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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 28 April 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Korean application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: At claim 1, line 18, “targe” should be changed to “target”. Claims 2-11 are objected to since they depend from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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) s 1, 3, 10, 12, 14-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2019/0241044 A1) in view of Tamaki et al. (US 2019/0120513 A1).
As per claims 1, 12, and 19, Ito et al. disclose an air conditioner (and corresponding control method and non-transitory computer-readable storage media) comprising: a compressor 21 configured to compress a refrigerant; an indoor heat exchanger 15 in which heat exchange between indoor air and the refrigerant is performed; a discharge temperature sensor configured to measure a discharge temperature of air at which the heat exchange is completed (para. 0060, lines 14-17; etc.);; an inputter configured to receive a target temperature from a user (para. 0063; etc.); memory storing one or more computer programs (para. 0062; etc.); and one or more processors (CPU - para. 0062; etc.) communicatively coupled the compressor, the indoor heat exchanger, the discharge temperature sensor, the inputter, and the memory (via ECU 39), wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the air conditioner to: adjust an operating frequency of the compressor by comparing the discharge temperature and a reference (i.e., target) temperature (paras. 0071, 0075, 0084). Ito et al. do not teach the air conditioner also comprising an intake temperature sensor configured to measure an intake temperature of the indoor air drawn into the indoor heat exchanger or controlling the compressor to reduce the operating frequency in response to the discharge temperature reaching a reference temperature. Tamaki et al. teach the concept of an intake temperature sensor 51 configured to measure an intake temperature of the indoor air drawn into the indoor heat exchanger 13 and controlling the compressor to reduce the operating frequency in response to the discharge temperature reaching a reference temperature (see para. 0138 re. controlling compressor frequency based on an upstream air target temperature; note that depending on the direction of the temperature to the target value, the compressor frequency would either be reduced or increased at the target value, and thus reads on the concept of reducing the frequency). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to additionally control the compressor of Ito et al. for the purpose of maintaining a desired amount of cooling or heating while optimizing energy consumption (para. 0008; etc.). Note that, as recited, the intake temperature controls and discharge temperature controls are performed separately. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could have easily made this combination to provide both of these control capabilities as control alternatives, without the controls interfering with each other.
As per claims 3 and 14, Ito et al. do not explicitly state wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the air conditioner to maintain the operating frequency at a second operating frequency reduced from a first operating frequency in response to the discharge temperature reaching the reference temperature. However, similarly to discussed above, note that depending on the direction of the initial temperature to the target value in paras. 0071, 0075, 0084, the compressor frequency would either be reduced or increased from a first, initial, frequency to a second frequency at the reference value, and thus implicitly reads on the concept of reducing the frequency).
As per claim 10, Ito et al. do not teach wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the air conditioner to: control the compressor to increase the operating frequency to the first operating frequency in response to start of a cooling operation or heating operation; and maintain the first operating frequency in response to the intake temperature reaching the target temperature. Tamaki et al. teach controlling compressor frequency based on driving intake temperature toward a target value (para. 0138). While Tamaki et al. do not explicitly teach the controls being initiated at the start of cooling or heating, such considered an obvious matter 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 optimized efficiency achieved by beginning the controls as soon as the system begins operation.
As per claim 15, Ito et al. do not teach wherein the reference temperature is determined based on at least one of a size of the indoor heat exchanger and a blowing capacity of the air conditioner. However, official notice is taken that the scaling of operating parameters based on the size and capacity of system components is considered a common operation conducted through routine experimentation and that this is simply a particular example of this basic concept that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application for the purpose determining optimal operating conditions based on the particular scale of the components being used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-9, 11, 13, 16-18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 2, 13, and 20, there is no teaching or suggestion to further modify the system of Ito et al. wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the air conditioner to adjust the operating frequency of the compressor or stop the compressor based on the intake temperature, and wherein, in response to the discharge temperature reaching the reference temperature after the intake temperature reaches the target temperature, the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the air conditioner to control the compressor to reduce the operating frequency instead of stopping the compressor.
As per claims 4 and 16 (and clams 5-6 and 17 which depend therefrom, respectively) there is no teaching or suggestion to further modify the system of Ito et al. wherein, in response to the discharge temperature increasing in a section, in which the compressor is operated at the second operating frequency, and reaching a predetermined first temperature, the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the air conditioner to maintain a third operating frequency increased from the second operating frequency.
As per claim 7 (and clams 8-9 which depend therefrom) there is no teaching or suggestion to further modify the system of Ito et al. wherein, in response to the discharge temperature decreasing in a section, in which the compressor is operated at the second operating frequency, and reaching a predetermined second temperature, the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the air conditioner to maintain a fourth operating frequency increased from the second operating frequency.
As per claim 11, there is no teaching or suggestion to further modify the system of Ito et al. wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the air conditioner to control the operating frequency based on a predetermined fuzzy table in a section in which the operating frequency is increased to the first operating frequency.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Wang et al. (US 2020/0072550 A1) teach an air conditioning control arrangement comprising compressor frequency controls based on a target outlet air temperature (para. 0057; etc.).
Yamaguchi et al. (US 2020/0086713 A1) teach an air conditioning control arrangement comprising compressor frequency controls based on a target outlet air temperature (para. 0055; 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