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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claims 1-20, there are numerous instances of “each evaporator unit” for clarity, “each evaporator unit” should be amended to “each of the plurality of evaporator units” or “plurality of evaporator units” for continuity in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
With respect to claims 1-20, there are numerous instances of “the fans”, for clarity, “the fans” should be amended to “the respective fans” or “the fans of the plurality of evaporator units” for continuity in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 line 5, requires a current speed. In line 10 the claim requires a first speed and second speed. As claimed, it appears that the current speed, first speed, and second speed are all different speeds. However, Applicants specification appears to equate the current speed with the first speed, see [0057]. Accordingly, claim 1 is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty, see MPEP 2173.03. Since claim 1 is internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification relating to the composition of the beverage, the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “wherein the current speed of the fan corresponds to a first speed and operating, by the controller, each of the plurality of evaporator units, to change the speed of the respective fans from [a] the first speed to a speed different from the first speed,”.
Claim 3 line 3 recites, “an evaporator unit”. It is unclear how this evaporator unit relates to the previously recited plurality of evaporator units. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “an evaporator unit of the plurality of evaporator units”.
Claim 3 lines 4 and 5 recites, “a respective fan”. It is unclear how this respective fan relates to the previously recited respective fans. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “at least one respective fan of the respective fans”.
Claim 4, recites “a fan”. It is unclear how this fan relates to the previously recited “respective fans”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “at least one fan of the respective fans corresponds to a default operating speed of the at least one fan”.
Claim 5, requires a first, second, and third speed. Claim 1 from which claim 5 depends requires a speed different from the first speed. It is unclear how the second and third speeds relate to the speed different from the first speed. For example are there three fan speeds required in claim 5 or four. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “wherein the speed different from the first speed includes a second speed and a third speed, and operating, by the controller, the respective one or more evaporator units operating in the second mode of operation, to change the speed of the respective fans from the first speed to [a] the second speed; and
operating, by the controller, the remaining of the plurality of evaporator units operating in the first mode of operation, to change the speed of the respective fans from the first speed to [a] the third speed.”.
Claim 7 requires the third speed of the fan is greater than the first speed of the fan by a factor of about 10% and about 60%. It is unclear how when comparing two speeds to each other, the difference can be both about 10% and about 60%. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the third speed of the fan is greater than the first speed of the fan by a factor of between about 10% and about 60%”.
Claim 10 requires the fourth speed of the fan is lesser than the first speed of the fan by a factor of about 10% and about 60%. It is unclear how when comparing two speeds to each other, the difference can be both about 10% and about 60%. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the fourth speed of the fan is lesser than the first speed of the fan by a factor of between about 10% and about 60%”.
Claim 11 line 8, requires a current speed. In line 12 the claim requires a first speed and second speed. As claimed, it appears that the current speed, first speed, and second speed are all different speeds. However, Applicants specification appears to equate the current speed with the first speed, see [0057]. Accordingly, claim 1 is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty, see MPEP 2173.03. Since claim 11 is internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification relating to the composition of the beverage, the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “receive a current speed of the respective fan of each evaporator unit, wherein the current speed corresponds to a first speed”.
Claim 13 line 3 recites, “an evaporator unit”. It is unclear how this evaporator unit relates to the previously recited plurality of evaporator units. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “an evaporator unit of the plurality of evaporator units”.
Claim 13 lines 4 and 5 recites, “a respective fan”. It is unclear how this respective fan relates to the previously recited respective fans. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “at least one respective fan of the respective fans”.
Claim 14, recites “a fan”. It is unclear how this fan relates to the previously recited “respective fans”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “at least one fan of the respective fans corresponds to a default operating speed of the at least one fan”.
Claim 15, requires a first, second, and third speed. Claim 1 from which claim 5 depends requires a speed different from the first speed. It is unclear how the second and third speeds relate to the speed different from the first speed. For example are there three fan speeds required in claim 5 or four. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “wherein the speed different from the first speed includes a second speed and a third speed, and operating, by the controller, the respective one or more evaporator units operating in the second mode of operation, to change the speed of the respective fans from the first speed to [a] the second speed; and
operating, by the controller, the remaining of the plurality of evaporator units operating in the first mode of operation, to change the speed of the respective fans from the first speed to [a] the third speed.”.
Claim 17 requires the third speed of the fan is greater than the first speed of the fan by a factor of about 10% and about 60%. It is unclear how when comparing two speeds to each other, the difference can be both about 10% and about 60%. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the third speed of the fan is greater than the first speed of the fan by a factor of between about 10% and about 60%”.
Claim 20 requires the fourth speed of the fan is lesser than the first speed of the fan by a factor of about 10% and about 60%. It is unclear how when comparing two speeds to each other, the difference can be both about 10% and about 60%. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to treat the claim as if it read, “the fourth speed of the fan is lesser than the first speed of the fan by a factor of between about 10% and about 60%”.
Claims 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 18, and 19 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2017/0307260 to Carter, hereinafter referred to as Carter.
In reference to claims 1 and 11, Carter discloses the claimed invention including:
a method/system for operating a plurality of evaporator units (180/160), the method comprising:
receiving, by a controller (60) communicably coupled to each evaporator unit the controller comprising a processor and a memory communicably coupled to the processor, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor [0057], a current state of operation of the respective evaporator unit, wherein a state of operation of each evaporator unit comprises first (cooling) and second (defrost) modes of operation [0057]; and
wherein, responsive to the state of operation (cooling mode, defrost mode, standby mode [0057]) of the plurality of evaporator units, the method further comprises:
receiving, by the controller, a current speed (initial speed, see [0079]) of respective fans of each evaporator unit (184/164),
wherein the current speed of the fan corresponds to a first speed and operating, by the controller, each of the plurality of evaporator units, to change the speed of the respective fans from [a] the first speed to a speed different from the first speed operating, by the controller, each of the plurality of evaporator units, to change the speed of the respective fans from a first speed (initial speed) to a speed different from the first speed (setpoint as described in [0083] as decreasing the first fan speed setpoint),
wherein operation of the fans of the plurality of evaporator units at the speed different from the first speed enables the plurality of evaporator units to operate within a desirable range of cooling efficiency [0071-0072].
Further, a clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited, see MPEP 2111.04. The limitation of “wherein operation of the fans of the plurality of evaporator units at the speed different from the first speed enables the plurality of evaporator units to operate within a desirable range of cooling efficiency” is considered to be a clause that merely expresses the intended result of the positively cited step of operating the fan at a different speed than the first speed and is therefore not given any patentable weight.
In reference to claims 2 and 12, Carter discloses the claimed invention including:
Carter does not explicitly disclose that the operation of the fans of the plurality of evaporator units at the speed different from the first speed enables a noise of operation of the plurality evaporator units to be less relative to the operation of the fans of the plurality of evaporator units in the first speed. However, it is noted that decreasing the speed of a fan as taught by Carter, will inherently decrease the amount of noise produced by the fan. As such, the teaching of Carter of decreasing the speed of the fan anticipates the claimed limitaitons.
Further, clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited, see MPEP 2111.04. The limitation of “operation of the fans of the plurality of evaporator units at the speed different from the first speed enables a noise of operation of the plurality evaporator units to be less relative to the operation of the fans of the plurality of evaporator units in the first speed” is considered to be a clause that merely expresses the intended result of the positively cited step of operating the fan at a different speed than the first speed and is therefore not given any patentable weight.
In reference to claims 3 and 13, Carter discloses the claimed invention including:
the first and second modes of operation of each evaporation unit correspond to a cooling mode of operation and a defrost mode of operation, respectively (see [0057]), wherein, during the cooling mode of operation of an evaporator unit, a respective fan is configured to operate at a non-zero speed (see [0083] where the fan is decreased to an amount less than 100%), and wherein during the defrost mode of operation of the evaporator unit, the respective fan is configured to stop operating [0063].
In reference to claims 4 and 14, Carter discloses the claimed invention including:
the first speed (initial speed) of a fan corresponds to a default operating speed of the fan. It should be noted that the claim does not further specify, define, or limit what, if any, additional structure is required in order to be "default" beyond that previously recited, of which Carter includes, as detailed above. Since the initial speed is a set point, it is reasonable to consider the initial speed at which the fans operate to be a default speed.
In reference to claims 5 and 15, Carter discloses the claimed invention including:
responsive to one or more evaporator units of the plurality of evaporator units changing from the first mode (cooling) of operation to the second mode (defrost) of operation, the method further comprises:
operating, by the controller, the respective one or more evaporator units operating in the second mode of operation, to change the speed of the respective fans from the first speed to a second speed (defrosting mode from initial speed to a stopped condition); and
operating, by the controller, the remaining of the plurality of evaporator units operating in the first mode of operation, to change the speed of the respective fans from the first speed to a third speed (cooling mode from an initial speed to an increased setpoint).
See [0062] where the evaporator systems may be operated in different modes.
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B, see MPEP 2111.04(II). Presently, in the method claims the steps of “operating, by the controller, the respective one or more evaporator units operating in the second mode of operation, to change the speed of the respective fans from the first speed to a second speed and operating, by the controller, the remaining of the plurality of evaporator units operating in the first mode of operation, to change the speed of the respective fans from the first speed to a third speed” is a step contingent of the condition of “changing from the first mode of operation to the second mode of operation” to occur. Since changing from the first mode of operation to the second mode of operation is not required and may never occur, the operation need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
In reference to claims 6 and 16, Carter discloses the claimed invention including:
the second speed of the fan corresponds to a stoppage of the fan [0063], and wherein the third speed of the fan is greater than the first speed of the fan [0086].
Note that the second speed is contingent on the limitations of claim 5. Similarly, the steps of claim 6 need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
In reference to claims 7 and 17, Carter discloses the claimed invention including:
the third speed of the fan is greater than the first speed of the fan by a factor between about 10% and about 60%, see [0086] where the speed increase is 10% or 25% which lies within Applicant’s disclosed range.
Note that third speed of the fan is greater than the first speed of the fan by a factor between about 10% and about 60%, is contingent on the limitations of claim 5. Similarly, the steps of claim 7 need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
In reference to claims 8 and 18, Carter discloses the claimed invention including:
responsive to the one or more evaporator units of the plurality of evaporator units reverting from the second mode of operation (defrost) to the first mode of operation (cooling), the method further comprises:
operating, by the controller, the plurality of evaporator units operating in the first mode of operation, to change the speed of the respective fans from any of the second (off) and third speeds (greater than initial) to a fourth speed (less than initial as described in [0083] and figure 14 where step 1410 leads to G, and figure 15 where G leads to step 1516).
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B, see MPEP 2111.04(II). Presently, in the method claims the steps of “operating, by the controller, the plurality of evaporator units operating in the first mode of operation, to change the speed of the respective fans from any of the second and third speeds to a fourth speed” is a step contingent of the condition of “the one or more evaporator units of the plurality of evaporator units reverting from the second mode of operation to the first mode of operation” to occur. Since changing from the first mode of operation to the second mode of operation is not required and may never occur, the operation need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
In reference to claims 9 and 19, Carter discloses the claimed invention including:
the fourth speed of the fan corresponds to a non-zero speed of the fan lesser than the first speed of the fan, see [0083] where the decrease is less than 100% implying a speed greater than zero but less than the initial speed.
Note that fourth speed of the fan corresponds to a non-zero speed of the fan lesser than the first speed of the fan, is contingent on the limitations of claim 8. Similarly, the steps of claim 9 need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
In reference to claims 10 and 20, Carter discloses the claimed invention including:
the fourth speed of the fan is lesser than the first speed of the fan by a factor of between about 10% and about 60%, see [0083] where the speed decrease is 10% and 25% which lies within Applicant’s disclosed range.
Note the fourth speed of the fan is lesser than the first speed of the fan by a factor of between about 10% and about 60%, is contingent on the limitations of claim 8. Similarly, the steps of claim 9 need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSEY D BAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 10AM-8PM (ET).
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/CASSEY D BAUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763