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 8-10 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.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “that the steps a) to e) are carried out centrally by a main chiller in the network, wherein the main chiller controls remaining chillers in the network as auxiliary or assist chillers” which renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear how a chiller can provide control functions to other chillers, without a controller being claimed to perform the processing recited in the claims. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the main chiller to be a chiller in fluid communication with a secondary group of chillers. Clarification is requested.
Claims 9-10 recite simailar control limitations attributed to the main chiller and are rejected on the same basis.
Claims 9-10 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5-6, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spethmann (US 4,463,574 – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Spethmann teaches method for controlling a refrigeration system (see Title, Abstract) with a plurality of refrigerating machines in a network (11, 12, 13, Fig. 1), wherein at least some of the plurality of refrigerating machines differ from one another in performance characteristics, wherein the performance characteristics include at least one of cooling capacity, power which can be provided, electrical power consumed, or cooling water temperature (see Fig. 6 which shows different capacities for the chillers), the method comprising:
a) detecting a requested target cooling capacity and a current cooling water temperature (see col. 7, lines 8-12);
b) determining an available cooling capacity of a plurality of chillers in the network based on the cooling capacity performance characteristic and the detected current cooling water temperature (see col. 6, lines 33-50, further see col. 8, lines 30-35);
c) determining one or more possible combinations of the plurality of chillers configured to provide the requested target cooling capacity (see col. 6, lines 30-65);
d) selecting, from the one or more possible combinations of the plurality of chillers and based on their respective performance characteristics, a combination configured to provide the highest overall efficiency (see at least Abstract); and
e) operating the plurality of chillers of the selected combination (see col. 6, lines 30-65).
Regarding claim 2, Spethmann teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: upon a change in the requested target cooling capacity or the detected current cooling water temperature, repeating steps c) to e) (see col. 8, lines 24-35).
Regarding claim 3, Spethmann teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the operation of the plurality of chillers of the selected combination is controlled by adjusting the cooling capacity of the respective chiller (see Fig. 6 which shows ordering the chillers based on capacity).
Regarding claim 5, Spethmann teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in the step of selecting the combination, if several chillers with the same output characteristic are present in the combination, that combination is selected with the chiller with the same output characteristic which has the lowest number of operating hours (see col. 6, lines 33-55).
Regarding claim 6, Spethmann teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in the step of selecting the combination, that combination is selected which has the lowest number of chillers to be operated (see col. 6, lines 33-55).
Regarding claim 12, Spethmann teahces an apparatus for controlling a refrigeration system (see Title, Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of chillers in an arrangement or network (11, 12, 13, Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of chillers have different performance characteristics, wherein the performance characteristics include at least one of cooling capacity, power to be provided, electrical power consumer, or cooling water temperature (see Fig. 6 which shows different capacities for the chillers),
wherein the apparatus is configured to:
a) detect a requested target cooling capacity and a current cooling water temperature (see col. 7, lines 8-12);
b) determining an available cooling capacity of the plurality of chillers in the network based on the cooling capacity performance characteristic and the detected current cooling water temperature (see col. 6, lines 33-50, further see col. 8, lines 30-35);
c) determining one or more possible combinations of the plurality of chillers configured to provide the requested target cooling capacity (see col. 6, lines 30-65);
d) selecting, from the one or more possible combinations of the plurality of chillers and based on their respective performance characteristics, a combination configured to provide the highest overall efficiency (see at least Abstract); and
e) operating the plurality chillers of the selected combination (see col. 6, lines 30-65).
Regarding claim 13, Spethmann teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the cooling capacity of the respective chiller is adjusted based on a hot water mass flow supplied to the respective chiller (see col. 8, lines 24-35).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spethmann in view of Konovalov (US 10,012,423).
Regarding claim 8, Spethmann teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach that the steps a) to e) are carried out centrally by a main chiller in the network, wherein the main chiller controls remaining chillers in the network as auxiliary or assist chillers.
Konovalov teahces a cooling device which features a main chiller that is fluid communication with a secondary chiller (Konovalov, claim 1, at least). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date to provide Spethmann with a main chiller connected to other chillers, as taught by Konovalov, in order to assess how this impacts the desired optimization of the system.
Regarding claim 9, Spethmann as modified teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the main chiller in the network also controls peripheral devices of the refrigeration system (see Spethmann, col. 6, lines 30-55, the Examiner notes that in view of the 112b rejection above, it is unclear how a chiller controls other devices).
Regarding claim 10, Spethmann as modified teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the main chiller in the network also monitors malfunctions of the plurality of chillers of the network (see Spethmann, col. 6, lines 30-55, see Fig. 4, Fig. 8, the controller monitors the correction factors and optimized lineup of the chillers which is analogous to monitoring malfunction, as an exit control in Fig. 8 can attribute a malfunction as the malfunction is not defined by the claim).
Regarding claim 14, Spethmann as modified teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein main chiller includes the highest capacity of the plurality of chillers present in the network (the limitation can arbitrarily be defined, as the main chiller is unclear based on the 112b rejection above).
Regarding claim 15, Spethmann as modified teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the peripheral devices of the refrigeration system include at least one of a re-cooling device or a free-cooling device (the secondary chillers can be defined as a re-cooling device).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spethmann in view of FOR1 (DE 102020112532 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Spethmann teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach the adjustment of the hot water mass flow supplied to the respective chiller is carried out by controlling a feed pump in a respective hot water circuit.
FOR1 teaches a heating network (FOR1, Title) which features a chiller that is connected to a hot water circuit by pumps in order to supply hot water to the chiller (FOR1, chiller 18 is connected via pumps 20, 22, Fig. 8, further see Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date to provide Spethmann with the adjustment of the hot water mass flow supplied to the respective chiller is carried out by controlling a feed pump in a respective hot water circuit, as taught by FOR1, in order to increase the rate of heat transfer in the chiller.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spethmann in view of FOR2(KR20070004932A).
Regarding claim 7, Spethmann teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach in the step of selecting the combination, that combination is selected which requires the smallest number of machine starts.
FOR2 teaches a compressor which starts the smallest group of compressors to maximize efficiency (FOR1, see Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date to provide Spethmann with choosing the combination is selected which requires the smallest number of machine starts, as taught by FOR2, in order maximize energy efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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 at (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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights