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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 17th, 2025.
Claims 1-5 will be examined.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for minor typographical issues. The language of the Abstract should be corrected to read “when a first time has elapsed” and “when a second time longer than the first time has elapsed”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 7 should read “when a first time has elapsed”
Claim 1, lines 8-9 should read “when a second time longer than the first time has elapsed”
Claim 1 ends with a period and then recites equations (1) and (2) thereafter. This is improper claim syntax. The Examiner respectfully recommends that Applicant amend the final lines of Claim 1 to instead recite:
“current value of the motor[[.]], wherein equation (1) and equation (2) are as follows:
I1 < I1limit and I2 > I2limit (1)
I1 > I1limit and I2 > I2limit (2).”
Claim 5, line 3 should read “a ratio of a number of times”
Claim 5, line 4 should read “a number of times of starting of the motor”
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 1-5 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, lines 10-11 recite the limitation “make a notification in a different mode between a case where a following equation (1) is established and a case where a following equation (2) is established”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the required functionality of the invention cannot be discerned. In this case, it is not clear what is meant by “make a notification in a different mode between” two different cases. Initially, while the phrase “different mode” implies the existence of some other “mode”, there is no “mode” previously recited in the claim language, and thus, the phrase “different mode” renders the claim indefinite because the number of “modes” required in the recited invention is not made clear. Second, the phrasing “make a notification in a different mode between” two different cases is indefinite because it is not clear how the term “between” is defining the phasing “make a notification”. As far as the examiner understands the invention, paragraphs 56-71 describe how the control device will provide one of two different notifications depending on which abnormal current waveform condition is met. In other words, the specification makes clear that one of multiple notifications is provided depending on the detected current value of the motor. However, the phasing of the claim recites only a single notification for two “cases”. In other words, it is not clear whether the claim requires 1) a single notification for both recited cases or 2) a respective notification provided for each recited case. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be clearly and definitively determined, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted the limitation as simply requiring the control device to be configured to generate a respective notification based on which of the two claimed equations is established.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are found to be provisionally allowable, pending Applicant overcoming all of the above-noted issues.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the best available prior art fails to disclose a compressor having a motor, a current sensor that detects a current value of the motor, and a control device that controls the motor, wherein the control device is configured to compute, through the current sensor, a current value I of the motor at a point in time when a first time has elapsed from a start of the motor and a current value of the motor at a point in time when a second time longer than the first time has elapsed from the start of the motor, and make a notification in a different mode between a case where a following equation (1) is established and a case where a following equation (2) is established for a first threshold value I1limit that is smaller than a current value obtained at the start of the motor and larger than a rated current value of the motor and a second threshold value I2limit that is smaller than the first threshold value and larger than the rated current value of the motor, wherein equation (1) and equation (2) are as follows:
I1 < I1limit and I2 > I2limit (1)
I1 > I1limit and I2 > I2limit (2).
The best available prior art is:
US 2015/0345490 to Bremeier et al.
JP 2022-28644 to Kobori et al.
US 2020/0217895 to Kanemaru et al.
Bremeier is considered to be the most relevant prior art document, and discloses a compressor (Figs. 2-4C) comprising: a compressor body (400) that compresses gas (“air”; Abstract); a motor (500) that drives the compressor body (Fig. 4A; para. 166); a control device (900) that controls the motor (paras. 166, 169, 180); and a current sensor (para. 188) that detects a current value of the motor. However, Bremeier is silent towards the control device being configured to compute, through the current sensor, a current value I1 of the motor at a point in time when first time has elapsed from a start of the motor and a current value I2 of the motor at a point in time when second time longer than the first time has elapsed from the start of the motor, and make a notification in a different mode between a case where the recited equation (1) is established and a case where the recited equation (2) is established for a first threshold value Limit that is smaller than a current value obtained at the start of the motor and larger than a rated current value of the motor and a second threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value and larger than the rated current value of the motor, as claimed.
Kobori provides a similarly relevant prior art document that discloses a compressor (1; Fig. 1) comprising: a compressor body (10) that compresses gas (“refrigerant”; para. 123); a motor (20) that drives the compressor body (Fig. 1; para. 124); a control device (40) that controls the motor (paras. 125-131); and a current sensor (401; Fig. 3; paras. 147-148) that detects a current value of the motor (“current detection signal”; Fig. 3). However, Kobori is silent towards the control device being configured to compute, through the current sensor, a current value I1 of the motor at a point in time when first time has elapsed from a start of the motor and a current value I2 of the motor at a point in time when second time longer than the first time has elapsed from the start of the motor, and make a notification in a different mode between a case where the recited equation (1) is established and a case where the recited equation (2) is established for a first threshold value Limit that is smaller than a current value obtained at the start of the motor and larger than a rated current value of the motor and a second threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value and larger than the rated current value of the motor, as claimed.
Kanemaru discloses another electric motor control/monitoring apparatus for monitoring current levels of the motor, but Kanemaru fails to remedy the many deficiencies of Bremeier and Kobori.
Applicant’s specification (at paras. 56-71) makes clear that by sending a notification based on which of the two particularly recited equations (1) & (2) is met, a user of the compressor can be more precisely alerted to the prevailing abnormality/issue occurring in the compressor, whether that be a power supply issue, a compressor issue, a delivery valve issue, or the like. The best available art fails to disclose as much.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC