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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: controller in claim 11.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duraisamy et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2012/0137713 [Duraisamy].
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Duraisamy discloses a transport climate control system comprising:
a controller configured to control the transport climate control system [transport refrigeration system controller, paragraphs 0021 and 0026], wherein the controller is configured to:
instruct the transport climate control system to operate in a continuous mode in order to provide climate control within a climate controlled space [operating in a pull-down or high-cooling mode, paragraph 0046];
monitor a temperature within the climate controlled space [monitoring a return air temperature, paragraph 0047];
upon the temperature within the climate controlled space reaching a cycle-off temperature, instruct the transport climate control system to operate in a start-stop mode [when the return air temperature is less than a threshold value, the system enters an economy mode in which components of the refrigeration system are turned off for a period of time before being turned on again, paragraphs 0032 and 0047];
determine a reference duty cycle [length of a previous cycle in the economy mode, paragraphs 0031, 0038 and 0039];
scale the reference duty cycle to obtain a scaled duty cycle based on the reference duty cycle and a predetermined efficient climate capacity of the transport climate control system [a ratio of a prescribed range for the supply temperature to the actual rise in supply temperature during a previous cycle time may be used to determine (as a linear or non-linear multiplier) the length of the next cycle time, paragraph 0040. A comparison of a current refrigeration load to the prior economy mode refrigeration load can used in addition to modify the duration of the economy mode cycle, paragraphs 0041-0042]; and
operate the transport climate control system in the start-stop mode according to the scaled duty cycle [entering the economy mode, paragraphs 0038, 0043 and 0047-0048].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Duraisamy further discloses that the controller is further configured to determine a reference cycle-on time and determining a reference cycle-off time [initial economy mode cycle time and fixed duration cooling time, paragraph 0038].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Duraisamy further discloses before determining the reference cycle-off time, the controller operating the transport climate control system to the cycle-off temperature at a maximum climate capacity [operating in a pull-down or high-cooling mode, paragraph 0046].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Durasiamy further discloses that upon the temperature within the climate controlled space reaching the cycle-off temperature, the controller:
instructing a variable speed compressor of the transport climate control system to stop compressing working fluid [turning off the compressor in the economy mode, paragraph 0032], and
determining a reference cycle-off time based on an amount of time for the transport climate control system to reach a cycle-on temperature from the cycle-off temperature while the variable speed compressor has stopped compressing working fluid [a ratio of a prescribed range for the supply temperature to the actual rise in supply temperature during a previous cycle time may be used to determine (as a linear or non-linear multiplier) the length of the next cycle time, paragraph 0040. A comparison of a current refrigeration load to the prior economy mode refrigeration load can used in addition to modify the duration of the economy mode cycle, paragraphs 0041-0042]; and
upon the temperature within the climate controlled space reaching the cycle-on temperature, the controller:
instructing the variable speed compressor to compress working fluid, operating the transport climate control system at a maximum climate capacity [the compressor is necessarily turned on when operating in the cooling mode, paragraphs 0038 and 0052], and
determining a reference cycle-on time based on an amount of time for the transport climate control system to reach the cycle-off temperature from the cycle-on temperature while the variable speed compressor is compressing working fluid and the transport climate control system operating at the maximum climate capacity [the cooling mode is operated for a fixed or minimum duration, paragraph 0038].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Duraisamy further discloses that the controller is further configured to determine at least one of a scaled cycle-on time, a scaled cycle-off time, and a scaled capacity based on the scaled duty cycle [a ratio of a prescribed range for the supply temperature to the actual rise in supply temperature during a previous cycle time may be used to determine (as a linear or non-linear multiplier) the length of the next cycle time, paragraph 0040. A comparison of a current refrigeration load to the prior economy mode refrigeration load can used in addition to modify the duration of the economy mode cycle, paragraphs 0041-0042].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Duraisamy further discloses that the controller is further configured to determine a temperature trajectory of the scaled duty cycle and determine a scaled cycle on-time, a scaled cycle-off time, and a scaled climate capacity to minimize a temperature difference between the cycle-off temperature and a desired temperature setpoint within the climate controlled space [a ratio of a prescribed range for the supply temperature to the actual rise in supply temperature during a previous cycle time may be used to determine (as a linear or non-linear multiplier) the length of the next cycle time, paragraph 0040. A comparison of a current refrigeration load to the prior economy mode refrigeration load can used in addition to modify the duration of the economy mode cycle, paragraphs 0041-0042].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Duraisamy further discloses that the controller is further configured to: operate the transport climate control system to reach a cycle-on temperature and the cycle- off temperature based on the scaled duty cycle; and update the scaled cycle on-time and the scaled cycle-off time based on the updated scaled duty cycle for a following cycle of the controller operating the transport climate control system from the cycle-on temperature to the cycle-off temperature [operating in the economy mode and the cooling mode for cycle times that are determined based on previous cycle times and current refrigeration load conditions, paragraphs 0038-0042].
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Duraisamy further discloses that the controller is further configured to determine the cycle-off temperature and a cycle-on temperature based on one or more predetermined offset temperatures from a desired temperature setpoint within the climate controlled space [power saving enhancements, such as economy mode, will depend on the temperature sensitivity or tolerance to temperature fluctuation of the cargo being transported, paragraph 0027].
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 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duraisamy et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2012/0137713 [Duraisamy], in view of Weng et al., US Patent no. 5,816,062 [Weng].
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Duraisamy, as described above, discloses operating a transport refrigeration cooling system in economy and cooling modes for time cycles that are based on refrigeration load conditions. Duraisamy does not disclose that the time cycles are based on prolonging the lifespan of components of the transport refrigeration cooling system. Like Duraisamy, Weng discloses a cooling system that includes a compressor that is turned on and off automatically in an operation cycle. Weng recognizes that turning on and off a compressor at a high frequency reduces lifespan of the compressor [column 1, lines 10-23]. Weng further discloses that reducing the frequency of turning on and off of a compressor is advantageous to prolong the lifespan of the compressor [column 1, lines 10-23]. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control a frequency of turning on and off of a compressor to prolong compressor lifespan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Weng teachings in the Duraisamy system by determining the economy and cooling mode cycle times based on compressor lifespan in order to prolong the lifespan of the compressor in the system [Weng, column 1, lines 10-23].
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duraisamy et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2012/0137713 [Duraisamy], in view of Renault, US Patent Application Publication no. 2021/0252939.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Duraisamy, as described above, discloses operating a transport refrigeration cooling system in economy and cooling modes for time cycles that are based on refrigeration load conditions. Duraisamy does not disclose that the time cycles are based on controlling noise produced by the transport refrigeration cooling system. Like Duraisamy, Renault discloses a transport cooling system that includes a compressor. Renault that the transport cooling system may be located in areas that have noise restrictions [paragraph 0050]. Weng further discloses controlling the operation of the transport cooling system to reduce generated noise such that it complies with noise regulations [paragraphs 0047 and 0050]. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control cooling operations to reduce noise generated by transport cooling systems that include compressors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Renault teachings in the Duraisamy system by determining the economy and cooling mode cycle times based noise generation in order to allow the transport refrigeration cooling system to comply with local noise restrictions [Renault, paragraph 0050].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wenger et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0207326 discloses adjusting set points or operating modes of transport refrigeration systems based on predicted energy consumption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 January 24, 2026