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.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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_image2.png
680
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
658
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Martin teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 1, 4a, and 4b, shown above, 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 a speed of a fan (22) of a condenser (26, as taught in ¶ 50), wherein changing the operating parameter (the voltage) increases of 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); and
changing, using the controller (14), a second operating parameter of a second actuator of the thermal system (adjusting the voltage provided to the motor of the compressor 20 as taught in ¶ 53), the second actuator controlling or the speed of a compressor (20, as taught in ¶¶ 50 and 53), 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), 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).
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 7-8 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 and 26 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.
Further, claim 26 teaches that the first function (applied in controlling the speed of the fan) represents a relative partial derivative of compressor power with respect to the speed of the fan and a relative partial derivative of condenser fan power with respect to the speed of the fan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 of the reply that the amendments to the claim 1 overcome the rejection of this claim and its dependents set forth in the Non-Final Rejection of 21 October 2025 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In response, examiner agrees and the rejections of claim 1 and its dependents under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite set forth in the Non-Final Rejection have been withdrawn.
Following a reproduction of the grounds of rejection on pp. 7-10, applicant argues on pg. 9 regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 that the comparison of a current temperature to a set temperature taught by Martin in ¶ 53 to be used in determining whether the voltage provided to the compressor or fan motor should be adjusted does not constitute a “capacity request” as recited in claim 1. Applicant asserts that “The ‘capacity request’ is an explicit input used to derive a requested mass flow and then back-solve compressor operation, while the fitted function pertains to controlling another actuator (e.g., the fan)” and that neither Martin nor Donnellan teaches such a “capacity request” as a basis for the control of the speed of a compressor.
In response, examiner agrees that no such “explicit input” etc. is taught by Martin nor Donnellan in the control of the compressor, but disagrees that the claimed “capacity request” requires such an interpretation. As set forth in MPEP 2111, “During patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification’”. The instant specification uses the term “capacity request” in ¶ 5 and 6 within the Summary of the Invention referring to it as a basis of a function for determining either “the second operating parameter” or the “requested mass flow” from the compressor, and teaches in ¶ 69 that this requested mass flow “can be derived from a capacity request through inlet and outlet enthalpies”. While an equation for this mass flow rate is given which includes the term “Demandcmp”, this term is not specifically identified as a “capacity request” or even if taken as a “capacity request”, it is not described in greater detail (e.g., how it is arrived at, whether it is a variable or constant, or the units used). In none of these passages is a specific definition given of a “capacity request”, such as a value or description of how it does or does not relate to any other parameters used in the control of the system beyond the formula’s use of “Demandcmp”. For this reason, an interpretation requiring that the “capacity request” must be “an explicit input used to derive a requested mass flow and then back-solve compressor operation” is narrower than the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” required by the MPEP.
As discussed in the above rejection of claim 1, Martin teaches a comparison of a measured present temperature to a desired set temperature to be used in determining the speed at which a compressor is to be run to address such a temperature difference by increasing or decreasing the cooling provided by the compressor or its “cooling capacity” with such a request to increase or decrease capacity being translated to a required compressor speed for the control of the voltage provided to the compressor, and thus fits within the name (as a “capacity request”) and function (communicating a required compressor speed to the controller of the system) and is thus found to be within the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”.
For this reason, applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 based on the teachings of Martin set forth in the Non-Final Rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on pg. 10 of the reply that the rejection of claim 3 is improper because “the Office has failed to meet its prima facie burden” because the Non-Final Rejection states that an increase in the voltage provided to a compressor and thus its speed will increase the mass flow rate of refrigerant from the compressor “as is understood in the art”, asserting that “the Office provides no evidence to support its conclusion”.
In response, examiner disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a higher operating speed for a compressor produces a greater mass flow rate of refrigerant so that such understanding is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art without the need for additional evidence. Nevertheless, to demonstrate that this fact is well-known within the art, attention is directed to US Patent No. 4,606,198 to Latshaw et al. which teaches a refrigeration cycle air conditioning system and refers in col. 4, line 56 to “the compressor speed, and hence the refrigerant mass flow rate”, showing this connection to be well-understood. Similarly, US Patent No. 6,662,865 B2 to Beitelmal teaches in col. 2, lines 48-51 that the variable speed of a compressor is varied specifically “to control the mass flow rate of the refrigerant through the refrigerant line”, showing this control of mass flow rate through variation in compressor speed to be not only well-known but a primary purpose for the use of a variable speed compressor in a refrigeration cycle system. For this reason, applicant’s argument that the rejection’s lack of evidence demonstrating this well-known connection constitutes a deficiency in the rejection is not found to be persuasive and the rejection of claim 3 is maintained.
The Latshaw and Beitelmal references are not relied upon in the rejection of claim 3 and do not constitute “new grounds of rejection” but are presented here merely to demonstrate what one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have understood from the teachings presented by Martin.
Applicant argues on pp. 10-11 of the reply that the various claims depending upon claim 1 (including claims 7-8, claim 14, claims 17-19, and claim 21) are allowable for their dependency on claim 1, asserting that none of the secondary references relied upon in rejecting these claims “cures the deficiencies of Martin and Donnellan”.
In response examiner notes that, as discussed above, the rejection of claim 1 under Martin and Donnellan is not deficient so that there is no call for additional references to “cure the deficiencies” of the rejection of claim 1 and so that the claims depending from claim 1 are not allowable solely for this dependency as asserted.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights