first evaporator (Col. 3 lines 1-21 of Redlich), and wherein the determining that the excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser comprises determining that the excessive condensation has occurred in the condenser based on a temperature difference (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich) between the first evaporator and the second evaporator being greater than or equal to the predetermined value (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the first evaporator provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment, and the second evaporator provided to correspond to the freezing compartment”.
However, Yuasa teaches the first evaporator (first evaporator 104 Fig. 1 which corresponds to the first evaporator of Redlich) provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment (cold storage compartment 102 Fig. 1 which corresponds to the refrigerating compartment of Redlich), and the second evaporator (second evaporator 105 Fig. 1 which corresponds to the second evaporator of Redlich) provided to correspond to the freezing compartment (freezer compartment 103 Fig. 1 which corresponds to the freezing compartment of Redlich) as a designer choice to have an evaporator for each compartment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the first evaporator provided to correspond to the refrigerating compartment, and the second evaporator provided to correspond to the freezing compartment” in view of the teachings of Yuasa as a designer choice to have an evaporator for each compartment.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach wherein the excessive condensation occurs in a state (understood to be the supercooling state described by Sakai in paragraphs [0063], [0064], and [0097]) in which the refrigerant is condensed more than that of a normal state (referring to paragraphs [0026], [0063], [0064], and [0097] of Sakai, a person skilled in the art would recognize that the supercooling state would lead to an over-condensation state at outdoor heat exchanger 7).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the normal state in which a temperature of a freezing compartment is maintained between a temperature range of -30 degrees Celsius (C) to -15 degrees C”.
However, Yuasa teaches a normal state (the state at which freezer compartment 103 is kept at -20 degrees Celsius as disclosed in paragraph [0089] corresponds to the normal state of Redlich) in which a temperature of a freezing compartment (corresponds to the temperature of freezer compartment 103 Fig. 3) is maintained between a temperature range of -30 degrees Celsius (C) to -15 degrees C (paragraph [0089] where it is disclosed that freezer compartment 103 is kept at -20 degrees Celsius) to provide a freezer compartment with a predetermined temperature (paragraph [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the normal state in which a temperature of a freezing compartment is maintained between a temperature range of -30 degrees Celsius (C) to -15 degrees C” in view of the teachings of Yuasa to provide a freezer compartment with a predetermined temperature.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redlich, in view of Sakai, and in further view of Tagami (JP2010101569A).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein, in response to the temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than the predetermined value (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich), the controller is further configured to determine that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the temperature difference being equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time”.
However, Tagami teaches the temperature difference (disclosed “temperature difference” in paragraph [0023] which corresponds to the temperature difference of Redlich) being equal to the predetermined value (disclosed “predetermined value” in paragraph [0023] which corresponds to the predetermined value of Redlich) for a predetermined time (understood to be the predetermined time that elapses in paragraph [0023]) to differentiate between a transient condition and a steady condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the temperature difference being equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time” in view of the teachings of Tagami to differentiate between a transient condition and a steady condition.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach wherein the determining of whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser comprises, in response to the temperature difference between the plurality of evaporators being greater than the predetermined value (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich), determining that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (Col. 3 lines 22-42 of Redlich).
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the temperature difference being equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time”.
However, Tagami teaches the temperature difference (disclosed “temperature difference” in paragraph [0023] which corresponds to the temperature difference of Redlich) being equal to the predetermined value (disclosed “predetermined value” in paragraph [0023] which corresponds to the predetermined value of Redlich) for a predetermined time (understood to be the predetermined time that elapses in paragraph [0023]) to differentiate between a transient condition and a steady condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “the temperature difference being equal to the predetermined value for a predetermined time” in view of the teachings of Tagami to differentiate between a transient condition and a steady condition.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redlich, in view of Sakai, and in further view of Jun (JP2006010278A).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser at a predetermined time interval”.
However, Jun teaches wherein the controller (control device 22 Fig. 1 which corresponds to the controller of Redlich) is further configured to determine whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (understood to be when ∆T > 1℃ at step S104 paragraph [0048] and Fig. 10) at a predetermined time interval (the process shown in Fig. 10 is done after one-minute intervals [paragraph [0048]) to continuously monitor the refrigeration system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser at a predetermined time interval” in view of the teachings of Jun to continuously monitor the refrigeration system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7 that the combination of Redlich and Sakai does not teach or suggest “adjust[ing] an off-time of the heat dissipation fan to be increased based on the determination that the excessive condensation occurs in the condenser” as recited in amended claims 1 and 11, Examiner disagrees.
As already presented above in the rejections of claims 1 and 11 and repeated below for clarity purposes, Sakai teaches a heat dissipation fan (first cooling fan 30 Fig. 3) and adjust[ing] an off-time of the heat dissipation fan (corresponds to the period in which first cooling fan 30 Fig. 3 is off as described in paragraph [0062]) to be increased (referring to paragraph [0062], a person skilled in the art would recognize that the off-time of first cooling fan 30 is zero when the outside air temperature is higher than 15 degrees Celsius since it is turned on and then the off-time is increased to be equal to the period for which first cooling fan 30 stays off when the outside air temperature is lower than 15 degrees Celsius) based on a determination that an excessive condensation occurs in the condenser (referring to paragraphs [0025] and [0062], a person skilled in the art would recognize that the system of Sakai determines the occurrence of excessive condensation when the outside air temperature is lower than 15 degrees Celsius and first cooling fan 30 is on) to suppress a shortage of refrigerant (paragraph [0063]).
Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims.
In this particular case, the combined teachings disclose all the structural features of the claim including a plurality of evaporators, a compressor, a condenser, a heat dissipation fan, a plurality of evaporator temperature sensors, and a controller. Further, Sakai discloses in paragraphs [0025] and [0062] increasing the off-time of first cooling fan 30 from zero when the outside air temperature is higher than 15 degrees Celsius to the period of time for which first cooling fan 30 stays off when the outside air temperature is lower than 15 degrees Celsius to prevent the occurrence of excessive condensation at the condenser. Thus, the combined teachings disclose all the structural features of the claims and are capable of performing the intended use functions. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763