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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that where line numbers within the instant claims are cited within this Office Action, counting begins from line 1 as the line of the claim on which the preamble begins and excludes the previous lines which include only claim numbers and status tags. Taking claim 1 as an example, the line reading “1. (Currently amended)” is not counted and the following line which reads “A refrigeration cycle system comprising:” has been counted as “line 1”.
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.
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:
“a flow rate acquisition device” in claim 1, line 10. This recitation has been interpreted in accordance with various disclosures of the specification which teach different structures for this device according to various embodiments of the invention and has been interpreted as being a flowmeter (as taught in ¶ 88 as numbered in the specification as filed), a differential pressure gauge (as taught in ¶ 109), two manometers (as taught in ¶ 122) or an equivalent thereof.
“a circulation device” in claim 8, lines 1-2, interpreted according to the teachings of ¶ 17 as a pump and equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
It is noted that claims 6 and 7 which both depend upon claim 1 teach that the flow rate acquisition device is configured to measure pressure. In claim 6, “the flow rate acquisition device is configured to measure a differential pressure that is a difference between a pressure of the heat medium that flows into the heat medium heat exchanger and a pressure of the heat medium that flows out from the heat medium heat exchanger” and in claim 7 “the flow rate acquisition device is configured to measure a pressure of the heat medium that flows into the heat medium heat exchanger and a pressure of the heat medium that flows out from the heat medium heat exchanger” (emphasis by examiner). Although these recitations appear to indicate the flow rate acquisition device to be the differential pressure gauge of ¶ 109, the claims do not recite this structure or any other specific structure for the device and claims 6 and 7 are not excluded from interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as defining sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.
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 4 and 13 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.
In line 2 of claim 4, the teaching of “the case in which the flow rate decreases” lacks antecedent basis. This case is not recited previously in claim 4 or in claim 1 upon which it depends but appears only in lines 1-2 of claim 2. Further, claim 2 teaches in this passage “a case in which the flow rate decreases during the first period of time” (emphasis by examiner) so it is unclear, even if claim 4 was interpreted as depending upon claim 2, whether “the case in which the flow rate decreases” in claim 4 refers specifically to the “case in which the flow rate decreases during the first period of time” or to any case in which the flow rate decreases, regardless of timing. For this reason, the scope of claim 4 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 4 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and has been interpreted as referring to any “case in which the flow rate decreases” rather than exclusively to the case of claim 2 but it is also noted that the time-specific case of claim 2 falls within the scope of the time-independent case of claim 4.
In line 2 of claim 13, the teaching of “the plurality of heat source apparatuses” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 9 from which claim 13 depends (and claim 1 upon which claim 9 depends in turn) refer only to “the heat source apparatus” in the singular, with recitations of a plurality of such apparatuses appearing only in claim 10 (“The refrigeration cycle system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of heat source apparatuses.”) and claims 11 and 12 which depend from claim 10. For this reason, it is unclear whether claim 13 is intended to depend upon claim 10 (or one of the claims which depends from claim 10) or to recite a plurality of heat source apparatuses without such dependency and what features, connections, or controls are or are not required for these apparatuses and the scope of claim 13 thus cannot be positively ascertained. For this reason, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 13 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the claim has been interpreted as requiring a plurality of heat source apparatuses but not as depending upon any of claims 10, 11, and 12.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication No. 2021/106193 A1 to Ito et al. in view of Japanese Publication No. 2010-276276 A to Suehiro et al.
European Publication No. 4067765 B1 is presented as an English-language equivalent for Ito, being a European publication of the same international application and an English-translation of Suehiro is provided with this Office Action. Citations to particular passages and paragraphs of Ito and Suehiro are directed to these English-language documents rather than to the Japanese-language originals.
Ito teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, and fig. 3, shown below, a refrigeration cycle system comprising:
a heat source apparatus (including the heat source apparatus 10 taught in ¶ 20 and the relay unit 20 taught in ¶ 25 which both include parts of the refrigerant circuit 40) having a refrigerant circuit (40, as shown in fig. 1), the heat source apparatus being configured to cool or heat a heat medium (flowing in the heat medium circuit 50) through refrigerant flowing through the refrigerant circuit (as taught in ¶ 20); and
a controller (including heat-source-side control device 17, relay control device 24, and indoor-side control devices 35) configured to control the heat source apparatus (performed particularly by the heat-source side control device 17 as taught in ¶¶ 20-21),
wherein
the heat source apparatus (particularly the relay unit 20) includes
a heat medium heat exchanger (heat-medium-side heat exchanger 21) configured to cause the heat medium (in the circuit 50) and the refrigerant (in the refrigerant circuit 0) to exchange heat with each other (as taught in ¶ 27),
a flow rate acquisition device (flow switches 31 taught in ¶ 32 and/or pressure sensors 25 and 26) configured to acquire flow rate information that is information regarding a flow rate of the heat medium that flows through the heat medium heat exchanger (the flow switches 31 determine flow rate in the indoor units 30a, 30b, and 3c which each receive medium from the heat exchanger 21 as taught in ¶ 32 and the pressure sensors are further used by the control devices used to obtain a flow rate of heat medium in the circuit 50 as taught in ¶ 61), and
a compressor (11) configured to compress the refrigerant (taught in ¶ 20), and
the controller (17/24/35) is configured to, based on a value of the flow rate of the heat medium that flows through the heat medium heat exchanger (particularly the value obtained from the pressure sensors 25 and 26 as step s10 of the method of fig. 3 as described in ¶ 61), vary an operating capacity of the compressor, and cause the compressor to operate at the operating capacity thus varied (increasing or reducing the frequency of the compressor as step S12 or S13 as taught in ¶ 63).
PNG
media_image3.png
746
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ito does not teach the flow rate value used in the control of the compressor being a value of variation of the flow rate or this variation being determined during a first period of time determined in advance, or the information associated with the value of variance beign stored and the compressor operated based on this stored value. Suehiro teaches in ¶¶ 31-32 and in claim 2, a control device (41) for controlling the rotational speed of a compressor (12) in which a parameter (in the case of Suehiro, an air conditioning load temperature difference) is obtained and a difference between the previous value of this parameter for a preceding duration of time T and the value of the parameter for the duration before the previous duration is obtained and used as a control effect amount for calculating a load upper limit rotational speed for the control of the compressor (that is, if this temperature difference is taken as the function E(i), where i is the most recent time duration T, E(i) and E(i-1) are used in the calculation of the new load upper limit rotational speed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the storage and use of past control input values, including the use of a variation in these values in establishing new control parameters as taught by Suehiro in order to ensure that instant and historical operating conditions are both accounted for in the control of the compressor, allowing trends in addition to instantaneous values to inform the control and thus improving the reliability and effectiveness of the operation of the system.
Ito teaches limitations from claim 8 in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 1, further comprising a circulation device (pump 23) configured to cause the heat medium to flow through the heat medium heat exchanger (21, as taught in ¶ 25),
wherein the controller (24) is configured to vary an operating frequency of the circulation device (23) based on the flow rate information and cause the circulation device to operate at the operating frequency thus varied (as taught in ¶ 43).
Ito teaches limitations from claim 10, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of the heat source apparatuses (10, per ¶ 18 of Ito (with emphasis by examiner) “It should be noted that Embodiment 1 [shown in fig. 1] will be described by referring to by way of example the case where three indoor units 30a, 30b, and 30c are connected to one heat source apparatus 10. However, the number of heat source apparatuses 10 may be two or more.”)
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito and Suehiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2002/0108392 A1 to Ichikawa et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
246
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ito teaches an air conditioning system in which a heat source apparatus (10) and relay device (20) circulate a refrigerant to an inter-medium heat exchanger (21) to heat or cool a heat medium flowing in a heat medium circuit (50) to heat or cool loads at a number of indoor-side heat exchangers (32) connected to the heat medium circuit (5) and further teaches a flow rate of the heat medium to be used by a controller in determining control of a compressor of the heat source apparatus. Suehiro teaches the use of data collected over a most recent past time interval of duration T in comparison to data from the previous time interval in the control of a compressor’s capacity in a refrigeration cycle air conditioning system. Neither Ito nor Suehiro teaches that in a case in which the flow rate decreases for a period of time, operating frequency of the compressor is also decreased. Ichikawa teaches in ¶ 24 and in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigeration cycle system having a compressor (1), condenser (2), expansion valve (3), and heat exchanger (4) exchanging heat between the refrigerant and a brine or water flowing through the heat exchanger (4). Ichikawa further teaches in ¶ 31 that the capacity of the compressor is controlled by an inverter drive unit “in accordance with the flow rate of the brine” in order to reduce cooling capacity as the flow rate is reduced to decrease or prevent freezing of the brine in the heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the compressor capacity control corresponding to the flow rate of medium in the heat exchanger in order to prevent freezing of the heat exchanger and improve reliability of the system as taught in Ichikawa’s ¶ 31.
Regarding claim 4, neither Ito nor Ichikawa teaches controller operating the compressor such that, when a magnitude of a variation in the decrease of the flow rate is greater than a predetermined limit value, the operating capacity of the compressor is changed to a lower-limit capacity. Ito teaches in their Abstract and in ¶¶ 40-42 that the compressor has a lowest capacity setting which may be used in response to sufficiently low load conditions. In modifying Ito with the flow-rate-responsive compressor control of Ichikawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be an obvious design choice in the implementation of the control to provide a degree of change of the flow rate specifically corresponding to the lowest capacity setting of the compressor in order to ensure that compressor operations are minimized in the event of a significant reduction of medium flow, preventing freezing and allowing for such reductions to be remedied prior to resumption of increased operation of the compressor, thus ensuring effective and reliable operation of the system.
Regarding claim 5, neither Ito nor Ichikawa teaches controller operating the compressor such that, when the flow rate reaches a lower limit value, the operating capacity of the compressor is changed to a lower-limit capacity as taught in claim 5. Ito teaches in their Abstract and in ¶¶ 40-42 that the compressor has a lowest capacity setting which may be used in response to sufficiently low load conditions. In modifying Ito with the flow-rate-responsive compressor control of Ichikawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be an obvious design choice in the implementation of the control to provide a minimum flow rate specifically corresponding to the lowest capacity setting of the compressor in order to ensure that compressor operations are minimized in the event of a significant restriction of medium flow, potentially preventing freezing or allowing for such reductions to be remedied prior to resumption of increased operation of the compressor, thus ensuring effective and reliable operation of the system.
Regarding claim 12, Ito teaches an air conditioning system in which a heat source apparatus (10) and relay device (20) circulate a refrigerant to an inter-medium heat exchanger (21) to heat or cool a heat medium flowing in a heat medium circuit (50) to heat or cool loads at a number of indoor-side heat exchangers (32) connected to the heat medium circuit (5), teaches a flow rate of the heat medium to be used by a controller in determining control of a compressor of the heat source apparatus, and further teaches in ¶ 18 that such a system may include two or more heat source apparatuses (10). Ito does not explicitly teach reducing the number of operating heat source units as the flow rate decreases in a case where multiple such units were operated. Ichikawa teaches in ¶ 24 and in fig. 1, shown above, a refrigeration cycle system having a compressor (1), condenser (2), expansion valve (3), and heat exchanger (4) exchanging heat between the refrigerant and a brine or water flowing through the heat exchanger (4). Ichikawa further teaches in ¶ 31 that the capacity of the compressor is controlled by an inverter drive unit “in accordance with the flow rate of the brine” in order to reduce cooling capacity as the flow rate is reduced to decrease or prevent freezing of the brine in the heat exchanger. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed, in light of Ito’s teaching of multiple heat source units and Ichikawa’s teaching of reducing the cooling capacity of the system in response to reduced flow rate, would have found it to be an obvious mechanical expedient to reduce the cooling capacity, in addition to the compressor reduction taught by Ichikawa, by controlling the system to reduce the number of operating heat source units in a system operating multiple such units as taught by Ito in order to prevent or reduce the risk of freezing of the heat exchangers of the system and improve reliability of the system as taught in Ichikawa’s ¶ 31.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito and Suehiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2020/0064031 A1 to Yamano et al.
PNG
media_image5.png
334
470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Ito teaches limitations from claim 6, in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 1, wherein the flow rate acquisition device is configured to measure a differential pressure that is a difference between a pressure of the heat medium that flows into [a pump] (measured by a pump inlet pressure sensor 25 at an inlet side of the pump 23) and a pressure of the heat medium that flows out from [the pump] (measured by a pump outlet pressure sensor 26, as taught in ¶ 40 and 61), and
the controller (17/24/35) is configured to vary the operating capacity of the compressor (as taught in ¶ 63) based on the differential pressure measured by the flow rate acquisition device during the first period of time and cause the compressor to operate at the operating capacity thus varied (as taught in ¶¶ 40 and 61, the flow rate is obtained based on a difference in the measured pressure values).
Regarding claim 6, Ito does not teach the pressure difference used being a difference between the pressures at an inlet and outlet of a heat exchanger. Yamano teaches in fig. 1, shown above, an in ¶ 21, refrigeration cycle device including a chilling unit (100) having a compressor (1) and a heat exchanger (7) for cooling a medium in a heat medium circuit (30) using refrigerant compressed by the compressor (1) in the refrigerant circuit 10. Yamano teaches in ¶¶ 31 and 48, the flow rate in the heat medium circuit being determined based on a difference in pressures detected by pressure sensors (33 and 35) located respectively at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger (7) in the heat medium circuit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the heat exchanger pressure sensors taught by Yamano in order to more directly monitor the flow of refrigerant through the heat exchanger for signs of restriction or freezing and to prevent damage to the heat exchanger or loss of performance which results from such conditions.
Ito teaches limitations from claim 7, in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 1, wherein the flow rate acquisition device is configured to measure a a pressure of the heat medium that flows into [a pump] (measured by a pump inlet pressure sensor 25 at an inlet side of the pump 23) and a pressure of the heat medium that flows out from [the pump] (measured by a pump outlet pressure sensor 26, as taught in ¶ 40 and 61), and
the controller (17/24/35) is configured to vary the operating capacity of the compressor (as taught in ¶ 63) based on the pressure of the heat medium that flows into the [pump] and the pressure of heat medium that flows out from the [pump] by the flow rate acquisition device during the first period of time and cause the compressor to operate at the operating capacity thus varied (as taught in ¶¶ 40 and 61, the flow rate is obtained based on the measured pressure values and particularly on a difference between the values).
Regarding claim 7, Ito does not teach the pressure values measured to determine the flow rate being the pressures at an inlet and outlet of a heat exchanger. Yamano teaches in fig. 1, shown above, an in ¶ 21, refrigeration cycle device including a chilling unit (100) having a compressor (1) and a heat exchanger (7) for cooling a medium in a heat medium circuit (30) using refrigerant compressed by the compressor (1) in the refrigerant circuit 10. Yamano teaches in ¶¶ 31 and 48, the flow rate in the heat medium circuit being determined based on a difference in pressures detected by pressure sensors (33 and 35) located respectively at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger (7) in the heat medium circuit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the heat exchanger pressure sensors taught by Yamano in order to more directly monitor the flow of refrigerant through the heat exchanger for signs of restriction or freezing and to prevent damage to the heat exchanger or loss of performance which results from such conditions.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito and Suehiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WIPO Publication No. 2020/012750 A1 to Okazaki et al.
European Publication No. 4,148,343 A1 to Okazaki is presented as an English-language equivalent for Okazaki, being a European publication of the same international application. Citations to particular passages and paragraphs of this document are directed to these English-language document rather than to the Japanese-language original.
Ito teaches limitations from claim 9 in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 1, wherein
the heat source apparatus (10 and 20) is connected to a load system (one of the indoor units 30a, 30b, or 30c) via a heat medium pipe (the piping of the heat medium circuit 50) through which the heat medium flows (as taught in ¶ 27), the load system being configured to cool or heat a target (at one of the indoor heat exchangers 32 arranged in one of the indoor units 30a, b, c) through the heat medium (as taught in ¶ 30),
the heat source apparatus (10/20 and particularly the heat exchanger 21 of the relay unit 20) forms a heat medium circuit (50) in combination with the load system and the heat medium pipe (as shown in fig. 1),
the [load system] (30) is provided with a [flow control valve] valve (33) configured to regulate a flow rate of the heat medium that flows through the load system (30) (as taught in ¶ 30), and
the controller (particularly indoor controllers 35) is configured to vary an opening degree of the [load system] (30) based on the flow rate information (as taught in ¶ 33).
Ito does not teach the heat medium circuit including a bypass pipe connected in parallel to the load system and provided with a bypass valve which is controlled by the controller to regulate the flow rate of medium through the load system. Okazaki teaches in fig. 1, shown below, and in ¶¶ 11-12, a heat source system (1) having a plurality of heat source units (3) for cooling water to be circulated in water pipes (5 and 6) to a plurality of load devices such as air conditioners) and further teaches the system being provided with a bypass pipe (7) installed in parallel with the load devices (4) and having a bypass valve (2) for controlling the amount of water allowed to flow through the bypass pipe (7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the bypass pipe of Okazaki in order to allow the cooling provided to one or each of the indoor units of Ito to be adjusted without requiring control of the compressor or the heat source system, thus providing greater versatility to the control states the system may use to provide effective and efficient cooling while avoiding overcooling or freezing of water in the heat medium circuit.
Ito teaches limitations from claim 13 in fig. 1, shown above, the refrigeration cycle system of claim 9, wherein the plurality of heat source apparatuses (taught in ¶ 18 of Ito) are connected via a heat medium pipe (the pipes of the heat medium circuit 50) of the configured to allow the heat medium to flow to a load system (the indoor units 30) configured to cool or heat a target through the heat medium.
PNG
media_image6.png
610
444
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ito does not teach the heat medium pipe connecting the heat source apparatuses in parallel. Okazaki teaches in fig. 1, shown above, and in ¶¶ 11-12, a heat source system (1) having a plurality of heat source units (3) for cooling water, the units (3) being connected in parallel to a water return pipe (6) and feed pipe (5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the parallel arrangement of the chiller units taught by Okazaki in order to allow the units to be operated individually or together, providing a broad range of cooling capacity levels and allowing wear and tear to be distributed over the heat source apparatuses rather than requiring all to operate as would be the case for a serial installation.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito and Suehiro as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2018/0160570 A1 to Baily et al.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Ito teaches an air conditioning system in which a heat source apparatus (10) and relay device (20) circulate a refrigerant to an inter-medium heat exchanger (21) to heat or cool a heat medium flowing in a heat medium circuit (50) to heat or cool loads at a number of indoor-side heat exchangers (32) connected to the heat medium circuit (5) and further teaches that such a system may include two or more heat source apparatuses (10). Ito does not teach the controller increasing and decreasing the number of operating heat source apparatuses based on a frequency of one of the compressors, increasing the number of apparatuses operating and decreasing the capacity of the compressor of an operating apparatus as taught in claim 14, and storing third correspondence information associated with a number of apparatuses with an amount of decrease in the capacity of the compressor of each apparatus and in increasing the number of apparatuses operating and decreasing the capacity of the compressor as taught in claim 14. Bailey teaches a dynamic cooling system having a plurality of compressors which may be activated and deactivated to provide cooling to a target (in this case, a data center 202) and particular teaches in ¶¶ 8 and 29 that each compressor has an associated range of operating speeds at which it operates most efficiently so that, when the operating load calls for an additional compressor to be activated, a previously operated compressor may be reduced from a previously high speed to operate at its lower efficient operating range as taught in claim 11, this range being inherently stored by the controller of the system of Bailey for the controller to be controlled to the range as taught in claim 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Ito with the control associated with multiple units (controlling the compressors of the multiple heat source apparatus according to the compressor control of Bailey) in order to provide for the most efficient operation of the compressors while still allowing for capacity to be effectively scaled to address cooling demand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights