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 Status
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are pending. Claims 5 and 15 have been canceled. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 have been amended. By virtue of dependency, the claim scope of all pending claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 03/06/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 01/14/2026 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the pending the indefiniteness claims below, the relative terms are indefinite as there is now range or proximity defined within the claims or a separate definition provided by the applicant in the original disclosure regarding the term “about.”
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 7 and 17 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.
The term “about” in claims 7 and1 7 is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear and indefinite as to how many or how much less the revolutions per minute are in the limitations of the claims.
For purposes of examination the limitations in both claims 7 and 17 are interpreted to be exact (i.e., “100 revolutions per minute” and “less than 6,000 revolutions per minute”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US 2022/0333811 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bailey,” in view of Mowris et al. (US 2019/0195523 A1), hereafter referred to as “Mowris,” and Agrawal et al. (US 2006/0130504 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agrawal.”
Regarding Claim 1: Bailey teaches an air conditioning system (10) comprising: a refrigeration loop (48) comprising an indoor heat exchanger (40) and an outdoor heat exchanger (30); a compressor (34) operably coupled to the refrigeration loop (48) and being configured to urge refrigerant through the refrigeration loop (paragraph [0033]), wherein the compressor (34) is a variable speed compressor (paragraph [0027]); an indoor fan (42) operable to urge an inlet flow of indoor air through the indoor heat exchanger (40, see Figure 7, paragraph [0031]); an auxiliary fan (102) operable to urge an outdoor makeup air flow to combine with the inlet flow to produce a mixed discharge air flow (paragraph [0038]); and a controller (64) operably coupled to the compressor (34, paragraph [0033]), the indoor fan (42 [0033]), and the auxiliary fan (102, paragraph [0043]), the controller (42) being configured to: operate the compressor (34) at a first compressor speed (compressor is variable speed, paragraph [0027]); operate the indoor fan (42) at a first indoor fan speed (compressor is variable speed, paragraph [0030]); operate the auxiliary fan (102) at a first auxiliary fan speed (at some speed to draw air into 10, paragraph [0038]); determine a temperature of the inlet flow of indoor air (via indoor sensor 120).
Bailey fails to teach to determine a temperature of the mixed discharge air flow; determine that a temperature differential between the inlet flow temperature and the mixed discharge flow temperature deviates from a predetermined range; and implement a responsive action in response to determining the temperature differential deviates from the predetermined range, wherein implementing the responsive action comprises increasing the first compressor speed to a second compressor speed.
Mowris teaches to determine a temperature of a mixed discharge air flow (via T2, 62); determine that a temperature differential between an inlet flow temperature (sensed by T1, 60) and the mixed discharge flow temperature (sensed by T2, 62) deviates from a predetermined range (paragraph [0061]); and implement a responsive action in response to determining the temperature differential deviates from the predetermined range (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system to determine a temperature of the mixed discharge air flow; determine that a temperature differential between the inlet flow temperature and the mixed discharge flow temperature deviates from a predetermined range; and implement a responsive action in response to determining the temperature differential deviates from the predetermined range to the structure of Bailey as taught by Mowris in order to advantageously provide automated control of the fans based on sensed temperature readings (see Mowris, paragraph [0061]).
Agrawal teaches implementing a responsive action comprises increasing a first compressor speed to a second compressor speed (paragraphs [0049], [0074], and [0079], claims 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein implementing the responsive action comprises increasing the first compressor speed to a second compressor speed to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Agrawal in order to advantageously provide different capacities based on the demands of the areas being conditioned (see Agrawal, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 2: Bailey teaches further comprising: an inlet temperature sensor (120) in operable communication with the controller (64) and positioned in the inlet flow of indoor air (see Figure 7).
Bailey modified supra fails to teach a discharge temperature sensor in operable communication with the controller and positioned in the mixed discharge air flow; wherein the inlet temperature sensor communicates to the controller an inlet air temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of the inlet air flow; the discharge temperature sensor communicates to the controller a discharge air temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of the mixed discharge air flow; and the controller determines the temperature differential from the inlet air temperature signal and the discharge air temperature signal.
Mowris teaches a discharge temperature sensor (T2, 62) in operable communication with a controller (47, 52) and positioned in a mixed discharge air flow (flow into 56); wherein an inlet temperature sensor (T1) communicates to the controller (47, 52) an inlet air temperature signal (via T1, 60) corresponding to a temperature of the inlet air flow (air into 54); the discharge temperature sensor (T2, 62) communicates to the controller (52) a discharge air temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of the mixed discharge air flow (paragraph [0098]); and the controller (47, 52) determines the temperature differential from the inlet air temperature signal and the discharge air temperature signal (paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a discharge temperature sensor in operable communication with the controller and positioned in the mixed discharge air flow; wherein the inlet temperature sensor communicates to the controller an inlet air temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of the inlet air flow; the discharge temperature sensor communicates to the controller a discharge air temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of the mixed discharge air flow; and the controller determines the temperature differential from the inlet air temperature signal and the discharge air temperature signal to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Mowris in order to advantageously provide automated control of the fans based on sensed temperature readings (see Mowris, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 3: Bailey modified supra fails to teach wherein determining the temperature differential comprises subtracting the temperature of the mixed discharge air flow from the temperature of the inlet air flow.
Mowris teaches determining a temperature differential comprises subtracting a temperature of mixed discharge air flow (T2, 62) from a temperature of an inlet air flow (T1, 60, paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein determining the temperature differential comprises subtracting the temperature of the mixed discharge air flow from the temperature of the inlet air flow to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Mowris in order to advantageously provide automated control of the fans based on sensed temperature readings (see Mowris, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 4: Bailey teaches wherein inlet temperature sensor (120) is positioned in the inlet flow of indoor air upstream of the indoor heat exchanger (paragraph [0043], see Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 9: Bailey modified supra fails to teach further comprising: a damper positioned in the outdoor makeup air flow, the damper movable between a first position allowing a flow of outdoor makeup air and a second position blocking the flow of outdoor makeup air; and wherein implementing the responsive action comprises moving the damper to the second position.
Mowris teaches a damper (90) positioned in outdoor makeup air flow (intake into 85), the damper movable between a first position allowing a flow of outdoor makeup air and a second position blocking the flow of outdoor makeup air (paragraph [0085]); and wherein implementing a responsive action comprises moving the damper to the second position (paragraph [0085], Figures 10, 11, 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a damper positioned in the outdoor makeup air flow, the damper movable between a first position allowing a flow of outdoor makeup air and a second position blocking the flow of outdoor makeup air; and wherein implementing the responsive action comprises moving the damper to the second position to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Mowris in order to advantageously block intake air entering the system based on monitored operating mode and conditions of the indoor space (see Mowris, paragraph [0085]).
Regarding Claim 10: Bailey teaches a cooling mode (paragraph [0026]) and a heating mode (paragraphs [0026], [0032] and [0040]) and a supplemental heat source (44); and wherein implementing the responsive action in the heating mode comprises energizing the supplemental heat source (paragraphs [0032] and [0040]).
Bailey modified supra fails to teach comprising: a reversing valve fluidly coupled to the refrigeration loop and selectively movable between a first position corresponding to a cooling mode and a second position corresponding to a heating mode.
Mowris teaches a reversing valve (43) fluidly coupled to a refrigeration loop and selectively movable between a first position corresponding to a cooling mode and a second position corresponding to a heating mode (paragraph [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a reversing valve fluidly coupled to the refrigeration loop and selectively movable between a first position corresponding to a cooling mode and a second position corresponding to a heating mode to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Mowris in order to advantageously reverse flow of refrigerant to provide both indoor cooling and heating with the same air-conditioning system (see Mowris, paragraph [0095]).
Regarding Claim 11: Bailey teaches a method of operating an air conditioning system (10) comprising a refrigeration loop (48) comprising an indoor heat exchanger (40), an outdoor heat exchanger (30), a variable speed compressor (34, paragraph [0027]) configured to urge refrigerant through the refrigeration loop (48, paragraph [0025]), an indoor fan (42) operable to urge an inlet flow of indoor air through the indoor heat exchanger (paragraph [0031]), and an auxiliary fan (102) operable to urge an outdoor makeup air flow to combine with the inlet flow to produce a mixed discharge air flow (paragraph [0038]), the method comprising: operating the compressor (34) at a first compressor speed (paragraph [0027]); operating the indoor fan (32) at a first indoor fan speed (paragraph [0030]); operating the auxiliary fan (102) at a first auxiliary fan speed (at some speed to draw air into 10, paragraph [0038]); determining a temperature of the inlet flow of indoor air (via indoor sensor 120).
Bailey fails to teach determining a temperature of the mixed discharge air flow; determining that a temperature differential between the inlet flow temperature and the mixed discharge flow temperature deviates from a predetermined range; and implementing a responsive action in response to determining the temperature differential deviates from the predetermined range, wherein implementing the responsive action comprises increasing the first compressor speed to a second compressor speed.
Mowris teaches to determining a temperature of a mixed discharge air flow (via T2, 62); determining that a temperature differential between an inlet flow temperature (sensed by T1, 60) and the mixed discharge flow temperature (sensed by T2, 62) deviates from a predetermined range (paragraph [0061]); and implementing a responsive action in response to determining the temperature differential deviates from the predetermined range (paragraph [0061]) determine a temperature of a mixed discharge air flow (via T2, 62); determine that a temperature differential between an inlet flow temperature (sensed by T1, 60) and the mixed discharge flow temperature (sensed by T2, 62) deviates from a predetermined range (paragraph [0061]); and implement a responsive action in response to determining the temperature differential deviates from the predetermined range (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided determining a temperature of the mixed discharge air flow; determining that a temperature differential between the inlet flow temperature and the mixed discharge flow temperature deviates from a predetermined range; and implementing a responsive action in response to determining the temperature differential deviates from the predetermined range to the structure of Bailey as taught by Mowris in order to advantageously provide automated control of the fans based on sensed temperature readings (see Mowris, paragraph [0061]).
Agrawal teaches implementing a responsive action comprises increasing a first compressor speed to a second compressor speed (paragraphs [0049], [0074], and [0079], claims 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein implementing the responsive action comprises increasing the first compressor speed to a second compressor speed to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Agrawal in order to advantageously provide different capacities based on the demands of the areas being conditioned (see Agrawal, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 12: Bailey modified supra fails to teach wherein determining the temperature differential between the inlet flow temperature and the discharge flow temperature comprises: receiving an inlet air temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of the inlet air flow; receiving a discharge air temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of the mixed discharge air flow; and determining the temperature differential from the inlet air temperature signal and the discharge air temperature signal.
Mowris teaches wherein determining a temperature differential between an inlet flow temperature (sensed by T1, 60) and a discharge flow temperature (sensed by T2, 62) comprises: receiving an inlet air temperature signal (sensed by T1, 60) corresponding to a temperature of an inlet air flow (sensed by T1, 60); receiving a discharge air temperature signal (sensed by T2, 62) corresponding to a temperature of a mixed discharge air flow (sensed by T2, 62); and determining the temperature differential from the inlet air temperature signal and the discharge air temperature signal (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein determining the temperature differential between the inlet flow temperature and the discharge flow temperature comprises: receiving an inlet air temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of the inlet air flow; receiving a discharge air temperature signal corresponding to a temperature of the mixed discharge air flow; and determining the temperature differential from the inlet air temperature signal and the discharge air temperature signal to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Mowris in order to advantageously provide automated control of the fans based on sensed temperature readings (see Mowris, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 13: Bailey further teaches wherein: the inlet air temperature signal is received from a temperature sensor (120) positioned in the inlet flow of indoor air (see Figure 7).
Bailey modified supra fails to teach the discharge air temperature signal is received from a discharge temperature senor positioned in the mixed discharge air flow.
Mowris teaches a discharge air temperature signal (paragraphs [0098]-[0099]) is received from a discharge temperature senor (T2, 62) positioned in a mixed discharge air flow (exiting 53 into 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the discharge air temperature signal is received from a discharge temperature senor positioned in the mixed discharge air flow to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Mowris in order to advantageously provide automated control of the fans based on sensed temperature in the alternative to manual settings (see Mowris, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 14: Bailey modified supra fails to teach wherein determining the temperature differential comprises subtracting the temperature of the mixed discharge air flow from the temperature of the inlet air flow.
Mowris teaches determining a temperature differential comprises subtracting a temperature of mixed discharge air flow (T2, 62) from a temperature of an inlet air flow (T1, 60, paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein determining the temperature differential comprises subtracting the temperature of the mixed discharge air flow from the temperature of the inlet air flow to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Mowris in order to advantageously provide automated control of the fans based on sensed temperature readings (see Mowris, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 19: Bailey modified supra fails to teach wherein: the air conditioning system further comprises a damper positioned in the outdoor makeup air flow, the damper movable between a first position allowing a flow of outdoor makeup air and a second position blocking the flow of outdoor makeup air; and implementing the responsive action comprises moving the damper to the second position.
Mowris teaches an air conditioning system further comprises a damper (90) positioned in outdoor makeup air flow (intake into 85), the damper movable between a first position allowing a flow of outdoor makeup air and a second position blocking the flow of outdoor makeup air (paragraph [0085]); and implementing a responsive action comprises moving the damper to the second position (paragraph [0085], Figures 10, 11, 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein: the air conditioning system further comprises a damper positioned in the outdoor makeup air flow, the damper movable between a first position allowing a flow of outdoor makeup air and a second position blocking the flow of outdoor makeup air; and implementing the responsive action comprises moving the damper to the second position to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Mowris in order to advantageously block intake air entering the system based on monitored operating mode and conditions of the indoor space (see Mowris, paragraph [0085]).
Regarding Claim 20: Bailey teaches wherein: the air conditioning system (10) further comprises: a cooling mode (paragraph [0026]) and a heating mode (paragraphs [0026], [0032] and [0040]) and a supplemental heat source (44); and wherein implementing the responsive action in the heating mode comprises energizing the supplemental heat source (paragraphs [0032] and [0040]).
Bailey modified supra fails to teach comprising: a reversing valve fluidly coupled to the refrigeration loop and selectively movable between a first position corresponding to a cooling mode and a second position corresponding to a heating mode.
Mowris teaches a reversing valve (43) fluidly coupled to a refrigeration loop and selectively movable between a first position corresponding to a cooling mode and a second position corresponding to a heating mode (paragraph [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a reversing valve fluidly coupled to the refrigeration loop and selectively movable between a first position corresponding to a cooling mode and a second position corresponding to a heating mode to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Mowris in order to advantageously reverse flow of refrigerant to provide both indoor cooling and heating with the same air-conditioning system (see Mowris, paragraph [0095]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US 2022/0333811 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bailey,” in view of Mowris et al. (US 2019/0195523 A1), hereafter referred to as “Mowris,” and Agrawal et al. (US 2006/0130504 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agrawal,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cluff (US 2020/0224947 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: Bailey modified supra fails to teach wherein the first compressor speed is increased at a predetermined compressor ramp-up rate.
Cluff teaches a first compressor speed is increased at a predetermined compressor ramp-up rate (paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first compressor speed is increased at a predetermined compressor ramp-up rate to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Cluff in order to advantageously provide a slower warm up speed of the compressor in the start-up to prevent damage (see Cluff, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 7: Bailey modified supra fails to teach wherein: the predetermined compressor ramp-up rate is about 100 revolutions per minute per minute; and the second compressor speed is less than about 6,000 revolutions per minute.
Cluff teaches a predetermined compressor ramp-up rate is a lower revolutions per minute per minute; and the second compressor speed is a greater revolutions per minute (see Cluff, paragraph [0038]).
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 predetermined compressor ramp-up rate is about 100 revolutions per minute per minute; and the second compressor speed is less than about 6,000 revolutions per minute in order to achieve efficient operation of the system of Bailey modified supra as taught by Cluff in order to advantageously provide a slower warm up speed of the compressor in the start-up to prevent damage (see Cluff, paragraph [0003]). Furthermore, the ranges claim are recognized by the Examiner to be very broad ranges, and ranges that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US 2022/0333811 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bailey,” in view of Mowris et al. (US 2019/0195523 A1), hereafter referred to as “Mowris,” and Agrawal et al. (US 2006/0130504 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agrawal,” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patel et al. (US 2020/0278128 A1), hereafter referred to as “Patel.”
Regarding Claim 8: Bailey modified supra fails to teach wherein: the auxiliary fan is a variable speed fan; and implementing the responsive action comprises decreasing the first auxiliary fan speed to a second auxiliary fan speed.
Patel teaches wherein: an auxiliary fan is a variable speed fan (paragraph [0013]); and implementing a responsive action comprises decreasing a first auxiliary fan speed to a second auxiliary fan speed (paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein: the auxiliary fan is a variable speed fan; and implementing the responsive action comprises decreasing the first auxiliary fan speed to a second auxiliary fan speed to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Patel in order to advantageously provide a change in fan speed depending on the air flow rate needed to be added to the air-conditioner intake (see Patel, paragraph [0017]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US 2022/0333811 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bailey,” in view of Mowris et al. (US 2019/0195523 A1), hereafter referred to as “Mowris,” and Agrawal et al. (US 2006/0130504 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agrawal,” as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chuff (US 2020/0224947 A1).
Regarding Claim 16: Bailey modified supra fails to teach wherein the first compressor speed is increased at a predetermined ramp-up rate.
Cluff teaches a first compressor speed is increased at a predetermined compressor ramp-up rate (paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first compressor speed is increased at a predetermined compressor ramp-up rate to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Cluff in order to advantageously provide a slower warm up speed of the compressor in the start-up to prevent damage (see Cluff, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 17: Bailey modified supra fails to teach wherein: the predetermined ramp-up rate is about 100 revolutions per minute per minute; and the second compressor speed is less than about 6,000 revolutions per minute.
Cluff teaches a predetermined compressor ramp-up rate is a lower revolutions per minute per minute; and the second compressor speed is a greater revolutions per minute (see Cluff, paragraph [0038]).
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 predetermined ramp-up rate is about 100 revolutions per minute per minute; and the second compressor speed is less than about 6,000 revolutions per minute in order to achieve efficient operation of the system of Bailey modified supra as taught by Cluff in order to advantageously provide a slower warm up speed of the compressor in the start-up to prevent damage (see Cluff, paragraph [0003]). Furthermore, the ranges are recognized by the Examiner to be very broad ranges, and ranges that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and 2144.05 I, II A and B.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (US 2022/0333811 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bailey,” in view of Mowris et al. (US 2019/0195523 A1), hereafter referred to as “Mowris,” and Agrawal et al. (US 2006/0130504 A1), hereafter referred to as “Agrawal,” as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Patel et al. (US 2020/0278128 A1), hereafter referred to as “Patel.”
Regarding Claim 18: Bailey modified supra fails to teach wherein: the auxiliary fan is a variable speed fan; and implementing the responsive action comprises decreasing the first auxiliary fan speed to a second auxiliary fan speed.
Patel teaches wherein: an auxiliary fan is a variable speed fan (paragraph [0013]); and implementing a responsive action comprises decreasing a first auxiliary fan speed to a second auxiliary fan speed (paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein: the auxiliary fan is a variable speed fan; and implementing the responsive action comprises decreasing the first auxiliary fan speed to a second auxiliary fan speed to the structure of Bailey modified supra as taught by Patel in order to advantageously provide a change in fan speed depending on the air flow rate needed to be added to the air-conditioner intake (see Patel, paragraph [0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harmon (5,080,282).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights