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 03/10/2626. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 2-3 and 11-12 have been canceled. Claims 19-22 are new. Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-22 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the term “efficiency ratio curve” cannot be found within the specification.
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 19-22 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 Claims 19 and 21, the recitation of “...wherein which of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed to adjust is determined based on a slope of an efficiency ratio curve,” renders the claim unclear. For example, it is unclear as to what exactly an efficiency ratio curve is, or how such a curve is acquired. It is also unclear as to what said slope is referring to. While the Examiner generally understands that Applicant is intending to refer to Figures 4-5 of the Application, the understanding of the system, represented by the claims, is entirely too vague without importing undo assumptions from the specification by the Examiner. Furthermore, it is entirely unclear how a slope of a curve may determine which cooling speed to adjust. The vague nature of the claim also does not explicitly indicate any direct causality or direction for control, and under broadest reasonable interpretation, an adjustment being “based” on some arbitrary value simply requires that said arbitrary value is considered. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the alleged slope of an efficiency ratio curve is considered to be any value indicative of efficiency. Any missing prior art subject matter should not be construed as an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather an emphasis to the extent of the Examiner’s uncertainty regarding the claim. 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 Claims 20 and 22, the recitation of “...wherein determining which of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed to adjust based on the one or more energy efficiency ratios comprises selecting an energy efficiency ratio curve with the greatest slope to the left of a current operating point,” renders the claim unclear. For example, it is unclear as to what exactly an efficiency ratio curve is, or how such a curve is acquired. It is also unclear as to what said slope is referring to. It is also unclear what a “current operating point is” or what “to the left” of said point implies. While the Examiner generally understands that Applicant is intending to refer to Figures 4-5 of the Application, the understanding of the system, represented by the claims, is entirely too vague without importing undo assumptions from the specification by the Examiner. Furthermore, it is entirely unclear how a slope of a curve may determine which cooling speed to adjust. The vague nature of the claim also does not explicitly indicate any direct causality or direction for control, and under broadest reasonable interpretation, an adjustment being “based” on some arbitrary value simply requires that said arbitrary value is considered. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the alleged slope of an efficiency ratio curve is considered to be any value indicative of efficiency. Any missing prior art subject matter should not be construed as an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather an emphasis to the extent of the Examiner’s uncertainty regarding the claim. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 13-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrios et al. (US 20180299179 A1, hereinafter “Barrios”), and further in view of Yanagida et al. (US 20120047932 A1, hereinafter “Yanagida”) and Thatte et al. (US 20220397324 A1, hereinafter “Thatte”).
Regarding Claim 1, Barrios teaches a method of operating a refrigerator appliance [10], the refrigerator appliance comprising a compressor [18] within a sealed cooling system [Fig. 1] [Abstract], the method comprising:
operating the compressor for a first portion of a period of time [¶ 0053; the controller 42 keeps the compressor on for X minutes];
deactivating the compressor for a second portion of the period of time [¶ 0053; the controller keeps the compressor idle for Z minutes];
determining a duty cycle of the compressor based on a ratio of the first portion of the period of time to the period of time [¶ 0040; the controllers infers ambient temperature by monitoring the compressor duty cycle];
comparing the determined duty cycle of the compressor to a predefined duty cycle [¶ 0040-0043; the controller operates the system based on the duty cycle comparison to a specific threshold]; and
adjusting [a speed] of the compressor based on the comparison of the determined duty cycle to the predefined duty cycle [¶ 0023, 0037; the controller controls the energization of the compressor 18, wherein the compressor may be a variable speed compressor].
Barrios does not explicitly teach the first portion of the period of time comprising a fresh food cooling time and a freezer cooling time, wherein the compressor is operated at a fresh food cooling speed during the fresh food cooling time and is operated at a freezer cooling speed during the freezer cooling time; and determining which of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed to adjust based on an efficiency of the compressor; and wherein the determined one of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed is adjusted.
However, Yanagida teaches a cooling storage cabinet and method of operating [Figs. 1-2 and 9], having a freezing compartment and refrigerating compartment, wherein a valve 24 may perform switching operations in accordance with time rates to alternately cool the respective freezing and refrigerating compartments via heat exchangers 27F and 27R, wherein the system provides a predetermined time control [¶ 0050-0060]. The system is further capable of switching individual cooling and subsequently may modify the speed of the compressor [see S71 and ¶ 0079]. As further evidence that measured temperature is a known indicator of compressor efficiency, Thatte teaches that parameters such as temperature or mass flow through a compressor may be an indicator of power consumption from the compressor [Thatte ¶ 0131]. Thatte further teaches that the method of receiving parameters indicative of power consumption is a known means for control logic to be operated in accordance with said power consumption parameters, thereby improving the system [Thatte ¶ 0145-0146]. Yanagida also teaches that modifying the speed of the compressor by stages at predetermined time intervals provides the benefit of reducing undesired motor oil circulation, thereby providing a more efficient and safer system [Yanagida ¶ 0016, 0088]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide the compressor speed for a determined amount of time based on the cooling mode and adjusting the compressor speed based in a given mode based on the efficiency of the compressor) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means to modify the speed of the compressor by stages at predetermined time intervals provides the benefit of reducing undesired motor oil circulation, thereby providing a more efficient and safer system [Yanagida ¶ 0016, 0088], while parameters such as temperature are known indicators of compressor efficiency, and may be utilized for better control logic [Thatte ¶ 0145-0146].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Barrios to have the first portion of the period of time comprising a fresh food cooling time and a freezer cooling time, wherein the compressor is operated at a fresh food cooling speed during the fresh food cooling time and is operated at a freezer cooling speed during the freezer cooling time; and determining which of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed to adjust based on an efficiency of the compressor; and wherein the determined one of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed is adjusted, in view of the teachings of Yanagida and Thatte, where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to modify the speed of the compressor by stages at predetermined time intervals provides the benefit of reducing undesired motor oil circulation, thereby providing a more efficient and safer system, while parameters such as temperature are known indicators of compressor efficiency, and may be utilized for better control logic.
Claims 2-3 canceled
Regarding Claim 4, Barrios, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 above and Yanagida teaches wherein the efficiency of the compressor is determined based on one or more energy efficiency ratios stored in a memory of a controller of the refrigerator appliance [¶ 0005; temperature curves may be stored in advance, such that rotational speed of the compressor is controlled in response to a deviation].
Regarding claim 5, Barrios, as modified, teaches the method of claim 3 above and Thatte teaches comprising measuring power consumption during operation of the compressor and determining the efficiency of the compressor based on the measured power consumption [¶ 0131, 0145-0146; controller 391 may receive an indication of power consumption from the compressor 322, such as temperature or mass flow of a flow through a compressor, in order to operate the compressor in accordance with said power consumption parameter].
Regarding Claim 6, Barrios, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 above and Yanagida teaches wherein adjusting the determined speed of the compressor comprises adjusting the determined one of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed of the compressor at the end of one of the fresh food cooling time and the freezer cooling time [¶ 0079-0090; Figs. 9-10; the rotation speed of the compressor may be adjusted to follow the target temperature curves; Steps S70 to S71 are depicted in Fig. 10; wherein it is apparent that the operation of modifying the compressor speed (S65) is disposed at the end of the time interval].
Regarding Claim 8, Barrios, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1 above and Thatte further teaches comprising adjusting the other of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed based on the comparison of the determined duty cycle to the predefined duty cycle, whereby an average power draw of the compressor is minimized [¶ 0078, 0131; the controller may receive values indicative of power consumption of the compressor and operate the system in accordance with said values, wherein the controller is capable of receiving data from multiple sensors and operating based on the average of said sensors].
Regarding Claim 9, Barrios, as modified, teaches the method of claim 8 above and Yanagida teaches wherein adjusting the determined one of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed and adjusting the other of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed comprises increasing one of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed and decreasing the other of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed [¶ 0012, 0044-0049; the compressor speeds are increased or decreased based on relative deviations between the set temperature and internal temperatures of each storage compartment, including inter-compartment temperature deviation].
Regarding Claim 10, Barrios teaches a refrigerator appliance [10], comprising:
a compressor [18] within a sealed cooling system [Fig. 1] [Abstract]; and
a controller [42] operatively coupled to the sealed cooling system [Fig. 4], the controller configured to selectively control the refrigerator appliance [¶ 0029] according to an operation routine comprising:
operating the compressor for a first portion of a period of time [¶ 0053; controller 42 keeps the compressor on for X minutes];
deactivating the compressor for a second portion of the period of time [¶ 0053; controller keeps the compressor idle for Z minutes];
determining a duty cycle of the compressor based on a ratio of the first portion of the period of time to the period of time [¶ 0040; the controllers infers ambient temperature by monitoring the compressor duty cycle];
comparing the determined duty cycle of the compressor to a predefined duty cycle[¶ 0040-0043; the controller operates the system based on the duty cycle comparison to a specific threshold];
adjusting [a speed] of the compressor based on the comparison of the determined duty cycle to the predefined duty cycle [¶ 0023, 0037; the controller controls the energization of the compressor 18, wherein the compressor may be a variable speed compressor].
Barrios does not explicitly teach the first portion of the period of time comprising a fresh food cooling time and a freezer cooling time, wherein the compressor is operated at a fresh food cooling speed during the fresh food cooling time and is operated at a freezer cooling speed during the freezer cooling time; and determining which of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed to adjust based on an efficiency of the compressor; and wherein the determined one of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed is adjusted.
However, Yanagida teaches a cooling storage cabinet and method of operating [Figs. 1-2 and 9], having a freezing compartment and refrigerating compartment, wherein a valve 24 may perform switching operations in accordance with time rates to alternately cool the respective freezing and refrigerating compartments via heat exchangers 27F and 27R, wherein the system provides a predetermined time control [¶ 0050-0060]. The system is further capable of switching individual cooling and subsequently may modify the speed of the compressor [see S71 and ¶ 0079]. As further evidence that measured temperature is a known indicator of compressor efficiency, Thatte teaches that parameters such as temperature or mass flow through a compressor may be an indicator of power consumption from the compressor [Thatte ¶ 0131]. Thatte further teaches that the method of receiving parameters indicative of power consumption is a known means for control logic to be operated in accordance with said power consumption parameters, thereby improving the system [Thatte ¶ 0145-0146]. Yanagida also teaches that modifying the speed of the compressor by stages at predetermined time intervals provides the benefit of reducing undesired motor oil circulation, thereby providing a more efficient and safer system [Yanagida ¶ 0016, 0088]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide the compressor speed for a determined amount of time based on the cooling mode and adjusting the compressor speed based in a given mode based on the efficiency of the compressor) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means to modify the speed of the compressor by stages at predetermined time intervals provides the benefit of reducing undesired motor oil circulation, thereby providing a more efficient and safer system [Yanagida ¶ 0016, 0088], while parameters such as temperature are known indicators of compressor efficiency, and may be utilized for better control logic [Thatte ¶ 0145-0146].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Barrios to have the first portion of the period of time comprising a fresh food cooling time and a freezer cooling time, wherein the compressor is operated at a fresh food cooling speed during the fresh food cooling time and is operated at a freezer cooling speed during the freezer cooling time; and determining which of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed to adjust based on an efficiency of the compressor; and wherein the determined one of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed is adjusted, in view of the teachings of Yanagida and Thatte, where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to modify the speed of the compressor by stages at predetermined time intervals provides the benefit of reducing undesired motor oil circulation, thereby providing a more efficient and safer system, while parameters such as temperature are known indicators of compressor efficiency, and may be utilized for better control logic.
Claims 11-12 canceled
Regarding Claim 13, Barrios, as modified, teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 10, wherein the efficiency of the compressor is determined based on one or more energy efficiency ratios stored in a memory of a controller of the refrigerator appliance [¶ 0005; temperature curves may be stored in advance, such that rotational speed of the compressor is controlled in response to a deviation].
Regarding Claim 14, Barrios, as modified, teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 12 above and Thatte teaches comprising measuring power consumption during operation of the compressor and determining the efficiency of the compressor based on the measured power consumption [¶ 0131, 0145-0146; controller 391 may receive an indication of power consumption from the compressor 322, such as temperature or mass flow of a flow through a compressor, in order to operate the compressor in accordance with said power consumption parameter].
Regarding Claim 15, Barrios teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 10 above and Yanagida teaches wherein adjusting the determined speed of the compressor comprises adjusting the determined one of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed of the compressor at the end of one of the fresh food cooling time and the freezer cooling time [¶ 0079-0090; Figs. 9-10; the rotation speed of the compressor may be adjusted to follow the target temperature curves; Steps S70 to S71 are depicted in Fig. 10; wherein it is apparent that the operation of modifying the compressor speed (S65) is disposed at the end of the time interval].
Regarding Claim 17, Barrios teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 10 above and Thatte further teaches comprising adjusting the other of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed based on the comparison of the determined duty cycle to the predefined duty cycle, whereby an average power draw of the compressor is minimized [¶ 0078, 0131; the controller may receive values indicative of power consumption of the compressor and operate the system in accordance with said values, wherein the controller is capable of receiving data from multiple sensors and operating based on the average of said sensors].
Regarding Claim 18, Barrios, as modified, teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 17 above and Yanagida teaches wherein adjusting the determined one of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed and adjusting the other of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed comprises increasing one of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed and decreasing the other of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed [¶ 0012, 0044-0049; the compressor speeds are increased or decreased based on relative deviations between the set temperature and internal temperatures of each storage compartment, including inter-compartment temperature deviation].
Regarding Claim 19, Barrios, as modified, teaches the method of claim 4 above and Yanagida teaches wherein which of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed to adjust is determined based on a slope of an efficiency ratio curve [¶ 0005, 0081-0083; control of the compressor may be made in accordance with predetermined temperature curves stored in advance, such that rotation speed of the compressor follows the curves] [Alternatively, see Thatte ¶ 0065; discussing the performance of the controller being tracked, measured and stored over time for analysis, such that the difference between actual and target thresholds are viewed as percent differences, and may update lookup tables or other prestored values to increase efficiency of the system].
Regarding Claim 20, Barrios, as modified, teaches the method of claim 4 above and Yanagida teaches wherein determining which of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed to adjust based on the one or more energy efficiency ratios comprises selecting an energy efficiency ratio curve with the greatest slope to the left of a current operating point [¶ 0005, 0081-0083; control of the compressor may be made in accordance with predetermined temperature curves stored in advance, such that rotation speed of the compressor follows the curves] [Alternatively, see Thatte ¶ 0065; discussing the performance of the controller being tracked, measured and stored over time for analysis, such that the difference between actual and target thresholds are viewed as percent differences, and may update lookup tables or other prestored values to increase efficiency of the system].
Regarding Claim 21, Barrios, as modified, teaches the method of claim 13 above and Yanagida teaches wherein which of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed to adjust is determined based on a slope of an efficiency ratio curve [¶ 0005, 0081-0083; control of the compressor may be made in accordance with predetermined temperature curves stored in advance, such that rotation speed of the compressor follows the curves] [Alternatively, see Thatte ¶ 0065; discussing the performance of the controller being tracked, measured and stored over time for analysis, such that the difference between actual and target thresholds are viewed as percent differences, and may update lookup tables or other prestored values to increase efficiency of the system].
Regarding Claim 22, Barrios, as modified, teaches the method of claim 13 above and Yanagida teaches wherein determining which of the fresh food cooling speed and the freezer cooling speed to adjust based on the one or more energy efficiency ratios comprises selecting an energy efficiency ratio curve with the greatest slope to the left of a current operating point [¶ 0005, 0081-0083; control of the compressor may be made in accordance with predetermined temperature curves stored in advance, such that rotation speed of the compressor follows the curves] [Alternatively, see Thatte ¶ 0065; discussing the performance of the controller being tracked, measured and stored over time for analysis, such that the difference between actual and target thresholds are viewed as percent differences, and may update lookup tables or other prestored values to increase efficiency of the system].
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrios, Yanagida and Thatte, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Healey et al. (US 20040187504 A1, hereinafter “Healey”).
Regarding Claim 7, Barrios teaches the method of claim 1 above but Barrios does not explicitly teach wherein the predefined duty cycle is at least ninety-five percent.
However, Healey teaches a cooling system [10; Fig. 1] wherein a controller [28] may operate the compressor [12] in a manner to achieve any desired percent duty cycle [¶ 0005], wherein transition from the off-cycle is known to significantly decrease the flywheel flow [¶ 0029], wherein the lower the duty cycle percent, the more frequently the flywheel flow is disrupted. Thus, the percent duty cycle is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a compressor cycle with reduced flywheel flow disruption.
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 the duty cycle is at least ninety-five percent in order to reduce the off-cycle flow disruption, thereby improving the system [¶ 0029]
Regarding Claim 16, Barrios teaches the refrigerator appliance of claim 10 above but Barrios does not explicitly teach wherein the predefined duty cycle is at least ninety-five percent.
However, Healey teaches a cooling system [10; Fig. 1] wherein a controller [28] may operate the compressor [12] in a manner to achieve any desired percent duty cycle [¶ 0005], wherein transition from the off-cycle is known to significantly decrease the flywheel flow [¶ 0029], wherein the lower the duty cycle percent, the more frequently the flywheel flow is disrupted. Thus, the percent duty cycle is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is a compressor cycle with reduced flywheel flow disruption.
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 the duty cycle is at least ninety-five percent in order to reduce the off-cycle flow disruption, thereby improving the system [¶ 0029]
Response to Arguments
On pages 7-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the rejections canceled claims 3 and 12 are wildly off base, further stating that Yanagida contains as no disclosure of the power draw or energy efficiency of the compressor. Applicant further asserts the opinion that associating temperature to efficiency is fundamentally flawed. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
It is generally understood as common knowledge in the art that temperature measurements are suitable indicators for a relative efficiency of a system. On page 8 of the remarks, regarding Applicant’s comments about Figs. 4-5 of the Application, Applicant discusses the alleged energy efficiency ratio variability for a given temperature, however perceiving the same graph in a slightly different manner reinforces the Examiner’s assertion that temperature is a predictable indicator of efficiency. For example, when viewing the graphs considering a constant compressor RPM, we arrive at different energy efficiency ratios, entirely based on the temperature of refrigerant (see legend on the right) (i.e. a compressor operating at ~3000+ RPM has an EER of ~6 at -20 degrees, whereas that same RPM compressor has an EER of ~8 at 0 degrees, providing a predictable, correlative spread for temperatures therebetween. Therefore, while the Examiner generally believes that the combination of Barrios and Yanagida would arrive at the currently amended claim 1, in the interest of compact prosecution, Thatte has also been further incorporated into independent claim 1 along with Barrios and Yanagida, to further teach that temperature readings are known indicators of efficiency in the system, as well as teaching direct power reading structure and control capabilities. Thatte also generally discloses that monitoring and modification of a compressor’s efficiency is a common control parameter, as improved efficiency results in reduced energy consumption.
Applicant’s arguments are further drawn to their own Figures 4-5, and while the Examiner generally understands Applicant’s perspective of the differences in control over each invention in their entirety, the Examiner must not improperly import excessive limitations from the specification into the claims. Accordingly, the Examiner believes that Applicant’s arguments on page 8 of the remarks are more narrow than the language provided by the claims themselves. The Examiner would recommend further emphasizing and specifying what an energy efficiency ratio is, what its relation to a curve is, what said curve is, as well as any other critical information to provide an adequate understanding of the metes and bounds sought for patent protection.
Lastly, the association language “based” does not provide much context under its broadest reasonable interpretation and provides a very vague limitation. Specifically, saying that control is “based” on some arbitrary value, appears to only require that the control correlate in some known manner to said arbitrary value (i.e. for example, either being proportional or inversely proportional). As indicated above by Thatte, temperature is known to be proportional to efficiency.
Regardless, Applicant’s arguments are generally moot, as the above rejections relies on the combination of Barrios, Yanagida, and Thatte, not discussed in the remarks.
On pages 8-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the remainder of the dependent claims are allowable at least based on their dependency to allegedly allowable independent claims. As all independent claims have been rejected, all dependent claims also remain rejected.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights