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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of the claim states “refrigeration apparatus” and it is interpreted to recite –a refrigeration apparatus--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of the claim states “refrigeration apparatus” and it is interpreted to recite –the refrigeration apparatus--. 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buda et al (US 20190257568 A1, hereinafter Buda) in view of Foss et al (CN 106440617 A, hereinafter Foss) and Wrigley et al (GB 2512128 A, hereinafter Wrigley).
Regarding claim 1, Buda teaches a refrigeration apparatus (system 100 is operating in air conditioning mode or as a refrigerator, paragraph 0036), the refrigeration apparatus comprising: a chamber in which items to be cooled can be located (may also be the internal space or food storage area of a refrigerator or freezer, paragraph 0036); a compressor (compressor 104) for compressing vaporised refrigerant (paragraph 0032); an electric motor (motor 104a) for driving operation of the compressor (paragraph 0035).
Buda teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach an ambient temperature sensor for measuring ambient temperature in the neighbourhood of the refrigeration apparatus; at least one inner temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of the interior of the refrigeration apparatus; and a controller constructed and arranged to receive outputs from the ambient temperature sensor and the inner temperature sensor.
However, Foss teaches an ambient temperature sensor (temperature sensor 11) for measuring ambient temperature in the neighbourhood of the refrigeration apparatus (the temperature sensor 11 of the outside temperature Ta, paragraph 0009); at least one inner temperature sensor (temperature sensor 10) for measuring a temperature of the interior of the refrigeration apparatus (temperature sensor 10 for detecting the temperature of the storage chamber 2, paragraph 0008); and a controller (control unit 9) constructed and arranged to receive outputs from the ambient temperature sensor (in step S3, and obtaining the temperature sensor 11 of the outside temperature Ta, paragraph 0009) and the inner temperature sensor (the control unit 9 inquires the storage chamber 2 by the temperature Ti measured by temperature sensor 10, paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus in the teachings of Foss to include an ambient temperature sensor for measuring ambient temperature in the neighbourhood of the refrigeration apparatus; at least one inner temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of the interior of the refrigeration apparatus; and a controller constructed and arranged to receive outputs from the ambient temperature sensor and the inner temperature sensor in view of the teachings of Foss in order to yield the predictable result of realizing the refrigeration appliance operation with high efficiency under different environmental conditions.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach the controller being constructed and arranged to obtain measures of a motor current of the electric motor at time intervals which are based on the ambient temperature and the inner temperature; the controller being constructed and arranged, based on the measures of the motor current of the electric motor at the time intervals, to at least one of (ii) control operation of the electric motor and (ii) initiate a defrost procedure for the refrigeration apparatus.
However, Wrigley teaches the controller (control system 740) being constructed and arranged to obtain measures of a motor current (invention offers the possibility of accurate measurement and monitoring of temperature at four points, together with measurement of current, power factor, kW, and compressor runtime, paragraph 0009) of the electric motor (motor 720) at time intervals which are based on the ambient temperature (fourth temperature T4 also provides part of a historical record, which in turn helps predict the expected operating time and temperatures of the motor 324 for current values of fourth temperature T4, paragraph 0017) and the inner temperature (predefined values simulating food temperatures by measuring internal and external food temperatures, abstract); the controller (control system 740) being constructed and arranged, based on the measures of the motor current (invention offers the possibility of accurate measurement and monitoring of temperature at four points, together with measurement of current, power factor, kW, and compressor runtime, paragraph 0009) of the electric motor at the time intervals, to at least one of (ii) control operation of the electric motor (abstract) and (ii) initiate a defrost procedure for the refrigeration apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus in the combined teachings to include the controller being constructed and arranged to obtain measures of a motor current of the electric motor at time intervals which are based on the ambient temperature and the inner temperature; the controller being constructed and arranged, based on the measures of the motor current of the electric motor at the time intervals, to at least one of (ii) control operation of the electric motor and (ii) initiate a defrost procedure for the refrigeration apparatus in view of the teachings of Wrigley in order to yield the predictable result of allowing sufficient current for synchronous rotation of the motor.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach wherein the controller (control system 740 of Wrigley) is arranged to at least one of (ii) control operation of the electric motor (abstract of Wrigley) and (ii) initiate a defrost procedure for the refrigeration apparatus based on comparing the values of the motor current as measured at adjacent time intervals.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach comprising: an evaporator (evaporator 102 of Buda) in which refrigerant vaporises in use to absorb heat from the chamber (paragraph 0032 of Buda); pipes for respectively carrying refrigerant from the evaporator to the compressor (as shown on figure 2 of Buda) and for carrying refrigerant from the compressor to the evaporator (as shown on figure 2 of Buda); one or more fans (fan 16 of Foss) for circulating air within the refrigeration apparatus (ventilating fan 16 driven air flow through the storage chamber 2 or storage chamber 12 of Foss); and one or more air channels (evaporator chamber 14 of Foss) through which cold air passes in use to circulate cold air within the refrigeration apparatus (as shown on figure 4 of Foss).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, it is noted that although the preamble of claims 9 and 12 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10-11, 13-15 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 claims 2 and 10, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Akiyama et al (US 20120192573 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the controller is arranged such that the time intervals at which the measures of the motor current of the electric motor are obtained are based on the difference between the ambient temperature and the temperature of the interior of the refrigeration apparatus”. The closest prior art, Akiyama teaches the controller 5 is operable to control the operation of the motor-driven pump P1 connected to the controller 5 via the battery 5A, as well as to appropriately change the magnitude and direction of the electric current to be supplied to the Peltier devices 9A-9H based on the signals sent from the temperature sensors 17A and 17B.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Akiyama et al (US 20120192573 A1). The prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the values of the motor current as measured at adjacent time intervals are compared by, for each adjacent pair of time intervals, taking a difference of the motor currents as measured in the adjacent time intervals, and comparing the number of said difference of the motor currents that are less than a predetermined percentage threshold with the number of said difference of the motor currents that are more than the percentage threshold”. The closest prior art, Akiyama teaches the controller 5 is operable to control the operation of the motor-driven pump P1 connected to the controller 5 via the battery 5A, as well as to appropriately change the magnitude and direction of the electric current to be supplied to the Peltier devices 9A-9H based on the signals sent from the temperature sensors 17A and 17B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763