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 .
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 18 and 19 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.
In lines 4-5 of claim 18 and line 4 of claim 19, the teaching of “the measured pressure ratio” lack antecedent basis as neither of these claims nor claims 11 and 16 upon which they depend include any preceding teaching of a measured pressure ratio. Claim 17 includes such a ratio, teaching it to be calculated using measured first and second pressures (as opposed to the calculated pressures of claim 11) but because claims 18 and 19 do not depend upon claim 17, it is not clear whether the measured pressure ratio of these claims is required to be the same as that of claim 17 or may be measured or calculated in some other way or at some other location. Further, because claims 18 and 19 each depend upon claim 16 and include recitations of the “estimated pressure ration” taught in this claim, it does not appear that they were intended to depend instead upon claim 17 as such dependency would cause the estimated pressure ratio to lack antecedent basis instead. For this reason, the particular nature and value of the “measured pressure ratio” of claims 18 and 19 cannot be positively ascertained and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 18 and 19 have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and have thus each been interpreted as requiring “the measured pressure ratio” be one which corresponds to the “estimated pressure ratio” (that is, a ratio of pressure across the compressor) but do not require that this ratio be calculated according to the process set forth in claim 17, including the measuring of first and second pressures. It is particularly noted that, for reasons set forth above, these claims have not been interpreted as depending upon claim 17.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Publication No. 10-1689724 B1 to Jo in view of Japanese Publication No. 2005-009734 to Imai et al. A machine translation of each of these documents is provided with this Office Action and citations to these references are directed to these English-language translations rather than to the Korean- and Japanese-language originals.
PNG
media_image1.png
571
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jo teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 4, shown above, a system comprising:
an evaporator (indoor heat exchanger 208, not shown in fig. 4 but taught in ¶¶ 39-40) having a first working fluid path (connecting to the refrigeration circuit by the paths shown in fig. 4) and a first heat transfer fluid path (receiving air from blower 209) thermally coupled thereto (as shown in fig. 4);
a condenser (414) having a second working fluid path (the refrigerant circuit connecting it to valves 416 and 419) and a second heat transfer fluid path (receiving air from blower 415) thermally coupled thereto (as shown in fig. 4);
a dynamic compressor (411 and 412, taught to operate at a variable frequency in the Abstract) fluidly coupled to the first working fluid path of the evaporator and the second working fluid path of the condenser (through the valve 416 as shown in fig. 4 and taught in ¶ 43), the dynamic compressor operable to compress a working fluid (as taught in ¶ 43);
a first temperature sensor (421) positioned within the first [working] fluid path of the evaporator (208) (as taught in ¶ 50);
a second temperature sensor (420) positioned within the second [working] fluid path of the condenser (414) (as taught in ¶ 50);
a controller (610) connected to the dynamic compressor (¶ 53), the controller comprising a processor (at least the various “calculation units” of ¶ 75) and a memory (storage 619), the memory storing instructions that program the processor to:
receive a command to begin operation of the dynamic compressor (the starting of the compressor as taught in ¶ 53);
receive a first [working] fluid temperature from the first temperature sensor (421) (in step S501 as taught in ¶ 50);
determine a first pressure (the evaporation pressure taught in ¶ 55 and the Abstract) at the first working fluid path of the evaporator (208) based on the first [working] fluid temperature (in step S505 as taught in ¶ 55);
receive a second [working] fluid temperature from the second temperature sensor (420) (in step S501 as taught in ¶ 50);
determine a second pressure (the condensation pressure taught in ¶ 55 and the Abstract) at the second working fluid path of the condenser (414) based on the second [working] fluid temperature (in step S505 as taught in ¶ 55);
determine an estimated pressure ratio of the dynamic compressor (the compression ratio taught in ¶ 58, this value being an “estimated” pressure ratio as it is arrived at through intermediate sensed temperatures rather than directly measured pressures) from the first and second pressures (as taught in ¶ 58);
determine a speed setpoint of the dynamic compressor (the operating frequency of the compressors 411 and 412) based on the estimated pressure ratio (as taught in ¶ 59); and
operate the dynamic compressor at the speed setpoint (the operating frequency of the compressors 411 and 412) to compress the working fluid (as taught in ¶ 59) until a condition is met (with these frequencies being used in the starting of the system and varied from these values based on changes in the system’s operating conditions thereafter as described in ¶¶ 63-68).
Jo teaches the sensed temperatures used to determine the condensing and evaporating pressures being condensing and evaporating refrigerant temperatures rather than the temperatures of air which has exchanged heat with this refrigerant as taught in instant independent claim 1. Imai teaches in the translated Abstract thereof that the refrigerant pressure of a heat exchanger (in this case, the evaporator of a refrigerating cycle device) may be calculated from a number of different detected parameters, including a refrigerant temperature (as is taught by Jo) or an evaporator air outlet temperature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Jo with the heat exchanger air outlet sensors and the outlet air-based calculation of refrigerant pressures taught by Imai because such values are useful in addition to the calculation of refrigerant pressure in determining, for example, whether air of a proper temperature is being produced and supplied by the system and whether malfunctions such as icing of an evaporator have occurred with may inhibit performance and require intervention. Further, the “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” (such as using air temperature sensor rather than refrigerant temperature sensors in the system of Jo and using such data in the calculation of refrigerant pressures as taught by Imai) is set forth in MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness as an exemplary rationale which may support a finding of obviousness.
Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Jo to include the heat exchanger air outlet sensors as an addition to the system of Jo rather than as a substitute and to use the values detected by these sensors in an outlet air-based calculation of refrigerant pressures taught by Imai because the provision of additional sensors detecting a broader range of data allows for potential faults (either in the sensors themselves or in the system they monitor) to be more readily recognized and corrected with less downtime of the system and thus less loss of convenience or comfort for users and to allow operations of the system to be more precisely tailored to instant operating conditions in order to ensure greater performance, efficiency, and reliability of operations.
Jo teaches limitations from claim 5, the system of claim 1, wherein determining the estimated pressure ratio comprises dividing the second pressure by the first pressure (as taught in ¶ 58).
Regarding the limitations of claim 11, refer to the above rejection of claim 1 which teaches such a controller and the operations thereof.
Regarding the limitations of claim 12, refer to the above rejection of claim 1 which teaches the system including temperature sensors and the receiving of temperatures therefrom taught in claim 12.
Regarding the limitations of claim 16, refer to the above rejections of claim 11 on which claim 16 depends and of claim 5 which teaches the same operation for calculating the estimated pressure ratio as claim 16.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo and Imai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2004/0237552 A1 to Yamasaki et al.
Regarding claim 2, Jo teaches a refrigeration cycle system and control system therefore in which temperatures at an evaporator and condenser are used to calculate respective evaporator and condenser pressures and a pressure ratio thereof and in which that pressure ratio is used to determine and implement a speed setpoint of a compressor. Jo does not teach the system operating at this speed setpoint until a predetermined start-up time has expired. Yamasaki teaches in the Abstract and in ¶¶ 5 and 41 a cooling apparatus in which, upon startup of the compressor, a low speed of rotation is maintained for a predetermined time before the compressor speed is controlled to vary between minimum and maximum operating speeds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Jo with the compressor startup period taught by Yamasaki in order to allow the system to stabilize in operation prior to operating at full power and to ensure that sufficient time for such stabilization has been allowed, thus ensuring efficient, effective, and reliable operations of the compressor during and after the initial startup period.
Claims 3-4, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo and Imai as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 2003/0182950 A1 to Mei et al.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Jo teaches a refrigeration cycle system and control system therefore in which temperatures at an evaporator and condenser are used to calculate respective evaporator and condenser pressures and a pressure ratio thereof and in which that pressure ratio is used to determine and implement a speed setpoint of a compressor. Jo does not teach, for each of the evaporating and condensing pressure, the determination comprising determining a corresponding saturation temperature based on the detected temperature and then calculating the pressure as a function of the saturation temperature, or teach that this calculation is based on an empirical equation as taught in claim 3 or on a data table as taught in claim 4. Mei teaches in ¶ 38 that, in converting a measured refrigerant temperature to a corresponding refrigerant pressure, it may be desirable to convert the temperature to a saturation temperature and corresponding saturation pressure by the use of either a “temperature conversion equation” as taught in claim 3 or of refrigerant property tables as taught in claim 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the system and controls of Jo to include the saturated temperature calculations taught by Mei because in addition to the calculation of pressure, saturation temperatures may also be useful in the monitoring of system performance in order to allow the system to maintain desirable levels of refrigerant superheat to ensure effective and reliable performance of the system.
Regarding the limitations of claims 13 and 15, refer to the above rejections of claims 3 and 4, respectively, as each teaches the same method of determining the recited pressures by way of saturation temperature.
Claims 9-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo and Imai as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of WIPO Publication No. 03/072946 A1 to Conry.
Regarding claim 9, Jo teaches a refrigeration cycle system and control system therefore in which temperatures at an evaporator and condenser are used to calculate respective evaporator and condenser pressures and a pressure ratio thereof and in which that pressure ratio is used to determine and implement a speed setpoint of a compressor. Jo does not teach the step of determining this speed setpoint including determining surge and choke speeds corresponding to the pressure ratio and setting a speed setpoint between these two speeds. Conry teaches in ¶ 27, a compressor having its speed controlled according to variations of a motor speed to match a required compressor capacity and to avoid th risk of surge or choke of the compressor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Jo with the speed control for avoiding choke and surge conditions in order to prevent loss of compressor performance or, in extreme cases, damage to the compressor caused by operating in such conditions.
Regarding claim 10, Jo does not teach the compressor of their invention to be a centrifugal compressor. Conry teaches in the Abstract and ¶¶ 1, and 4 that centrifugal compressor are known in the art to provide high efficiency in low capacity conditions and that the particular modification of Conry with regard to the control of the compressor and its use of electromagnetic bearings mitigate disadvantages with regard to cost and maintenance which can present with such compressors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jo with the centrifugal compressor of Conry in order to provide a compressor having increased efficiency without sacrificing cost or maintenance as taught in the Abstract and ¶ 4 of Conry.
Regarding the limitations of claim 20, refer to the above rejection of claim 9 which includes equivalent teachings of avoiding surge and choke speeds.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo, Imai, and Mei as applied to claims 11 and 13 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,308,523 B1 to Scaringe.
Regarding claim 14, Jo teaches a refrigeration cycle system and control system therefore in which temperatures at an evaporator and condenser are used to calculate respective evaporator and condenser pressures and a pressure ratio thereof and in which that pressure ratio is used to determine and implement a speed setpoint of a compressor. Jo does not teach the determination of the saturation temperature to comprise subtracting respective temperature offset values from the air temperatures sensed at each of the condenser and the evaporator. Scaringe teaches in col. 9, lines 44-58, that the saturation temperature at a heat exchanger may be calculated by subtracting a constant temperature offset from a measured air exit temperature at that heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Jo with the off-set based saturation temperature calculations of Scaringe in order to provide a simple and effective method of calculating these values without requiring significant computational or storage resources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner particularly notes that each of these claims recites, by dependency, the determination the estimated pressure ratio and then further recites the determination of a measured pressure ratio based on measured first and second pressure values for working fluid respectively upstream and downstream of the compressor. Jo teaches in ¶¶ 2 and 60, among others, that the method of his invention is intended to allow temperature measurements to be substituted for pressure measurements in compressor control for a system which does not include a separate pressure sensor and thus does not teach or provide motivation to modify the system of their invention with such separate pressure sensors as would be required to provide a measured pressure ratio as claimed.
Similarly, claims 18 and 19 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of features including the combination of estimated and measured pressure ratios and particularly the comparison between the two as a basis for compressor speed control. However, this claim cannot be considered "allowable" at this time due to the rejection(s) under U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action. Specifically, these claims do not present proper antecedent basis for their teachings regarding “the measured pressure ratio”. Therefore upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of this claim with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached on (571)270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights