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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment and request for reconsideration of application 18/346,306 filed on July 03, 2023.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-15 are amended.
Claims 2, 3 and 11 are cancelled.
Claims 16-19 are added.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12-19 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUNO (JP5381140B2) in view of TIAN (AU 2014295534 A1).
Regarding claim 1, MATSUNO discloses a refrigeration transport system (page 4, line 23, “a refrigeration vehicle that transports frozen food..”) comprising:
a power source providing a power flow to a demand component, wherein the demand component is operatively coupled to a capacitor (page 04, lines 35-38, “ The power generated by the generator ..driving the motor of the electric compressor… provided with a smoothing capacitor”); and
a controller configured to actively discharge the capacitor when the power flow is interrupted (page 03, lines 34-36, “Discharge means (62, 63) for discharging the charge accumulated in the smoothing capacitor …when the detection means (61) detects an abnormality”, page 09, lines 35-36, “when power is not supplied from the generator (32) even though the generator engine (31) is in operation, an abnormality of the generator (32) is detected from the converter control board (83). Can be detected.”).
MATSUNO does not explicitly disclose but, Tian teaches upon an interruption to the power flow, receive a notification regarding a voltage status of the capacitor from the demand component; and based on the received voltage status of the capacitor, actively discharge the capacitor by operating all or part of the demand component (page 05, lines 24-30, “the voltage across the linear power supply consisting of the main switch Si, the capacitor CI and the voltage regulating circuit U2 drops to nearly zero, the bridge rectifier DI is cut off, charging of the capacitor CI in the power-taking circuit is stopped and the capacitor CI enters a discharging state,…When the electronic switch is in an OFF state, it sends an OFF signal to the port 1 of the control unit U3.”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the refrigeration vehicle disclosed in MATSUNO with the discharging capacitor taught in TIAN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted reducing the electromagnetic interference of the electronic switch.
Regarding claim 4, MATSUNO discloses wherein when the voltage status of the capacitor is greater than or equal to 60 volts the controller is configured to discharge the capacitor by continuing or initiating operation of all or part of the demand component (page 04, lines 38-40, page 05, lines 1-2. Although MATSUNO does not explicitly a threshold of 60 v, however it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art at the time of the invention to select an appropriate threshold value, such as such as 60v, based on routine design consideration. A skilled person would have been motivated to select a threshold that balances performance, safety, and component compatibility, depending on the specific application requirements).
Regarding claim 16, Matsuno discloses wherein the demand component comprises at least one of: a compressor motor, a fan motor for a heat rejection heat exchanger, a fan motor for a heat absorption heat exchanger, and an electric resistance heater for the heat absorption heat exchanger (page 3, lines 11, “compressor motor”).
Regarding claim 17, Matsuno discloses wherein the controller is further configured to actively discharge the capacitor by operating all or part of the demand component for a length of time after shutdown of the refrigeration transport system (page 12, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 18, Matsuno discloses further comprising a plurality of demand components operatively coupled to a respective capacitor, the plurality of demand components comprising the demand component, wherein the controller is further configured to selectively operate the plurality of demand components based on a voltage status of each respective capacitor (page 06, lines 33-37, page 12, lines 27-31, page 09, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 19, Tian teaches wherein the demand component comprises at least one load-side component, wherein the power source comprises an energy storage device, and wherein the demand component is configured to draw electricity from the energy storage device (page 03, lines 27-36).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the refrigeration vehicle disclosed in MATSUNO with the discharging capacitor taught in TIAN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted reducing the electromagnetic interference of the electronic switch.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUNO (JP5381140B2), in view of TIAN (AU 2014295534 A1), and further in view of Xiong (US 9769890 B1).
Regarding claim 5, MATSUNO does not explicitly disclose but, Xiong teaches wherein the controller is configured to halt operation of a plurality of demand comprising the demand components when the voltage status of the capacitor is <60 V (col. 6, lines 43-47. Although MATSUNO does not explicitly a threshold of 60 v, however it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art at the time of the invention to select an appropriate threshold value, such as such as 60v, based on routine design consideration. A skilled person would have been motivated to select a threshold that balances performance, safety, and component compatibility, depending on the specific application requirements).
Regarding claim 6, Xiong further teaches wherein when the voltage status of the capacitor is less than 60 volts the controller is configured to halt operation of the demand component (col. 6, lines 43-47. Although MATSUNO does not explicitly a threshold of 60 v, however it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art at the time of the invention to select an appropriate threshold value, such as such as 60v, based on routine design consideration. A skilled person would have been motivated to select a threshold that balances performance, safety, and component compatibility, depending on the specific application requirements).
Regarding claim 7, Xiong teaches comprising greater than one demand component, each operatively coupled to a respective capacitor and the controller is configured to have all of the capacitors at a voltage status of less than 60 volts in less than or equal to 5 seconds after halting operation of the refrigeration transport system (col. 6, lines 43-47. Although MATSUNO does not explicitly a threshold of 60 v, however it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art at the time of the invention to select an appropriate threshold value, such as such as 60v, based on routine design consideration. A skilled person would have been motivated to select a threshold that balances performance, safety, and component compatibility, depending on the specific application requirements).
Regarding claims 8-11, 13-15, claims 8-11, 13-15 are rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claims 1, 4-7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishizeki (US 20090039707 A1) discloses A capacitor device includes a normally open internal relay provided on an electric wire of a capacitor. The internal relay can be closed by supplying the power from a battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights