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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Publication No. 2006-207983 A to Yamashita et al., an English-language translation of which was with the Non-Final Rejection of 31 October 2025. Citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Japanese-language original document.
Yamashita teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, an air conditioner that performs an air conditioning operation in an indoor space (10), the air conditioner comprising:
a compressor (1);
a controller (outdoor controller 30 of outdoor unit A as well as remote controller 15 in the space 10) and that controls an operating frequency of the compressor (5, via an inverter 50 as taught in ¶ 19) at a predetermined update interval in accordance with an air conditioning load (with a temperature difference defining the zones 1-3 as taught in ¶ 17) in the indoor space (the fixed time periods t1-t5 pertaining to the zones 1-3 as taught in ¶¶ 17-20), wherein
the controller (30, 15) shortens the update interval (switching an operating zone and changing the fixed time accordingly, for example from 180 seconds to 60 seconds when switching from zone 1 to zone 2 over the course of cooling as taught in ¶¶ 25-27, with zone 1 defined as a state “in which the room temperature Ta is considerably higher than the set temperature Ts” and zone 2 defined as a state “in which the room temperature Ta is higher than the set temperature Ts”) when a first condition indicating that the air conditioning load is low (when the room temperature Ta is higher but not “considerably higher” than the set temperature, thus requiring transition from zone 1 to zone 2) and a second condition indicating that a performance of the compressor is high with respect to the air conditioning load are satisfied (the compressor being operated in the higher capacity zone 1 according to a high capacity request prior to the switching to zone 2 and reduction of the fixed time from t1=180 sec. to t2=60 sec.), wherein
the first condition includes that a difference between an indoor temperature and a target indoor temperature is equal to or less than a first threshold (although Yamashita does not define this threshold numerically, this threshold is the point at which the system identifies the difference between the zone 1 “in which the room temperature Ta is considerably higher than the set temperature Ts” and zone 2 “in which the room temperature Ta is higher than the set temperature Ts” (emphasis by examiner) quoted from ¶ 17).
Yamashita teaches the limitations of claim 3, the air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the second condition includes that a change amount per unit time (that operation in zone 1 produces the change in temperature over the duration of the fixed time 180 or 60 sec.) of a difference between an indoor temperature and a target indoor temperature (constituting “considerably higher” vs. “higher” between zone 1 and zone 2 as taught in ¶ 17) is equal to or less than a second threshold (where the second threshold < 0) (as the temperature difference reduces in both the transition from zone 1 to zone 2).
Yamashita teaches the limitations of claim 4, the air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the second condition includes that a change amount per unit time (the change in temperature occurring over the duration of the fixed time 180 or 60 sec.) of a difference between an indoor temperature and a target indoor temperature (constituting “considerably higher” vs. “higher” between zone 1 and zone 2 or from “higher” to lower” between zone 2 and zone 3 as taught in ¶ 17) is equal to or less than a second threshold (where the second threshold < 0) (as the temperature difference reduces in both the transition from zone 1 to zone 2 and from zone 2 to zone 3).
and the first condition includes that, after the second condition is satisfied, the difference is estimated to be less than or equal to a first threshold (the difference being “higher” but not “considerably higher” and thus below this threshold) within a predetermined time on a basis of the change amount (the change having occurred before the fixed time of 180 sec. passes.)
Yamashita teaches limitations from claim 5, the air conditioner according to claim 1, wherein the controller maintains a state in which the update interval is shortened until the first condition is released after the first condition and the second condition are satisfied (the times t2 and t3 both being 60 sec. as taught in ¶¶ 28-29, with the time t3 being applied when the room temperature falls below the set temperature, leading to the output of a stop request).
Yamashita teaches limitations from claim 6, the air conditioner according to claim 5, wherein the controller (30, 15) extends the update interval when a predetermined third condition set in advance is further satisfied after the first condition is released (the air conditioner being started in zone 1 conditions again following a stop signal in zone 3 as taught in ¶ 17, thus initiating the fixed time at t1 or 180 sec., per ¶¶ 24-25).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and further in view of US Publication No. 2004/0050075 A1 to King et al.
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita teaches a refrigeration cycle air conditioning system in which a compressor is controlled to operate based on a high capacity signal when the sensed room temperature is “considerably higher” than a set temperature and based on a normal capacity signal when the temperature is higher but not considerably higher than the set temperature, and is turned off when the temperature is lower than the set temperature, and teaches that during the “considerably higher” operation, the controller of the system only adjusting the operation of the compressor when a fixed time has passed, this time being longer in the “considerably higher” operation than in other cooling operations. Yamashita does not teach the increase of this fixed time (which may occur, for example, when operation of the compressor has ended and restarted) being based on a condition which includes a predetermined time elapsing. King teaches in ¶ 49 a refrigeration cycle system in which, when a start signal for the compressor is received, a control unit determines if a predetermined period of time (three minutes in the teachings of King) has passed since the compressor was turned off and delays operation of the compressor until three minutes have passed if they have not already. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Yamashita with the minimum compressor off-time taught by King in order to prevent short cycling and excessing startup of the compressor which increases wear on compressor components and reduces the reliability and operating lifespan of the compressor.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and further in view of US Publication No. 2008/0022704 A1 to Fukuta.
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita teaches a refrigeration cycle air conditioning system in which a compressor is controlled to operate based on a high capacity signal when the sensed room temperature is “considerably higher” than a set temperature and based on a normal capacity signal when the temperature is higher but not considerably higher than the set temperature, and is turned off when the temperature is lower than the set temperature, and teaches that during the “considerably higher” operation, the controller of the system only adjusting the operation of the compressor when a fixed time has passed, this time being longer in the “considerably higher” operation than in other cooling operations. Yamashita does not teach the increase of this fixed time (which may occur, for example, when operation of the compressor has ended and restarted) being based on the difference in temperatures exceeding a third threshold. Fukuta teaches in ¶ 55 an air conditioning system and a control unit (65) for a compressor (21) thereof, the control unit setting a threshold temperature for the starting of the compressor which is greater than the threshold temperature for stopping the compressor by a predetermined value so that the compressor is controlled to start when the sensed temperature is greater than this start-up threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Yamashita with the increased threshold temperature for starting the compressor taught by Fukuta in order to prevent short cycling and excessing startup of the compressor which increases wear on compressor components and reduces the reliability and operating lifespan of the compressor.
Although Fukuta teaches the start-up temperature to be greater than the compressor-stop threshold (equivalent to requiring that it be greater than 0 as the system of Yamashita stops the compressor when the room temperature is less than the set temperature without any further offset), neither Yamashita nor Fukuta teaches that this start-up threshold is greater than Yamashita’s threshold for considering that the temperature is “considerably higher” than the set temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed would have recognized the setting of these temperatures to be a matter of routine skill and optimization in the art as starting the compressor at or below the “considerably higher” threshold in the system of Yamashita would preclude the use of the zone 1 controls as the conditions for zone 2 operation would be those for starting the compressor. Further, setting such a higher threshold would serve to allow a longer downtime between stopping and restarting of the compressor than a lower threshold, further serving to prevent short cycling as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 5 of the reply that the amendments made to claims 7 and 8 overcome the objection to claim 7 based on a minor informality and the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on a lack of antecedent basis set forth in the Non-Final Rejection of 31 October 2025.
In response, examiner agrees and both the objection to claim 7 and the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pp. 5-8 of the reply that the teachings of Yamashita are not sufficient to anticipate claim 1 as amended. Applicant particularly argues that Yamashita does not teach the update interval being shortened “when a first condition indicating that the air conditioning load is low and a second condition indicating that a performance of the compressor is high with respect to the air conditioning load are satisfied” (emphasis by examiner), arguing that the only condition contemplated by Yamashita to initiate the transition between zone 1 and zone 2 (and thus the shortening of the update interval) is a transition from “a state in which the room temperature Ta is considerably higher than the set temperature Ts” to “a state in which the room temperature Ta is higher than the set temperature Ts” and does not consider test for or otherwise “know” the performance of the compressor.
In response, examiner disagrees. Although Yamashita does not teach sensors or similar structure to “check” the performance of the compressor, the controller itself is still responsible for setting the output of the compressor and thus cannot be considered to not “know” this performance condition as argued on pg. 7.
Further, examiner asserts that the transition argued by applicant as a single and as “the only”) condition considered by Yamashita encompasses a number of different conditions. Specifically, a determination that the room temperature has transitioned from being “considerably higher” than the set temperature to merely being “higher” than the set temperature encompasses the following information:
At a previous time, the controller determined that the room temperature was greater than the set temperature by a degree that is defined as “considerable”
At this previous time, the controller controlled the compressor to operate according to Zone 1 control based on the above determination
At a current time, the controller has determined that the room temperature is greater than the set point temperature but not by the degree defined as “considerable”
At this current time, the controller determines to control the compressor to operate according to Zone 2 control based on the above determination, Zone 2 including a lower compressor capacity and a shorter update interval.
The determination (4) taken in light of the previous determination (2) is, in function, a determination that the previous higher demand has been reduced and no longer calls for the previously-set high compressor output, and thus represents a determination that this previously-set compressor output is “high with respect to the air conditioning load” and permits the reduction represented by the transition to zone 2.
For this reason, the finding that Yamashita teaches the limitations of claim 1, including the two conditions for the shortening of the update interval is maintained and applicant’s argument that these conditions are not both taught is not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights