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 .
This is a response to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/437,461 filed on 02/09/2024 in which Claims 1- 20 were filed for examination.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “The HVAC unit of claim 1,.”, this claim appear to be missing the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4 – 9, 11 – 16 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkiewicz et al. (US 2023/0146546) (hereinafter, Marcinkiewicz) in view of Woodley (US 2020/0153348) (hereinafter, Woodley).
Regarding Claim 1, Marcinkiewicz teaches a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit (See Marcinkiewicz’s par 0002) comprising:
a compressor (Marcinkiewicz in par 0052, teaches a variable speed compressor);
a drive (Marcinkiewicz in par 0052, teaches an electronic drive) configured to:
receive a constant line voltage as an input (Marcinkiewicz in par 0133 and Fig. 8, further teaches that the drive 256 may include an electromagnetic interference (EMI) filter and protection circuit 804, which receives power from an alternating current (AC) or DC line. The EMI filter and protection circuit 804 protects against power surges); and
output, to the compressor and using a first circuit, a control signal, the control signal comprising a second voltage that is different than the constant line voltage (Marcinkiewicz in par 0084, teaches that the control module 260 includes a thermal mitigation module 261 and may control operation of the drive and the motor 216 to reduce operating temperatures. Marcinkiewicz in par 0139, further teaches that in response to the power switch(es) control signals, switches within the inverter power circuit 832 cause current to flow in respective windings of a motor 216 of the compressor, wherein the control signal is a variable-speed control signal or a variable-frequency control signal (Marcinkiewicz in par 0197 – 0199 and Fig. 13 and Fig. 9, teaches that diagram 1220 illustrates a thermal mitigation strategy including different switching frequency and bus voltage operating states of operation of the control and thermal mitigation modules 260 and 261. The switching frequency refers to the rate at which one or more switches of the PFC circuit 900 of figure 9 are switched between ON and OFF sates. The modules 260, 261 may switch to operating in a second switching frequency and bus voltage operating state 1204, which includes operating at a reduced second switching frequency (e.g., 60 kHz) and at a reduced second DC bus voltage of 350 V. When the temperature of the DC/DC converter does not drop below the predetermined converter temperature after operating in the third switching frequency and bus voltage operating state 1206 for a second predetermined period of time, then the modules 260, 261 may reduce the speed command (referred to as derating) to reduce the speed of the motor (e.g., compressor motor);
one or more processors (Marcinkiewicz in par 0223, teaches a memory circuit (shared, dedicated, or group) that stores code executed by the processor circuit); and
memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Marcinkiewicz in par 0223, teaches a memory circuit (shared, dedicated, or group) that stores code executed by the processor circuit), cause the one or more processors to:
determine that a fault condition has occurred in the drive (Marcinkiewicz in par 0140, further teaches that once the temperature exceed a predetermined threshold, a fault is declared and the drive 256 is either powered down or operated at a reduced capacity); and
However, Marcinkiewicz does not specifically disclose send a first signal to close one or more contacts associated with a second circuit, wherein closing the one or more contacts causes the constant line voltage to be received by the compressor instead of the control signal from the drive.
Woodley in par 0021, teaches that in the variable frequency drive (VFD) mode of operation, power is provided to load 42 through the inverter 24 of VFD unit 12, while in the bypass mode of operation power is provided to load 42 through a bypass path 50 (with inverter 24 disconnected). In the case of an inverter fault, over temperature fault or other error in the VFD unit 12, load operation can be automatically transferred to the bypass path 50to continue operation of the load 42, maintain drive life, and for other benefits. The controller 20 may also determine to transfer load operation to the bypass path 50 when it is desired to operate the load 42 in a steady-state condition (e.g., full speed) that does not require power conditioning by the inverter 24, such that bypassing thereof might be beneficially employed to reduce switching loses, etc.
Woodley in par 0028 and Fig. 2, teaches that if it is determined at STEP 64 that motor control system 10 should remain in VFD mode (and not switch to bypass mode), as indicated at 66, then technique 60 returns to STEP 62 and the motor control system 10 continues to operate in VFD mode. Alternatively, if it is determined at STEP 64 that that motor control system 10 should switch to bypass mode, as indicated at 68, then technique 60 continues to STEP 70, where VFD unit 12 and isolation contactor unit 14 are controlled such that the load 42 is decoupled from inverter 24. That is, at STEP 70, the switches 38 in inverter 24 are all turned to their open/Off state to terminate power flow through inverter 24, while isolation contactor unit 14 (i.e., contactors 16 thereof) is moved to the open/Off state and bypass relays 28 are engaged to their second (or “bypass”) position/state. Upon completion of STEP 70, load 42 is decoupled from inverter 24 and power is routed from rectifier circuit 22, along bypass path 50, and to load 42.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teaching as in Woodley with the teachings as in Marcinkiewicz to include a bypass path in Marcinkiewicz as disclosed in Woodley. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a path for the power in case of a fault in the system, thus allowing uninterrupted operation (See Woodley’s Abstract and par 0021).
Regarding Claim 2, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.
wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
determine that the fault condition is no longer present in the drive (Woodley in par 0021, teaches that in the case of an inverter fault, over temperature fault, or other error in the VFD unit 12, load operation can be automatically transferred to the bypass path 50 to continue operation of the load 42, maintain drive life, and for other benefits. Woodley in par 0029, further teaches that technique 60 then continues to STEP 72, where a determination is made as to whether the load 42 is to be operated in bypass mode—i.e., whether the load 42 is to receive power while motor control system 10 is operating in the bypass mode, such as when the load 42 is to be operated in a steady-state condition (e.g., at full speed) that does not require power conditioning by the inverter 24 of VFD unit 12, for example. If the load 42 is to not receive power while motor control system 10 is operating in the bypass mode, as indicated at 74, then technique 60 continues to STEP 74, where the motor control system 10 waits in the bypass configuration and no power is provided to the load 42); and
send a second signal to open the one or more contacts associated with the second circuit (Woodley in par 0025, teaches that in the event that motor control system 10 needs to operate in the VFD mode, controller 20 operates to cause the inverter 24 to be on-line, with the controller 20 sending control signals to bypass relay unit 26 that cause the bypass relays 28 to operate in their nominally closed state—thereby connecting the inverter 24 to front-end rectifier circuit 22 (and power source 52) and isolating the bypass path 50 from rectifier circuit 22. Next, the controller 20 causes the isolation contactor unit 14 (i.e., contactors 16 thereof to operate in the closed/On position, so as to connect the inverter 24 to load 42. The switches 38 of inverter 24 then are controlled by controller 20 via a known PWM technique in order to synthesize AC voltage waveforms with a fixed frequency and amplitude for delivery to the load 42).
Regarding Claim 4, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.Marcinkiewicz further teaches:
wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the one or more processors to:
send an alert indicating the fault condition in the drive (Marcinkiewicz in par 0143, further teaches that the control module 260 controls an integrated display 264, which may include a grid of LEDs and/or a single LED package, which may be a tri-color LED. The control module 260 can provide status information, such as firmware versions, as well as error information using the integrated display 864).
Regarding Claim 5, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.Marcinkiewicz further teaches:
wherein the fault condition is determined based on at least one of:
a value associated with a register of the drive or data received from a sensor of the HVAC unit (Marcinkiewicz in par 0121, teaches that sensors may further include an inverter temperature sensor 354, a processor temperature sensor 356, and/or a DC/DC converter temperature sensor 358, which may be respectively included in and/or attached to an inverter (e.g., inverter 832 of FIG. 8), the control module 260 and/or a DC/DC converter (e.g., DC/DC converter 901 shown in FIG. 9). The thermal mitigation module may control operation of the drive 256 and the motor 216 based on temperatures indicated by at least the sensors 332, 354, 356, 358. Marcinkiewicz in par 0140, further teaches that the temperature from the inverter power circuit 832 and the temperature from the PFC circuit 812 are used only for fault purposes. In other words, once the temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold, a fault is declared and the drive 256 is either powered down or operated at a reduced capacity).
Regarding Claim 6, The HVAC unit of claim 1, (See the above rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.Marcinkiewicz further teaches:
wherein the compressor is a two-stage compressor (Marcinkiewicz in par 0076, teaches that the compressor 204 includes an electric motor 216 that drives a pump to compress the refrigerant. For example only, the compressor 204 may include a scroll compressor, a reciprocating compressor, or another type of refrigerant compressor), and wherein the compressor is operated using the drive at a first frequency (Marcinkiewicz in par 0176 and Fig. 12A, further teaches that the method 1100 may begin at 1102. At 1104, the control module 260 may run the drive 256 at a first switching frequency (e.g., 70 kilo-Hertz (kHz)), set the bus voltage of the DC bus between the circuits 812, 832 of FIGS. 8-9 to a first bus voltage (e.g., 380 V) and run a motor (e.g., the compressor motor 216) at a first speed (e.g., 7000 revolutions-per-minute (rpm)), and
However, Marcinkiewicz does not specifically disclose wherein the compressor is operated without using the drive at a second frequency.
Woodley in par 0008, teaches that operating the VFD unit to provide power to the load in a bypass mode of operation, wherein operating the VFD unit in the bypass mode comprises operating the bypass relay unit in a second position to decouple the rectifier circuit from the inverter and couple the rectifier circuit to a bypass path that bypasses the inverter, operating a plurality of switches in the inverter to provide a controlled three-phase AC output power, and operating a plurality of low-side switching units in the rectifier circuit to provide a ramped three-phase AC output power to the load, so as to provide for a soft start of the load.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teaching as in Woodley with the teachings as in Marcinkiewicz to include a bypass path in Marcinkiewicz as disclosed in Woodley. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively provide a path for the power in case of a fault in the system, thus allowing uninterrupted operation (See Woodley’s Abstract and par 0021).
Regarding Claim 8, this Claim merely recites a method comprising steps as similarly recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 8, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, this Claim merely recites a method comprising steps as similarly recited in Claim 2. Accordingly, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 9, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11, this Claim merely recites a method comprising steps as similarly recited in Claim 4. Accordingly, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 11, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 8. Marcinkiewicz further teaches:
wherein the fault condition is determined based on a value associated with a register of the drive (Marcinkiewicz in par 0140, further teaches that the temperature from the inverter power circuit 832 and the temperature from the PFC circuit 812 are used only for fault purposes. In other words, once the temperature exceeds a predetermined threshold, a fault is declared and the drive 256 is either powered down or operated at a reduced capacity).
Regarding Claim 13, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 8. Marcinkiewicz further teaches:
wherein determining the fault condition is based on data associated with a sensor of the HVAC unit (Marcinkiewicz in par 0121, teaches that sensors may further include an inverter temperature sensor 354, a processor temperature sensor 356, and/or a DC/DC converter temperature sensor 358, which may be respectively included in and/or attached to an inverter (e.g., inverter 832 of FIG. 8), the control module 260 and/or a DC/DC converter (e.g., DC/DC converter 901 shown in FIG. 9). The thermal mitigation module may control operation of the drive 256 and the motor 216 based on temperatures indicated by at least the sensors 332, 354, 356, 358).
Regarding Claim 14, this Claim merely recites a method comprising steps as similarly recited in Claim 7. Accordingly, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 14, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 15, this Claim merely recites an apparatus comprising: a compressor (Marcinkiewicz in par 0052, teaches a variable speed compressor); a controller (Marcinkiewicz in par 0057, further teaches that a control module 260 may control operation of the drive 256); a drive (Marcinkiewicz in par 0052, teaches an electronic drive) configure to perform instructions as similarly recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 15, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, this Claim merely recites an apparatus comprising: a compressor; a controller; a drive configure to perform instructions as similarly recited in Claim 2. Accordingly, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 16, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 18, this Claim merely recites an apparatus comprising: a compressor; a controller; a drive configure to perform instructions as similarly recited in Claim 4. Accordingly, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 18, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19, this Claim merely recites an apparatus comprising: a compressor; a controller; a drive configure to perform instructions as similarly recited in Claim 12. Accordingly, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 19, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 20, this Claim merely recites an apparatus comprising: a compressor; a controller; a drive configure to perform instructions as similarly recited in Claim 13. Accordingly, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 20, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 13.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley and in further view of Havard et al. (US 2013/0087319)(hereinafter, Havard).
Regarding Claim 3, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.
However, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley does not specifically disclose further comprising: a dual capacitor comprising a first capacitor and a second capacitor, wherein the first capacitor is associated with the first circuit and the second capacitor is associated with the second circuit.
Havard teaches a an HVAC comprising a unit controller that is configured to bypass the variable speed motor drive to provide the line power directly to the blower motor in the event that a measured airflow is less than a predetermined value (See Havard’s Abstract).
Havard in par 0016, teaches that some conventional HVAC systems monitor the operation of the VFD and activate a bypass circuit when a VFD failure is detected. Havard in par 0025, further teaches that the VFD 120 receives line power, e.g. 220V three-phase power. The VFD 120 supplies power to the motor 150 via the contactor 130. The power flow may be modulated by, e.g. changing the frequency of the power delivered to the motor 150. Line power may also bypass the VFD 120 via the contactor 140. Power delivered to the motor 150 via this path is unmodulated. Havard in par 0027 and Fig. 2B, teaches that controller 110 actuates the contactor 140 to connect the motor 150 directly to L1, L2 and L3. The controller 110 actuates the contactor 130 to isolate the motor 150 from the VFD 120, as indicated by dashed lines between L1, L2 and L3 and the VFD 120, and between the contactor 130 and the motor 150.
As shown in figure 2B, each path comprises a capacitor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Havard with the teachings as in Marcinkiewicz and Woodley to bypass the inverter in Marcinkiewicz as disclosed in Havard. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively control contactors to open and close different paths for the flow of power, thus providing a path to provide direct power to the motor to maintain the HVAC service until the VFD can be repair or replaced (See Havard’s par 0004).
Regarding Claim 10, this Claim merely recites a method comprising steps as similarly recited in Claim 3. Accordingly, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley and in further view of Havard discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 10, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 17, this Claim merely recites an apparatus comprising: a compressor; a controller; a drive configure to perform instructions as similarly recited in Claim 3. Accordingly, Marcinkiewicz in view of Woodley and in further view of Havard discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 17, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights