DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“expansion device” in claim 15, lines 1-2 and claim 16, line 2, interpreted according to ¶ 24 as “a thermal expansion valve, an electronic expansion valve, a thermostatic expansion valve, a fixed orifice, a capillary tube, or any other type of flow restriction” and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 teaches in lines 5-6 “the first actuator controlling one of a speed of a fan of a condenser and a speed of a compressor” and in lines 8-9 “the second actuator controlling another of the speed of the fan of the condenser and the speed of the compressor” but teaches in line 12 that “the first actuator controls the speed of the fan of the condenser” and in line 14 that “the second actuator controls the speed of the compressor”. Because the claim definitely establishes in lines 12 and 14 that “the first actuator controls the speed of the fan of the condenser” and “the second actuator controls the speed of the compressor”, it is not clear what effect the teachings of alternatives in lines 5-6 and 8-9 have on the scope of the claim. For example, if “the first actuator control[s] one of a speed of a fan of a condenser and a speed of a compressor” but this “one” must be “the speed of the fan of the condenser” it is not clear whether any circumstances or arrangements may exist in which the first actuator could control the speed of the compressor, even though such control is recited as falling within the scope of the claim. For this reason, the scope of claim 1 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the teachings in lines 5-6 and 8-9 of alternatives have not been given patentable weight in light of the teachings of lines 12 and 14 which establish only one result for the options presented previously.
Claims 3 and 5-21 are rejected as depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2006/0112702 A1 to Martin et al. in view of US Publication No. 2021/0278115 A1 to Donnellan et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martin teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 1, shown above, and figs. 4a and 4b, shown below, a method of controlling vapor compression cooling in a thermal system (the air conditioning system 10), the method comprising:
changing, using a controller (14) and according to a first function (the steps including comparisons and operations contingent on these comparisons which pertain to the degree of subcooling SC shown in the flowchart portion of fig. 4b), a first operating parameter of a first actuator of the thermal system (adjusting the voltage provided to the motor of the condenser fan 22 as taught in ¶ 53), the first function defined by performing [comparison] to data (as taught in ¶¶ 53-54, the fan and compressor are each controlled according to both required performance and the minimizing of power consumption, and the fan speed in particularly is taught to increase or decrease “based on the sub-cooling of the refrigerant in comparison to a check value”), the first actuator controlling one of a speed of a fan (22) of a condenser (26, as taught in ¶ 50) or
PNG
media_image2.png
680
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
658
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
changing, using the controller (14), a second operating parameter of a second actuator of the thermal system (adjusting the voltage provided to either the motor of the compressor 20 or of the condenser fan 22 as taught in ¶ 53), the second actuator controlling another of scope of the claim by the limitations of claim 2 added to claim 1 as discussed above) or the speed of the compressor (20, as taught in ¶¶ 50 and 53), the second operating parameter changed according to a second function (the steps including comparisons and operations contingent on these comparisons which pertain to the sleeper temperature SC shown in the flowchart portion of fig. 4a and to the “comp. voltage” shown in the portion of fig. 4b) that at least in part depends on a capacity request for the vapor compression cooling (as taught in ¶¶ 53-54, the voltage is varied to control the speed of the compressor 20 “based upon the sleeper temperature in comparison to a set temperature”, this set temperature representing a capacity request by its variance from the current air temperature of the sleeper compartment);
wherein the first actuator controls the speed of the fan of the condenser (as a motor of the fan 22 of the condenser 26 as taught in ¶ 53), wherein changing the first operating parameter increases or decreases the speed of the fan of the condenser (“The controller 14… adjusts the speed of the fan 22, via an increase or decrease in the voltage to the fan” as taught in ¶ 53), wherein the second actuator controls the speed of the compressor (as a motor of the compressor 20 as taught in ¶ 53), and wherein changing the second operating parameter increases or decreases the speed of the compressor (“it can be seen that the controller preferably adjusts the speed of the compressor 20, via an increase or decrease in the voltage to the compressor 20, based upon the sleeper temperature in comparison to a set temperature” as taught in ¶ 53).
Martin does not teach the first function be “defined by fitting to data”. Donnellan teaches in ¶¶ 13-14 and 81 a refrigeration system including a condenser (18) and a fan (29) thereof, the speed of the fan being controlled by a controller (35) and this control including fitting a function to data pertaining to condenser fan speeds at which system efficiency is maximized and storing this function for use by the controller in selecting optimized speeds for the fan. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Martin with the condenser speed data fitting taught by Donnellan in order to allow operation of the condenser fan to be controlled to provide maximum efficiency for the system, thus improving performance and reducing the energy consumption required to provide such performance.
Martin teaches limitations from claim 3, the method of claim 2, wherein the second function depends on a requested mass flow derived from the capacity request (As taught in ¶ 53, “More specifically, it can be seen that the controller preferably adjusts the speed of the compressor 20, via an increase or decrease in the voltage to the compressor 20, based upon the sleeper temperature in comparison to a set temperature, the temperature of the air flow out of the evaporator 30 in comparison to the set temperature, the temperature of air flow out of the evaporator 30 in comparison to the dew point, and the discharge pressure P1 out of the compressor 20 in comparison to a check pressure.” with this increase in voltage and thus speed representing an increased mass flow of refrigerant from the compressor as is understood in the art.)
Martin teaches limitations from claim 5, the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the vapor compression cooling comprises minimizing a cost function regarding power consumption by the compressor (20) and the power consumption by the fan (22) (as taught in ¶ 54, the control of the compressor and fan are selected to minimize the consumption of power, with Martin discussing in ¶ 3 the correspondence between power and thus fuel consumption and cost of operation for the air conditioning system.)
Martin teaches limitations from claim 6, the method of claim 5, wherein the cost function comprises a sum of the power consumption by the compressor and the power consumption by the fan (as taught in ¶ 54, although the compressor has the largest impact on power consumption, the power consumed by each of the compressor, condenser fan, and evaporator blower contribute to power consumption and must thus be summed in considering this consumption).
Martin teaches limitations from claim 15, the method of claim 1, wherein the thermal system includes a non-electronic expansion device (28; ¶ 50 teaches that while the pressure reduction device 28 of Martin’s system is “preferably an electronically controlled expansion valve 28”, it may also be a thermostatic expansion valve or an orifice tube” which are non-electronic embodiments and fall within the scope of this teaching as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as set forth above), and wherein the first and second operating parameters are changed without changing the non-electronic expansion device (as the control taught by Martin does not include control of the pressure reduction device, especially when it is a thermal expansion valve or fixed orifice which could not be directly controlled by the controller 14 of Martin).
Examiner notes that although Martin describes an electronically controlled expansion valve as “preferable” for use as the pressure reduction device of his invention, MPEP 2123 Rejection Over Prior Art’s Broad Disclosure Instead of Preferred Embodiments states in section II. Nonpreferred And Alternative Embodiments Constitute Prior Art that “‘A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.’ In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)” and that “Furthermore, ‘[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….’ In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).”
Martin teaches limitations from claim 16, the method of claim 15, wherein the non-electronic expansion device comprises a passive expansion device (an orifice tube) or a mechanically adjusted expansion device (a thermostatic expansion valve as taught in ¶ 50 of Martin).
Martin teaches limitations from claim 20, the method of claim 1, wherein the thermal system is part of a vehicle (As taught in ¶ 48, “the invention provides an electrically driven, hermetic, vapor compression A/C system 10 that will maintain comfortable temperatures in a vehicle”.)
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and Donnellan as applied to claims 1, 5, and 22 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2013/0213064 A1 to Gomes et al.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Martin teaches an air conditioning system in which the voltage respectively provided to each of a compressor motor, an evaporator blower motor, and a condenser fan motor is monitored and optimized in order to minimize the consumption of power and thus fuel by each of these elements by efficiently tailoring the components’ operations to the requirements of the system. Martin does not teach the power consumption of the compressor and of the condenser fan being monitored via partial derivatives of the power consumption of these elements as taught in claim 7, or these partial derivatives being applied in the functions which control the voltage to these components as taught in claim 8. Gomes teaches in ¶ 56, a controller (40) for a refrigeration system (10) which is capable of determining the power consumption of a compressor (2) as a derivative which may further be mapped to other parameters and operations of the system (with subcooling of refrigerant at a condenser exit given as one example) for control of operations of the system. In light of the teachings of Gomes, one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be an obvious expedient to modify Martin to obtain the partial derivatives of the power consumption of elements in the system of Martin, including the compressor and the fan motor as taught in claim 7 and to apply these partial derivatives in controlling the operation of the system as taught in claim 8 in order to provide more and more precise data for monitoring and modeling operations of the system of Martin in order to better tailor those operations to the instant conditions of the system and the environment in which it is used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system as taught in Martin’s ¶ 60.
Regarding claim 24, refer to the above rejections of claim 7 (regarding the use of partial derivatives relative to the compressor and fan motor operations) and of claim 8 (regarding the use of such derivatives in the control of the air conditioning system).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and Donnellan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2009/0277197 A1 to Gambiana et al.
Regarding claim 14, Martin teaches an air conditioning system in which the voltage respectively provided to each of a compressor motor, an evaporator blower motor, and a condenser fan motor is monitored and optimized in order to minimize the consumption of power and thus fuel by each of these elements by efficiently tailoring the components’ operations to the requirements of the system. Martin does not teach the data used in controlling the compressor and fan motors to include simulated data. Gambiana teaches in ¶ 131 a control for a refrigeration cycle air conditioning system in which data derived from a simulation including different compressor modulation levels and the power consumption resulting from each is collected and employed to enable the system to operate with increased efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Martin to employ simulated data as taught by Gambiana in order to provide the system with a model from which the energy consumption resulting from different control operations and settings may be predicted in order to allow more efficient operations to be prioritized where possible without undue sacrifice of performance.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin Donnellan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2018/0209703 A1 to Hern et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
480
662
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, 18, and 19, Martin teaches an air conditioning system in which the voltage respectively provided to each of a compressor motor, an evaporator blower motor, and a condenser fan motor is monitored and optimized in order to minimize the consumption of power and thus fuel by each of these elements by efficiently tailoring the components’ operations to the requirements of the system. Martin further teaches in ¶ 50 that the air conditioning system of his invention may comprise an expansion valve (28) which may be an electronically controlled expansion valve and may be connected to the controller (14) of his system. Martin does not explicitly teach the controller changing a third operating parameter of the expansion valve to obtain a predefined value in the system as taught in claim 17 and further does not teach the parameter being changed using a feedback loop as taught in claim 18, or being “at least one of a superheat value a subcooling value, a mass flow rate, a suction pressure, a capacity of the thermal system, a discharge air temperature for an evaporator of the thermal system, or a coolant temperature for a chiller of the thermal system” as taught in claim 19. Hern teaches in fig. 2, shown above, and specifically in ¶ 80, an HVAC system (200) in which an controller (EEV controller 310, taught to be among a number of communicated control devices of the system in ¶ 45) controls the operation of an electronic expansion valve (280), setting the position or opening degree thereof to cause a measured superheat value of the system to approach a superheat setpoint as taught in claims 17 and 19. Hern further teaches the controller’s (310) operation of the expansion valve (280) to be performed using a feedback loop for causing the measured superheat value to the setpoint as taught in claim 18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Martin with the expansion valve control taught by Hern in order to ensure efficient and reliable operation of the air conditioning system by avoiding excessive superheating of the refrigerant which unnecessarily consumes power and may cause damage to the compressor by increasing the heating and thus wear and tear of compressor components.
Regarding the limitations of claim 25, refer to the above rejection of claim 17.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin and Donnellan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2009/0012651 A1 to Lifson.
Regarding claim 14, Martin teaches an air conditioning system in which the voltage respectively provided to each of a compressor motor, an evaporator blower motor, and a condenser fan motor is monitored and optimized in order to minimize the consumption of power and thus fuel by each of these elements by efficiently tailoring the components’ operations to the requirements of the system. Martin does not teach or suggest the use of such an air conditioning system in “a stationary energy storage”. Lifson teaches in ¶ 8, the use of a in the cooling of a building (a stationary structure) and teaches that, because of the thermal mass of the building and the air therein, more efficient energy use may be achieved by timing cooling to off-peak hours to avoid high electricity prices and that thermal storage media may likewise be used and cooled at off-peak hours to store up cooling potential to be used when electricity demand and prices are high. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Martin with the building and storage media installation for an air conditioning system taught by Lifson in order to allow the benefits taught by Martin with regard to efficient use of energy (for example in ¶ 60) to be provided in the context of a building where efficient energy use is a concern due to fluctuations in electricity prices as taught by Lifson.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Particularly, claim 9, upon which claims 10-13 depend directly or indirectly, teaches that the first partial derivative is decomposed into a first relative partial derivative and the second partial derivative is decomposed into a second relative partial derivative. The prior art, including the teachings of Martin, Donnellan, and Gomes relied upon in rejecting claim 7 upon which claim 9 depends, do not teach or suggest such steps as additional operations of the controllers of their invention beyond the calculation and use of partial derivatives of power consumption taught in claim 7 and discussed above in the rejection of that claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 of the reply filed 6 October 2025 that the amendment of claim 1 to include the subject matter of dependent claim 2 overcomes the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claim 2 was not previously rejected on this ground and that this additional subject matter causes the invention of claim 1 to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
In response, examiner agrees and the rejection of claim 1 (and of claims 5-21 which depend therefrom) under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pp. 7-8 of the reply that the amendments to the instant claims including claims 1, 3, and 19 as well as the cancellation of claims 4 and 23 overcome the objections to minor informalities in these claims and the rejection of claim 3 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (excepting the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed below).
In response, examiner agrees and these objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant further argues on pg. 8 of the reply that, because claim 19 presents a list of alternatives, any structure required by non-selected elements of this list are clearly not required by the scope of the claim so that this scope is not indefinite and the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be withdrawn.
In response and based on the scope of the claim as articulated in the reply, examiner agrees that the scope of claim 19 is not indefinite and indicates that the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues in pp. 8-9 that Martin does not teach the limitations of instant independent claim 1, particularly with regard to the teaching that the first function which controls the speed of the condenser fan is defined by performing fitting to data as Martin teaches only a comparison of sensed parameters to desired setpoint values.
In response and upon review, examiner agrees and the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Martin set forth in the Non-Final Rejection of 6 June 2025 is withdrawn. Attention is directed to the new grounds of rejection of claim 1 set forth above in which the Donnellan is relied upon in combination with Martin to teach this limitation.
Applicant additionally argues on pg. 9 that examiner has “err[ed] by relying on the same features of Martin for the first function and the second function”.
In response, examiner disagrees. Besides the mere allegation, applicant does not provide any rationale in support of this assertion. Examiner asserts that the comparison of measured subcooling to determine a fan speed change and the comparison of a sensed room temperature to determine a compressor speed change are recognizably different functions, to the point of being shown as different boxes in the flow chart of figs. 4a and 4b of Martin which elaborates the control method of Martin’s invention. (Although not numbered, the comparison “SLEEPER TEMPERATURE>SET TEMPERATURE-2?” is shown near the center of fig. 4a and the subsequent comparisons “SC<20?” and “SC>20?” are shown near the center of fig. 4b.)
Conclusion
Because the new grounds of rejection of claim 1 as being obvious over Martin in view of Donnellan would have been properly applied to the claim as originally filed and are not necessitated by the amendment of 6 October 2025, this action is not made Final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763