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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/26/24 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 11 and 14 are method claims that use contingency language “when” and “if”, it is noted that MPEP 2111.04 states “II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14. See also MPEP § 2143.03.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim 1 would be without the steps of a) determining…a first to be introduced change in the optimization parameter and introducing said first to be introduced change into the heat transport system/b) recording…a power consumption change in said summed power consumption (dPsum) resulting from said change in said optimization parameter introduced into said heat transport system/d) introducing…said new to be introduced change into the heat transport system and repeating steps b) to d)) because the condition of “the heat transport system is in a steady state” is not required by the claim, the examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “determining that the heat transport system is in a steady state”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of with regard of limitation c) would be one of “c) determining a new to be introduced change to the optimization parameter, wherein said new to be introduced change results in: an increase in said optimization parameter, if a rate of change in summed power consumption with respect to said optimization parameter (dPsum/dVopti) is smaller than zero, OR c) determining a new to be introduced change to the optimization parameter, wherein said new to be introduced change results in: a decrease in said optimization parameter, if said rate of change in summed power consumption with respect to said optimization parameter (dPsum/dVopti) is larger than zero (because these two scenario are mutually exclusive). Claim 10 recites “wherein said recording of said power change in summed power consumption is determined at a steady state of said heat transport system”, claim 11 recites “said recording a power change in said summed power consumption resulting from said change in said optimization parameter introduced into said heat transport system is carried out when the summed power consumption has reached a new steady state being different from a previous steady state prevailing prior to introducing said change in the said optimization parameter and said to be introduced change is introduced after said new steady state has been reached”, claim 14 recites “wherein said recording a power change in summed power consumption (dP) is recorded based on said first and second steady summed power consumptions” which are further extending limitations of contingent limitations of step b) of claim 1, therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claims 10-11 and 14 would also be without these limitations. Claim 14 further recite “sampling of summed power consumption prior to and after said introducing said new to be introduced change thereby providing summed power data representing summed power consumption as function of time” which is further extending contingent limitations of step d) of claim 1, therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim 14 would also be without these limitations. Claim 17 recites “said introducing a new change to be introduced into the heat transport system is carried at time intervals being larger than said first settling time, such as at least five times larger, preferably at least ten times larger than said first settling time”, which is further extending contingent limitation of step d) of claim 1. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim 17 would also be without these limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim 14 would be without the steps of “identifying in said summed power consumption data…said previous steady state as a first steady summed power consumption occurring prior to and said new steady state as a second steady summed power consumption occurring after said introducing said new to be introduced change” because the condition of “said previous steady being present/said new steady state being present” is not required. Claims 15-16 recite “wherein said first and second steady summed powers are identified by use of a cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM)” and “said first and said second steady summed powers consumptions are identified by use of a linear regression, said linear regression is based on a sliding time window including a sub-set of said summed power consumption data, and said first and second steady summed power consumptions are identified by a slope of the linear regression being substantially zero”, these are further extending limitations of contingent limitations in claim 14, therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claims 15-16 would also be without these limitations
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 12-13 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the various numeral labels should be deleted as the claims are not referring to any drawing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said to be introduced” on line 2 should be “said new to be introduced”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said to be introduced” on line 7 should be “said new to be introduced”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites “the method is based on an optimization parameter (Vopti) indicative of or representing a summed power consumption (Psum) for two or more components of the heat transport system”, it is not clear what steps/operations of the method is based on an optimization parameter (Vopti) indicative of or representing a summed power consumption (Psum) for two or more components of the heat transport system. Therefore, claim 1 is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said previous steady state" in page 2 line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said new steady state" in page 2 line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “a slope of the linear regression being substantially zero” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a slope of the linear regression being substantially zero” 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. For the purpose of the examination, the examiner has interpreted “a slope of the linear regression being substantially zero” as “a slope of the linear regression being zero”.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "such as" and “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 further recites “said common or individual control loops set said first thermal load (2), said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4) at steady set after a change in set-point within a first settling time”, it is not clear what “steady set” is, “steady set” is not a common term for the field of optimizing the energy consumption of a heat transport system, and the specification does not provide a definition of what “steady set” is. For the purpose of the examination, the examiner has interpreted “said common or individual control loops set said first thermal load (2), said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4) at steady set after a change in set-point within a first settling time” as “said common or individual control loops set said first thermal load (2), said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving the method is based on an optimization parameter (Vopti) indicative of or representing a summed power consumption (Psum) for two or more components of the heat transport system, determining a new to be introduced change to the optimization parameter, wherein said new to be introduced change results in: an increase in said optimization parameter, if a rate of change in summed power consumption with respect to said optimization parameter (dPsum/dVopti) is smaller than zero, a decrease in said optimization parameter, if said rate of change in summed power consumption with respect to said optimization parameter, wherein the optimization parameter is a speed of said cooling tower fan (7), the optimization parameter is the difference between an ambient temperature at which the first thermal load (2) operates and said first condenser temperature (T1,cond), wherein the optimization parameter is a speed of said dry cooler fan (16), wherein the optimization parameter is the difference between the second and first evaporator temperature or said first evaporator temperature, wherein said to be introduced change to the optimization parameter is bound to be limited by an upper and lower limit, where said upper and lower limits are defined by a possible operating range of the optimization parameter, wherein a magnitude of said to be introduced change is determined proportional to said rate of change of summed power consumption with respect to said optimization parameter, these limitations as described in [0063]-[0065], [0071]-[0074], [0085] and [0093]-[0095] is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind. The claim(s) also recite(s) mathematical concepts of wherein said summed power consumption being a sum of at least two of said power consumptions which when summarized has a convex power consumption characteristic as a function of the optimization parameter, the optimization parameter is the difference between the first and the second condenser temperatures and said summed power consumption (P) is the sum of the first thermal load power consumption and the heat transport device (3) power consumption, wherein said summed power consumption (P) is the sum of the power used to operate said cooling tower fan (7) and the power used to operate the spray pump (8), wherein said summed power consumption (P) is the sum of the first thermal load (2) power consumption and the heat transport device (3) power consumption, wherein said summed power consumption (P) is the sum of the power used to operate said second pump (10) and a power used to operate said dry cooler fan (16), wherein said summed power consumption (P) is the sum of the power used to operate said first pump (9) and a heat pump (13), said first and second steady summed powers are identified by use of a cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM), said first and said second steady summed powers consumptions are identified by use of a linear regression, said linear regression is based on a sliding time window including a sub-set of said summed power consumption data, said first and second steady summed power consumptions are identified by a slope of the linear regression being substantially zero, these limitations as described in [0065]-[0070], [0102]-[0107] and [0169]-[0171] constitutes details of mathematical calculations of the material model, physical properties, thus, it falls into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), (claims 1, 3-9 and 15-16).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of “a first thermal load (2), a heat transport device (3) and a second thermal load (4), said heat transport device being configured to a) extract heat from a first fluid circulating by use of a first pump (9) between a heat absorption side (11) of said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4) and supply at least a fraction of said heat to a second fluid circulating by use of a second pump (10) between said first thermal load (2) and a heat rejection side of (12) said heat transport device (3);wherein operation of said first thermal load (2) and said second pump (10), said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4) and said first pump (9) each requires a power consumption (P)”, “wherein said summed power consumption is changeable by introducing a change to the optimization parameter into the heat transport system”, “wherein said heat transport device (3) comprising a condenser (5) receiving said second fluid from the first thermal load (2) at first condenser temperature (T1,cond) and delivering said second fluid to the first thermal load (2) at a second condenser temperature (T2cond)”, “wherein the first thermal load (2) comprising a cooling tower (14) through which the second fluid flows in one or more flow channels, said cooling tower comprising a cooling tower fan (7) configured to drive a flow of air through the cooling tower (2) and past said one or more flow changes, and a spray pump (8) to spray water onto said one or more flow channels”, “wherein the first thermal load (2) comprises a dry cooler (15) through which the second fluid flows in one or more flow channels and a dry cooler fan (16) configured to drive a flow of air through said dry cooler (15) and past said one or more flow channels, wherein second pump (10) is arranged to circulate said second fluid between the heat rejection side and through the first thermal load (2)”, “wherein the heat absorption side (11) comprising an evaporator (6) delivering said first fluid to said second thermal load (4) at a first evaporator temperature (T1,evap) and receiving said first fluid from said second thermal load (4) at a second evaporator temperature (T2,evap), wherein the first pump (9) is arranged to circulate said first fluid between said evaporator (6) and said second thermal load (4)”, “wherein the heat transport device (3) comprising a heat pump (17)”, an operation for each of said first thermal load (2), said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4) is controlled by a common or individual control loops operating on the basis of set-points representing a thermal specification to be met by first thermal load (2), the heat transport device (3) and the second thermal load 4, and said common or individual control loops set said first thermal load (2), said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4) (claims 1, 2, 4, 6-7, 12-13 and 17) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment because it claims field of use.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the “field of use” limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP2106.05(d)).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150277444 to Burns et al. (hereinafter “Burns”), in view of US20220161629 to Wada et al. (hereinafter “Wada”).
As for claim 1, Burns substantially discloses a method for optimizing the energy consumption of a heat transport system (1), wherein the method is based on an optimization parameter (Vopti) indicative of or representing a summed power consumption (Psum) for two or more components of the heat transport system (Burns, see [0039] and [0059]-[0062]), wherein said summed power consumption being a sum of at least two of said power consumptions which when summarized has a convex power consumption characteristic as a function of the optimization parameter and wherein said summed power consumption is changeable by introducing a change to the optimization parameter into the heat transport system (Burns, see [0062]-[0065]), the method comprising, the steps of:
c) determining a new to be introduced change to the optimization parameter, wherein said new to be introduced change results in: an increase in said optimization parameter, if a rate of change in summed power consumption with respect to said optimization parameter (dPsum/dVopti) is smaller than zero, a decrease in said optimization parameter, if said rate of change in summed power consumption with respect to said optimization parameter (dPsum/dVopti) is larger than zero (Burns, see [0087]-[0093]).
Burns does not explicitly disclose a first thermal load (2), a heat transport device (3) and a second thermal load (4), said heat transport device being configured to a) extract heat from a first fluid circulating by use of a first pump (9) between a heat absorption side (11) of said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4) and supply at least a fraction of said heat to a second fluid circulating by use of a second pump (10) between said first thermal load (2) and a heat rejection side of (12) said heat transport device (3); wherein operation of said first thermal load (2) and said second pump (10), said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4) and said first pump (9) each requires a power consumption (P).
However, Wada in an analogous art discloses said heat transport system comprising: a first thermal load (2) (Wada, see Fig. 1 element HT, Fig. 2 and [0018]), a heat transport device (3) (Wada, see Fig. 1 element RE, Fig. 2 and [0018]) and a second thermal load (4) (Wada, see Fig. 1 element LT, Fig. 2 and [0018]), said heat transport device being configured to a) extract heat from a first fluid circulating by use of a first pump (9) between a heat absorption side (11) of said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4) and supply at least a fraction of said heat to a second fluid circulating by use of a second pump (10) between said first thermal load (2) and a heat rejection side of (12) said heat transport device (3) (Wada, see Fig. 2 and [0019]-[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wada into the method of Burns. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to minimize the sum of power consumption values of a heat control device (Wada, see abstract and [0018]).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Wada further discloses the first thermal load (2) comprising a cooling tower (14) through which the second fluid flows in one or more flow channels, said cooling tower comprising a cooling tower fan (7) configured to drive a flow of air through the cooling tower (2) and past said one or more flow changes, and a spray pump (8) to spray water onto said one or more flow channels, and wherein the optimization parameter is a speed of said cooling tower fan (7), and wherein said summed power consumption (P) is the sum of the power used to operate said cooling tower fan (7) and the power used to operate the spray pump (8) (Wada, see abstract, Fig. 2, and [0020]-[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wada into the method of Burns. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to minimize the sum of power consumption values of a heat control device (Wada, see abstract and [0018]).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, all of the limitations in claim 10 are not included in the BRI of the claim (see “claim interpretation” section above), therefore, the combination of Burn and Wada discloses claim 10.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, all of the limitations in claim 11 are not included in the BRI of the claim (see “claim interpretation” section above), therefore, the combination of Burn and Wada discloses claim 11.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Burns further discloses the heat transport device comprising a heat pump (Burns, see abstract and [0002]).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Wada further discloses the heat transport device comprising a chiller (Wada, see [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wada into the method of Burns. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to minimize the sum of power consumption values of a heat control device (Wada, see abstract and [0018]).
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Wada further discloses an operation for each of said first thermal load (2), said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4) is controlled by a common or individual control loops operating on the basis of set-points representing a thermal specification to be met by first thermal load (2), the heat transport device (3) and the second thermal load 4, and
said common or individual control loops set said first thermal load (2), said heat transport device (3) and said second thermal load (4) (Wada, see abstract, Fig. 2, and [0020]-[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wada into the method of Burns. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to minimize the sum of power consumption values of a heat control device (Wada, see abstract and [0018]).
Claim(s) 2-3, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns, in view of Wada, further in view of US20220003475 to Swofford et al. (hereinafter “Swofford”).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Burns further discloses said heat transport device comprising a condenser (Burns, see [0039]).
The combination of Burns and Wada does not explicitly disclose receiving said second fluid from the first thermal load (2) at first condenser temperature (T1,cond) and delivering said second fluid to the first thermal load (2) at a second condenser temperature (T2cond). However, Swofford in an analogous art discloses receiving said second fluid from the first thermal load (2) at first condenser temperature (T1,cond) and delivering said second fluid to the first thermal load (2) at a second condenser temperature (T2cond) (Swofford, see [0051]-[0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Swofford into the combination of Burns and Wada. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to increase the efficiency of the system (Swofford, see [0057]).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Burns further discloses the optimization parameter (Burns, see [0059]-[0062]). Wada further discloses said summed power consumption (p) is the sum of the first thermal load power consumption and the heat transport device power consumption (Wada, see abstract, Fig. 2 and [0019]-[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wada into the method of Burns. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to minimize the sum of power consumption values of a heat control device (Wada, see abstract and [0018]).
Swofford further discloses the optimization parameter is the difference between the first and the second condenser temperature (Swofford, see [0051]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Swofford into the combination of Burns and Wada. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to increase the efficiency of the system (Swofford, see [0057]).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Burns further discloses the optimization parameter (Burns, see [0059]-[0062]). Wada further discloses said summed power consumption (p) is the sum of the first thermal load power consumption and the heat transport device power consumption (Wada, see abstract, Fig. 2 and [0019]-[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wada into the method of Burns. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to minimize the sum of power consumption values of a heat control device (Wada, see abstract and [0018]).
Swofford further discloses the optimization parameter is the difference between an ambient temperature at which the first thermal load (2) operates and said first condenser temperature (T1,cond) (Swofford, see [0057]-[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Swofford into the combination of Burns and Wada. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to increase the efficiency of the system (Swofford, see [0057]).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Burns further discloses the heat absorption side (11) comprising an evaporator (6) delivering said first fluid to said second thermal load (4) at a first evaporator temperature (T1,evap) and receiving said first fluid from said second thermal load (4) at a second evaporator temperature (T2,evap) (Burns, see [0040] and [0057]-[0059]), wherein the optimization parameter is the difference between the second and first evaporator temperature or said first evaporator temperature, wherein said summed power consumption (P) is the sum of the power used to operate said first pump (9) and a heat pump (13) (Burns, see [0059]-[0065]).
Wada further discloses wherein the first pump (9) is arranged to circulate said first fluid between said evaporator (6) and said second thermal load (4) (Wada, see abstract, Fig. 2 and [0019]-[0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wada into the method of Burns. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to minimize the sum of power consumption values of a heat control device (Wada, see abstract and [0018]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns, in view of Wada, in view of Swofford, further in view of US10670028 to Rollins et al. (hereinafter “Rollins”).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Wada further discloses wherein second pump (10) is arranged to circulate said second fluid between the heat rejection side and through the first thermal load (2) (Wada, see Fig. 2 and [0019]-[0026]), the optimization parameter is a speed of fan, and said summed power consumption (P) is the sum of the power used to operate said second pump (10) and a power used to operate said fan (16) (Wada, see abstract, Fig. 2, [0019]-[0026] and [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Wada into the method of Burns. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to minimize the sum of power consumption values of a heat control device (Wada, see abstract and [0018]).
The combination of Burns, Wada and Swofford does not explicitly disclose wherein the first thermal load (2) comprises a dry cooler (15) through which the second fluid flows in one or more flow channels and a dry cooler fan (16) configured to drive a flow of air through said dry cooler (15) and past said one or more flow channels. However, Rollins in an analogous art discloses wherein the first thermal load (2) comprises a dry cooler (15) through which the second fluid flows in one or more flow channels and a dry cooler fan (16) configured to drive a flow of air through said dry cooler (15) and past said one or more flow channels (Rollins, see pages col. 8 lines 10-12 and col. 21 line 66-col. 22 line 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Rollins into the combination of Burns, Wada and Swofford. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a method and system for efficiently managing the operation and performance of cooling towers, air-cooled heat exchangers (ACHE), HVAC, and mechanical towers and chillers (Rollins, see col. 1 lines 19-22).
Claim(s) 8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns, in view of Wada, in view of US20120239165 to Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, the combination of Burns and Wada does not explicitly disclose wherein said to be introduced change to the optimization parameter is bound to be limited by an upper and lower limit, where said upper and lower limits are defined by a possible operating range of the optimization parameter. However, Li in an analogous art discloses wherein said to be introduced change to the optimization parameter is bound to be limited by an upper and lower limit, where said upper and lower limits are defined by a possible operating range of the optimization parameter (Li, see [0033]-[0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Li into the combination of Burns and Wada. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to compensate for an actuator saturation condition of the extremum seeking control strategy (Li, see [0006]).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, all of the limitations in claim 14 are not included in the BRI of the claim (see “claim interpretation” section above), therefore, the combination of Burn, Wada and Li discloses claim 14.
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, all of the limitations in claim 15 are not included in the BRI of the claim (see “claim interpretation” section above), therefore, the combination of Burn, Wada and Li discloses claim 15.
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, all of the limitations in claim 16 are not included in the BRI of the claim (see “claim interpretation” section above), therefore, the combination of Burn, Wada and Li discloses claim 16.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns, in view of Wada, in view of “Gradient-Based Extremum Seeking: Performance Tuning via Lie Bracket Approximations” to Labar et al. (hereinafter “Labar”).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Burns further discloses rate of change of summed power consumption with respect to said optimization parameter (Burns, see [0087]-[0093]). The combination of Burns and Wada does not explicitly disclose wherein a magnitude of said to be introduced change is determined proportional to said rate of change.
However, Labar in an analogous art discloses wherein a magnitude of said to be introduced change is determined proportional to said rate of change (Labar, see pages 2778-2779).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Labar into the combination of Burns and Wada. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensures the boundedness of the update rates and to enhance the steady state accuracy (Labar, see abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US11899409 discloses a system and a method for controlling an operation of a vapor compression system are disclosed, such that a performance of the system measured in accordance with a metric of the performance is optimized. A control signal is modified with a modification signal including a perturbation signal having a first frequency, wherein the control signal controls at least one component of the vapor compression system. A metric signal representing a perturbation in the performance of the system caused by the modification signal is determined, wherein the metric signal has a second frequency substantially equal to the first frequency. The control signal is adjusted based on a function of a phase between the perturbation signal and the metric signal, such that the performance is optimized.
US5735134 discloses a vapor compression system with set point optimization generates a set of thermodynamic operating parameters such that the system operates with optimum energy efficiency. Based on environmental conditions such as indoor and outdoor temperature as well as thermal load, the set of parameters for steady-state set point is generated. The system also monitors actual system properties in real-time and provides them as feedback to the set point computation module. Based on these actual real-time measurements, a new steady-state set point can be generated to enable the system to continue operating at maximum coefficient of performance upon change in environmental or thermal load requirements.
US20040083993 discloses a system and method for state space control of solenoids, particularly engine valve solenoids with two latching positions. A collection of trajectories are computed or measured, having low-impact landings with latching from different initial energies. The trajectories define flux linkage and electric current functions of the two variables, position and velocity. These tracking functions define future projections based on present inputs. In operation, the controller monitors position, velocity, flux linkage, and current, uses the functions to compute future current and flux linkage, and adjusts the drive voltage to hit the future flux linkage target, causing the system to track a precomputed trajectory to successful landing. An array of tracking functions incorporates varying valve flow influences and corrective actuation. Drift from a precomputed trajectory indicates an unanticipated valve flow influence and a new tracking function selection, leading to course corrections anticipating flow influences.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights