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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/479,450, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claimed limitation (especially in claims 1, 7 and 11), "controller configured to… repeatedly determine whether the compartment temperature rises sharply and increment an expected door open count if the determined compartment temperature rises sharply " is not supported by the disclosure of the parent application (17/479,450).
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/479,450, filed 9/20/2021, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation, "controller configured to… repeatedly determine whether the compartment temperature rises sharply and increment an expected door open count if the determined compartment temperature rises sharply" in claims 1, 7, and 11 is not supported by the original disclosure. The original disclosure mentions a figure (figure 6) shows compartment temperature rising fairly sharply during and shortly following an actual door opening (paragraphs 17-20, specification); however, there is no support for a controller programmed to determine sharp rise in compartment temperature and set the expected door open count based on the sharp rise in temperature.
Equating repeated calculation of first derivative to repeated determination of sharply rising compartment temperature is a false equivalency, not supported by the original disclosure. The written description support for repeated calculation, by the controller, of first derivative of the compartment temperature and in response to the rise of the first derivative above a set threshold, increment approximated/predicted door open count; can not substitute for a written description support for a repeated calculation/determination, by the controller of sharply rising compartment temperature and incrementing a predicted door count based on sharply rising temperature because there is not written description support for the sharply rising compartment temperature being equivalent to the first derivative and no written description support for any other methods/steps by a controller configured to repeatedly determine sharply rising compartment temperature (see paragraphs 19-20, specification). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6, 8-10 and 12-14 are also rejected by virtue of being dependent upon the rejected base claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders (US 2019/0257567 A1) and in view of Polkinghorne (US 4,879,878 A) and further in view of Wagner (US 2007/0214812 A1) and Park (US 2021/0207884 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Sanders discloses a refrigerated device (refrigerator, see paragraphs 1-3), comprising: a compartment (20) including an access door (26); a refrigeration circuit (10) for cooling the compartment (via evaporator 18, see fig. 1), the refrigeration circuit including an evaporator coil (18, 21) with an associated evaporator fan (22) and a condenser (14, 11) with an associated condenser fan (25); a door sensor (34) positioned for identifying an open condition of the access door (see paragraph 16); a temperature sensor (42, 36) for indicating a compartment temperature within the compartment (see fig. 1 and paragraph 18); a controller (50, see fig. 1 and paragraph 19) configured to:
(i) repeatedly monitor the compartment temperature indicated by the temperature sensor (controller 50 continuously monitors temperature measured by sensors 36, 42, see paragraphs 31 and 20),
wherein the sharp rise in compartment temperature is also a function of increments of door open count (which is inherent for a refrigerator, because when the door of the refrigerator/compartment opens at least once and increments the door open count to one, cooling escapes from refrigerator compartments with opening of the door(s) and the temperature within the refrigerated compartment rises with every door opening), and
the controller is configured to set/approximate/establish/expect/predict door open count (see below annotated fig. 4, where the controller 50 is programmed to set/expect the door open counts to less than 5, equal to 5 or more than 5 door openings, see paragraphs 30-33) based on the repeated temperature rising as the region changes (door opening of less than 5, withing region 1, and door opening of equal to or greater than 5, withing regions 2 and 3, see fig. 4; Also see the expected/predicted door opening count increase in below annotated fig. 4, where expected door open count depends on the rising compartment temperature because temperature and humidity increase due to frequent door openings, which moves the operation region form region 1 to/towards region 3, see figs. 2, 4 and paragraphs 32-33), and wherein the temperature is associated with the door open count (door count changes based on temperature point P falling within different temperature regions 1-3, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 16, and 32-33); and
(ii) repeatedly monitor the temperature of the compartment surrounding (via sensor 40, see paragraph 23) in order to approximate the location of point P on the psychometric chart which indicates the amount of moisture in the air surrounding/within the compartment (see paragraphs 27 and 30);
(iii) monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count (door sensor switch 34 monitors number of door openings, which are equal to 5, see fig. 4),
(iv) compare the predicted/expected door open count with the door sensor based door open count (comparing number of door openings sensed by the door sensor to the number of door openings less than, equal to or greater than 5, where it is expected that the door has opened more often based on the rise in temperature because refrigerated compartment door opening(s) increase(s) temperature of the refrigerated compartment, see expectation of higher door count with increase in temperature as associated with temperature regions 1-3, see fig. 4 and paragraph 33); and
(v) take a control action based upon a result of the comparison (extending or reducing the defrost interval based on the comparison of door openings with the data point, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33). Sanders also teaches that the humidity measurement is affected by the opening of the door because the ambient air surrounding the cooled compartment carries the water vapor to the door or compartment via open doors over a period of time (see paragraphs 16-18, 21, and 4-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
175
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sanders does not explicitly teach that determined door opening is associated with sharp temperature rise; the predicted door opening considers door opening and sharp temperature rise; and the door sensor malfunction is determined based on door opening comparison.
Polkinghorne teaches defrost control system for a refrigerated device (see fig. 1) with a controller (computer 20) configured to
(i) repeatedly monitor the compartment temperature indicated by the temperature sensor (computer 20 collects compartment temperature via temperature sensors 507, see fig. 1),
(iii) monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count (door switches 60, 61 to measure door opening time and number of times door opened, see fig. 1; col. 12, lines 55-60; and col. 13, line 55 – col. 14, line 8),
(iv) compare the expected/predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count (comparing door switch sensed door opening count with the expected/set door count of five or more within a time period, see col. 14, lines 44-55),
(v) determine that there is malfunction based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected/predicted door open count (based on the door opening count exceeding a set door open count, the controller 20 enters a diagnostic routine to check whether all components are operating within specification, see col. 14, line 44 – col. 15, line 10), and
(vi) take a control action based upon the discrepancy (based on the door opening count exceeding a set door open count, the controller 20 initiates compressor operation, then fan and reassess the temperature gradient withing food and freezer compartments, see col. 14, line 50 – col. 15, line 10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Sanders to monitor the compartment temperature and door opening count based on temperature sensor and door sensor, respectively; compare set/expected door open count to the door sensor based door open count; determine malfunction based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected/predicted door open count; and take a control action based upon the discrepancy based on the teachings of Polkinghorne in order to allow the serviceman to have access to all control parameters affected by the door opening cycle and reset by the computer chip for future maintenance and accurate operation of the refrigerator.
Sanders also does not explicitly teach that malfunction is associated with the door sensor.
However, Wanger teaches a refrigeration system with door sensing (see abstract) with a controller (controller 416) configured to
(iii) monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count (door monitoring system 400 configured to determine if the door is open, see paragraphs 35-36),
(iv) compare the expected/predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count (compare if both the fiber optic cables detect door open state, see paragraph 36),
(v) determine that the door open sensor is malfunctioning based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected/predicted door open count (determine a faulty fiber optic door sensor cable based on the door open condition not matching the sensed state, see paragraph 36, 30), and
(vi) take a control action based upon the discrepancy (open door condition indicator 420 produces audible and/or visual signal when fault is detected, see paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Sanders as modified to monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count; compare the expected/predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count; determine that the door open sensor is malfunctioning based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected door open count; and take a control action based upon the discrepancy based on the teachings of Wanger in order to take an accurate remedial step during maintenance based on the exact cause of sensing system failure such as door sensing detecting opening or closing condition irrespective of the actual door opening or closing states.
Sanders is silent about the determination of door opening being associated with sharp temperature rise.
However, Park teaches a refrigerator control method (see abstract) including a controller (300) configured to determine the door opening/closing pattern (see paragraph 13); and determine predicted door opening and closing pattern based on the actual door opening and closing cycles over a period of time (see paragraphs 92, 109), wherein the repeated opening and closing of the compartment doors indicates rapid increase in temperature of the storage space (see paragraph 111), and the predictive door opening and closing model patterns the model based on the repeated opening and closing of the door, which causes/establishes a rapid increase in temperature of the storage space (see paragraph 111).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Sanders as modified to set the expected/predicted door open count in the controller program by repeatedly determining whether the compartment temperature rises sharply by observing door opening and closing within a short time and adjusting/incrementing an expected/predicted door open count if it is determined that the compartment temperature rises sharply based on the teachings of Park in order to avoid inefficient operation of the refrigerator, in the future, by preemptively lowering the temperature of storage space by controlling the driving of the compressor (see paragraphs 25-26, Park).
In regards to claim 2, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the controller is configured to take a control action if the discrepancy is above a set threshold (extending or reducing the defrost interval based on the door openings being above the data point of 5 or more, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33).
In regards to claim 3, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the discrepancy is the expected/predicted door open count being greater than the door sensor based door open count by a set number (comparison of door openings with the data point of 5, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33; wherein the door openings in region 3 would be at least 1 opening above the data point of 5, see fig. 4 and paragraph 33).
In regards to claim 4, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the control action is changing a logic used for establishing when to initiate a defrost operation (by extending or reducing the defrost interval based on the comparison of door openings with the data point, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33).
In regards to claim 5, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the control action is setting a duration for running a condensate pan heater (frequency of the condensate pan heater 15 is set based on the point P falling into Regions 1 to 3, see paragraph 36 and fig. 6).
In regards to claim 6, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the controller is configured to compare the predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count by
(i) determining a difference between the predicted door open count and the door sensor based door open count (comparing the door opening number with the door opening data point of 5 to determine if the difference is above zero for Region 3 or below zero for Region 1, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33)
or
(ii) determining a ratio between the predicted door open count and the door sensor based door open count (this is an alternative limitation, which is not required by the claim).
In regards to claim 7, Sanders discloses a refrigerated device (refrigerator, see paragraphs 1-3), comprising: a compartment (20) including an access door (26); a refrigeration circuit (10) for cooling the compartment (via evaporator 18, see fig. 1); a door sensor (34) positioned for identifying an open condition of the access door (see paragraph 16); a temperature sensor (42, 36) for indicating a compartment temperature within the compartment (see fig. 1 and paragraph 18); a controller (50, see fig. 1 and paragraph 19) configured to:
(i) repeatedly monitor the compartment temperature indicated by the temperature sensor (controller 50 continuously monitors temperature measured by sensors 36, 42, see paragraphs 31 and 20),
wherein the sharp rise in compartment temperature is also a function of increments of door open count (which is inherent for a refrigerator, because when the door of the refrigerator/compartment opens at least once and increments the door open count to one, cooling escapes from refrigerator compartments with opening of the door(s) and the temperature within the refrigerated compartment rises with every door opening), and
the controller is configured to set/approximate/establish/expect/predict door open count (see below annotated fig. 4, where the controller 50 is programmed to set/expect the door open counts to less than 5, equal to 5 or more than 5 door openings, see paragraphs 30-33) based on the repeated temperature rising as the region changes (door opening of less than 5, withing region 1, and door opening of equal to or greater than 5, withing regions 2 and 3, see fig. 4; Also see the expected/predicted door opening count increase in below annotated fig. 4, where expected door open count depends on the rising compartment temperature because temperature and humidity increase due to frequent door openings, which moves the operation region form region 1 to/towards region 3, see figs. 2, 4 and paragraphs 32-33), and wherein the temperature is associated with the door open count (door count changes based on temperature point P falling within different temperature regions 1-3, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 16, and 32-33); and
(ii) repeatedly monitor the temperature of the compartment surrounding (via sensor 40, see paragraph 23) in order to approximate the location of point P on the psychometric chart which indicates the amount of moisture in the air surrounding/within the compartment (see paragraphs 27 and 30);
(iii) monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count (door sensor switch 34 monitors number of door openings, which are equal to 5, see fig. 4),
(iv) compare the predicted/expected door open count with the door sensor based door open count (comparing number of door openings sensed by the door sensor to the number of door openings less than, equal to or greater than 5, where it is expected that the door has opened more often based on the rise in temperature because refrigerated compartment door opening(s) increase(s) temperature of the refrigerated compartment, see expectation of higher door count with increase in temperature as associated with temperature regions 1-3, see fig. 4 and paragraph 33); and
(v) take a control action based upon a result of the comparison (extending or reducing the defrost interval based on the comparison of door openings with the data point, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33). Sanders also teaches that the humidity measurement is affected by the opening of the door because the ambient air surrounding the cooled compartment carries the water vapor to the door or compartment via open doors over a period of time (see paragraphs 16-18, 21, and 4-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
175
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sanders does not explicitly teach that determined door opening is associated with sharp temperature rise; the predicted door opening considers door opening and sharp temperature rise; and the door sensor malfunction is determined based on door opening comparison.
Polkinghorne teaches defrost control system for a refrigerated device (see fig. 1) with a controller (computer 20) configured to
(i) monitor the compartment temperature indicated by the temperature sensor (computer 20 collects compartment temperature via temperature sensors 507, see fig. 1),
(iii) monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count (door switches 60, 61 to measure door opening time and number of times door opened, see fig. 1; col. 12, lines 55-60; and col. 13, line 55 – col. 14, line 8),
(iv) compare the expected/predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count (comparing door switch sensed door opening count with the expected/set door count of five or more within a time period, see col. 14, lines 44-55),
(v) determine that there is malfunction based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected/predicted door open count (based on the door opening count exceeding a set door open count, the controller 20 enters a diagnostic routine to check whether all components are operating within specification, see col. 14, line 44 – col. 15, line 10), and
(vi) take a control action based upon the discrepancy (based on the door opening count exceeding a set door open count, the controller 20 initiates compressor operation, then fan and reassess the temperature gradient withing food and freezer compartments, see col. 14, line 50 – col. 15, line 10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Sanders to monitor the compartment temperature and door opening count based on temperature sensor and door sensor, respectively; compare set/expected door open count to the door sensor based door open count; determine malfunction based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected/predicted door open count; and take a control action based upon the discrepancy based on the teachings of Polkinghorne in order to allow the serviceman to have access to all control parameters affected by the door opening cycle and reset by the computer chip for future maintenance and accurate operation of the refrigerator.
Sanders also does not explicitly teach that malfunction is associated with the door sensor.
However, Wanger teaches a refrigeration system with door sensing (see abstract) with a controller (controller 416) configured to
(iii) monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count (door monitoring system 400 configured to determine if the door is open, see paragraphs 35-36),
(iv) compare the expected/predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count (compare if both the fiber optic cables detect door open state, see paragraph 36),
(v) determine that the door open sensor is malfunctioning based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected/predicted door open count (determine a faulty fiber optic door sensor cable based on the door open condition not matching the sensed state, see paragraph 36, 30), and
(vi) take a control action based upon the discrepancy (open door condition indicator 420 produces audible and/or visual signal when fault is detected, see paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Sanders as modified to monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count; compare the expected/predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count; determine that the door open sensor is malfunctioning based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected door open count; and take a control action based upon the discrepancy based on the teachings of Wanger in order to take an accurate remedial step during maintenance based on the exact cause of sensing system failure such as door sensing detecting opening or closing condition irrespective of the actual door opening or closing states.
Sanders is silent about the determination of door opening being associated with sharp temperature rise.
However, Park teaches a refrigerator control method (see abstract) including a controller (300) configured to determine the door opening/closing pattern (see paragraph 13); and determine predicted door opening and closing pattern based on the actual door opening and closing cycles over a period of time (see paragraphs 92, 109), wherein the repeated opening and closing of the compartment doors indicates rapid increase in temperature of the storage space (see paragraph 111), and the predictive door opening and closing model patterns the model based on the repeated opening and closing of the door, which causes/establishes a rapid increase in temperature of the storage space (see paragraph 111).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Sanders as modified to set the expected door open count in the controller program by repeatedly determining whether the compartment temperature rises sharply by observing door opening and closing within a short time and adjusting/incrementing an expected/predicted door open count if it is determined that the compartment temperature rises sharply based on the teachings of Park in order to avoid inefficient operation of the refrigerator, in the future, by preemptively lowering the temperature of storage space by controlling the driving of the compressor (see paragraphs 25-26, Park).
In regards to claim 8, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches that the controller is configured to compare the predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count by
(i) determining a difference between the predicted door open count and the door sensor based door open count (comparing the door opening number with the door opening data point of 5 to determine if the difference is above zero for Region 3 or below zero for Region 1, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33)
or
(ii) determining a ratio between the predicted door open count and the door sensor based door open count (this is an alternative limitation, which is not required by the claim).
In regards to claim 9, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches that the control action is changing a logic used for establishing when to initiate a defrost operation (by extending or reducing the defrost interval based on the comparison of door openings with the data point, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33).
In regards to claim 10, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches that the control action is setting a duration for running a condensate pan heater (frequency of the condensate pan heater 15 is set based on the point P falling into Regions 1 to 3, see paragraph 36 and fig. 6).
In regards to claim 11, Sanders discloses a method of controlling a refrigerated device (refrigerator, see paragraphs 1-3) that includes a compartment (20) including an access door (26); a refrigeration circuit (10) for cooling the compartment (via evaporator 18, see fig. 1); a door sensor (34) positioned for identifying an open condition of the access door (see paragraph 16); a temperature sensor (42, 36) for indicating a compartment temperature within the compartment (see fig. 1 and paragraph 18); a controller (50, see fig. 1 and paragraph 19), the method comprising:
(i) repeatedly monitor the compartment temperature indicated by the temperature sensor (controller 50 continuously monitors temperature measured by sensors 36, 42, see paragraphs 31 and 20),
wherein the sharp rise in compartment temperature is also a function of increments of door open count (which is inherent for a refrigerator, because when the door of the refrigerator/compartment opens at least once and increments the door open count to one, cooling escapes from refrigerator compartments with opening of the door(s) and the temperature within the refrigerated compartment rises with every door opening), and
the controller is configured to set/approximate/establish/expect/predict door open count (see below annotated fig. 4, where the controller 50 is programmed to set/expect the door open counts to less than 5, equal to 5 or more than 5 door openings, see paragraphs 30-33) based on the repeated temperature rising as the region changes (door opening of less than 5, withing region 1, and door opening of equal to or greater than 5, withing regions 2 and 3, see fig. 4; Also see the expected/predicted door opening count increase in below annotated fig. 4, where expected door open count depends on the rising compartment temperature because temperature and humidity increase due to frequent door openings, which moves the operation region form region 1 to/towards region 3, see figs. 2, 4 and paragraphs 32-33), and wherein the temperature is associated with the door open count (door count changes based on temperature point P falling within different temperature regions 1-3, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 16, and 32-33); and
(ii) repeatedly monitor the temperature of the compartment surrounding (via sensor 40, see paragraph 23) in order to approximate the location of point P on the psychometric chart which indicates the amount of moisture in the air surrounding/within the compartment (see paragraphs 27 and 30);
(iii) monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count (door sensor switch 34 monitors number of door openings, which are equal to 5, see fig. 4);
(iv) compare the predicted/expected door open count with the door sensor based door open count (comparing number of door openings sensed by the door sensor to the number of door openings less than, equal to or greater than 5, where it is expected that the door has opened more often based on the rise in temperature because refrigerated compartment door opening(s) increase(s) temperature of the refrigerated compartment, see expectation of higher door count with increase in temperature as associated with temperature regions 1-3, see fig. 4 and paragraph 33); and
(v) take a control action based upon a result of the comparison (extending or reducing the defrost interval based on the comparison of door openings with the data point, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33). Sanders also teaches that the humidity measurement is affected by the opening of the door because the ambient air surrounding the cooled compartment carries the water vapor to the door or compartment via open doors over a period of time (see paragraphs 16-18, 21, and 4-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
175
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sanders does not explicitly teach that determined door opening is associated with sharp temperature rise; the predicted door opening considers door opening and sharp temperature rise; and the door sensor malfunction is determined based on door opening comparison.
Polkinghorne teaches defrost control system for a refrigerated device (see fig. 1) with a controller (computer 20) configured to
(i) repeatedly monitor the compartment temperature indicated by the temperature sensor (computer 20 collects compartment temperature via temperature sensors 507, see fig. 1),
(iii) monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count (door switches 60, 61 to measure door opening time and number of times door opened, see fig. 1; col. 12, lines 55-60; and col. 13, line 55 – col. 14, line 8),
(iv) compare the expected/predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count (comparing door switch sensed door opening count with the expected/set door count of five or more within a time period, see col. 14, lines 44-55),
(v) determine that there is malfunction based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected/predicted door open count (based on the door opening count exceeding a set door open count, the controller 20 enters a diagnostic routine to check whether all components are operating within specification, see col. 14, line 44 – col. 15, line 10), and
(vi) take a control action based upon the discrepancy (based on the door opening count exceeding a set door open count, the controller 20 initiates compressor operation, then fan and reassess the temperature gradient withing food and freezer compartments, see col. 14, line 50 – col. 15, line 10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of the method of Sanders to monitor the compartment temperature and door opening count based on temperature sensor and door sensor, respectively; compare set/expected door open count to the door sensor based door open count; determine malfunction based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected/predicted door open count; and take a control action based upon the discrepancy based on the teachings of Polkinghorne in order to allow the serviceman to have access to all control parameters affected by the door opening cycle and reset by the computer chip for future maintenance and accurate operation of the refrigerator.
Sanders also does not explicitly teach that malfunction is associated with the door sensor.
However, Wanger teaches a refrigeration system with door sensing (see abstract) with a controller (controller 416) configured to
(iii) monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count (door monitoring system 400 configured to determine if the door is open, see paragraphs 35-36),
(iv) compare the expected/predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count (compare if both the fiber optic cables detect door open state, see paragraph 36),
(v) determine that the door open sensor is malfunctioning based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected/predicted door open count (determine a faulty fiber optic door sensor cable based on the door open condition not matching the sensed state, see paragraph 36, 30), and
(vi) take a control action based upon the discrepancy (open door condition indicator 420 produces audible and/or visual signal when fault is detected, see paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of the method of Sanders as modified to monitor the door sensor to maintain a door sensor based door open count; compare the expected/predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count; determine that the door open sensor is malfunctioning based on a discrepancy between the door sensor based door open count and the expected door open count; and take a control action based upon the discrepancy based on the teachings of Wanger in order to take an accurate remedial step during maintenance based on the exact cause of sensing system failure such as door sensing detecting opening or closing condition irrespective of the actual door opening or closing states.
Sanders is silent about the determination of door opening being associated with sharp temperature rise.
However, Park teaches a refrigerator control method (see abstract) including a controller (300) configured to determine the door opening/closing pattern (see paragraph 13); and determine predicted door opening and closing pattern based on the actual door opening and closing cycles over a period of time (see paragraphs 92, 109), wherein the repeated opening and closing of the compartment doors indicates rapid increase in temperature of the storage space (see paragraph 111), and the predictive door opening and closing model patterns the model based on the repeated opening and closing of the door, which causes/establishes a rapid increase in temperature of the storage space (see paragraph 111).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of the method of Sanders as modified to set the expected door open count in the controller program by repeatedly determining whether the compartment temperature rises sharply by observing door opening and closing within a short time and adjusting/incrementing an expected/predicted door open count if it is determined that the compartment temperature rises sharply based on the teachings of Park in order to avoid inefficient operation of the refrigerator, in the future, by preemptively lowering the temperature of storage space by controlling the driving of the compressor (see paragraphs 25-26, Park).
In regards to claim 12, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches that the controller is configured to compare the predicted door open count to the door sensor based door open count by
(i) determining a difference between the predicted door open count and the door sensor based door open count (comparing the door opening number with the door opening data point of 5 to determine if the difference is above zero for Region 3 or below zero for Region 1, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33)
or
(ii) determining a ratio between the predicted door open count and the door sensor based door open count (this is an alternative limitation, which is not required by the claim).
In regards to claim 13, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches that the control action is changing a logic used for establishing when to initiate a defrost operation (by extending or reducing the defrost interval based on the comparison of door openings with the data point, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 32-33).
In regards to claim 14, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches that the control action is setting a duration for running a condensate pan heater (frequency of the condensate pan heater 15 is set based on the point P falling into Regions 1 to 3, see paragraph 36 and fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument, "para 19 of specification teaches that the controller is configured to approximate/predict number of door opening utilizing secondary data, wherein the secondary data is the temperature sensor data," examiner maintains the written description rejection and rejection of claims and points out that the term “secondary data,” is only mentioned once in the specification (first line of paragraph 19) and no further description, explanation or mention of the term “secondary data” occurs again in the entire disclosure. Therefore, applicant’s argument that ‘secondary temperature sensor data is evaluated to approximate number of door openings,’ is inaccurate and not substantiated by the original disclosure.
In response to applicant's argument, "para 19 explains how controller would be configured to use compartment temperature to identify opening of the door, by evaluating secondary temperature sensor data to approximate number of door opening, because compartment temperature will rise when the door opens," examiner maintains the written description rejection and rejection of claims and points out that applicant’s above argument (particularly, paragraph 1, page 6, Remarks) does not provide support for, a controller configured to repeatedly determine sharply rising compartment temperature and the controller configured to increment expected/approximate/predicted door open count based on the sharply rising compartment temperature, which is claimed by claims 1, 7 and 11. Rather above argument does not mention that the controller is configured to determine and/or use sharply rising temperature to increment/set expected/predicted door open count. In addition, applicant equates an hypothesis/assumption of “because the compartment temperature will rise when the door 16 is opened” to a determination by a controller that “controller is configured to repeatedly determine sharply rising compartment temperature and increment…,” and wherein, the applicant also equates “temperature will rise” to a repeated determination by a controller that temperature of the compartment rises sharply, which is a false equivalency. Also, prior art teaches incrementing/setting expected/predicted door open count based on determined compartment temperature sharp rise by teaching setting the expected door count based on determined compartment temperature rise (see above rejection of claims 1, 7 and 11), where the temperature rise in prior art is considered a sharp rise.
In response to applicant's argument, "paragraphs 19-20 explain that repeated sharp rise is detectable by repeatedly calculating first derivative of the compartment temperature and comparing the first derivative with the set threshold, and the controller increments the approximated/predicted door count based on repeated first derivative above the threshold, which is the support for the limitation "controller configured to repeatedly determine sharply rising compartment temperature and in response increment predicted door open count," examiner maintains the written description rejection and rejection of claims and points out that applicant’s above argument (particularly, paragraphs 2-3, page 6, Remarks) equates that above-mentioned claimed limitation to a controller configured to repeatedly calculate first derivative of the compartment temperature and increment a predicted door open count when the first derivative rises above the set threshold, while the above argued description is not claimed by the applicant and one of skill in the art, under broadest reasonable interpretation, would not interpret the broad term “compartment temperature rising sharply” as “first derivative of the compartment temperature rising above a set threshold,” rather one of skill in the art would interpret the broad term “sharp temperature rise” as a temperature rise because “sharply” is a relative term. However, the limitations “repeatedly calculating/determining the first derivative of the compartment temperature rising above a set threshold and in response, incrementing predicted door open count,” would be sufficient to overcome the prior art rejection of record and remove the confusion regarding the “repeated determination of sharply rising temperature” because the original disclosure contains written description support for repeated calculation/determination, by the controller, of first derivative of the compartment temperature and for the rise of the first derivative above a set threshold to increment approximated/predicted door open count; however, there is no written description support for sharply rising temperature being equivalent to first derivative rising above a set threshold and no written description support for any other methods/steps by a controller configured to repeatedly determine sharply rising compartment temperature (see paragraphs 19-20, specification).
In response to applicant's argument, “door open count limit set in fig. 4 of Sanders is not incremented based on detected rise in compartment temperature, as claimed,” examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 7 and 11 and points out that figure 4 of Sanders shows that the controller sets the door open count limits for each region 1, 2 and 3, where each region 1, 2 and 3 is defined by the different temperature values and the door open count limit increases from regions 1 to 3, which represents regions of temperature rise from region 1 to/towards region 3 (see figs. 2-4 and paragraphs 29-33, Sanders). Therefore, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument, “Sanders does not disclose “predicted door open count” within the meaning of the term as claimed,” examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 7 and 11 and points out that the claims require incrementing of expected/approximated/set/predicted door counts and comparing set door counts with sensed door count; however, applicant has not provided any specific definition different from a plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘expected/approximated/predicted/set/established door count’ in the original disclosure. In addition, the disclosure does not provide any methods of predicting door open count other than a controller setting door open count limits just as taught by Sanders (door open count limit, fig. 4). Therefore, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument, “Polkinghorne does not teach expected/predicted door open count that is incremented based on detected rise in compartment temperature,” examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 7 and 11 and points out that in the above description of the claimed term, applicant ignores the approximated door open count, which is considered equivalent to the predicted/set/determined/expected door open count as per the original disclosure (see paragraph 22, specification). In addition, the above discussed limitation “expected/approximate/predicted/set door open count incremented based upon detected rise in compartment temperature,” is not supported by the original disclosure (see above written description rejection of claims). Also the office action does not primarily rely on Polkinghorne to teach the above-mentioned limitation, even though Polkinghorne teaches incrementing the set door open count and comparing the set door open count with the sensor based door open count to determine discrepancy (see above rejection of claims 1, 7 and 11). Therefore, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument, “Wagner and Park do not teach expected/predicted door open count being incremented based on detected rise in compartment temperature,” examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 7 and 11 and points out that the above discussed limitation “expected/approximate/predicted/set door open count incremented based upon detected rise in compartment temperature,” is not supported by the original disclosure (see above written description rejection of claims). Also the office action does not primarily rely on Wagner and Park to teach the above-mentioned limitation; however, Park teaches determine predicted door opening and closing pattern based on the actual door opening and closing cycles over a period of time (see paragraphs 92, 109), wherein the repeated opening and closing of the compartment doors indicates rapid increase in temperature of the storage space (see paragraph 111), and the predictive door opening and closing model patterns the model based on the repeated opening and closing of the door, which causes/establishes a rapid increase in temperature of the storage space (see paragraph 111). One of skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Sanders with Polkinghorne, Wagner and Park to teach all the limitations of claims 1, 7 and 11 in order to lower the temperature of the storage compartment by controlling the compressor ahead of the temperature rise due to possible high door open count frequency. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 MERAJ A SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3027. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 9:00-1:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 571-270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MERAJ A SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights