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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed 12/22/2025. The objections to the abstract have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. A portion of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claim 31 has been canceled. Claims 30 and 32-55 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Specification
The application papers are objected to because they are not presented on paper with either 21.0 cm by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4) or 21.6 cm by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 by 11 inches), with each sheet including a top margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch); as required by 37 CFR 1.52(a)(1)(ii). Reference is made to the abstract and amended claims 30, 32-33, 39, 42, 44-47 and 55. Specifically, tracking lines to indicate changes do not comply with the margin requirements. Therefore, tracking lines should not be found within the margin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 33-36 and 44-47 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.
Regarding Claim 33, the recitation of “…a step of change in a predefined direction…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 30, has already disclosed “a step of change in a predefined direction”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the term is referring to the previously disclosed element, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – the step of change in the predefined direction –
Regarding Claim 44, the recitation of “...based on the maximum temperature variation in the space within the storage volume surrounding the cargo,” renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear as to precisely how a maximum temperature variation is achieved (i.e. input or sensed). The term “maximum temperature variation” may not clearly convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of this Application just what the parameter is or how it is obtained. The maximum temperature variation, discussed in ¶ 0043, 0105, 0142, 0171 and 0241 of the specification, merely states that the maximum temperature variation is a parameter to be used by the controller, but it is not considered obvious how said parameter is obtained, therefore brining into question what the parameter actually is. MPEP 2173.05(g) requires the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish a function be recited to indicate the scope of the subject matter claimed. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if the maximum temperature variation is an experimental parameter obtained by the temperature sensor over a period of time, wherein the controller gathers the difference in maximum and minimum temperatures measured in order to obtain a maximum measured change in temperature (∆t), or if the maximum temperature variation is an initial constraint, input by the user, so that the remainder of parameters may operate to maintain said maximum temperature variation. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 45, the recitation of “…a respective step of change…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 30, has already disclosed “a step of change”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the term is referring to the previously disclosed element, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – the respective step of change –
Regarding Claim 46, the recitation of “…a step of change…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 30, has already disclosed “a step of change”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the term is referring to the previously disclosed element, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – the step of change –
Regarding Claim 47, the recitation of “…an optimization process…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 30, has already disclosed “an optimization process”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the term is referring to the previously disclosed element, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation(s) will be interpreted as – the optimization process –
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 (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 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)(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.
Claims 30, 32-44 and 46-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burns et al. (US 20130186119 A1, hereinafter “Burns”).
Regarding Claim 30, Burns teaches a method for controlling operation of a refrigerant circuit [210; Fig. 3A] having a compressor arrangement [112], a heat-releasing heat exchanger [condenser] for heating an external medium, a heat-absorbing heat exchanger [evaporator] for cooling a flow of a gaseous medium through said heat-absorbing heat exchanger to cool cargo stored in a storage volume [¶ 0007-0009; Fig. 1], the method comprising at least one of the steps of,
controlling a first actuator [122] which drives said compressor arrangement, wherein controlling the first actuator comprises detecting a first refrigerant-circuit parameter [¶ 0007-0009; controller 120 may be operably related to set-points [115] and sensor readings [125]] and adjusting the first actuator such that the first refrigerant- circuit parameter meets a predefined first-parameter setting associated with said compressor arrangement [¶ 0007; the system is controlled by controller 120 relative to setpoints and sensors to send control signals to compressor control device 122];
controlling a second actuator [123] which drives a blower arrangement associated with said heat-releasing heat exchanger [¶ 0007; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], wherein controlling the second actuator comprises detecting a second refrigerant-circuit parameter and adjusting the second actuator such that the second refrigerant-circuit parameter meets a predefined second-parameter setting associated with said heat-releasing heat exchanger [¶ 0007; the system is controlled by controller 120 relative to setpoints and sensors to send control signals to fan control device 123] [¶ 0087-0092; the controller may operate based on control input keys, wherein a key can be any function of a setpoint the system needs to reach a result of its operation, thereby demonstrating that merely controlling a device based on an arbitrary value is a known technique in the art]; and
controlling a third actuator which drives a blower arrangement associated with said heat-absorbing heat exchanger, wherein controlling the third actuator comprises detecting a third refrigerant-circuit parameter and adjusting the third actuator such that the third refrigerant-circuit parameter meets a predefined third- parameter setting associated with said heat-absorbing heat exchanger [¶ 0007; the system is controlled by controller 120 relative to setpoints and sensors to send control signals to fan control device 124] [¶ 0087-0092; the controller may operate based on control input keys, wherein a key can be any function of a setpoint the system needs to reach a result of its operation, thereby demonstrating that merely controlling a device based on an arbitrary value is a known technique in the art];
wherein said method optimizes the energy efficiency of said refrigerant circuit [¶ 0069; controller 240 is an optimization controller], during operation, which energy efficiency comprises an optimization of at least one of i) the COP and ii) the energy consumption of the at least one actuator controlled in order to meet a respective parameter setting [¶ 0082; optimization controls utilize known tables according to metric performance, such as energy consumption] by an optimization process comprising:
varying a selected one of the predefined parameter setting by a step of change in a predefined direction of change [¶ 0087; the control module selects the set of control inputs based on a key, wherein said key may be any function of a setpoint the system needs to reach as a result of its operation; therefore, it is considered commonsensical that the key function (for example u11 to u21, u11 to u12, or k1 to k2, etc.) may be a simple step or interval function (i.e. N + x)] increasing or decreasing the respective parameter setting [¶ 0097; modification of control output 510 is the result of the combination of the control signal 501 and the perturbation signal 515, modified by a frequency 516] [also see at least Fig. 6A, wherein it is apparent that the fan speed is increased incrementally and measured with the associated energy requirements of said fan increments],
waiting for a defined period of time in order to obtain a thermodynamic thermal equilibrium at the refrigerant circuit [¶ 0130; Fig. 11; 1130, 1150; control logic of the system loops the controller systems until system is in steady state], thereafter determining the change of energy efficiency of the refrigerant circuit obtained by said step of change [¶ 0074; the optimization controller may selectively turn on at least in response to reaching a steady state or in response to a metric performance of the vapor compression system exceeding a threshold] [also see at least Figs 6-7, wherein change in energy is measured over time in relation to other operation parameters] and
in case the change of energy efficiency corresponds to an improved energy efficiency the respective parameter setting amended by said step of change and said direction of change are maintained and stored as predefined parameters for the next variation of said selected parameter setting [¶ 0113; the metric of performance may be energy consumed, efficiency of the system, etc.] [¶ 0119-0123; the sign of the constant step indicates if the modification value is too large or too small, and new determinations are produced 980 or updating 990 previous modification values wherein the optimization controller maximizes or minimizes the index of performance, thereby the control signal 960 such that performance is optimized and saved 1160], and
in case the change of energy efficiency does not correspond to an improved energy efficiency the respective parameter setting preceding said step of change is maintained and said direction of change is inverted and stored as predefined parameters for the next variation of said parameter setting [¶ 0117-0126; based on the phase of the waves, the constant term is positive or negative, wherein the optimization controller can use a sign of the constant term to determine the slope of the performance curve; thus, the controller is configured to change control directions if the control constant signs do not indicate the system moving parameters towards a steady state limit] [¶ 0130; Fig. 11; when the optimization controller is turned on, the operation loops until it has arrived at a steady state 1150, wherein stead state 1150 is described as the state wherein the vapor compression system input has converged to their optimal operation point (i.e. their most efficient state). Thus, the loop does not finish until the system has reached its maximum improved energy efficiency while utilizing the preceding step in the feedback loop of the optimization controller].
Claim 31 canceled
Regarding Claim 32, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns wherein said optimizing process is repeated [¶ 0040; the control system is a feedback loop implemented by a microprocessor].
Regarding Claim 33, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns teaches wherein said method optimizes the energy efficiency of said refrigerant circuit [¶ 0069; controller 240 is an optimization controller], during operation, which energy efficiency comprises an optimization of at least one of i) the COP and ii) the energy consumption of the at least two of the actuators controlled in order to meet a respective parameter setting [¶ 0082; optimization controls utilize known tables according to metric performance, such as energy consumption] [¶ 0082-0091; See Figs. 4A-4E; control of the system controls at least compressor speed, expansion valve opening, and first and second fan speeds; see also Fig. 2 showing control operations sending signals to the plurality of control devices]
by an optimization process comprising
varying the respective predefined parameter setting by a step of change in a predefined direction of change [¶ 0087; the control module selects the set of control inputs based on a key, wherein said key may be any function of a setpoint the system needs to reach as a result of its operation; therefore, it is considered commonsensical that the key function (for example u11 to u21, u11 to u12, or k1 to k2, etc.) may be a simple step or interval function (i.e. N + x)] increasing or decreasing the respective parameter setting [¶ 0097; modification of control output 510 is the result of the combination of the control signal 501 and the perturbation signal 515, modified by a frequency 516] [also see at least Fig. 6A, wherein it is apparent that the fan speed is increased incrementally and measured with the associated energy requirements of said fan increments],
waiting for a defined period of time in order to obtain a thermodynamic thermal equilibrium at the refrigerant circuit [¶ 0130; Fig. 11; 1130, 1150; control logic of the system loops the controller systems until system is in steady state], thereafter determining the change of energy efficiency of the refrigerant circuit obtained by said step of change [¶ 0074; the optimization controller may selectively turn on at least in response to reaching a steady state or in response to a metric performance of the vapor compression system exceeding a threshold] [also see at least Figs 6-7, wherein change in energy is measured over time in relation to other operation parameters] and
in case the change of energy efficiency corresponds to an improved energy efficiency the respective parameter setting amended by said step of change and said direction of change are maintained and stored as predefined parameters for the next variation of said selected parameter setting [¶ 0113; the metric of performance may be energy consumed, efficiency of the system, etc.] [¶ 0119-0123; the sign of the constant step indicates if the modification vale is too large or too small, and new determinations are produced 980 or updating 990 previous modification values wherein the optimization controller maximizes or minimizes the index of performance, thereby the control signal 960 such that performance is optimized and saved 1160], and
in case the change of energy efficiency does not correspond to an improved energy efficiency the respective parameter setting preceding said step of change is maintained and said direction of change is inverted and stored as predefined parameters for the next variation of said parameter setting [¶ 0117-0126; based on the phase of the waves, the constant term is positive or negative, wherein the optimization controller can use a sign of the constant term to determine the slope of the performance curve; thus, the controller is configured to change control directions if the control constant signs do not indicate the system moving parameters towards a steady state limit] [¶ 0130; Fig. 11; when the optimization controller is turned on, the operation loops until it has arrived at a steady state 1150, wherein stead state 1150 is described as the state wherein the vapor compression system input has converged to their optimal operation point (i.e. their most efficient state). Thus, the loop does not finish until the system has reached its maximum improved energy efficiency while utilizing the preceding step in the feedback loop of the optimization controller].
Regarding Claim 34, Burns teaches the method according to claim 33 above and Burns teaches wherein said optimization process changes only one predefined parameter setting at a time [¶ 0137-0144; Figs. 12-15; the control system is capable of arriving at actuator x and y outputs relative to the key actuator input z; thus, the entire control system may operate by only modifying values related to actuator z, as the combination of actuator x and y is relative to the key input z].
Regarding Claim 35, Burns teaches the method according to claim 33 above and Burns teaches wherein according to said optimization process changing one selected parameter setting by one step of change is followed by again changing the same parameter setting before selecting the further parameter setting [¶ 0128-0139; Fig. 11; the system arrives at steady state before requiring more control input values].
Regarding Claim 36, Burns teaches the method according to claim 33 above and Burns teaches wherein according to the optimization process changing of one selected parameter setting by one step of change is followed by selecting a further parameter setting and changing said further parameter setting by one step of change [¶ 0128-0139; Fig. 11; after 1170, the system may loop back to 1110 if more control input values are required].
Regarding Claim 37, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns teaches wherein each of the refrigerant-circuit parameters and the corresponding parameter settings are temperature based [¶ 0090; the key may be determined based on a setpoint of a current value of an outdoor or indoor temperature].
Regarding Claim 38, Burns teaches the method according to claim 37 above and Burns teaches wherein each of the refrigerant-circuit parameters and the corresponding parameter settings are based on temperatures detected at the refrigerant circuit [¶ 0095; the controller may be operatively connected to either control or command modules, receiving sensor data of the system from thermocouples, thermistors, and resistive thermal devices].
Regarding Claim 39, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns wherein the first refrigerant-circuit parameter and the first-parameter setting are based on a temperature detected proximate the heat-absorbing heat exchanger [¶ 0090-0095; when utilizing a setpoint of indoor temperature specified by a user, the system necessarily comprises sensors 125 placed appropriately in the environment, i.e. sensors at the indoor and outdoor locations (close to the indoor and outdoor heat exchangers)].
Regarding Claim 40, Burns teaches the method according to claim 39 above and Burns teaches wherein the first refrigerant-circuit parameter and the first-parameter setting relate to the temperature of the flow of gaseous medium through the heat-absorbing heat exchanger [¶ 0090-0095; the controller may receive sensor data of the system from thermocouples, thermistors, and resistive thermal devices, to determine the current value of an indoor or outdoor temperature, thereby necessarily measuring values of air blown through the respective heat exchangers].
Regarding Claim 41, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns teaches wherein the second refrigerant-circuit parameter and the second-parameter setting are based on a temperature indicating the operation of the heat-releasing heat exchanger [¶ 0090-0095; the controller may receive sensor data of the system from thermocouples, thermistors, and resistive thermal devices, to determine the current value of an indoor or outdoor temperature, thereby necessarily measuring values of air blown through the respective heat exchangers].
Regarding Claim 42, Burns teaches the method according to claim 41 above and Burns teaches wherein the second refrigerant-circuit parameter and the second-parameter setting are based on a temperature difference between a saturated discharge temperature detected at the compressor arrangement and an ambient temperature detected proximate the heat-releasing heat exchanger [¶ 0006, 0048, 0095; system control setpoints may be provided as both environmental parameters and thermodynamic parameters, wherein thermodynamic parameters include but are not limited to temperature of the air and refrigerant and pressures of the air and refrigerant; thereby disclosing that temperature sensors may be disposed within the refrigeration system to measure temperature of refrigerant at positions deemed relevant to one of ordinary skill at the time of design] [¶ 0005; the setpoint may be one variable, or it may be a set of multiple variables, such as temperature; therefore, a difference in temperature is merely an automated step subtracting one variable from another in a set, and Burns already discloses control of the system utilizing multiple variables]
Regarding Claim 43, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns teaches wherein the third refrigerant-circuit parameter and the third-parameter setting are based on the temperature in the storage volume [¶ 0006, 0050; system control setpoints may be provided as both environmental parameters and thermodynamic parameters, wherein environmental parameters include but are not limited to indoor and outdoor temperature].
Regarding Claim 44, Burns teaches the method according to claim 43 above and Burns teaches wherein the third refrigerant-circuit parameter and the third--parameter setting are based on a maximum temperature variation in the space within the storage volume surrounding the cargo [¶ 0007; the maximum temperature variation is considered to be an inputted or commutated stat to a thermostat or controller, to which the system is capable is operating from].
Regarding Claim 46, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns teaches wherein a step width of a step of change is variable between a maximum step width and a minimum step width [¶ 0120-0122; Burns discloses a gain factor modules configured to determine the speed of the optimization controller reaction (i.e. how small or large the control increments are), wherein the gain factor module may be any number; Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the gain factor necessarily determines the step increment magnitude].
Regarding Claim 47, Burns teaches the method according to claim 46 above and Burns teaches wherein for each parameter setting an optimization process starts with the maximum step width and reduces the step width if the change of energy efficiency is reduced in relation to the change of energy efficiency obtained in the course of the preceding step [¶ 0034, 0120-0122, 0130-0131; the gain factor module is capable of being any number and operates based on the desired metric of performance; therefore, the system is capable of operating at a large gain factor module before arriving at an operating limit for a given set of circumstance and metrics. See Fig. 13; wherein it is apparent from inspection that each signal starts at a higher slope at time 1310 when control begins, and arriving towards a decreasing slope at their respective limits (i.e. 1304, 1305, etc.)].
Regarding Claim 48, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns teaches wherein the method provides detection, permanently or at least after defined time periods, of a cargo temperature by at least one cargo temperature sensor and compares it to a given maximum admissible cargo temperature and in case the given maximum admissible cargo temperature is reached at least one of the first-parameter and second-parameter settings are changed in order to reduce the cargo temperature [¶ 0093-0095; the system may operate based on setpoints and environmental parameters, wherein the setpoint (maximum cargo temperature) is a temperature specified by a user and the environmental parameter is the current indoor or outdoor temperatures (current cargo temperature), wherein control inputs of the compressor, expansion valve, and fans are utilized to operate the system within said parameters].
Regarding Claim 49, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns teaches wherein a respective actuator is controlled in steps amounting to less than 10 % of the available control range of said actuator [¶ 0120-0122; Burns discloses a gain factor modules configured to determine the speed of the optimization controller reaction (i.e. how small or large the control increments are), wherein the gain factor module may be any number; Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the gain factor may obviously increment at steps amount to less than 10% of the available control range of the actuator; Furthermore, this limitation is relative to the implemented actuator at the time of design].
Regarding Claim 50, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns teaches wherein a respective actuator is continuously controllable within the available control range [Fig. 13; apparent from inspection that the actuators are continuously controlled over time].
Regarding Claim 51, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns wherein the predefined parameter settings are stored in a memory [¶ 0032; the system comprises memory and a processor for executing control].
Regarding Claim 52, Burns teaches the method according to claim 51 above and Burns teaches wherein several operational data sets each comprising the predefined parameter settings which refer to different environmental conditions are provided [¶ 0021; the control system may comprise of a lookup table of stored optimal control values based on different factors].
Regarding claim 53, Burns teaches the method according to claim 52 above and Burns teaches wherein different day time related operational data sets are provided [¶ 0081-0086, 0134-0137; the system may comprise of a plurality of different lookup tables; See Figs. 4A-E; Furthermore, the tables may be continuously modified and updated to provide different operational data sets].
Regarding Claim 54, Burns teaches the method according to claim 52 above and Burns teaches wherein different location related data sets are provided [Figs. 4A-E; apparent from inspection that data is provided at a plurality of different locations (i.e. compressor, expansion valve, fan, etc.)].
Regarding Claim 55, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above and Burns teaches wherein controlling operation of the refrigerant circuit is done remotely [¶ 0038; the system is operable via carrier waves, email, or by accessing a network].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns as applied to claim 30 above.
Regarding Claim 45, Burns teaches the method according to claim 30 above but Burns does not explicitly teach wherein a step width of a respective step of change is within the range from 0.1 Kelvin to 4 Kelvin.
However, Burns does teach the use of a gain factor module 850, wherein the gain factor modules serves to determine the speed of the optimization controller reaction (i.e. how small or large the control increments are). Burns teaches that lower gain magnitude causes slow changes to the value of the control signal, wherein each control signal corresponds to a particular amount of heat flow (i.e. the controller stores data for control signals equating to a known amount of heat flow; thereby stating that target step values are merely a result of experimentation depending on a given system, stored in a table). Burns further explains that the setting of the gain factor modules depends on the metric of performance desired at the time of design [¶ 0021, 0087-0101; 0120-0122]. Therefore, the size of step incrementation is proportional to the desired metric (i.e. power consumption, speed, etc.). Thus, the step incrementation in a control system is considered a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is arriving at the target parameter with optimal power spent for a known amount of heat flow.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide wherein a step width of a respective step of change is within the range from 0.1 K to 4 K in order to improve the desired metric of performance (i.e. energy consumption, efficiency of the system, etc.).
Response to Arguments
On pages 8-11 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections to the claims, regarding cited MPEP section 2173.05(g), should be withdrawn as Applicant argues that that functional language at issue would be clear and understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s arguments are slightly persuasive as they apply to a portion of the rejections, however some of the previous 112(b) rejections remain.
Specifically, regarding claims 39 and 42, drawn to a simple temperature detected proximate to respective devices, the Examiner agrees with Applicant that a simple temperature detected claim recitation is likely understood to be indicative of some sensing means when viewed in light of the specification, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would clearly understand the structure accomplishing said function.
However, regarding claim 44, drawn to a maximum temperature variation, the Examiner does not necessarily agree with Applicant that a POSITA would understand what structure is implied in order to achieve the claimed parameter. The maximum temperature variation, discussed in ¶ 0043, 0105, 0142, 0171 and 0241 of the specification, merely states that the maximum temperature variation is a parameter to be used by the controller, but it is not considered obvious how said parameter is obtained, therefore brining into question what the parameter actually is. MPEP 2173.05(g) requires the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish a function be recited to indicate the scope of the subject matter claimed. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if the maximum temperature variation is an experimental parameter obtained by the temperature sensor over a period of time, wherein the controller gathers the difference in maximum and minimum temperatures measured in order to calculate a maximum measured change in temperature (∆t), or if the maximum temperature variation is an initial constraint, input by the user or system, so that the remainder of parameters may operate to maintain said maximum temperature variation. As such, the term maximum temperature variation is not so plain as to contain an obvious definition to a POSITA, to understand what structure attains said value, as the value appears to require additional computation after initial readings, or it is not a sensed value at all. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
On pages 11-13 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Burns does not teach each and every element of amended claims 30. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments appear to be discussing a general disagreement that the prior art Burns contains the level of detail Applicant believes is present in the claims, rather than particularly challenging any specific citation in the previous rejection of canceled claim 31, which has been incorporated into independent claim 30. Applicant only cites paragraphs ¶ 0077, 0087-0090 and 0096 of Burns to explain the believed differences between the claims and the prior art. Respectfully, the previous rejection provides further citation of Burns that discusses and explains the alleged deficiencies, and the current rejection also provides further citation and explanation in an attempt to clarify the Examiner’s understanding of the capabilities of the prior art and how they relate to the claim language. For example, Applicant argues that the prior art simply utilizes table lookups instead of definite intervals. However, at least ¶ 0090-0092 of Burns disclose that the key may be any function of a value of a control input, therefore it is commonsensical that the key function may be a simple step or interval function (i.e. N + x), thereby meeting the claim limitations. Also see ¶ 0120-0122 wherein Burns discloses a gain factor module configured to determine the speed of the optimization controller reaction (i.e. how small or large the control increments are), wherein the gain factor module may be any number; Thus, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the gain factor necessarily determines the step increment magnitude, wherein said magnitude may be any arbitrary step or value determined at the time of design. Applicant also argues that Burns does not teach to wait for a period of time to obtain a thermal equilibrium, however ¶ 0129 explicitly discloses that the determination measurement waits for the temperatures to not substantially vary over time before proceeding.
Furthermore, the rejection of previous claim 31 further cites Burns ¶ 0097, 0117-0126 and 0130 and is believed by the Examiner to be explaining any further alleged deficiencies that Applicant is arguing Burns does not teach. Another example, Burns ¶ 0117-0126 teaches that based on the phase of the waves, the constant term is positive or negative, wherein the optimization controller can use a sign of the constant term to determine the slope of the performance curve; thus, the controller is configured to change control directions if the control constant signs do not indicate the system moving parameters towards a steady state limit. In other words, the system is capable of knowing if the new value is more or less efficient than the last value, and that value is further iterated upon until the system reaches a steady state after turning on the optimization controller. See at least 1140 and 1150 in Fig. 11 and ¶ 0130; when the optimization controller is turned on, the operation loops until it has arrived at a steady state 1150, wherein stead state 1150 is described as the state wherein the vapor compression system input has converged to their optimal operation point (i.e. their most efficient state). Thus, the loop does not finish until the system has reached its maximum improved energy efficiency while utilizing the preceding step in the feedback loop of the optimization controller. Upon reaching a steady state (i.e. completion of the optimization process by varying the signal of predefined parameters), the system may further update the table to maintain a current database of the real-time efficiency of the system in a given environment.
On pages 13-14 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the remainder of the claims are allegedly allowable at least based on their dependency to previously discussed claims, or relies on the same arguments of the above claims. As the arguments have been addressed above and the amendments are believed to be covered by the prior art, all remaining claims also remain rejected for similar reasons already discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seem (US 20110276180 A) discloses a process control system including a process circuit that utilizes self-optimizing control strategy to learn a steady state relationship between an input and an output
Kountz (US 4,608,833 A) discloses a self-optimizing capacity control system for a refrigeration system including a microprocessor to self-optimize and control the system to define current operating parameters to satisfy the self-learning operation and control refrigeration components in accordance with said optimization
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763