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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 2-5, 18-19, and 22 in the reply filed on 5 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that examiner has not properly identified a combination claim of which the claimed groups are subcombinations and has not identified a primary utility with regard to the stated separate utility for each pair of subcombinations. This is not found persuasive for the reasons detailed below:
Regarding the identification of a combination claim, Applicant has quoted MPEP 806.05(d) sets forth a process of showing distinctness in order “To support a restriction requirement where applicant separately claims plural subcombinations usable together in a single combination and claims a combination that requires the particulars of at least one of said subcombinations”. This passage requires that “applicant separately claims plural subcombinations usable together in a single combination”. Here, the fact that the subcombinations are all dependent claims which are not mutually exclusive and which depend from the same generic independent claims demonstrate that they are usable together in a single combination (that is, the combination of two groups both modifying the independent claims). MPEP 806.05(d) does not require that a claim be present which includes all limitations of both subcombinations, but of “at least one of said subcombinations”. Therefore, applicant’s argument that “the Office Action never identifies the combination claim with which the alleged subcombinations are usable” is not relevant as the subcombinations are “usable together” rather than with a single combination. For example, in the restriction of Groups I and II, the particularly of Group II are usable with the combination represented by Group I (that is “a combination that requires the particulars of at least one of said subcombinations”) and vice versa. For this reason, the argument regarding the failure to identify a single combination claim is not found to be persuasive.
Regarding the identification of separate utility, as it is used in MPEP 806.05(d), the phrase “separate utility” refers to utility of one subcombination which is separate from that of another. Applicant has argued that using one subcombination in a system which does not require the features of the other “is not evidence of a separate utility” and that examiner must state a “primary utility… in contrast to the separate utility”. The MPEP sets forth no such requirement as neither the term “primary utility” which applicant asserts must be identified nor any synonym or alternate phrasing could be found to appear in MPEP 806 which states regarding “separate utility” that “The examiner must show, by way of example, that one of the subcombinations has utility other than in the disclosed combination.” For this reason, examiner’s showing that each subcombination may be used in a system which does not practice the counterpart’s requirements demonstrates separate utility (for example, employing the housing described in Group II for a control unit which lacks the features of Group I with regard to connecting terminals shows that this housing has a utility separate from a system defining the terminals) and this argument is not found to be persuasive.
The requirement for election among Groups I-XV is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 5 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the species are not distinct ant that “it has not been shown that these two configurations are mutually distinct structures, or that there would be a serious search burden absent the requirement for election of species.” Without agreeing or disagreeing regarding the lack of “mutually distinct structures” and upon review, examiner agrees that the distinction between wired and wireless communication (at the level of detail recited by the present claims) is not sufficient to impose a substantial search burden. For this reason, the requirement for election between Species A and Species B has been withdrawn.
Based on the election of Group I and the withdrawal of the requirement for the election of species, the claims to be examined are claims 1-5, 18, 19, 22, and 55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. (Emphasis by examiner.)
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it discusses the purported merits of the invention (i.e. “a control unit which can cooperate with a great variety of operating units and/or status acquisition units”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶¶ 136 and 137, the abbreviations “DC” and “AC” should be spelled out (as “direct current (DC)” and “alternating current (AC)”, respectively) when they are first used.
Likewise, where “BUS” is first used in the specification (in ¶ 15), the abbreviation should be spelled out if the term is intended as an abbreviation. If it is not intended to be an abbreviation, the word should be spelled using lowercase letters where it appears (in ¶ 15 as well as subsequent locations in the specification.) See the rejection of claims 18 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth below based on the use of this term for more details.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“operating units” in claim 1, line 9 and claim 55, line 11. The specification provides a number of examples devices which a singular operating unit may be (e.g. in ¶ 155 “a lubricant heater (98) as an operating unit”, in ¶ 163 “a fan for cooling the compressor unit as an operating unit”, or in ¶ 165 “an injection unit (110) for liquid refrigerant as an operating unit”). None of these passages teaches what “the operating units” of claim 1 are to be in the plural or otherwise identify specific structure for the claimed “units” performing the functional language of “operating” beyond merely identifying one example of such a unit in a manner that does not make clear what scope or bounds would apply to others of the plural operating units (e.g. in the embodiment of ¶ 155, whether each of the units is required to be a lubricant heater or if only one must be while the others remain undefined.) Attention is directed to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth below.
“status acquisition units” in claim 1, line 10 and claim 55 lines 11-12. Similar to the “operating units” discussed above, the “status acquisition units” are claimed in the plural but only identified in the specification by singular examples (e.g. in ¶ 147 “lubricant sensor (92) as a status acquisition unit”, in ¶ 151 “a compressed gas temperature sensor (94) as a status acquisition unit”, or in ¶ 159 “a suction gas temperature sensor (112) as a status acquisition unit”) without defining the structure of the plurality of units recited in the claims. Attention is directed to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth below.
“a communication unit for wireless communication” in claim 19, line 2. Although this element is taught in ¶ 232, the structure required by this “unit” for the function of “wireless communication” is not identified or described except by th further functional language “a wireless communication unit 86 which transmits and receives information and/or data” and the teaching of examples (“Bluetooth or WiFi”) of protocols for such communication which do not limit the communication unit. Attention is directed to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth below.
“expansion element” in claim 55, line 3. Although this element is recited in the specification (for example in ¶¶ 205 and 208) there is no teaching of the structure of the element which performs the functional language of “expansion”. Attention is directed to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth below.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 18, 19, 22, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As discussed above, independent claims 1 and 55 each recite “operating units” and “status acquisition units” each recited as a plural but the specification does not provide any general teaching of what structures would or would not constitute “operating units” or “status acquisition units”, providing only examples of singular structures which may serve as one of the units (e.g. in ¶ 155 teaching that the system may include “a lubricant heater (98) as an operating unit” or in ¶ 151 that it may include “a compressed gas temperature sensor (94) as a status acquisition unit”) with these examples providing no teachings and no basis for determining the structure disclosed by the claim with regard to the plural number of recited units. For this reason, claims 1 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Further, claim 55 teaches “an expansion element” in line 3 but neither the claim nor the specification includes any teaching or suggestion regarding the structure of the “element” by which it performs the function of “expansion”. For this reason, claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
For this reason, claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 19 teaches “a communication unit for wireless communication” in line 2 but neither the claim nor the specification includes any teaching or suggestion regarding the structure of the “unit” by which it performs the function of “communication” or more narrowly “wireless communication”. The specification teaches this unit at least in ¶ 232 but teaches only “a wireless communication unit 86 which transmits and receives information and/or data, for example by means of Bluetooth or WiFi” without identifying structure for the unit. The exemplary protocols of “Bluetooth or WiFi” do not identify the structure which would or would not be required for the claimed function. For this reason, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-5, 18, and 22 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 18, 19, 22, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As discussed above, independent claims 1 and 55 each recite “operating units” and “status acquisition units” each recited as a plural but the specification does not provide any general teaching of what structures would or would not constitute “operating units” or “status acquisition units” and provides only disconnected singular examples of each unit (e.g. teaching a display unit as one of the operating units in ¶ 174 and a lubricant heater as one of the operating units in ¶ 155 and teaching a lubricant sensor as one of the status acquisition units in ¶ 147 and a suction gas temperature sensor as one of the status acquisition units ¶ 159). It is not clear whether these examples are to be applied to all of the corresponding units (e.g. if only one operating unit may be a display unit or if all must be display units in such an embodiment) and, if not, the examples do not provide sufficient basis to establish a commonality such that it is possible to establish what other structures would or would not fall within the scope of the claims (e.g. if one of the status acquisition units is a compressed gas temperature sensor, it is unclear if a system in which another is an expanded gas temperature sensor or a temperature sensor placed to measure the temperature of suction gas for the compressor fall within the scope of the claim). For this reason, the scope of claim 1 with regard to the operating units and status acquisition units cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Line 8 of claim 1 teaches that the memory store is “for the required program code and data” but does not appear to require that it include this code and data, or teach how the data is to be obtained or provided. In contrast, lines 10-11 teach “the program code stored in the memory store”, appearing to require that this code be present. As such, it is unclear whether the word “for” in this context requires that this code and data be present on the memory store or that the memory store merely be capable of storing this data.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the memory store is interpreted only as being capable of storing the recited code and data rather than the narrower interpretation which would require their presence, with the teachings of lines 10-11 further narrowing the nature and functions of the code with may be stored rather than narrowly requiring its presence.
In lines 7-9, claim 1 teaches “a base module which has at least one processor and at least one memory store for the required program code and data for operating the processor and also terminals for operating units” (emphasis by examiner). The modifier “and also terminals [etc.]” is placed and phrased such that it is not clear from the claim whether the base module is required to also include these terminals (with “also” teaching that these terminals are parts of the base module in addition to the at least one processor and memory store) or if the memory store is also required to be “for the required program code and data for operating” these terminals (with “also” teaching this code and data to be additional to those required for the processor).
Line 7 of claim 1 teaches “at least one processor” but in line 8 it is taught that the memory store is for “the required program code and data for operating the processor” (emphasis by examiner). It is therefore unclear whether “the processor” refers to only one of the “at least one processor” in a case in which the base module comprises multiple processors or if it refers only to a single processor regardless of the number which are present.
This element is also recited as “the processor” in line 10 of the claim and is indefinite in this passage for the same reasons set forth above.
The term “basic” in the phrase “basic functions” in line 9 of claim 1 is not defined in a manner that allows one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what are “basic functions” (including whether these are functions of the refrigerant compressor as a whole or of the control unit or the base module specifically). Because the functions themselves cannot be identified, the “required program code and data” required to allow the “operating units” (themselves found to be indefinite as set forth above) to carry out these functions further cannot be identified so that the scope of the claim is further rendered indefinite.
In lines 9-10, claim 1 teaches “operating units carrying out at least one of i) basic functions and ii) status acquisition units”. The phrasing of this passage and the numbering of elements within it teaches “status acquisition units” as functions carried out by the operating units, equivalent to carrying out “basic functions”. In contrast, the specification as discussed above , as discussed above, teaches a number of physical sensors as examples of these status acquisition units and claim 1 further teaches in lines 12-13 “an additional module” which may be connectable to status acquisition units, again suggesting these units to have physical structure. For these reasons, it is not clear whether the “status acquisition units” are recited as physical elements (such as sensors) or as processes or functions to be carried out (such as a temperature sensing subroutine) so that the scope of the claim with regard to these units is indefinite.
The same recitation appears in lines 3-4 of claim 2 and this claim is found to be indefinite for the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
In line 13 of claim 1, the claim ends with the phrase “are also operable with these” but the placement and wording of these clause does not clearly identify either what structures or elements “are also operable with these” or what structures or elements are referred to by the pronoun “these”. The immediately preceding phrase “at least one of i) the base module and ii) status acquisition units” does not appear to correspond to the verb “are” as it is clearly positioned as part of the phrase “an additional module connectable to at least one of i) the base module and ii) status acquisition units”. It appears that the claim may be read such that “are also operable with these” may refer to “the processor and the program code” in line 10 or to “operating units carrying out additional functions” but it is not clear which of these is the intended interpretation or if some other interpretation entirely is intended. Likewise, it appears that “these” may refer to the operating units or the status acquisition units or to the processor and program code, or to the operating units carrying out additional functions” without providing any clarity regarding the proper or intended interpretation.
For all of the reasons set forth above, the scope of claim 1 cannot be properly and definitely ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In lines 1 and 2 of claim 2, the teaching of “the execution of additional functions” lacks antecedent basis. It is not clear whether this refers to the same operation recited in claim 1 as “carrying out additional functions by way of an additional module” in lines 11-12 of claim 1. Further, because claim 2 teaches in line 2 that “the base module is connectable to an additional module”, teaching this “additional module” with the indefinite article “an” rather than “the” or “said”, it is not clear whether this module refers to the same “an additional module” presented in line 12 of claim 1 so that it is not clear whether claim 2 further limits the additional module of claim 1 or recites another module with different requirements. For this reason, the scope of the “execution of additional functions” recited in claim 2 and the “additional module” associated therewith cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In lines 2-4 of claim 4, it is taught that the mediatory communication “comprises at least one of i) a signal conversion and ii) a signal processing and iii) an intelligent signal processing and iv) an evaluating signal processing.” As “an intelligent signal processing” and “an evaluating signal processing” both appear to be subset of “a signal processing”, it is unclear if their presence on this list of options including the use of “at least one of” limits “a signal processing” to exclude “an intelligent signal processing” and “an evaluating signal processing” or if the inclusion of these elements is entirely redundant and does not affect the scope of the claim as their presence is already included by the recited “a signal processing”. For this reason, the scope of claim 4 cannot be ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In line 2 of claim 18 and line 2 of claim 22, the word “BUS” is presented in capital letters, appearing to indicate that it refers to an abbreviation similar to “AC” for “alternating current” in ¶ 136 of the instant specification or “VFD” for “variable frequency drive” in ¶ 50 of US Publication No. 2009/0090113 A1 to Caillat (cited as prior art below) but no meaning is given for this abbreviation and it appears that “BUS” is used according to its plain meaning of the word “bus” in the computer architecture arts as “a set of parallel conductors in a computer system that forms a main transmission path” (per the definition retrieved from Merriam Webster Online Dictionary included with this Office Action). Because the term is spelled using only capital letters, it appears that BUS is intended as an acronym or abbreviation but no meaning or longform version is provided in the disclosure or could be identified by the examiner. For this reason, the specific meaning which should be given to the term “BUS” could not be identified and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
If the term BUS is intended as an acronym, its meaning should be clearly identified and spelled out in longform where it is first used in the specification and in the claims. If the plain meaning of the word “bus” is intended, then “BUS” as presented in these claims and elsewhere in the application should be spelled using lower case letters. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 teaches “a communication unit for wireless communication” in line 2 but neither the claim nor the specification includes any teaching or suggestion regarding the structure of the “unit” by which it performs the function of “communication” or more narrowly “wireless communication”. The specification teaches this unit at least in ¶ 232 but teaches only “a wireless communication unit 86 which transmits and receives information and/or data, for example by means of Bluetooth or WiFi” without identifying the scope of the recitation regarding the structure which would or would not constitute such a unit. The exemplary protocols of “Bluetooth or WiFi” do not identify the structure which would or would not be required for the claimed function nor does their use as examples enable one of ordinary skill in the art to identify whether any other potential communication protocol would fall inside or outside the scope of the claim. For this reason, the scope of claim 19 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) being indefinite. Further, attention is directed to MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language ("for example," "such as") regarding the indefiniteness of exemplary language in claim construction.
Claim 55 teaches in line 3 “an expansion element” but neither the claim nor the specification includes any teaching or suggestion regarding the structure of the “element” by which it performs the function of “expansion”. For this reason, the elements which would or would not fall within the scope of claim 55 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
(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.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
424
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
410
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
327
292
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 5, 18, 22, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2009/0090113 A1 to Caillat. Caillat in ¶ 51 incorporates by reference the disclosure of commonly owned US Patent No. 6,302,654 to Millet et al., stating that the control module (30) may be the module taught by Millet and reference is therefore also made in this rejection to the teachings of Millet in demonstrating the invention disclosed by Caillat.
PNG
media_image5.png
468
694
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
286
426
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 1, shown above, as well as in Millet’s figs. 2-5 and 11, also shown above, a refrigerant compressor (12), having a compressor unit (the internal mechanism of the compressor 12) which draws in refrigerant with a suction port (connected to the suction line 22), compresses it and delivers it by way of a pressure port (connected to the discharge line 24, as taught in ¶ 46), wherein the refrigerant compressor (12) has an electrical drive unit driving the compressor unit (including an electronic inverter and variable frequency drive (VFD), taught in ¶ 50 but not shown in the figure) and wherein the refrigerant compressor (12) is provided with a control unit (30 of Caillat, taught to correspond to the control subsystem 86 of Millet, shown above in Millet’s figs. 3, 4, and 5) which cooperates with at least one of i) operating units and ii) status acquisition units associated with the refrigerant compressor or the refrigerant circuit (as taught in col. 5, lines 10-48 of Millet, the control subsystem 86 includes a plurality of terminals 102-136 which connect “to internally integrated sensors which are in turn connected to a control block 138”, these sensors identified at the right side of fig. 5, shown above, and representing “status acquisition units” as claimed and further controls the operation of the compressor itself (via compressor control system 168 shown below in fig. 5 of Millet) and various other components (such as solenoids via solenoid control systems 210, 218, and 226, a heater via heater control system 236, and a display as shown in fig. 5) as “operating units” as claimed),
wherein the control unit (86 of Millet) comprises a base module (the control block 138 of the control subsystem 86 Millet) which has at least one processor and at least one memory store (as taught in ¶ 52 of Caillat, “Control module 30 may generally include a control block, microprocessor, [and] memory…”) for the required program code and data for operating the processor and also terminals for operating units carrying out at least one of i) basic functions (that is, the operation of the compressor itself as taught by both Caillat and Millet) and ii) status acquisition units (the sensors of Millet) and wherein the processor and the program code stored in the memory store (in the control module 30/86) are configured so that operating units carrying out additional functions by way of an additional module (by the connection of the controller 86 to an external control system 254 for communication with this controller) connectable to at least one of i) the base module and ii) status acquisition units are also operable with these (connecting to the board of the control subsystem 86 and thus the control block 138 via the communication interface or gateway 250 as shown below in figs. 5 and 11 and taught in col. 10, lines 56-62).
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 2 in fig. 1 of Caillat and figs. 5 and 11 of Millet, shown above, the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1, wherein, for the execution of additional functions (the communication with the external control system 254), the base module (the control block 138 of the control subsystem 86 taught by Millet) is connectable to an additional module (the external control module 254, connecting to the control block 138 through the communication interface/gateway 150) which has terminals for operating units carrying out at least one of i) the additional functions (connecting to the system 254 through terminals illustrated on the bottom of the interface/gateway as shown in fig. 5, illustrated identically to terminals 134 and 136 on the top of the element) and ii) the status acquisition units, and wherein the additional module (254) enables, by way of mediatory communication (communication with the interface/gateway 250) between the base module (138) and at least one of i) the operating units and ii) the status acquisition units connected to the additional module (254, connected through the control block 138 and interface/gateway 250), the execution of the additional functions by way of the operation of at least one of i) the operating units and ii) the status acquisition units by the base module (controlling the compressor using the central control system 254 as taught in col. 10, lines 56-62 of Millet).
Examiner further notes that claim 2 has been given limited patentable weight as it recites only that the base unit “is connectable to an additional module” having certain features but does not positively recite the additional module as part of the inventive system. As such, these limitations of claim 2 represent only a teaching of intended use for the claimed system.
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 3 in figs. 5 and 11 of Millet, shown above, the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1, wherein a communication between the base module (138) and the additional module (254) connected thereto (by the communication interface/gateway) takes place directly by way of electrical connecting elements (terminals 134 and 136, connecting directly from the control block 138 to the interface/gateway 250 as shown in fig. 5) between the base module (138) and the additional module (136) (further, connection from the gateway 250 to the central controller 254 is taught to be performed preferably through LonWorks in in col. 10, lines 56-62 of Millet, with LonWorks being understood in the art at a communication standard for communication over twisted pair circuits or for power line communication, both of which transmit communication directly over electrical connections.)
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 5 in figs. 5 and 11 of Millet, shown above, the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1, wherein different additional modules are connectable to the base module, of which each enables an operation of different combinations of at least one of i) operating units and ii) status acquisition units by way of mediatory communication between the base module and these different combinations of at least one of i) operating units and ii) status acquisition units.
As with claim 2 above, it is noted that claim 5 does not positively recite the additional modules but only teaches that the base module is capable of the intended use of being connected to different modules which perform different operations of the operating and/or data acquisition units. Claim 5 does not describe or identify any structure for these plural “different additional modules” or positively recite any or all of theme as elements of the claimed system. As the structure required for such connection (i.e. the communication interface/gateway 250 is taught by Millet as discussed above) the system of Caillat (as elaborated by the incorporated teachings of Millet) is found to be capable of connection to different systems, and the system (254) to which it connects is taught (col. 10, lines 56-62 of Millet) to control the operation of the compressor, the system of Caillat (including the control system of Millet) is found to be inherently capable of the claimed intended use.
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 18 in figs. 5 and 11 of Millet, shown above, the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1, wherein the base module (138 of Millet) has at least one BUS terminal unit (connecting vis “Motorola's Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI)”, described as a bus communicating over terminals 134 and 136 as taught in col. 7, line 55-col. 8, line 3 of Millet).
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 22 in figs. 5 and 11 of Millet, the refrigerant compressor according to claim 1, wherein the additional module (254) has a BUS terminal unit (as taught in col. 7, line 55-col. 8, line 3 and col. 10, lines 56-62 of Millet, SPI is used for communication between the gateway and the central controller 254, the connection of the SPI to the controller constituting a “terminal” as claimed).
Caillat teaches limitations from claim 55 in fig. 1, shown above, as well as in Millet’s figs. 2-5 and 11, also shown above, a refrigerant circuit (shown in fig. 1 of Caillat) comprising at least one refrigerant compressor (12), a high pressure line (extendinf from the discharge line 24 to the expansion valve 18) extending away from the at least one refrigerant compressor (12), a high pressure-side heat exchanger (condenser 14) arranged in the high pressure line (by way of the reversing valve 20), at least one expansion element (expansion valve 18) following the high pressure-side heat exchanger (14) in the high pressure line (as shown), a low pressure-side heat exchanger (evaporator 16) which is arranged in a low pressure line (extending from the expansion valve 18 to the suction line 22) following the expansion element (18) and from which the low pressure line extends to the at least one refrigerant compressor (as the suction line 22), wherein the at least one refrigerant compressor (12) is configured having a compressor unit (the internal mechanism of the compressor 12) which draws in refrigerant with a suction port (at the suction line 22), compresses it and delivers it by way of a pressure port (at the discharge line 24), wherein the refrigerant compressor (12) has an electrical drive unit driving the compressor unit (including an electronic inverter and variable frequency drive (VFD), taught in ¶ 50 but not shown in the figure) and wherein the refrigerant compressor is provided with a control unit (30 of Caillat, taught to correspond to the control subsystem 86 of Millet, shown above in Millet’s figs. 3, 4, and 5) which cooperates with at least one of i) operating units and ii) status acquisition units associated with the refrigerant compressor or the refrigerant circuit (as taught in col. 5, lines 10-48 of Millet, the control subsystem 86 includes a plurality of terminals 102-136 which connect “to internally integrated sensors which are in turn connected to a control block 138”, these sensors identified at the right side of fig. 5, shown above, and representing “status acquisition units” as claimed and further controls the operation of the compressor itself (via compressor control system 168 shown below in fig. 5 of Millet) and various other components (such as solenoids via solenoid control systems 210, 218, and 226, a heater via heater control system 236, and a display as shown in fig. 5) as “operating units” as claimed).
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 4, 5, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillat as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2022/0070293 A1 to Harvey et al.
The rejection of claim 5 set forth below does not indicate any deficiency in the rejection of the claim presented above but is provided to demonstrate that, even given a narrower interpretation of the claim and in which the connectable additional modules of claim 5 are taken as positively recited rather than as a matter of intended use, the limitations of the claim would still not be found to be patentable.
PNG
media_image7.png
620
514
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Caillat teaches a refrigerant compressor including a control unit, indicating this control unit to be the unit taught by Millet. Millet elaborates a control unit for a compressor in which a control block is connected to a plurality of sensors and actuators of the compressor and the refrigeration system in which it is used and is further communicated through a communication interface/gateway with an external central controller which may control operations of the compressor through the control block. Neither Caillat nor Millet teaches the communication between the external central controller and the sensors and actuators (status acquisition units and operating units as claimed) of the system being performed so as to comprises signal conversion or processing. Harvey teaches in ¶¶ 27-28, 43 and 52 and in fig. 4, shown above, a control system in which multiple controllers (405, 410) may be connected with the work of the controllers distributed among them for controlling a plurality of modules (415) and devices (420) such as HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment and sensors connected thereto. Harvey particularly teaches in ¶ 43 and fig. 5 shown above (showing one implementation of such a module, numbered as module 505, communicating between a controller 535 and a device 540) that signals transmitted between the controller (535) to the devices (540) by way of the module maybe altered or changed, being processed by hardware of the module (520). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Caillat with the signal processing and alteration of communicated signals taught by Harvey in order to ensure compatibility between devices of different types connected to the same central controlling system without requiring that the control system itself format signals based on the device to which they are being sent, thus allowing compatibility to be handled device-by-device and allowing for the addition and removal of devices from the system without requiring modification of the controller programming itself.
Regarding claim 5, Caillat does not teach the controller of the compressor of his invention being connectable to different additional modules (i.e. different external controllers per the teachings of Millet) such that different combination of the actuators and sensors operated are enabled to be operated by each of these different additional modules. Harvey teaches in ¶¶ 27-28, 43 and 52 and in fig. 4, shown above, a control system in which multiple controllers (405, 410) may be connected with the work of the controllers distributed among them for controlling a plurality of modules (415) and devices (420) such as HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment and sensors connected thereto. Harvey particularly teaches in ¶ 28 that in some implementations of this system, some controllers among the plurality which are connected (405, 410) may be designated as satellite controllers which do not perform work regarding any modules or devices not connected directly to themselves while others (controller 405) are able to access and control a broader range of modules and devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Caillat with the arrangement of main and satellite controllers taught by Harvey in order to allow different degrees of privilege and access to different controllers and thus their users, for example to prevent a user from adversely affecting the output of the HVAC system for other users in other spaces while still permitting some degree of control over operations in the space that user occupies.
Regarding claim 19, neither Caillat nor Millet teaches the communication between elements in the control system of their inventions to be conducted using “a communication unit for wireless communication” of the control unit, although the interface/gateway 250 of Millet is taught as a wired communication unit. Harvey teaches in ¶ 28 and in fig. 4, shown above, that communication among the controllers (405, 410) may be performed “through wired connections, wireless connections, or a combination of both”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Caillat with the wireless communication in order to increase the convenience of installation and arrangement of the controller (internal and external) of the system of Caillat (as elaborated by Millet) by removing the requirement for physical cables to be installed and because MPEP 2143 indicates that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” (using wireless communication in place of the wired communication taught by Millet to provide the predictable result of communication among the control devices without the use of cables or wires) is an exemplary rationale to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
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
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763