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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed July 17th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the Application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103 have been considered but are not persuasive Specifically,=…
Claim 1.
Applicant asserts
Wenger, at best, describes changing the operation mode of the transport climate control system. However, Wenger nowhere discloses “preventing a cooling operation of the refrigeration system between a first intermediate destination and a second intermediate destination along the vehicle route,” let alone describing “preventing a cooling operation … based on a predicted travel time between the first intermediate destination and the second intermediate destination,”
Examiner response
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s amendments and arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant only argues that Wenger fails to teach “preventing a cooling operation … based on a predicted travel time between the first intermediate destination and the second intermediate destination,”. However, the examiner respectfully submits that this limitation is not required by the claimed method. The limitation of claim 1 recites:
“operating the refrigeration system in the economy mode by performing one or more of:
(i) increasing a trigger temperature of the refrigeration system relative to a trigger temperature of the refrigeration system in the normal mode;
(ii) operating a compressor, a condenser fang and/or an evaporator fan of the refrigeration system at a lower power than in the normal mode, wherein the refrigeration system provides more energy efficient cooling when the compressor, ]the condenser fang and/or [[an]]the evaporator fan is operated at the lower power; and
(iii) preventing a cooling operation of the refrigeration system between a first intermediate destination and a second intermediate destination along the vehicle route based on a predicted travel time between the first intermediate destination and the second intermediate destination”. (emphasis added)
As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 merely requires that (i) or (ii) or (iii) is performed. As such, (iii) is not required to be taught by Wenger. Further Wenger discloses, (i) increasing a trigger temperature of the refrigeration system relative to a trigger temperature of the refrigeration system in the normal mode; (See at least paragraph of Wenger [0010] “performing the load shedding operation includes changing a desired climate setpoint of the transport climate control system. In an embodiment, performing the load shedding operation includes changing an operation mode of the transport climate control system.”)
As such, the examiner respectfully disagrees that applicant’s argument is persuasive.
Claim 13
Applicant asserts
“Adetola nowhere describes “activating a pre-cooling operation of the refrigeration systembased on the predicted travel time to the intermediate destination being below a threshold value,””
Examiner response
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s amendments and arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the cited reference of Adetola does not teach or suggest the claimed step “activating a pre-cooling operation of the refrigeration system based on the predicted travel time to the intermediate destination being below a threshold value,”.
However Adetola discloses, (See at least paragraph [0009] “the TRU controller may identify locations of and transportation times between predetermined mission locations where cheap and clean energy is available based on dynamically updated GPS data and pan-mission proximity to electrical grid charging stations. At step S152 the TRU controller may determine an amount of TRU power available for cooling between the predetermined mission locations by applying power load sharing strategies and power removing, reducing and/or peak limiting strategies. How much power the refrigeration unit will need (demand) is adjusted by modifying operating parameters, for example, changing actuator speeds and cooling set point.”).
As such, the examiner respectfully disagrees that such limitation is not taught by Adetola.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 7-11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210347351 A1 , to Wenger et al. (hereinafter Wenger).
Regarding claim 1, and commensurate claim 7, Wenger teaches A method of operating a transport refrigeration unit of a vehicle, (See at least [FIG. 1B] [FIG.2] and paragraph [0043] “FIG. 1B illustrates one embodiment of a refrigerated transport unit 105 attached to a tractor 120.,”) wherein the transport refrigeration unit comprises a refrigeration system and a battery unit for powering the refrigeration system, (See at least [FIG. 3] and paragraph [0081] “Vehicle 302 includes an energy storage source 304. The energy storage source 304 may be, for example, one or more batteries, a fuel cell, a flywheel power storage system, or the like. The energy storage source 304 stores and provides power for operation of one or more loads of the vehicle 302. The one or more loads include, for example, a transport climate control system 310 that provides climate control to an internal space of the vehicle 302.”)
the method comprising: determining a vehicle route from a current location of the vehicle to a final destination of the vehicle; (See at least paragraph [0008] “the vehicle status data includes the route”). Further (See at least paragraph [0012-0014] [0075] “feedback data including a route identifier”)
determining whether to operate the refrigeration system in a normal mode or an economy mode; (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “The load shedding methods and systems may include a predictive model of energy consumption, determining a predicted energy consumption and comparing it to a stored energy at the vehicle. If the predicted energy consumption exceeds the stored energy, load shedding operations may be performed at a transport climate control system”) and operating the refrigeration system in the economy mode by performing one or more of:
(i) increasing a trigger temperature of the refrigeration system relative to a trigger temperature of the refrigeration system in the normal mode;
(ii) operating a compressor, a condenser fan and/or an evaporator fan of the refrigeration system at a lower power than in the normal mode, wherein the refrigeration system provides more energy efficient cooling when the compressor, a condenser fan and/or an evaporator fan is operated at the lower power; and
(iii) preventing a cooling operation of the refrigeration system between a first intermediate destination and a second intermediate destination along the vehicle route. (See at least paragraph [0010] “performing the load shedding operation includes changing a desired climate setpoint of the transport climate control system. In an embodiment, performing the load shedding operation includes changing an operation mode of the transport climate control system.”)
Regarding claim 2, and commensurate claim 8, Wenger discloses the claimed features of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein determining whether to operate the refrigeration system in the normal mode or the economy mode comprises (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “The load shedding methods and systems may include a predictive model of energy consumption, determining a predicted energy consumption and comparing it to a stored energy at the vehicle. If the predicted energy consumption exceeds the stored energy, load shedding operations may be performed at a transport climate control system”) determining that the vehicle should operate in the economy mode when a predicted power consumption over at least part of the vehicle route is greater than a first threshold value. (See at least paragraph [0112] “When the predicted energy consumption from 404 is found to be greater than the stored energy at the vehicle at 408, the method 400 proceeds to 414.”)
Regarding claim 3, and commensurate claim 9, Wenger discloses the claimed features of claim 2 and further discloses, wherein the first threshold value is based on an available power of the battery unit. (See at least paragraph [0112] “When the predicted energy consumption from 404 is found to be greater than the stored energy at the vehicle at 408, the method 400 proceeds to 414.”)
Regarding claim 4, and commensurate claim 10, Wenger discloses the claimed features of claim 2 and further discloses, wherein the at least part of the vehicle route comprises a part of the vehicle route between the current location of the vehicle and either the final destination of the vehicle or a battery charging location along the vehicle route. (See at least paragraph [0008] “the vehicle status data includes the route”). Further (See at least paragraph [0012-0014] [0075] “feedback data including a route identifier”)
Regarding claim 5, and commensurate claim 11, Wenger discloses the claimed features of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein determining whether to operate the refrigeration system in the normal mode or the economy mode comprises determining that the vehicle should operate in the economy mode when an available power of the battery unit is less than a second threshold value. (See at least paragraph [0072] “when the transport climate control system 225 operates at a reduced capacity (e.g., in the reduced capacity mode, the noise reduction mode, etc.), the refrigeration circuit 250 can operate at a speed that is slower than the speed necessary to maintain the desired temperature setpoint of the internal space.”). (See at least paragraph [0112-0113] “When the predicted energy consumption from 404 is found to be equal to or less than the stored energy at the vehicle at 408, the method 400 proceeds to 410. When the predicted energy consumption from 404 is found to be greater than the stored energy at the vehicle at 408, the method 400 proceeds to 414. Optionally, in an embodiment, when the predicted energy consumption from 404 is found to be equal to or less than the stored energy at the vehicle at 408, the method 400 can proceed to optional 412 instead of 410, when a predetermined setting allows an operator to increase a load of a transport climate control unit.”).
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 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 6, and 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210347351, to Wenger et al. (hereinafter Wenger), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130173101, to Gilman et al (hereinafter Gilman).
Regarding claim 6, and commensurate claim 12, Wenger discloses the claimed features of claim 1, but Wenger fails to explicitly disclose, however Gilman discloses, wherein a distance between the first intermediate destination and the second intermediate destination is less than a third threshold value or when a predicted travel time between the first intermediate destination and the second intermediate destination is less than a fourth threshold value. (See at least paragraph [0028] “ The distance surplus (DistSurp) may correspond to additional energy available in the main battery 26 over the amount of energy necessary to reach a target destination, such as a charge point location. According to one or more embodiments, the distance surplus (DistSurp) may be based on the difference between the estimated travel distance (DTE) and the remaining charge point distance (ChrgPtDistLeft).”)
Wenger as modified by Gilman, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, Battery SOC planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wenger to incorporate the teachings of Gilman which discloses controlling the energy level output based on the distance because incorporating the distance teachings of Gilman will aid in Wenger teaching such that the user will be able to control the climate of the cooling system based on distance remaining to the destination versus the remaining energy storage.
Claims 13-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210347351, to Wenger et al. (hereinafter Wenger), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20130173101, to Gilman et al (hereinafter Gilman), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190283541, to Adetola et al (hereinafter Adetola).
Regarding claim 13, and commensurate claim 15, Wenger teaches A method of operating a transport refrigeration unit of a vehicle, (See at least [FIG. 1B] [FIG.2] and paragraph [0043] “FIG. 1B illustrates one embodiment of a refrigerated transport unit 105 attached to a tractor 120.,”) wherein the transport refrigeration unit comprises a refrigeration system, the method comprising: (See at least [FIG. 3] and paragraph [0081] “Vehicle 302 includes an energy storage source 304. The energy storage source 304 may be, for example, one or more batteries, a fuel cell, a flywheel power storage system, or the like. The energy storage source 304 stores and provides power for operation of one or more loads of the vehicle 302. The one or more loads include, for example, a transport climate control system 310 that provides climate control to an internal space of the vehicle 302.”)
determining a vehicle route from a current location of the vehicle to a final destination of the vehicle, (See at least paragraph [0008] “the vehicle status data includes the route”). Further (See at least paragraph [0012-0014] [0075] “feedback data including a route identifier”)
Wenger fails to explicitly disclose, however Gilman discloses, the vehicle route comprising an intermediate destination between the current location of the vehicle and the final destination of the vehicle; (See at least paragraph [0028] “The distance surplus (DistSurp) may correspond to additional energy available in the main battery 26 over the amount of energy necessary to reach a target destination, such as a charge point location. According to one or more embodiments, the distance surplus (DistSurp) may be based on the difference between the estimated travel distance (DTE) and the remaining charge point distance (ChrgPtDistLeft). Moreover, the charge point distance (ChrgPtDistLeft) may be based on a route distance between a charge point location and the vehicle's current location, rather than an actual distance. When the estimated travel distance (DTE) for the vehicle 10 exceeds the charge point distance (ChrgPtDistLeft), the distance surplus (DistSurp) may be positive indicating the main battery 26 has sufficient energy to propel the vehicle 10 to the target (e.g., next charge point location) under the current operating conditions. When the charge point distance (ChrgPtDistLeft) exceeds the estimated travel distance (DTE), the distance surplus (DistSurp) may be negative (also referred to as a "debt" or "deficit") indicating that the available energy in the main battery 26 will likely be insufficient to reach the current target, perhaps unless the vehicle operates more efficiently or a new target is selected.”)
Further, Adetola discloses, determining a predicted travel time to the intermediate destination; and activating a pre-cooling operation of the refrigeration system based on the predicted travel time to the intermediate destination is below a threshold value. (See at least paragraph [0009] “the TRU controller may identify locations of and transportation times between predetermined mission locations where cheap and clean energy is available based on dynamically updated GPS data and pan-mission proximity to electrical grid charging stations. At step S152 the TRU controller may determine an amount of TRU power available for cooling between the predetermined mission locations by applying power load sharing strategies and power removing, reducing and/or peak limiting strategies. How much power the refrigeration unit will need (demand) is adjusted by modifying operating parameters, for example, changing actuator speeds and cooling set point.”).
Wenger as modified by Gilman, and Adetola are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, Battery SOC planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wenger to incorporate the teachings of Gilman which discloses controlling the energy level output based on the distance because incorporating the distance teachings of Gilman will aid in Wenger and Adetola teaching such that the user will be able to control the climate of the cooling system based on distance remaining to the destination versus the remaining energy storage.
Regarding claim 14, Wenger as modified by Gilman, and Adetola discloses the claimed features of claim 13, and Wenger further discloses, wherein the pre-cooling operation comprises reducing a temperature set-point of the refrigeration system relative to a temperature set-point of the refrigeration system in a normal mode. (See at least paragraph [0072] “when the transport climate control system 225 operates at a reduced capacity (e.g., in the reduced capacity mode, the noise reduction mode, etc.), the refrigeration circuit 250 can operate at a speed that is slower than the speed necessary to maintain the desired temperature setpoint of the internal space.”). (See at least paragraph [0112-0113] “When the predicted energy consumption from 404 is found to be equal to or less than the stored energy at the vehicle at 408, the method 400 proceeds to 410. When the predicted energy consumption from 404 is found to be greater than the stored energy at the vehicle at 408, the method 400 proceeds to 414. Optionally, in an embodiment, when the predicted energy consumption from 404 is found to be equal to or less than the stored energy at the vehicle at 408, the method 400 can proceed to optional 412 instead of 410, when a predetermined setting allows an operator to increase a load of a transport climate control unit.”).
Claims 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210347351, to Wenger et al. (hereinafter Wenger),and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190283541, to Adetola et al (hereinafter Adetola).
Regarding claim 16, Wenger discloses the claimed features of claim 1, Wenger fails to explicitly disclose, however Adetola discloses, wherein operating the refrigeration system in the economy mode comprises increasing the trigger temperature of the refrigeration system relative to the trigger temperature of the refrigeration system in the normal mode based at least on a predicted power consumption over at least part of the vehicle route and an available amount of power of the battery unit. (See at least paragraph [0035] “adapting a cooling set-point for the cargo within an acceptable range for pre-cooling or reduced cooling based on the location in the mission. At step S182 the TRU controller may select modifying the evaporator and/or condenser fan speed and compressor speed for pre-cooling or reduced cooling based on the location in the mission.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0045-0046] “the TRU controller may perform step S288 of coordinating battery usage with the tractor power controller. By performing step S288 the TRU controller may perform step S292 of collecting a second dataset of information. The second dataset of information may include mission specific information for the tractor including predicted vehicle speed cycle. With the first dataset information and the second dataset of information, the TRU controller may perform step S292 of determining an availability of power take-off directly from tractor engine or through the regenerative axle on the tractor.”). Further (See at least paragraph [0042] “By executing the first program the TRU controller may perform step S264 of adaptively choosing energy flow parameters based on one or more mission specific parameters and TRU power health, such as state of battery charge and battery health. The mission specific parameters may include one or more of actual and forecasted in-route weather and traffic conditions, driver preferences, in-route proximity to an electrical grid charging station, loaded cargo type, cargo required temperature set-points and airflow, cargo current temperature and refrigeration cycle efficiency. For example, the loaded cargo type may be perishable or unperishable, cargo required temperature set-points are below or above freezing temperatures for loaded cargo, and driver preferences define a minimum duration of time between connecting to an electrical grid charging station. TRU power health includes an observed and a pan-mission anticipated state of TRU power supply components and power demand components. ”).
Wenger as modified by Adetola are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, Battery SOC planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wenger to incorporate the teachings of Adetola such that the user will be able to control the climate of the cooling system based on distance remaining to the destination versus the remaining energy storage.
Regarding claim 17, Wenger discloses the claimed features of claim 1, Wenger fails to explicitly disclose, however Adetola discloses, wherein operating the refrigeration system in the economy mode comprises performing preventing the cooling operation of the refrigeration system between the first intermediate destination and the second intermediate destination along the vehicle route based on the predicted travel time between the first intermediate destination and the second intermediate destination. (See at least paragraph [0010-0011] “identifies locations of and transportation times between the predetermined geographic mission locations based on dynamically updated GPS data and pan-mission proximity to electrical grid charging stations; and adjust the amount of TRU power demand for cooling between the predetermined mission locations by applying power load sharing strategies and power removing, reducing and/or peak limiting strategies. In addition to one or more of the above disclosed features or as an alternative, the TRU controller implements the first strategy conditions and performs one or more of (i) adapting a cooling set-point for the cargo within a predetermined range; and (ii) modifying evaporator fan speed and/or condenser fan speed and/or compressor speed.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0035] “step S172 the TRU controller may implement the first strategy based on steps S140-S152. That is, the TRU controller may pre-cool the cargo or reduce cooling until, for example, grid power is available. For either of these options, the TRU controller may execute step S176 of selecting a TRU parameter to adjust. At step S180 the TRU controller may select adapting a cooling set-point for the cargo within an acceptable range for pre-cooling or reduced cooling based on the location in the mission. At step S182 the TRU controller may select modifying the evaporator and/or condenser fan speed and compressor speed for pre-cooling or reduced cooling based on the location in the mission..”).
Wenger as modified by Adetola are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, Battery SOC planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wenger to incorporate the teachings of Adetola for the same motivation reasons in claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Wenger as modified by Adetola discloses the claimed features of claim 17, Wenger fails to explicitly disclose, however Adetola discloses, wherein the predicted travel time is determined based on a current speed of the vehicle, traffic data, and/or weather data. (See at least paragraph [0042] “By executing the first program the TRU controller may perform step S264 of adaptively choosing energy flow parameters based on one or more mission specific parameters and TRU power health, such as state of battery charge and battery health. The mission specific parameters may include one or more of actual and forecasted in-route weather and traffic conditions, driver preferences, in-route proximity to an electrical grid charging station, loaded cargo type, cargo required temperature set-points and airflow, cargo current temperature and refrigeration cycle efficiency. For example, the loaded cargo type may be perishable or unperishable, cargo required temperature set-points are below or above freezing temperatures for loaded cargo, and driver preferences define a minimum duration of time between connecting to an electrical grid charging station. TRU power health includes an observed and a pan-mission anticipated state of TRU power supply components and power demand components.”).
Wenger as modified by Adetola are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, Battery SOC planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wenger to incorporate the teachings of Adetola for the same motivation reasons in claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, Wenger as modified by by Gilman, and Adetola discloses the claimed features of claim 14, Wenger fails to explicitly disclose, however Adetola discloses, further comprising: maintaining a temperature within the refrigeration system at the reduced temperature set- point until the vehicle reaches the intermediate destination. (See at least paragraph [0009] “reducing cooling set-points between the predetermined mission locations.”).
Wenger as modified by Adetola are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, Battery SOC planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wenger to incorporate the teachings of Adetola for the same motivation reasons in claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, Wenger as modified by by Gilman, and Adetola discloses the claimed features of claim 14, Wenger fails to explicitly disclose, however Adetola discloses, further comprising:deactivating the pre-cooling operation based on a temperature within the refrigeration system reaching the reduced temperature set-point. (See at least paragraph [0042] “cargo required temperature set-points.”).
Wenger as modified by Adetola are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, Battery SOC planning systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wenger to incorporate the teachings of Adetola for the same motivation reasons in claim 16.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesam Almadhrhi whose telephone number is (571) 270-3844. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESAM NMN ALMADHRHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights