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 .
Specification
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.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 6, 7, and 12 each recite a step of identifying or responding to “an aberrant change in an accumulation of ice buildup”. Neither the claims nor the specification provide any teaching or special definition regarding changes which would be considered “aberrant” so this term has been given its plain meaning as “deviating from the usual or natural type: atypical, abnormal”, the definition taken from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and provided by examiner with this Office Action.
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:
A “computing device” in claim 10, line 3, interpreted according to the teachings of ¶ 73 (as numbered in the original filing of the specification) as the following and equivalents thereof.
a processor, a processing device, a controller, a general purpose central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a microcontroller, a microcomputer, a programmable logic controller (PLC), a reduced instruction set computer (RISC) processor, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processing (DSP) device, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), and other programmable circuits or processing devices capable of executing the functions described herein, and these terms are used interchangeably herein.
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 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 11 and 12 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.
In lines 7-8 of claim 11, it is taught that a defrost schedule is generated “based on the determinations.” The only “determination” mentioned previously in this claim is the singular act in lines 5-6 of the claim of “determining an amount of ice buildup on the frost sensor over time” so that it is not clear whether “the determinations” of lines 7-8 (taught as plural) are presented in error or require multiple determinations (either multiple determinations of frost buildup or determinations of multiple different properties). For this reason, the nature of the “determinations” and how the defrost schedule is to be based upon them cannot be positively ascertained and claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claims 11 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and “the determinations” of the claim have been interpreted as requiring that multiple determination of frost buildup be made “over time” in keeping with the teachings of lines 5-6 of the same claim rather than as requiring any other determinations be made or used in the generation of the defrost schedule.
Claim 12 is rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of controlling a defrost cycle, claimed in terms of gathering, processing, and outputting data without integrating additional elements which amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the gathering and outputting of data as recited is performed only as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only “particular machine” recited (a frost sensor) is recited with a high degree of generality and is only taught operating in a conventional manner.
Claim 1 teaches a method of controlling a defrost cycle for an evaporator, the method comprising:
measuring, using a frost sensor coupled to an evaporator coil of the evaporator (this step including only insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed below)
based on the measured capacitance, determining an amount of ice buildup on the frost sensor (this step including only the processing of previously collected data, recited with a high degree of generality and representing a mental process); and
initiating a defrost cycle when the amount of ice buildup reaches a threshold amount (this step including no use of a particular machine or effecting of a particular transformation and thus includes nonstatutory activity such as merely outputting a result or notification as a signal).
Claim 1 is found to recite a judicial exception as the claim does not recite a particular machine or effect any particular transformation or reduction of any particular article. Besides the measuring step (discussed below as insignificant extra-solution activity) and output of “initiating a defrost cycle” (discussed below for its high generality and failure to incorporate a particular machine or transformation), the step of “based on the measured capacitance, determining an amount of ice buildup on the frost sensor” represents only a mental process of evaluation or judgement based on acquired data.
Although the preamble recites an evaporator, it is presented only as a recitation of context (“controlling a defrost cycle for an evaporator”) without the evaporator or its structure or function being relevant to the claim. Further, though the claim recites “a frost sensor coupled to an evaporator coil of the evaporator”, this sensor functions is a conventional structure for data acquisition and is not taught to have specific structure or to function beyond the manner which is conventionally understood. In support, attention is drawn to US Publication No. 2011/0185755 A1 to Kim et al. which teaches in ¶ 10 that such sensors are known in the art as “conventional frost detecting apparatus” and that their function of detecting frost on an evaporator coil based on variations in sensed capacitance are well-known and understood.
Further, although the claim teaches “initiating a defrost cycle” this action is taught with a high degree of generality so that no particular machine or transformation is required and the step could include non-statutory actions such as merely outputting a signal or displaying a notification instructing a user to perform a defrost cycle. Although claim 2 further limits this operation, it is taught only as “transmitting a defrost initiation signal to a motor operating a fan associated with the evaporator coil”. This recitation teaches structure (i.e. the motor of the fan) only as a destination to which a signal is output and not as positively recited and required elements of the claimed method and further does not teach any specific transformation or operation (e.g. stopping the fan or changing the speed of the motor) which occurs based on this signal. For this reason, the claimed method is found only to recite a judicial exception as an abstract idea.
Further, the method of claim 1 is not found to recite elements which amount to significantly more than this judicial exception. In addition to the considerations discussed above, the “mere data gathering” and outputting of a result from a determination set forth in claim 1 amounts only to insignificant extra-solution activity as set described in MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the only required structure, the frost sensor, is recited only as a general and conventionally known element operating in a well-understood manner (as set forth above and evidenced by the teachings of Kim) to accomplish this “mere data gathering” without incorporating any unique structure or operation. For these reasons, no inventive elements can be identified within claim 1 which amount to an inventive concept or significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Based on all of this analysis, the method of claim 1 is found to be directed to an abstract idea which does not include features which amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed toward ineligible subject matter.
Independent claim 11 includes the same recitations of data gathering and determination based on the data recited in claim 1 but rather than “initiating a defrost cycle” teaches “generating a defrost schedule for the evaporator based on the determination. Because this operation of generating a schedule represents only a further step of processing data and does not include any particular machine or structure or result in any physical transformation or reduction, claim 11 is found to be directed to a judicial exception for the same reasons set forth with regard to claim 1 and is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed toward ineligible subject matter.
Independent claim 13 teaches the same method taught in claim 1 except that claim 1’s step of “measuring, using a frost sensor” is replaced with a step of “receiving, from a frost sensor”. This step removes the frost sensor from positive recitation so that claim 13 only requires the receiving of a signal rather than the use of the structure of the frost sensor and does not add any features to the claim which would otherwise cause it to recite more than an abstract idea. For this reason, claim 13 is found to be directed to a judicial exception for the same reasons set forth with regard to claim 1 and is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed toward ineligible subject matter.
None of dependent claims 2-10, 12, and 14 which depend from intendent claims 1, 11, and 13 teaches particular structure or unconventional operation amounting to more than a mental process with insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering or output as discussed above with regard to claims 1, 11, and 13 and each of these claims is therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed toward ineligible subject matter.
PNG
media_image1.png
218
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2011/0185755 A1 to Kim et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
484
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 2 and 3, shown above, a method of controlling a defrost cycle for an evaporator (141), the method comprising:
measuring, using a frost sensor (210) coupled to an evaporator coil (having fins 141b connected to refrigerant tubes 141a) of the evaporator (141), a capacitance over time (the sensing of frost based on capacitance being taught in ¶ 71; as further taught in ¶¶ 76 and 91, variations in capacitance are output as a voltage signal to a detector 220 coupled to the frost sensor 210 and this voltage signal is monitored to determine when to begin defrosting by when the voltage is below a reference value, showing the capacitance to be measured “over time” as taught in claim 1);
based on the measured capacitance, determining an amount of ice buildup on the frost sensor (210, as taught in ¶ 71 and 76); and
initiating a defrost cycle when the amount of ice buildup reaches a threshold amount (as taught in ¶ 76 and 91).
Kim teaches limitations from claim 2 in fig. 3, shown above, the method of claim 1, wherein initiating the defrost cycle comprises transmitting a defrost initiation signal to a motor operating a fan associated with the evaporator coil (as taught in ¶ 91, when it is determined that defrosting should begin, the controller 180 perform a control to stop the driving of the fan 150 while a heater 160 operates to defrost the evaporator).
Kim teaches limitations from claim 3 in fig. 3, shown above, the method of claim 2, further comprising generating (by the controller 180) the defrost initiation signal including control parameters, the control parameters including one or more of a cycle initiation time (via the timing with which the controller performs the operation as taught in ¶ 91), a cycle duration (via the following control taught in ¶ 92 to reactivate the fan after defrosting has been completed), a cycle temperature or magnitude (as taught in ¶ 93, the controller drives both the compressor 170 and the fan 150 “to keep the storage chamber at a predetermined temperature” when the evaporator is not be defrosted), or
Kim teaches limitations from claim 9, the method of claim 1, wherein initiating the defrost cycle comprises automatically initiating the defrost cycle (As discussed in ¶ 91, the controller 180 initiates the defrost cycle based on the measured presence of frost without user interaction or command and thus does so “automatically”).
Kim teaches limitations from claim 13 in fig. 2 and 3, shown above, a method of controlling a defrost cycle for an evaporator (141), the method comprising:
receiving (by a controller 180, through a detector as shown in fig. 3 and taught in ¶ 71), from a frost sensor (210) coupled to an evaporator coil (having fins 141b connected to refrigerant tubes 141a), a capacitance measurement of capacitance at the frost sensor over time (the sensing of frost based on capacitance being taught in ¶ 71; as further taught in ¶¶ 76 and 91, variations in capacitance are output as a voltage signal to the detector 220 coupled to the frost sensor 210 and this voltage signal is monitored by the controller 180 to determine when to begin defrosting by when the voltage is below a reference value, showing the capacitance to be measured “over time” as taught in claim 13);
based on the measured capacitance, determining an amount of ice buildup on the frost sensor (210, as taught in ¶ 71 and 76); and
initiating a defrost cycle when the amount of ice buildup reaches a threshold amount (as taught in ¶ 76 and 91).
Kim teaches limitations from claim 14 in fig. 3, shown above, the method of claim 13, wherein initiating the defrost cycle comprises transmitting a defrost initiation signal to a motor operating a fan associated with the evaporator coil (as taught in ¶ 91, when it is determined that defrosting should begin, the controller perform a control to stop the driving of the fan 150 while a heater 160 operates to defrost the evaporator).
PNG
media_image3.png
270
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
172
218
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
186
314
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2011/0079027 A1 to Ghan et al.
Ghan teaches limitations from claim 15 in figs. 5, 6, and 16, shown above, a defrost system comprising:
a frost sensor (probe 190, the functions of which are shown in diagram in fig. 6 with regard to a previous embodiment 90, the functioning of which is equivalent to the probes 62/90 shown in figs. 5 and 6 as taught in ¶¶ 10 and 142) coupled to an evaporator (at adjacent cooling fins 34a and 34b thereof), the frost sensor comprising:
a body (circuit board 192) comprising a measurement circuit (as a circuit board of a sensor);
a capacitance sensor (illustrated in fig. 16) comprising two or more coplanar plates (the plate 68 of the sensor, cooperating with the adjacent fin 34/34a of the heat exchanger to function as a capacitance sensor as shown in fig. 6 and elaborated in ¶ 82) coupled to and extending laterally from the body (the plate 68 extending from the circuit board 192 on an upper side thereof as shown in fig. 16), wherein the measurement circuit is configured to measure a capacitance sensed by the capacitance sensor (as taught in ¶ 82); and
at least one mounting clip (194) coupled to and extending laterally from the body (192, as shown in fig. 16); and
an external device (the processor 80 of the defrost detector 64) configured to receive the measured capacitance from the frost sensor (by cable 66, processed through capacitance determiner 74 and communicated to the processor 80 as taught in ¶¶ 73-74).
Ghan teaches limitations from claim 16 in figs. 5, 6, and 16, shown above, the defrost system of claim 15, wherein the external device (processor 80 of the defrost detector 64) is further configured to:
based on the measured capacitance, determine an amount of ice buildup on the frost sensor (as taught in ¶ 77, “The processor [80] is operable to receive the determined capacitance from the capacitance determiner 74, and, from the determined capacitance, is operable to determine when a level of frost accumulation in the fin-and-tube assembly 12 (FIGS. 1-3) equals or exceeds the defrost-initiate threshold level.”; it is noted that in this passage, Ghan erroneously refers to the processor 80 using the reference numeral 78, previously used in ¶ 73 and fig. 5 to indicate “a calibration input device”); and
initiate a defrost cycle at the evaporator when the amount of ice buildup reaches a threshold amount (as taught in ¶ 77, “if the processor 78 determines that the level of frost accumulation equals or exceeds the defrost-initiate threshold level, it may generate a defrost-initiate signal to indicate to the controller 26 (FIG. 1) that the cooling unit 10 (FIG. 1) is ready for defrosting.” with this controller 26 being taught in ¶ 44 to initiate defrost by the activation of an electric heater or by reversing a flow of refrigerant through the evaporator).
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 4-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2006/0242982 A1 to Swofford et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kim teaches a refrigerator and associated control method for defrosting of the refrigerator, the refrigerator comprising an evaporator and a frost sensor for measuring a capacitance at the sensor based on the accumulation of frost on the evaporator, and further comprising a controller which receives and monitors a signal from the frost sensor indicating the capacitance and initiates and terminates defrosting of the evaporator based on this signal and a determination of the presence of frost based on the capacitance. Kim does not teach the method including monitoring trends in the amount of ice buildup from at the frost sensor as taught in claim 4 and adjusting a defrost schedule based on the monitored trends as taught in claim 5. Swofford teaches in ¶¶ 15 and 30-31, a refrigeration device and a defrost system and method therefor in which parameters such as a temperature difference between air in a storage space and the surface of an evaporator, rates of temperature change, and frost thickness may be monitored in order to establish the demand for defrosting operations and in which such a “demand based” strategy is employed to be “anticipatory” to initiate defrosting at suitable times based on this demand as taught in claim 4, and in which, as particularly taught in ¶ 31 such demand-based control may be combined with time-based control for modifying scheduled defrost operations (with examples of performing an early termination of a scheduled defrost operation or initiating such an operation early and allowing it to run for its scheduled duration) as taught in claim 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Kim with the defrost scheduling with demand-based modification taught by Swofford in order to ensure that defrosting is performed at regular intervals, for example in the event of a malfunction of the frost sensor, while still allowing deviations from this schedule in order to address unexpected increases or decreases in frost demand thus providing a baseline of effective and reliable (i.e. scheduled) operation with the ability to improve on this effect based on instant operating conditions for improved efficiency and performance.
Kim as modified by Swofford and discussed above with regard to claims 4 and 5 teaches limitations from claim 6, the method of claim 4, further comprising identifying an aberrant change in an accumulation of ice buildup on the frost sensor (that is, identifying the frost thickness taught to be sensed in ¶¶ 31-32 of Swofford as calling for modification of the defrost schedule based on this sensed parameter as taught particularly in ¶ 32. These changes are found to be “aberrant” based on the definition discussed above in the Claim Interpretation as such accumulation deviates from “usual” operation as represented by the preestablished schedule taught by Swofford in ¶¶ 30-32.)
Kim as modified by Swofford and discussed above with regard to claims 4 and 5 teaches limitations from claim 7, the method of claim 6, further comprising initiating the defrost cycle at a sooner or later time based on the aberrant change in accumulation (as taught in ¶ 32 of Swofford, a defrost operation may be initiated based on demand as determined based on sensed parameters indicating demand earlier than a scheduled time for defrosting).
Kim teaches limitations from claim 11 in figs. 2 and 3, shown above, a method of controlling a defrost cycle for an evaporator, the method comprising:
measuring, using a frost sensor (210) coupled to an evaporator coil (having fins 141b connected to refrigerant tubes 141a) of the evaporator (141), a capacitance over time (the sensing of frost based on capacitance being taught in ¶ 71; as further taught in ¶¶ 76 and 91, variations in capacitance are output as a voltage signal to a detector 220 coupled to the frost sensor 210 and this voltage signal is monitored to determine when to begin defrosting by when the voltage is below a reference value, showing the capacitance to be measured “over time” as taught in claim 1);
based on the measured capacitance, determining an amount of ice buildup on the frost sensor (210, as taught in ¶ 71 and 76).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Kim does not teach the method to include generating a defrost schedule for the evaporator based on the determination of an ice buildup as taught in claim 11, or this act of generating a schedule including accessing a preexisting defrost schedule, identifying an aberrant change in the accumulation of ice buildup, and updating the preexisting schedule based on the aberrant change as taught in claim 12. Swofford teaches in ¶¶ 29-31, a refrigeration device and a defrost system and method therefor in which a “time-based” defrost strategy may be employed, having a predetermined defrost schedule generated based on expected buildup of ice and particularly teaches in ¶ 31 that in addition, parameters such as a temperature difference between air in a storage space and the surface of an evaporator, rates of temperature change, and frost thickness may be monitored and a “demand based” strategy is employed in combination with the “time-based” strategy for modifying scheduled defrost operations (with examples of performing an early termination of a scheduled defrost operation or initiating such an operation early and allowing it to run for its scheduled duration) as taught in claims 11 and 12. These changes are found to be “aberrant” based on the definition discussed above in the Claim Interpretation as such accumulation deviates from “usual” operation as represented by the preestablished schedule taught by Swofford in ¶¶ 30-32.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Kim with the defrost scheduling with demand-based modification taught by Swofford in order to ensure that defrosting is performed at regular intervals, for example in the event of a malfunction of the frost sensor, while still allowing deviations from this schedule in order to address unexpected increases or decreases in frost demand thus providing a baseline of effective and reliable (i.e. scheduled) operation with the ability to improve on this effect based on instant operating conditions for improved efficiency and performance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japanese Publication No. 2010-91171 A to Matsumoto et al. An English translation of Matsumoto has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Japanese-language original document.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a refrigerator and associated control method for defrosting of the refrigerator, the refrigerator comprising an evaporator and a frost sensor for measuring a capacitance at the sensor based on the accumulation of frost on the evaporator, and further comprising a controller which receives and monitors a signal from the frost sensor indicating the capacitance and initiates and terminates defrosting of the evaporator based on this signal and a determination of the presence of frost based on the capacitance. Kim does not teach the method including, based on the measured capacitance, determining a ratio of ice buildup, water, and air at the frost sensor. Matsumoto teaches in ¶ 42, a sensor for determining the formation of frost in a refrigeration cycle system and teaches specifically that the electrical properties of air, water, and ice are known and that their effects on the capacitance sensed and voltage output by such a sensor are known so that “not only the presence or absence of frost adhesion to the cooler 3 but also the amount of frost adhering can be detected”. In light of the teachings of Matsumoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Kim to account for these known properties and methods taught by Matsumoto in order to allow the amount of frost present to be more directly and accurately determined (correcting for air and water) so that control of defrost operations may be more precisely tailored to instant operating conditions to ensure efficient and effective removal of frost.
PNG
media_image6.png
488
660
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2016/0116203 A1 to Tiranno et al.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches a refrigerator and associated control method for defrosting of the refrigerator, the refrigerator comprising an evaporator and a frost sensor for measuring a capacitance at the sensor based on the accumulation of frost on the evaporator, and further comprising a controller which receives and monitors a signal from the frost sensor indicating the capacitance and initiates and terminates defrosting of the evaporator based on this signal and a determination of the presence of frost based on the capacitance. Kim does not teach the method including transmitting an alert indicating the amount of ice buildup to exceed a threshold to an external computing device, receiving a command to initiate the defrost cycle from this device, and initiating the defrost cycle in response to this command. Tiranno teaches in fig. 1, shown above, and in ¶¶ 16-18 and 22, a refrigeration system including a number of refrigeration circuits (102-1, 102-2,… 102-N) controlled by a computing device (105) which communicated by a network (106) with a remote computing device (110) which is taught particularly in ¶ 18 that this computing device (110) “can be, for example, a laptop computer, desktop computer, or mobile device (e.g., smart phone, tablet, PDA, etc.), among other types of computing devices. In some embodiments, computing device 110 can be a central controller for refrigeration system 100. For example, computing device 110 can be an off-site, enterprise management computer”, corresponding to several of the embodiments of this “computing device” discussed above in the Claim Interpretation section of this action. As taught in ¶¶ 22 and 26, this computing device 110 includes an interface 116 having a screen for providing information to a user and can be used to schedule defrost events for the refrigeration cycles (102), including setting their start times and durations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Kim with the remote computer and interface of Tiranno, and to include the data collected by the frost sensor of Kim in the information communicated to the user by this interface, in order to ensure that scheduled defrost operations do not conflict with the use and functions of the device (e.g. stopping refrigeration and performing a defrosting when new items which require urgent cooling have been added to the refrigeration device) thus ensuring effective operations both moment-to-moment and in the longer term by ensuring that defrosting may be conveniently scheduled and is not simply skipped when it is not immediately advantageous.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghan in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 17, Ghan teaches a defrost sensor and associated control system in which a circuit board is provided with a clip for attachment to a fin of an evaporator and with a frost sensor for measuring the capacitance between a surface of this sensor and the surface of an adjacent fin of the evaporator, the circuit board communicating this capacitance to a processor for determining the presence or absence of frost on the evaporator and sending a signal to initiate defrosting when the presence of frost is determined to be above a threshold amount. Ghan does not teach this signal being transmitted to a motor of a fan associated with the evaporator coil. Kim teaches in fig. 3, shown above, and in ¶ 19, a system and method for detecting the presence of frost on an evaporator and initiating defrosting in response to this detected presence, the method including a controller (180) transmitting a control to a heater (160) to operate to melt the frost and to a fan (150) to stop the fan’s rotation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ghan with the fan control during defrosting taught by Kim to prevent the circulation of air warmed by the heater into a storage space of refrigerated goods and prevent the return of cold air from this space to the heater, thus preventing the adverse warming of the refrigerated goods and speeding the defrosting by allowing a fixed mass of non-circulating air to be heated at the evaporator.
Ghan teaches limitations from claim 18, the defrost system of claim 17, wherein the external device is further configured to generate the defrost initiation signal (as taught in ¶ 77) including control parameters, the control parameters including one or more of a cycle initiation time (via the timing with which the controller performs the operation as taught in ¶ 77), a cycle duration (via the following control taught in ¶ 92 to exit the defrost cycle as taught in ¶ 78), .
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghan as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of European Publication No. 3,171,102 A1 to Cheong et al.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Ghan teaches a defrost sensor and associated control system in which a circuit board is provided with a clip for attachment to a fin of an evaporator and with a frost sensor for measuring the capacitance between a surface of this sensor and the surface of an adjacent fin of the evaporator, the circuit board communicating this capacitance to a processor for determining the presence or absence of frost on the evaporator and sending a signal to initiate defrosting when the presence of frost is determined to be above a threshold amount. Ghan does not teach the controller being configured to monitor trends in the buildup of ice as taught claim 19, or including an interface configured to display the measured capacitance as taught in claim 20. Cheong teaches in ¶ 80, a cooling system and a control method for such a system, the cooling system including a controller (400) comprising a main controller (430) in connection to a frost sensor (600) and a memory (500), the memory storing data collected by the sensor regarding the formation of frost on the refrigerant pipes of the system, such stored data constituting “trends in an amount of ice buildup” as taught in claim 19, and further teaches in ¶ 247 that the main controller (430) may also cause this data to be displayed on a display (760) as taught in claim 20. Although Cheong does not explicitly teach this data which may be stored or displayed to include measured capacitance, he does teach it as “data about the amount of frost formed on the refrigerant pipe” so that one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed in modifying the system of Ghan (which deals with capacitance sensing as a means of frost detection) with the data storage and display of Cheong to include this capacitance among the displayed data in order to allow for the detailed monitoring of the operation of the system based on both historic and present data in order to allow for monitoring and diagnosis of the system’s operations so that irregularities may be identified and remedied to ensure effective, efficient, and reliable operations of the system of Ghan.
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