DETAILED ACTION
The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits per a provisional election made without traverse during a telephone interview with Mr. Chad Billings (Reg. No. 48,917) on 24 June 2026. Claims 1-3 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 3 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claim 2 was elected for prosecution as set forth below.
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 .
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
species a) drawn to a refrigerating cycle controller comprising of an operation amount calculator that calculates of a provisional operation amount array to satisfy a constraint condition, wherein the operation amount calculator further includes an evaluator to calculate a value of an evaluation function inclusive of a penalty term used to calculate the provisional operation amount array and an optimization calculator to obtain a solution of the provisional operation amount array for minimizing the value of the evaluation function; and a refrigeration cycle state predictor that includes a predictor to predict a future state of a refrigerant system by referring to the input provisional operation amount array (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0020376 A1: pgs. 6-7, par. [0092]-[0103] (i.e. sixth embodiment - e.g. claims 1 and 3 - It is noted that the claims are NOT considered to be a part of species a) but have been shown as such parenthetically to more clearly communicate which claims will be examined upon election.))
species b) drawn to a refrigerating cycle controller comprising of an operation amount calculator that calculates of a provisional operation amount array to satisfy a constraint condition; and wherein the operation amount calculator further executes an operation to provisionally generate a provisional operation amount array indicating all refrigerant systems are in a normal operation mode at all times, initialize a defrosting operatable time (td) representing a furthest future time of a refrigeration cycle, define a set of frosting amounts which do not exceed a frosting amount upper limit value in the set of refrigerant systems (Rd); determine whether or not Rd is an empty set, wherein if Rd is empty, the execution of the operation is terminated and if the Rd is not empty, determine a period in which a defrosting operation is performed for a refrigerant system included in the Rd, and update the defrosting operable time (td) and Rd; and a refrigeration cycle state predictor that includes a predictor to predict a futures state of a refrigerant system by referring to the input provisional operation amount array (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0020376 A1: pgs. 6-7, par. [0104]-[0132] (i.e. seventh embodiment - e.g. claim 2 - It is noted that the claims are NOT considered to be a part of species b) but have been shown as such parenthetically to more clearly communicate which claims will be examined upon election.))
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite mutually exclusive characteristics of calculating of a provisional operation amount array to satisfy a constraint condition using an operation amount calculator, wherein the operation amount calculator further includes an evaluator to calculate a value of an evaluation function inclusive of a penalty term used to calculate the provisional operation amount array and an optimization calculator to obtain a solution of the provisional operation amount array minimizing the value of the evaluation function for minimizing a number of refrigerant systems in a defrosting operation mode at the same time in species a); and calculating of a provisional operation amount array to satisfy a constraint condition using an operation amount calculator, wherein the operation amount calculator further executes an operation to provisionally generate a provisional operation amount array indicating all refrigerant systems are in a normal operation mode at all times, initialize a defrosting operatable time (td) representing a furthest future time of a refrigeration cycle, define a set of frosting amounts which do not exceed a frosting amount upper limit value in the set of refrigerant systems (Rd); determine whether or not Rd is an empty set, wherein if Rd is empty, the execution of the operation is terminated and if the Rd is not empty, determine a period in which a defrosting operation is performed for a refrigerant system included in the Rd; and update the defrosting operable time (td) and Rd for minimizing a number of refrigerant systems in a defrosting operation mode at the same time without the use of an evaluation function in species b). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search: species a): (heat ADJ exchang$5 OR hvac&R OR hvac ADJ R hvac) AND (compu$5 determin$5 assess$5 generat$5) with (control$5 operation) with (value array time-series time adj series) and (scalar assess evalut$5 energy power performance) near2 function with (value parameter data) and (optimis$5 optimiz$5 enhanc$5 minimiz$5 reduc$5) with (function) and (forecast$5 foretell$5 anticipat$5 prognos$5 foresee$5 estimat$5 predict$5 calculat$5 comput$5 apprais$5) WITH (ice icing frost$5 frefriger$5 near2 cycle); and (plural$5 numer$5 several various many mult$7 different few some) near2 (heat ADJ exchang$5 OR hvac&R OR hvac ADJ R hvac) AND (scalar assess evalut$5 energy power performance) near2 function and (optimis$5 optimiz$5 enhanc$5 minimiz$5 reduc$5) with (function) and (forecast$5 foretell$5 anticipat$5 prognos$5 foresee$5 estimat$5 predict$5 calculat$5 comput$5 apprais$5) WITH (ice icing frost$5 frefriger$5 near2 cycle); and (plural$5 numer$5 several various many mult$7 different few some) near2 (heat ADJ exchang$5 OR hvac&R OR hvac ADJ R) AND (compu$5 determin$5 assess$5 generat$5) with (control$5 operation) with (value array time-series time adj series) and (scalar assess evalut$5 energy power performance) near2 function with (value parameter data) same (optimis$5 optimiz$5 enhanc$5 minimiz$5 reduc$5) near2 (function) and (forecast$5 foretell$5 anticipat$5 prognos$5 foresee$5 estimat$5 predict$5 calculat$5 comput$5 apprais$5) WITH (ice icing frost$5 refriger$5 near2 cycle operation control$5) and (control$5 operation) with (value array time-series time adj series) same (optimis$5 optimiz$5 enhanc$5 minimiz$5 reduc$5) near2 (scalar assess evalut$5 energy power performance) near2 function with (value parameter data); and species b): (heat ADJ exchang$5 OR hvac&R OR hvac ADJ R refriger$5 near2 indoor) AND (forecast$5 foretell$5 anticipat$5 prognos$5 foresee$5 estimat$5 predict$5 calculat$5 comput$5 apprais$5) WITH (refriger$5 near2 cycle near2 (equipment device component element apparatus)) WITH (calculat$5 determin$5 comput$5 generat$5) WITH (control$5 operat$6) WITH (inital$5 input$5) AND (interval tim$5 period timeframe time ADJ frame) AND (threshold limit$5 setpoint set-point set ADJ point); and (plural$5 numer$5 several various many mult$7 different few some) WITH (heat ADJ exchang$5 OR hvac&R OR hvac ADJ R) AND (forecast$5 foretell$5 anticipat$5 prognos$5 foresee$5 estimat$5 predict$5 calculat$5 comput$5 apprais$5) WITH (ice icing frost$5 refriger$5 near2 cycle) AND (calculat$5 comput$5 apprais$5 determin$5 generat$5) WITH (interval tim$5 period timeframe time ADJ frame) WITH defrost$5 AND (calculat$5 comput$5 apprais$5 determin$5 generat$5) WITH (operat$5 control$5) WITH (threshold limit$5 setpoint set-point set ADJ point).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Chad Billings (Reg. No. 48,917) on 24 June 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of species b), claim 2. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1 and 3 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 (lines 29-30) recites “the defrosting operation to be performed”. The limitation of “the defrosting operation … performed” is not positively recited by use of the phrase “to be”.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation "… the following operation of …" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested claim language: “… a following operation of …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 2 recites “… a set Rd … ” in line 22 and “Rd” in lines 25, 26, 27, 33, and 35. The claims recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims the same term should be used for the same limitation. Suggested claim language: “the set Rd” in lines 25, 26, 27, 33, and 35; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 2 recites “… the following operation … ” in lines 16-17 and “the processing operation” in lines 26 and 27. The claims recite two different terms for the same limitation. To avoid any ambiguity in the claims the same term should be used for the same limitation. Suggested claim language: “the operation” in lines 26 and 27; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2:
At step 1, the claim recites “a refrigeration cycle controller”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… calculate a provisional operation amount array by calculation in such a manner as to satisfy a constraint condition”; “… calculate a prediction value in a future state of the refrigeration cycle device by referring to the input provisional operation amount array”; “(a) provisionally generates a provisional operation amount array indicating that all the refrigerant systems are in a normal operation mode at all times”; “(c) by defining a set Rd being the set of refrigerant systems in which the amount of frost is estimated not to exceed the upper limit of the amount of frost (Fn), checks whether or not Rd is an empty set …”; and “(d) determines the period during which the defrosting operation is to be performed for a refrigerant system having the slowest time at which a frosting amount exceeds the frosting amount upper limit value (Fn) among the refrigerant systems included in Rd”.
The limitation of “… calculate a provisional operation amount array by calculation in such a manner as to satisfy a constraint condition” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20250020376 A1: pg. 7, par. [0109]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… calculate a prediction value in a future state of the refrigeration cycle device by referring to the input provisional operation amount array” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20250020376 A1: pg. 8, par. [0118]) is a process performed by use of mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “(a) provisionally generates a provisional operation amount array indicating that all the refrigerant systems are in a normal operation mode at all times”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “(a) provisionally generates a provisional operation amount array …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… indicating that all the refrigerant systems are in a normal operation mode at all times”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “(c) by defining a set Rd being the set of refrigerant systems in which the amount of frost is estimated not to exceed the upper limit of the amount of frost (Fn) …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “(c) by defining a set Rd being the set of refrigerant systems …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… in which the amount of frost is estimated not to exceed the upper limit of the amount of frost (Fn) …”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… checks whether or not Rd is an empty set …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “check(ing)” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to determine the data is or is not within a group of information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “(d) determines the period during which the defrosting operation is to be performed for a refrigerant system having the slowest time at which a frosting amount exceeds the frosting amount upper limit value (Fn) among the refrigerant systems included in Rd”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determin(ing)” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data per a comparison to a threshold to ascertain desired information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the refrigeration cycle device includes a plurality of indoor equipments having different refrigerant systems in the same room, or includes an indoor equipment having a plurality of heat exchangers having different refrigerant systems”; “the refrigeration cycle controller comprising: an operation amount calculator …; a refrigeration cycle state predictor including a predictor …”; “… if Rd is an empty set, the processing operation is ended, and if Rd is not an empty set, the processing operation proceeds to operation (d)”; “(b) initializes a defrosting operable time (td)”; and “(e) updates the defrosting operable time (td) and updates Rd”.
The limitation of “the refrigeration cycle controller comprising: an operation amount calculator …; and a refrigeration cycle state predictor including a predictor …” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “the refrigeration cycle device includes a plurality of indoor equipments having different refrigerant systems in the same room, or includes an indoor equipment having a plurality of heat exchangers having different refrigerant systems” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… if Rd is an empty set, the processing operation is ended, and if Rd is not an empty set, the processing operation proceeds to operation (d)” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
The limitations of “(b) initializes a defrosting operable time (td)” and “(e) updates the defrosting operable time (td) and updates Rd” represent mere data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent insignificant extra-solution activities of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “the refrigeration cycle controller comprising: an operation amount calculator …; and a refrigeration cycle state predictor including a predictor …” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitation of “the refrigeration cycle device includes a plurality of indoor equipments having different refrigerant systems in the same room, or includes an indoor equipment having a plurality of heat exchangers having different refrigerant systems” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… if Rd is an empty set, the processing operation is ended, and if Rd is not an empty set, the processing operation proceeds to operation (d)” represent equivalent recitations of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
The limitations of “(b) initializes a defrosting operable time (td)” and “(e) updates the defrosting operable time (td) and updates Rd”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to air conditioning systems and defrosting control operations.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0217684 A1 discloses an equipment control system including a refrigeration device for cooling a space to be cooled, and a control device for controlling a defrosting operation to remove frost adhered to the refrigeration device which is started at a fixed or varying time interval.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0239596 A1 discloses an air conditioner for detecting freezing inside the air conditioner to protect an outdoor unit and a method of controlling the air conditioner.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0305702 A1 discloses a heat pump system that can appropriately manage a number of heat pumps in operation even when any of the heat pumps are defrosting, and that always operate at a capacity that corresponds to a load.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0288086 A1 discloses systems and methods for defrost control in a heat pump.
U.S. Patent No. 12,379,148 B2 discloses an electronic device for preventing excessive frost formation in a refrigerator, optimizing a defrosting operation of a refrigerator, and a controlling method thereof.
United Kingdom Patent Publication No. GB 2 568 404 A discloses refrigeration air conditioning system comprises a plurality of independent refrigeration air conditioners that have a refrigerant circuit and a defrosting means, and a system controller that performs integrated management of these.
European Patent Publication No. EP 3 543 616 A1 discloses an air-conditioning control device and an air-conditioning control method of a heat pump air-conditioning apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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 Fennema can be reached at 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 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights