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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control apparatus” in claims 7 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For the record, “control apparatus” has been interpreted according to the corresponding structure described at para. 0043 of the specification, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-12 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 “low voltage” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, 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.
Claim 7 recites “an electromotive refrigerant compressor.” However, claim 7 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1, which also recites “an electromotive refrigerant compressor.” As written, it is unclear whether these are supposed to be the same or different compressors.
Similarly, claim 8 recites “an electromotive refrigerant compressor.” However, claim 8 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1, which also recites “an electromotive refrigerant compressor.” As written, it is unclear whether these are supposed to be the same or different compressors.
Also regarding claim 8, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further regarding claim 8, the claim recites “at least one of configured to carry out the method or operating according to….” It is unclear what the difference between “carry out the method” and “operating according to” is, rendering the intended metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer-readable medium is not statutory subject matter. (See MPEP2106.03 for guidance.) Even though claim 12 incorporates claim 11, which recites “a non-transitory computer product,” the computer-readable medium of claim 12 must also be designated as non-transitory in order to be statutory. Thus, claim 12 should begin: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium….”
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatchley et al. (US 2019/0176578 A1) in view of Sandelman et al. (US 6211782 B1).
As per claim 1, Blatchley et al. disclose a method for operating an electromotive refrigerant compressor 208 having an electric motor (para. 0013 re. “electric machines” operating as a motor; para. 0021 re the compressor being driven by the electric machine) configured to be operated by a supply voltage from a second on-board electrical system, the method comprising: operating the electric motor in a mode upon recording at least one of a fault (mode wherein compressor speed is adjusted based on an error between a chiller target temperature and a chiller temperature (para. 0043; etc.) – thus the error being considered a “fault” related to how far off the actual operating conditions are from the target) with a low voltage from a first on-board electrical system (para. 0021, lines 9-12 re. compressor being driven by low voltage from traction battery 124 or auxiliary battery 130); and at least temporarily operating the electric motor at a speed greater than zero in the emergency mode (compressor continues to operate (and thus at non-zero speed) (para. 0043.; etc.). Blatchley et al. do not teach the mode being an “emergency” mode, per se. However, the metes and bounds of what constitutes an “emergency” are generally broad. Since Blatchley et al. disclose performing the compressor speed controls over a range of pressure value errors, it is considered a simple matter to designate a particular high or low pressure value to constitute an “emergency.” Such designation is taught for example by Sandelman et al. (col. 2, lines 20-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to determine certain refrigerant pressure values to constitute an “emergency” within the system of Blatchley et al. for the similar purposes of notifying the user, but that the system of Blatchley et al. would continue to operate as disclosed despite being in an “emergency mode” comprising such emergency notification.
As per claims 2-5, Blatchley does not teach the specific compressor speeds used. However, the values or .25, .5, .75, or full maximum are presented as various options in Applicant’s specification, but without any particular criticality to the specific values. It is considered a simple mechanical expedient to run the compressor motor at any one of these speeds based on the particular operating conditions and pressure errors in a manner that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose of carrying out the pressure-based compressor controls as described at para. 0043, etc., in an optimal manner based on the particular operating conditions.
As per claim 7, an electromotive refrigerant compressor 208, comprising a refrigerant compressor control apparatus (controller 230) configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (see claim 1, above).
As per claim 8, an air-conditioning installation, in particular for a motor vehicle 112, comprising an electromotive refrigerant compressor 208 at least one of configured to carry out the method or operating according to the method of claim 1 (see claim 1, above).
As per claim 9, wherein the air-conditioning installation is an air-conditioning installation for a motor vehicle 112.
As per claim 10, Blatchley et al. disclose the system further comprises: a pressure sensor 212 r for recording a pressure of a refrigerant; and an air-conditioning installation control apparatus 230 connected to the pressure sensor for at least one of signal or data transmission purposes (Fig. 2; etc.); the air-conditioning installation control apparatus being provided and configured to evaluate measurement data provided by the pressure sensor regarding a time profile of the pressure of the refrigerant produced due to an alternating speed of the electric motor in the emergency mode (i.e., monitors pressure and adjusts motor/compressor speed continuously over time).
As per claim 11, a non-transitory computer program product (implicit part of controller 230 for carrying out the controls), comprising commands causing the electromotive refrigerant compressor according to claim 7 to carry out the method (see claim 7, above).
As per claim 12, a computer-readable medium (implicit part of controller 230) on which the computer program product according to claim 11 is stored (see claim 11, above).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blatchley et al. (US 2019/0176578 A1) in view of Sandelman et al. (US 6211782 B1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2018/0363964 A1).
As per claim 6, Blatchley does not teach, in the emergency mode, alternately operating the electric motor at a starting speed and not driving the electric motor. However, alternately operating and stopping a compressor is generally old and known in the art, as for example taught by Chung et al. (para. 0030). While repeatedly stopping and starting a compressor motor is generally considered inefficient relative to continuous operation, it is nevertheless generally old and known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application run the compressor of Blatchley et al. in such a manner as simply an alternative common and simple load management technique.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Tsuboi et al. (US 2021/0283991 A1) teach compressor speed controls related to refrigerant pressure and system failure (see para. 0087; etc.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763