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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities, wherein appropriate correction is required:
In claim 1: the recitation of “and or” (in line 2) should be amended to –and/or—, for grammatical purposes.
In claim 13: the recitation of “a one or more” (in line 2) should be amended to –one or more—.
In claim 18: the recitation of the additional period “.” at the end of the claim should be deleted.
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.
Claims 1-14, 16-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the equivalent temperature values” (in line 8) without explicit antecedent basis. It is unclear whether such equivalent temperature values pertain to the evaporating/condensing pressure(s), or some other variable. For examination purposes, the recitation will instead be construed as –equivalent temperature values—.
Claim 3 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “according to prevailing values of evaporating pressure and condensing pressure or equivalent temperature values”, despite similar recitations in claim 1. It is unclear whether the “prevailing values” in claim 3 are separate and distinct from the “prevailing values” in claim 1. For examination purposes, the recitation will instead be construed as –according to the prevailing values of evaporating pressure and condensing pressure or the equivalent temperature values —.
Claim 10 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “according to a predetermined model or map”, despite the same recitation in claim 1. It is unclear whether a separate and distinct predetermined model or map is required for infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will instead be construed as –according to the predetermined model or map—.
Claim 12 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “or equivalent temperature values”, despite the recitation in claim 1. It is unclear whether different equivalent temperature values are required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will instead be construed as –or the equivalent temperature values—.
Claim 14 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the full capacity torque”, with no proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will be construed as –a full capacity torque—.
Claim 17 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the power demand value” (in lines 5-6), with no proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will instead be construed as –a power demand value—.
Claim 19 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “the most efficient” with no proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the recitation will instead be construed as –a most efficient—.
Claim 21 contains the following issues:
The claim recites “point” (in line 4) by itself, with no other context. It is unclear what “point” is required for anticipation or infringement. For examination purposes, the recitation will be omitted.
Any remaining claims are rejected at least by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 16-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 20190331379 A1).
As per claim 1, Zhang discloses a computerised method of controlling a vapour compression cycle system (see at least abstract) arranged to cool and or heat a compartment (see at least fig. 1), the method comprising:
dynamically determining a cooling or heating power demand value (Ton and Toff in fig. 1) for the system based at least in part on monitoring the temperature in the compartment to be cooled or heated by the system (e.g., via a thermostat; see fig. 3) and comparing it with a required set point temperature (see at least ¶ 11);
converting the power demand value to a speed demand value according to a predetermined model or map (e.g., lookup tables; see at least ¶¶ 11-12, 21-25, etc.) and according to prevailing values of evaporating pressure and condensing pressure (see pressure sensors in fig. 2), or the equivalent temperature values (see at least ¶ 17);
sending the speed demand value to a compressor motor speed controller of the system (see at least fig. 5 and ¶¶ 13-14, 38 & 70).
As per claim 2, Zhang discloses wherein the power demand value is selected from a plurality of predetermined discrete values (see at least ¶¶ 7, 11, 27, 32, 44, 54, 57, 73, 78, etc.).
As per claim 3, Zhang discloses wherein the power demand value is dynamically chosen from a plurality of possible power demand values (e.g., via the lookup tables; see at least ¶¶ 7, 11, 27, 32, 44, 54, 57, 73, 78, etc.) according to prevailing values of evaporating pressure and condensing pressure or equivalent temperature values (see at least ¶¶ 17, 19, 21, 45, 64, etc.) and according to a measure of efficiency calculated for each candidate power demand value (see at least ¶¶ 2, 32, etc.).
As per claim 4, Zhang discloses in a temperature maintenance mode (e.g., see at least fig. 1), using hysteresis control of the system to maintain the temperature in a range between upper and lower temperature bounds (Ton and Toff) that are at predetermined offsets from a required set point temperature (see at least fig. 1 and ¶ 15), wherein, if the compartment is to be cooled (“cooling model” of fig. 1), the cooling is switched on using the speed demand value when the temperature rises to the upper bound (Ton) and switched off when the temperature falls to the lower bound (Toff) and, if the compartment is to be heated (“heating model” of fig. 1), the heating is switched on using the speed demand value when the temperature falls to the lower bound (Ton) and switched off when the temperature rises to the upper bound (Toff).
As per claim 5, Zhang discloses if the compartment is to be cooled (“cooling model” of fig. 1), in a temperature pulldown mode (see at least ¶ 41 and fig. 8), cooling with a fixed and/or maximum power demand value (¶ 104), wherein temperature pulldown mode is used before entering the temperature maintenance mode (¶ 95); and if the compartment is to be heated (“heating model” of fig. 1), in a temperature pullup mode, heating with a fixed and/or maximum power demand value (¶ 104), wherein the temperature pull up mode is used before entering the temperature maintenance mode (¶ 95).
As per claim 6, Zhang discloses using a look up table of calculated or measured values (see at least ¶¶ 7, 11, 27, etc.) to find the most efficient candidate power demand value for given values of evaporating pressure or condensing pressure or the equivalent temperature values (see at least ¶¶ 17, 19, 28, etc.).
As per claim 7, Zhang discloses wherein the candidate power demand values are selected between predetermined minimum and maximum values (implied by at least ¶ 106).
As per claim 8, Zhang discloses wherein the minimum power demand value is dynamically recalculated (¶¶ 98-99) according to the difference between the set point temperature and actual temperature such that a higher value is selected (e.g., N greater than Q) where the difference is greater (¶ 100).
As per claim 9, Zhang discloses wherein a feedback control scheme is used to adjust the minimum value (see flowchart in fig. 8).
As per claim 11, Zhang discloses wherein the pressure readings are only used when the system is switched on (e.g., after starting the compressor; see fig. 8).
As per claim 12, Zhang discloses wherein the system comprises a compressor that can operate in at least a first and second capacity (abstract), the method comprising: using the power demand value (e.g., Ton and Toff) and sensed values of evaporating pressure and condensing pressure or equivalent temperature values (e.g., ¶ 17, etc.) to output via a lookup table (e.g., ¶ 7, etc.) to an optimum compressor capacity (e.g., ¶ 13, 43, etc.); output a control signal to cause the compressor to implement the selected optimum compressor capacity (e.g., ¶ 14, etc.).
As per claim 13, Zhang discloses wherein the lookup table is constructed such that capacity is selected based on comparing one or more values selected from compressor speed (¶¶ 6-7, etc.), and system coefficient of performance (e.g., ¶ 26).
As per claim 16, Zhang discloses selecting a look up table for the selected compressor capacity (¶ 11) from a plurality of look up tables for respective plural different compressor capacities (e.g., the lookup database; see ¶ 27), wherein each lookup table maps power demand values to compressor speed values (¶ 32) and using that lookup table to select an output compressor speed signal to feed to the compressor motor speed controller (¶ 44).
As per claim 17, Zhang discloses a computerised method of controlling a vapour compression cycle system (abstract) arranged to cool and or heat a compartment (fig. 1), the method comprising:
monitoring the temperature in the compartment to be cooled or heated by the system (see at least ¶ 11);
in a temperature maintenance mode (see fig. 1), using hysteresis control of the system to maintain the temperature in a range between upper and lower temperature bounds (Ton and Toff) that are at predetermined offsets from a required set point temperature (see fig. 1), wherein the power demand value (from ¶ 11) used is dynamically chosen from a plurality of possible power demand values (¶¶ 12-13) according to prevailing values of evaporating pressure and condensing pressure or equivalent temperature values (¶ 17) and according to a measure of efficiency calculated for each candidate power demand value (¶¶ 2, 38, 43, etc.).
As per claim 18, Zhang discloses if the compartment is to be cooled (“cooling model” in fig. 1), in a temperature pulldown mode (¶ 41 and fig. 8), cooling with a fixed and/or maximum cooling power demand value (¶ 104), wherein temperature pulldown mode is used before entering the temperature maintenance mode (¶ 95); and if the compartment is to be heated (“heating model” in fig. 1), in a temperature pullup mode (¶ 41), heating with a fixed and/or maximum heating power demand value (¶ 104), wherein the temperature pull up mode is used before entering the temperature maintenance mode (¶ 95).
As per claim 19, Zhang discloses using a look up table of calculated or measured values (¶ 11, etc.) to find the most efficient candidate power demand values for given values of evaporating pressure or condensing pressure (¶ 38, 43, etc.).
As per claim 20, Zhang discloses wherein the candidate power demand values are selected between predetermined minimum and maximum values (implied by at least ¶ 106) and wherein the minimum value is dynamically recalculated (¶¶ 98-99) according to the difference between the set point temperature and actual temperature such that a higher value is selected (e.g., N greater than Q) for the minimum power demand value where the difference is greater (¶ 100).
As per claim 21, Zhang discloses a computerised method of controlling a vapour compression cycle system (abstract) arranged to cool and or heat a compartment (see fig. 1), the method comprising:
determining a cooling or heating power demand value (e.g., Ton and Toff);
selecting a compressor capacity value by looking up a compressor capacity in a look up table (see at least ¶ 11) according to prevailing evaporating and condensing pressures or their equivalent temperatures and the determined power demand value (see at least ¶ 17);
causing the compressor to operate in accordance with control signals comprising the compressor capacity value and power demand value (see at least ¶ 14).
As per claim 22, Zhang discloses monitoring the temperature in the compartment to be cooled or heated by the system (via a thermostat; see at least fig. 3); comparing the temperature to a required set point temperature (see at least ¶ 15); using a demand controller to determine the cooling or heating power demand value (see at least ¶ 11) based on feeding back the difference between the monitored temperature and set point temperature configured to reduce the difference (see at least ¶ 12-13).
As per claim 23, Zhang discloses wherein the power demand value is dynamically chosen from a plurality of possible power demand values (e.g., via lookup tables; see at least ¶¶ 7, 11, 27, 32, 44, 54, 57, 73, 78, etc.) according to current prevailing values of evaporating pressure and condensing pressure or equivalent temperature values (see at least ¶¶ 17, 19, 21, 45, 64, etc.) and according to a measure of efficiency calculated for each candidate power demand value (see at least ¶¶ 2, 32, etc.).
As per claim 24, Zhang discloses converting the power demand value to a speed demand according to the compressor capacity value (see at least ¶¶ 12-13).
As per claim 25, Zhang discloses wherein a lookup table is used to map power demand values to speed demand values (see at least ¶ 11) wherein the table is indexed by the power demand value, the capacity, and prevailing evaporating and condensing pressures or their equivalent temperatures (see at least ¶¶ 27, 32, 44, 54, 57, etc.).
As per claim 26, Zhang discloses wherein the look up table values are generated by modelling the system or by testing (see at least ¶ 32).
As per claim 27, Zhang discloses a refrigeration unit, transport refrigeration unit or heat pump comprising a vapour compression cycle system (i.e., the AC system; see at least abstract) and a system controller arranged to perform the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
As per claim 29, Zhang discloses a refrigeration unit, transport refrigeration unit or heat pump comprising a vapour compression cycle system (i.e., the AC system; see at least abstract and fig. 2) and a system controller arranged to perform the method of claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16).
As per claim 30, Zhang discloses a refrigeration unit, transport refrigeration unit or heat pump comprising a vapour compression cycle system (i.e., the AC system; see abstract and fig. 2) and a system controller arranged to perform the method of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20190331379 A1) in view of Khatami et al. (US 12196463 B2), herein Khatami.
As per claim 10, Zhang may not appear to explicitly disclose converting the power demand value to a fan speed demand value according to a predetermined model or map and according to prevailing values of evaporator coil pressure drop; and controlling at least one fan of the system according to the fan speed demand value.
On the other hand, Khatami, directed to superheat control in HVAC, discloses converting the power demand value to a fan speed demand value according to a predetermined model or map (see at least col. 16, lines 22-25) and according to prevailing values of evaporator coil pressure drop (col. 10, lines 43-50); and controlling at least one fan of the system according to the fan speed demand value (col. 11, lines 7-15).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.1
As per (1), Khatami recognizes that regulating or increasing the superheat of the evaporator requires first obtaining 100% vapor therein (col. 1, lines 61-65). Ensuring proper superheat helps maintain proper load demand while preventing damage to the compressor (col. 2, lines 7-18). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of heat exchange at the evaporator can be modified by controlling the flow rate of air therethrough, given the principles of convective heat transfer. As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Khatami has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to the fan speed demand value, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Zhang. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Zhang and Khatami are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. HVAC). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Zhang may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Khatami, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Zhang by virtue of suggesting optimal load control while preventing damage to the compressor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Zhang and to have modified them with the teachings of Khatami, by converting the power demand value to a fan speed demand value according to a predetermined model or map and according to prevailing values of evaporator coil pressure drop; and controlling at least one fan of the system according to the fan speed demand value, in order to improve the load control while preventing premature failure of the compressor, as similarly suggested by Khatami, without yielding unpredictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all2 of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, when taken as a whole, does not appear to reasonably anticipate or render prima facie obvious the claimed invention as currently recited therein. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jianying C. Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 See MPEP § 2143.
2 Disclaimer: failure to include all the intervening limitations will result in a different claim scope, which may require a new grounds of rejection prior to a final determination of allowability.
Prosecution Insights