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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 4/28/2026. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Accordingly, claims 1-13 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
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.
Amendments to the Claims:
Claims 1-4 and10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US20090093917A1) in view of Larsen (Larsen, Kim G., et al. "Testing real-time embedded software using UPPAAL-TRON: an industrial case study." Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Embedded software. Sept 2005 [retrieved on 7/14/2026. Retrieved from <https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1086228.1086283>) and Liu (CN101604470B).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith teaches a method for operating a vapour compression system [refrigeration unit 100, Figure 1;0020], the vapour compression system comprising a compressor unit [compressor 102, Figure 1], a heat rejecting heat exchanger [condenser 104, Figure 1], at least one expansion device [expansion valve 106, Figure 1] and at least one evaporator [evaporator 108, Figure 1] arranged in a refrigerant path [refrigeration unit 100, Figure 1;0020], each evaporator being arranged in thermal contact with a refrigerated volume for storing goods [where the evaporator 108 absorbs heat energy from refrigeration compartment 110, Figure 1], the method comprising the steps of, for at least one of the refrigerated volumes:
- setting control parameters related to the refrigerated volume [where an operator or technician may set the set point; 0042], including setting a cut-in temperature [compressor-on temperature; 0058; where once the temperature in the refrigeration compartment reaches the temperature at which the compressor(s) should start, the monitoring system starts a timer; 0054], a high temperature alarm limit [a user definable set point (warm point alarm), where if the interior temperature changes by a user definable amount without a door opening, the monitoring system may also activate an alarm; 0045] and a high temperature alarm delay time [a programmed time interval; 0054; time delay; 0058],
- operating the vapour compression system while monitoring a temperature inside the refrigerated volume [where sensor RT may be installed in the refrigeration compartment to monitor the temperature in the refrigeration compartment, Figure 1; 0032]
- generating a warning when the timer reaches the delay time [where the sensor RT may be used to trigger an alarm when the interior of the refrigeration compartment reaches a predetermined temperature without the door being opened for an extended period of time; 0041].
The combined teachings do not teach continuously deriving a weighted mean temperature prevailing inside the refrigerated volume, during a moving time window of a predefined length where when the weighted mean temperature inside the refrigerated volume exceeds the cut-in temperature, starting a timer and continuing to derive the weighted mean temperature prevailing inside the refrigerated volume, during a moving time window of a predefined length.
However, Larsen teaches an industrial case study on a Danfoss EKC-201 refrigeration controller [p.302, The Danfoss EKC-201 Refrigeration Controller] including deriving a weighted mean temperature [where regulation is based on a weighted averaged room temperature calculated by the EKC; p.302, 3.1 Control Objective, equation (2)] prevailing inside the refrigerated volume [refrigerator room air, p.302, 3.1 Control Objective], during a moving time window of a predefined length [via periodic sampling; p.302, 3.1 Control Objective] where when the weighted mean temperature inside the refrigerated volume exceeds the cut-in temperature [highAlarmLimit; p.302, Control Objective], starting a timer and continuing to derive the weighted mean temperature prevailing inside the refrigerated volume, during a moving time window of a predefined length [where the alarm sounds if the temperature increases above highAlarmLimit for alarmDelay time units; p.302, Control Objective] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing reliable and precise control of a refrigeration system [where the EKC is a mature product that has been produced and sold for a number of years, Larsen; p.306]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Smith to have continuously deriving a weighted mean temperature prevailing inside the refrigerated volume, during a moving time window of a predefined length where when the weighted mean temperature inside the refrigerated volume exceeds the cut-in temperature, starting a timer and continuing to derive the weighted mean temperature prevailing inside the refrigerated volume, during a moving time window of a predefined length in view of the teachings of Larsen where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing reliable and precise control of a refrigeration system [where the EKC is a mature product that has been produced and sold for a number of years, Larsen; p.306].
The combined teachings do not teach deriving a maximum acceptable relative decay value, based on the high temperature alarm limit and the high temperature alarm delay time.
However, Liu teaches a method for alarming the remaining shelf life of fruits and vegetables in the refrigerator [0008] including deriving a maximum acceptable relative decay value [rate of change of key quality, k; 0022], based on the high temperature alarm limit [where the key qualities of fruits and vegetables are tested at temperature points within the cooling compartment temperature range, including the maximum temperature 10°C; 0022] and the high temperature alarm delay time [where the alarm sounds at when the remaining shelf life reaches 24 hours; 0037; where a 50% decrease in the key quality of fruits is taken as the end point of shelf life], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, deriving a rate of decay based on time to decay at a given temperature point, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., ensuring safety while reducing waste [Liu, 0007]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have deriving a maximum acceptable relative decay value, based on the high temperature alarm limit and the high temperature alarm delay time in view of the teachings of Liu where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., ensuring safety while reducing waste [Liu, 0007]
Regarding Claim 2, Smith, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach wherein the step of deriving the maximum acceptable relative decay value is performed using a mathematical model.
However, Liu teaches a method for alarming the remaining shelf life of fruits and vegetables in the refrigerator [0008] wherein the step of deriving the maximum acceptable relative decay value is performed using a mathematical model [where rate of change k at a given temperature over time is determined with linear fitting with formula (2) on the data; 0031] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., ensuring safety while reducing waste [Liu, 0007]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have wherein the step of deriving a maximum acceptable relative decay value is performed using a mathematical model in view of the teachings of Liu where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., ensuring safety while reducing waste [Liu, 0007].
Regarding Claim 3, Smith, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach the step of deriving combinations of mean [refer to Larsen as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above in regards to the use of a weighted mean temperature] storage temperature and storage time resulting in a relative decay value corresponding to the derived maximum acceptable relative decay value.
However, Liu teaches a method for alarming the remaining shelf life of fruits and vegetables in the refrigerator [0008] including the step of deriving combinations of storage temperature and storage time [where formula (2) is used to perform linear fitting on the data of quality over time at a temperature; 0022; where the remaining shelf life at a new temperature can be predicted with formula (1);0030] resulting in a relative decay value [for example, k2 at a given temperature; 0031] corresponding to the derived maximum acceptable relative decay value [where the rates of change of key qualities of fruits and vegetables are tested over a range of temperature points within the cooling compartment temperature range, 0-10°C; 0022; where corresponding is understood to mean having or participating in the same relationship (such as kind, degree, position, correspondence, or function)] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, predicting shelf life given a temperature and storage time, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., ensuring safety while reducing waste [Liu, 0007]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have deriving combinations of mean storage temperature and storage time resulting in a relative decay value corresponding to the derived maximum acceptable relative decay value in view of the teachings of Liu where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., ensuring safety while reducing waste [Liu, 0007]
Smith further does not teach wherein the step of deriving a delay time is based on the weighted mean temperature and the combinations of mean storage temperature and storage time [however, refer to the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above where the conditional step of deriving a delay time may never occur. Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "in the case” step of claim 1]
Regarding Claim 4, Smith, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 and further wherein the step of deriving combinations of mean [refer to Larsen as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above in regards to the use of a weighted mean temperature] storage temperature and storage time resulting in a relative decay value corresponding to the derived maximum acceptable relative decay value is performed using a mathematical model [where the remaining shelf life at a new temperature can be predicted with formula (1);0030, refer to Liu as applied to the rejection of claim 3 above].
Regarding Claim 10, Smith, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches the step of resetting the moving time window [refer to Larsen teaching a mean temperature as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above] upon completion of the scheduled inspection or maintenance [where the monitoring process may end, 418, until reset by a technician or operator; 0089].
Regarding Claim 11, Smith, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches the step of setting control parameters related to the refrigerated volume further comprises setting a cut-out temperature [a user definable temperature set point (cold point alarm); 0045].
Regarding Claim 12, Smith, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the vapour compression system [where the refrigeration unit of a second embodiment is a cascade refrigeration unit; 0029] comprises at least two expansion devices [expansion valve 210 and expansion valve 220, Figure 2] and at least two evaporators [evaporator 212 and evaporator 208, Figure 2], each expansion device controlling a refrigerant supply to one of the evaporators [where refrigerant passing through expansion valve 210 passes through evaporator 212; 0027; where refrigerant passed through expansion valve 220 passes through evaporator 208; 0028], wherein the method further comprises the step of performing diagnosis of the vapour compression system based on one or more warnings [where information obtained by all or a portion of the sensors on refrigeration unit 200 may be stored by monitoring system 200 to be reviewed by a technician or operator for diagnostics; 0039] originating from the at least one of the refrigerated volumes [where evaporator 212 absorbs heat from refrigeration compartment 214, Figure 2; 0027] being arranged in thermal contact [interpreted as the physical connection between bodies that allows for transfer of thermal energy] with the evaporators [where evaporator 212 absorbs heat from refrigeration compartment 214, Figure 2; 0027; where evaporator 208 absorbs the heat energy from condenser 206 in a cascade refrigeration system heat exchanger 204, Figure 2; 0027].
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US20090093917A1) in view of Larsen (Larsen, Kim G., et al. "Testing real-time embedded software using UPPAAL-TRON: an industrial case study." Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Embedded software. Sept 2005 [retrieved on 7/14/2026. Retrieved from <https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1086228.1086283>) and Liu (CN101604470B) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zweig (US20040212507A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Smith, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 wherein the step of deriving combinations of mean storage temperature and storage time resulting in a relative decay value corresponding to the derived maximum acceptable relative decay value [refer to the rejection of claim 3 above] and does not teach the step comprises generating a look-up table and/or a graph.
However, Zweig teaches electronic time-temperature indicators with a visual output [0002] including generating a look-up table [where stability data may be in the form of a lookup table; 0059] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, generating a look-up table, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing rapid customization for a particular stability monitoring application [Zweig, 0057]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have generating a look-up table in view of the teachings of Liu where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing rapid customization for a particular stability monitoring application [Zweig, 0057]
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US20090093917A1) in view of Larsen (Larsen, Kim G., et al. "Testing real-time embedded software using UPPAAL-TRON: an industrial case study." Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Embedded software. Sept 2005 [retrieved on 7/14/2026. Retrieved from <https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1086228.1086283>) and Liu (CN101604470B) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Thybo (US20090210102A1)
Regarding Claim 8, Smith, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach wherein the weighted mean temperature is a mean kinetic temperature (MKT).
However, Thybo teaches controlling temperature in a refrigeration system in a manner which ensures quality of products being refrigerated [0002] where the weighted mean temperature is a mean kinetic temperature (MKT) [where mean kinetic temperature is used as a method of quantifying temperatures during transport and storage of drug products; 0028] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., accounting for temperature sensitivity of the product in determining whether or not the product has been adversely affected [0030;0034]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the weighted mean temperature is a mean kinetic temperature (MKT) in view of the teachings of Thybo where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., accounting for temperature sensitivity of the product in determining whether or not the product has been adversely affected [0030;0034]
Regarding Claim 9, Smith teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches the step of initiating inspection or maintenance of the vapour compression system in response to a generated warning [where the monitoring system may alert a technician or operator; 0039] but does not explicitly teach the step of scheduling.
However, Thybo teaches controlling temperature in a refrigeration system in a manner which ensures quality of products being refrigerated [0002] including scheduling inspection or maintenance [where a technician will attend to the problem after a specific time period after partial/temporary breakdowns requiring maintenance; 0039 ] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, scheduling inspection or maintenance, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improving operation by compensating for expected variation in the refrigeration system [Thybo; 0039]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the weighted mean temperature is a mean kinetic temperature (MKT) in view of the teachings of Thybo where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improving operation by compensating for expected variation in the refrigeration system [Thybo; 0039]
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US20090093917A1) in view of Larsen (Larsen, Kim G., et al. "Testing real-time embedded software using UPPAAL-TRON: an industrial case study." Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Embedded software. Sept 2005 [retrieved on 7/14/2026. Retrieved from <https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1086228.1086283>) and Liu (CN101604470B) as applied to claim 12 above and in further view of Shim (US20140070951A1)
Regarding Claim 13, Smith, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 and does not teach wherein the step of performing diagnosis of the vapour compression system [where information obtained by all or a portion of the sensors on refrigeration unit 200 may be stored by monitoring system 200 to be reviewed by a technician or operator for diagnostics; 0039] comprises determining that a system related fault is occurring when the warnings originating from two or more refrigerated volumes occur within a predefined time interval.
However, Shim teaches a refrigerator [refrigerator 1 including refrigerating compartment 120 and a freezing compartment cooled by an evaporator; 0055-0056] wherein the step of performing diagnosis of the vapour compression system [via diagnosing unit 250; 0405-0406] comprises determining that a system related fault is occurring when the warnings originating from two or more refrigerated volumes occur [where the temperature of both the refrigerating compartment and the freezing compartment are determined to be in a weak cooling state the diagnosing unit 250 diagnoses the refrigerator 1 as a failure in cycle (S1490); 0403;0404;0406] within a predefined time interval [a failure in cycle or door sealing (S1495); 0406] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., accurately diagnosing a failure to inform an appropriate response (Shim; 0408).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the predefined temperature range includes determining that a system related fault is occurring when the warnings originating from two or more refrigerated volumes occur within a predefined time interval in view of the teachings of Shim where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., accurately diagnosing a failure to inform an appropriate response (Shim; 0408).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 6, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Smith (US20090093917A1) in view of of Larsen (Larsen, Kim G., et al. "Testing real-time embedded software using UPPAAL-TRON: an industrial case study." Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Embedded software. Sept 2005 [retrieved on 7/14/2026. Retrieved from <https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1086228.1086283>) and Liu (CN101604470B), where Liu teaches a method for alarming the remaining shelf life of fruits and vegetables in the refrigerator [0008] where the step of deriving a delay time is performed continuously thereby obtaining a dynamically updated delay time [where the remaining shelf life of the corresponding fruit and vegetable is based on the real-time temperature value and the formula; 0021; where the internal timer decrements the remaining shelf by 1 every hour; 0011] in contrast to the claimed subject matter where the delay time is derived based on the continuously derived weighted mean temperature. Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and dependent claim 6 with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 4/28/2026, with respect to claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-5 in regard to use of the term “maximum” have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-8 regarding the rejection of amended independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-13 except for their dependence upon claim 1. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
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 KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights