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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2024 was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 08/09/2024. Accordingly, Claims 1-13 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
§ 112(b)
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 1-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it is noted that the conditional steps of “in the case that 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, deriving a delay time, based on the weighted mean temperature and the maximum acceptable relative decay value, and generating a warning when the timer reaches the derived delay time…” may never occur.
In particular, claim 1 does not positively recite the condition precedent, (i.e. in the case that the weighted mean temperature inside the refrigerated volume exceeds the cut-in temperature), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “in the case” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of determining need not occur to satisfy the claim.
As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "in the case” step of claim 1, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation “the step of deriving a maximum acceptable relative decay value” lacks antecedent basis with claim 1.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Please amend the claims to recite - - the step of deriving the maximum acceptable relative decay value - - for clarity.
Regarding Claims 1-5, the term “maximum” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
The terms “maximum” 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.
Thus, as used to qualify a decay value, the terms render the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding Claim 7, it is noted that the conditional steps of “In the case that the weighted mean temperature inside the refrigerated volume decreases below the cut-in temperature, stopping and resetting the timer” may never occur.
In particular, claim 7 does not positively recite the condition precedent, (i.e. in the case that the weighted mean temperature inside the refrigerated volume decreases below the cut-in temperature), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “in the case” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of determining need not occur to satisfy the claim.
As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "in the case” step of claim 7, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Regarding Claim 12, the recitation of “the refrigerated volumes” lacks antecedent basis in light of claim 1 where each evaporator is arranged in thermal contact with “a refrigerated volume”.
In particular, “each evaporator being in thermal contact with a refrigerated volume” does not necessarily mean the system includes more than one refrigerated volume where the evaporators may be in thermal contact, understood as the physical connection between bodies that allows for transfer of thermal energy. The evaporators may be in thermal contact with the same refrigerated volume or a plurality of refrigerated volumes. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation “the refrigerated volumes” has been interpreted as - - the at least one of the refrigerated volumes - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 13, it is noted that the conditional steps of “performing diagnosis of the vapour compression system comprises determining that a system related fault is occurring in the case that warnings originating from two or more refrigerated volumes occur within a predefined time interval ” may never occur.
In particular, claim 13 does not positively recite the condition precedent, (i.e. in the case that warnings originating from two or more refrigerated volumes occur within a predefined time interval), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “in the case” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of determining need not occur to satisfy the claim.
As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "in the case” step of claim 13, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Claims 2-6 and 8-11 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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, 6,10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US20090093917A1) in view of Dalmolin et al. (US20190024958A1) 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].
Smith does not teach continuously deriving a weighted mean temperature prevailing inside the refrigerated volume, during a moving time window of a predefined length.
However, Dalmolin teaches a system for monitoring temperatures in refrigeration units [0002] including continuously deriving a weighted mean temperature prevailing inside the refrigerated volume [where buffered temperature is calculated by averaging the ambient temperature within the refrigeration unit over time; 0018], during a moving time window of a predefined length [where buffered temperature is calculated by averaging over time; 0018; where the temperature data received by the server 102 is averaged over a specified time (e.g., 60 minutes); 0074] 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 a flatter, more stable temperature reading [Dalmolin, 0008;0009].
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 in view of the teachings of Dalmolin 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 a flatter, more stable temperature reading [Dalmolin, 0008;0009].
Smith does 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 a 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 a 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 and does not teach the step of deriving combinations of mean [refer to Dalmolin as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above in regards to the use of a 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 Dalmolin as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above in regards to the use of a 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 6, Smith, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the step of deriving a delay time is performed continuously, based on the continuously derived weighted mean temperature, thereby obtaining a dynamically updated delay 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 10, Smith, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches the step of resetting the moving time window [refer to Dalmolin 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 Dalmolin et al. (US20190024958A1) 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 Dalmolin et al. (US20190024958A1) 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]
Conclusion
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