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 .
This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 01/03/2025. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Claims 2, 5, 6-8 and 14 have been amended. Claim 15 is added.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a determining unit for targe control strategy” in line 10 which should be recited to “a determining unit for target control strategy”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the determining unit for targe control strategy” in line 5 which should be recited to “the determining unit for target control strategy”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the limitation “an obtaining unit for difference” in claim 13 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with function “obtaining” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “an obtaining unit for difference” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a processor” or “a controller” see [0098]-[0099] and figure 4. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “an obtaining unit for current operating state” in claim 13 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with function “obtaining” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “an obtaining unit for current operating state” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a processor” or “a controller” see [0098]-[0099] and figure 4. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a determining unit for targe control strategy” in claim 13 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with function “determining” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a determining unit for targe control strategy” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a processor” or “a controller” see [0098]-[0099] and figure 4. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “an operation control unit” in claim 13 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “an operation control unit” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a processor” or “a controller” see [0098]-[0099] and figure 4. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9, 11-13 and 15 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 limitation “each module” in line 2 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “each of the at least two modules”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each is provided with a compressor” in line 3 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation “each” refers to “at least two modules”, “each module” or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the each of the at least two modules”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "chilled-water output" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the corresponding chilled-water output”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each module” in line 4 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the each of the at least two modules”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the module” in line 8-9 and 11 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the module” in lines 2-4 and 8 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the module” in lines 2 and 6 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a first compressor” in line 6 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “the compressors of the modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a first compressor of the compressors of the at least two modules”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the module” in line 5 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a second compressor” in line 4 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “the compressors of the modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a second compressor of the compressors of the at least two modules”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the module” in line 5 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the module” in line 3 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a fourth compressor” in line 4 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “the compressors of the modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a fourth compressor of the compressors of the at least two modules”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the module” in lines 2 and 6 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the module” in line 6 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the module” in line 2 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the module” in line 2 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the module” in line 2 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “one compressor” in line 6 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “the compressors of the modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “one compressor of the compressors of the at least two modules”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “another compressor” in line 7 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “the compressors of the modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “another compressor of the compressors of the at least two modules”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “each module” in lines 2-4 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “each of the at least two modules”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the module” in lines 9, 11 and 12 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the module” in lines 4 and 7 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “at least two modules”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the at least two modules”.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected by the virtual dependency of claim 1.
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(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN115507559A) in view of Li et al. (CN112178872A).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method of controlling a multi-module water chilling unit, wherein the multi-module water chilling unit comprises at least two modules (the module 1-5 and the module 6-10; see figure 1), each module is provided with a chilled-water inlet (the inlet of the evaporator 10 corresponding to water inlet pipe 100) and a corresponding chilled-water outlet (the outlet of the evaporator 10 corresponding to water outlet pipe 200; see figure 1); each is provided with a compressor (1 and 6; see figure 1); and chilled water output (the outlet of the evaporator 10 corresponding to water outlet pipe 200) from each module (the module 1-5 and the module 6-10; see figure 1) is converged in a main pipe (100 and 200) through a corresponding compressor (1 and 6), wherein the method comprises:
obtaining a difference between the water inlet temperature and the water outlet temperature (abstract; the controller performs the claimed method; see the last paragraph of page 4);
obtaining current operating states (the frequency of the compressor and/or the on-off state of the compressor; abstract) of the compressors (1 and 6) of the modules (the module 1-5 and the module 6-10; the controller performs the claimed method; see the last paragraph of page 4; see figure 1);
determining a target control strategy (matching the corresponding control strategy) for the modules according to the difference and the current operating states (abstract; the controller performs the claimed method; see the last paragraph of page 4);
and controlling the modules (the module 1-5 and the module 6-10; see figure 1) to operate according to the target control strategy (the control strategy; see abstract; the controller performs the claimed method; see the last paragraph of page 4).
However, Wang fails to disclose obtaining a difference between an actual outlet water temperature and a target outlet water temperature of the main pipe.
Li teaches a cold water machine comprising obtaining a difference between an actual outlet water temperature (the chilled water actual water outlet temperature) and a target outlet water temperature (the chilled water target water outlet temperature) of a main pipe (the chilled water main pipe which corresponds to the evaporator 4; the last paragraph of page 3 to paragraph 1 of page 4; the controller performs the method; see paragraph 5 of page 16; see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the apparatus of Wang to incorporate the claimed difference between actual water outlet temperature and the target water outlet temperature as taught by Li in order to improve the control accuracy and strategy for the apparatus based on the difference between the actual water outlet temperature and the target water outlet temperature.
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses an apparatus for controlling a multi-module chilling unit, wherein the multi-module chilling unit comprises at least two modules (the module 1-5 and the module 6-10; see figure 1), each module is provided with a chilled-water inlet (the inlet of the evaporator 10 corresponding to water inlet pipe 100) and a corresponding chilled-water outlet (the outlet of the evaporator 10 corresponding to water outlet pipe 200; see figure 1); each module is provided with a compressor (1 and 6); and chilled water output (the outlet of the evaporator 10 corresponding to water outlet pipe 200; see figure 1) from each module is converged in a main pipe (100 and 200) through a corresponding compressor (1 and 6), and the apparatus comprises:
an obtaining unit for difference (a controller; the last paragraph of page 4) configured to obtain a difference between the water inlet temperature and the water outlet temperature (abstract);
an obtaining unit for current operating state (a controller; the last paragraph of page 4) configured to obtain current operating states (the frequency of the compressor and/or the on-off state of the compressor; abstract) of the compressors (1 and 6) of the modules (the module 1-5 and the module 6-10; see figure 1);
a determining unit for targe control strategy (a controller; the last paragraph of page 4) configured to determine a target control strategy (matching the corresponding control strategy) for the modules according to the difference and the current operating states (abstract); and
an operation control unit (a controller; the last paragraph of page 4) configured to control the modules (the module 1-5 and the module 6-10; see figure 1) to operate according to the target control strategy (the control strategy; abstract).
However, Wang fails to disclose the obtaining unit for difference configured to obtain a difference of an actual outlet water temperature and a target outlet water temperature of the main pipe.
Li teaches a cold water machine comprising obtaining a difference between an actual outlet water temperature (the chilled water actual water outlet temperature) and a target outlet water temperature (the chilled water target water outlet temperature) of a main pipe (the chilled water main pipe which corresponds to the evaporator 4; the last paragraph of page 3 to paragraph 1 of page 4; see figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the apparatus of Wang to incorporate the claimed difference between actual water outlet temperature and the target water outlet temperature as taught by Li in order to improve the control accuracy and strategy for the apparatus based on the difference between the actual water outlet temperature and the target water outlet temperature.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of He et al. (CN110906477B).
Regarding claim 14, Wang fails to disclose a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein, the computer program, when executed by a processor, forces the processor to perform steps of the method according to claim 1.
He teaches a water chilling unit comprising a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon, wherein, the computer program, when executed by a processor (paragraph 2 of page 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the apparatus of Wang to incorporate the claimed a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium as taught by He in order to improve the execution of the control process.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 2-12 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reference Wang taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed control feature of the apparatus for controlling a multi-module chilling unit as required in claims 2-12 and 15. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the apparatus for controlling a multi-module chilling unit of Wang to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 2-12 and 15 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. 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.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights