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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2026 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "TOFF“ as described in at least claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
For the purposes of examination, the element “TIMEROFF“ will be interpreted as – TOFF –
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "TON“ and " TIMERON " both appear to designate the stored cooling operation time, according to the description in ¶ 0062-0063 and 0065-0066 of the specification.
For the purposes of examination, the element “TIMERON“ will be interpreted as – TON –
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “TIMEOFF“
For the purposes of examination, the element “TIMEOFF“ will be interpreted as – TOFF –
The drawings are objected to because they generally appear incomplete and do not appear to provide adequate logic paths, in at least Fig. 6, to control the device as recited in the specification, requiring undue imported assumptions from the examiner. Specifically, in the scenario wherein the controller proceeds in order from 605, 610, 615, 620, 640 to 660, it is unclear as to how the controller may determine YES or NO to a “TIMEROFF COMPLETE?“ determination without the control pathway having first started a “TIMEROFF“. Similarly, it is unclear as to how the controller may determine YES or NO to a “TIMERON COMPLETE?“ determination without the control pathway having first started a “TIMERON“. Thus, the steps 660 and 685 in Figure 6 may only be considered to be enabled by the disclosure if the logic loop first proceeds to 655 or 665, in order to start said respective timers. This understanding does not appear to corroborate with the invention as presented in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 11-13, 15 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 appears to contain a typographical error and will be interpreted as if it read – The compressor system of Claim 1, wherein the duty cycle logic loop further comprises if a determination is that the override flag is true… – in order to maintain consistency and understanding.
Claim 17 appears to contain a typographical error and will be interpreted as if it read – The controller of Claim 11, wherein the duty cycle logic loop further comprises if a determination is that the override flag is true… – in order to maintain consistency and understanding.
Claim 11 recites, “…if the determination is that all temperature readings…”, which appears to lack antecedent basis. The limitation will be interpreted as if it read – if a
Claim 17 appears to contain a typographical error and will be interpreted as if it read – …and that all of the
Claims 2 and 12 recite their function to “start time”, whereas claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 18 recite their function to “begin time”. The examiner may recommend amending for consistency when two different verbs are used to describe the same function (i.e. executing a timer) to maintain consistency and understanding.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10, 12-13 and 16 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 1, the recitation of “...a compressor housing defining one or more refrigerant inlets…,” as well as “…one or more coolant supply lines connected to the compressor hosing to deliver coolant to the one or more refrigerant inlets…,” makes the claim confusing. It is unclear if the claim language is intending to define a refrigerant and a separate coolant, or if the refrigerant and coolant are one and the same. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “...if a determination is that time TOFF is complete…,” makes the claim unclear. Specifically, is unclear as to how a time TOFF may be “complete” without a first disclosure of said time TOFF starting, as claim 1 provides the start TOFF operation as an optional logic “if” statement. The recitation is directly related to an optional feature (if a determination) of independent claim 1. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation [MPEP 2143.03]. Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U`.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “...if a determination is that time TON is complete…,” makes the claim unclear. Specifically, is unclear as to how a time TON may be “complete” without a first disclosure of said time TON starting. The recitation is directly related to an optional feature (if a determination) of independent claim 1. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation [MPEP 2143.03]. Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 6, the recitation of “...when any compressor temperature reading is below a superheat margin,” renders the claim unclear. For example, it is unclear as to what structure performs the recited function of providing a superheat margin. MPEP 2173.05(g) requires the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish a function be recited to indicate the scope of the subject matter claimed. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 12, the recitation of “...if a determination is that time TOFF is complete…,” makes the claim unclear. Specifically, is unclear as to how a time TOFF may be “complete” without a first disclosure of said time TOFF starting. The recitation is directly related to an optional feature (if a determination) of independent claim 11. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation [MPEP 2143.03]. Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation of “...if a determination is that time TON is complete…,” makes the claim unclear. Specifically, is unclear as to how a time TON may be “complete” without a first disclosure of said time TON starting. The recitation is directly related to an optional feature (if a determination) of independent claim 11. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation [MPEP 2143.03]. Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation. Accordingly, this discrepancy makes the claim difficult to interpret and does not meet the threshold requirements of clarity and precision as outlined in MPEP 2173.02.II. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 16, the recitation of “...when any temperature reading is below a superheat margin,” renders the claim unclear. For example, it is unclear as to what structure performs the recited function of providing a superheat margin. MPEP 2173.05(g) requires the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish a function be recited to indicate the scope of the subject matter claimed. Therefore, the claim and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Considering the above drawing objections, claim objections, and 112(b) rejections, examination on the merits is conducted to the best of the examiner’s ability in the interest of compact prosecution. Thus, any interpreted lack of prior art in the rejections should not be considered an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather a testament to the uncertainty of clarity regarding the claim language in light of the above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perevozchikov et al. (US 20220220976 A1, hereinafter “Perevozchikov”), and further in view of Crane (US 20190203998 A1) and Ahn et al. (US 20200116424 A1, hereinafter “Ahn”).
Regarding Claim 1, Perevozchikov teaches a compressor system [Figs. 1-8] comprising:
a compressor [at least 102, 202 or 700; ¶ 0059] comprising:
a compressor housing [702] defining one or more refrigerant inlets [704] [¶ 0060];
a cooling circuit [200 or 500] [¶ 0059; compressor 700 is suitable for compressor cooling systems] comprising:
one or more coolant supply lines [248, 250, 252, 254] connected to the compressor housing to deliver coolant to the one or more refrigerant inlets [¶ 0030-0031; coolant supply lines provide coolant to the compressor housing]; and
a cooling valve [at least 264 or 508 and 510] configured to control a flow of coolant via the one or more coolant supply lines [¶ 0054; Figs. 3 and 5; apparent from inspection];
one or more temperature sensors [at least 258, 504] to measure temperature at one or more locations in the compressor [¶ 0054; sensors detect fluid temperature in the compressor]; and
a controller [260] comprising a processor [280] and a memory [282] [¶ 0045], the controller connected to the one or more temperature sensors and the cooling valve [¶ 0045-0048; the controller may be configured to perform a variety of computer-implemented functions based on available variables, such as sensor values or pre-stored values], the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor configures the controller to:
control the compressor to compress refrigerant delivered to the one or more refrigerant inlets [¶ 0046; the controller may control coolant systems and/or other functions and operations of the compressor and the refrigeration system];
execute a duty cycle logic loop comprising:
receive compressor temperature readings from the one or more temperature sensors for the one or more locations [¶ 0047; controller 260 receives temperature readings from at least 258 and 504];
if a determination is that any of the compressor temperature readings are above an upper temperature threshold [Note: Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation [MPEP 2143.03]; an “IF” statement is considered optional language as they imply the system is capable of not meeting the prerequisite conditions, therefore the prior art need only teach the structure capable of performing the function of determining and of the contingent steps, i.e. a controller, a sensor, a stored first time, a stored second time, and a stored flag/signal; the remainder of the claims with “if” determinations are also treated as outlined above], open the cooling valve [¶ 0048, 0054; Perevozchikov discloses the controller, the temperature sensor, the processor, and the memory capable of storing instructions and variables, wherein the controller is capable of controlling and opening and closing of a coolant control valve, based on comparison/determination between detected values and stored values].
Perevozchikov does not explicitly teach to store a time TON, a time TOFF, and an override flag, to increment the time TON, and set the override flag to true, and if a determination is that the override flag is set to true and all of the compressor temperature readings are below the upper temperature threshold, close the cooling valve set the override flag to false, and begin time TOFF; and if a determination is that all compressor temperature readings are lower than a lower temperature threshold, decrement time TON. However it is noted that Perevozchikov does teach that the controller comprises the necessary structure (CPU, memory, sensors) capable of receiving and storing variables, and comparing said variables with any generic suitable computer-readable instructions that when implemented, determine control over the coolant control valve and various other functions [¶ 0045, 0048, 0054]. Thus, the controller structure of Perevozchikov is capable of updating stored time variables and override flags in response to sensed parameters, if one of ordinary skill in the art has a reason to provide the claimed control conditions in the first place (see below).
Crane teaches a motor temperature control technique with override [Figs. 1-7] wherein a compressor motor [50], having a plurality of temperature sensors [124], are linked to a control system [122], such that the control system may operate a motor cooling valve [96] to provide cooling to the motor as a function of measured temperature [¶ 0035]. Crane further teaches a temperature control scheme [130] [Fig. 7] wherein monitored temperature may further define control over the system such that the control system may provide different override control operations [136, 140, 142, 146, 132] of the cooling valve based on detected values related to certain thresholds [¶ 0040-0043]. Crane further teaches that overrides provide a means to ensure cooling control systems to not close when cooling is required, thereby preventing overheating and improving the safety and sustainability of a device needing cooling [¶ 0040-0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide override capabilities to a cooling controller) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner (i.e. reduce overheating), and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. to provide a means to ensure cooling control systems to not close when cooling is required, thereby preventing overheating and improving the safety and sustainability of a device needing cooling [¶ 0040-0043].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Perevozchikov to have an override flag, to set the override flag to true, and to set the override flag to false, in view of the teachings of Crane where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to provide a means to ensure cooling control systems to not close when cooling is required, thereby preventing overheating and improving the safety and sustainability of a device needing cooling.
Ahn teaches a refrigerator and method of controlling [Fig. 4], wherein a control unit [50] is capable of controlling a cooling unit to output a first reference temperature for a first reference time, as well as a second cooling unit output for a second reference time, wherein both reference times are previously determined [¶ 0011]. The controller may determine control actions for the refrigerator via comparisons with calculated and reference values, wherein the controller is configured to increment or decrement either first or second reference times depending on the given determination [¶ 0100-0109; see at least S8-S11; Fig. 4]. Ahn further teaches that providing varied start and stop times that update as a function related to detected temperature difference provides the benefit of improved cooling and protection for items needing cooling, improved temperature recovery, and reduced temperature variation width [¶ 0038-0041]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide cooling control utilizing multiple modifiable reference times) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing varied start and stop times that update as a function related to detected temperature difference provides the benefit of improved cooling and protection for items needing cooling, improved temperature recovery, and reduced temperature variation width [¶ 0038-0041].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Perevozchikov to provide commonly known control variables and functions, a time TON, a time TOFF, to increment the time TON, and to decrement time TON, in view of the teachings of Ahn where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing varied start and stop times that update as a function related to detected temperature difference provides the benefit of improved cooling and protection for items needing cooling, improved temperature recovery, and reduced temperature variation width.
Regarding Claim 2, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the compressor system of Claim 1 above and Ahn teaches wherein the duty cycle logic loop further comprises if a determination is that time TOFF is complete [¶ 0090; Fig. 4; at least S2 is capable of stopping cooling for a stop reference time], open the cooling valve, start time TON, and determine if all compressor temperature readings are lower than the lower temperature threshold [The control structure of Perevozchikov is capable of opening the valve in response to a control signal, while Crane ¶ 0037 teaches that any combination of highest, lowest, or average temperature readings are known control signals].
Regarding Claim 3, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the compressor system of Claim 1 above and Ahn teaches wherein the duty cycle logic loop further comprises if a determination is that time TON is complete, close the cooling valve and begin time TOFF [¶ 0089-0090; Fig. 4; S1-S2 runs for a running refence time and stops for a stop reference time].
Regarding Claim 4, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the compressor system of Claim 1 above and Crane teaches wherein the compressor temperature readings include one or more of a first radial bearing temperature, a second radial bearing temperature, a thrust bearing temperature, a motor temperature, and a return line temperature [¶ 0035; the plurality of sensor may be associated with any one or a combination of the various components of a motor].
Regarding Claim 5, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the compressor system of Claim 1 above and Perevozchikov teaches wherein the duty cycle logic loop begins when the compressor enters an active control mode [¶ 0047; the controller is actively determining based at least on detected temperatures].
Regarding Claim 6, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the compressor system of Claim 1 above and Ahn teaches wherein the duty cycle logic loop further comprises decrement time TON when any compressor temperature reading is below a superheat margin [¶ 0106; Fig. 4; S7-11; the system may increase or decrease either reference time in response to a determination of a temperature reading or a calculation from a temperature reading].
Regarding Claim 7, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the compressor system of Claim 1 above and Crane teaches if a determination is that the override flag is true [Fig. 7; monitored temperature determines level of override command] and that all of the compressor temperature readings are below the upper temperature threshold minus a deadband, close the cooling valve, set the override flag to false, and begin time TOFF [¶ 0040; Upon monitored temperatures falling below a threshold B, normal motor cooling operations are utilized, wherein the override is no longer active] [¶ 0037; Crane teaches that any combination of highest, lowest, or average temperature readings are known control signals] [Ahn ¶ 0089-0090; Fig. 4; S1-S2 runs for a running refence time and stops for a stop reference time].
Regarding Claim 8, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the compressor system of Claim 1 above and Perevozchikov teaches wherein the upper temperature threshold includes an upper temperature threshold for each of the locations [¶ 0048, 0054; Perevozchikov discloses the controller, the temperature sensor, the processor, and the memory capable of storing instructions and variables, wherein the controller is capable of controlling and opening and closing of a coolant control valve, based on comparison/determination between detected values and stored values, wherein multiple sensors are provided at different locations in the compressor] [Crane ¶ 0037 also emphasizes that any combination of temperature readings from different locations are known control signals depending on a preferred embodiment].
Regarding Claim 9, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the compressor system of Claim 9 above and Crane teaches wherein the upper temperature thresholds for two different locations are different [¶ 0035, 0037-0038; Crane teaches that each control scheme 130 may comprise of at least thresholds A and B; therefore a control scheme at a different location (defined by at least different sensors 124a-d) may commonsensically comprise different thresholds].
Regarding Claim 10, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the compressor system of Claim 1 above and Crane teaches wherein the lower temperature threshold includes a lower temperature threshold for each of the locations [¶ 0035, 0037-0038; Crane teaches that each control scheme 130 may comprise of at least thresholds A and B; therefore a control scheme at a different location (defined by at least different sensors 124a-d) may commonsensically comprise different thresholds].
Regarding Claim 11, Perevozchikov teaches a controller [260] comprising at least one processor [280] and at least one memory [282] [¶ 0045], the controller connected to one or more temperature sensors [at least 258, 504] to measure one or more locations on a device [¶ 0054; sensors detect fluid temperature in the compressor] and a cooling valve [at least 264 or 508 and 510] for controlling a flow of coolant to one or more locations on the device [¶ 0054; Figs. 3 and 5; coolant may be provided to the compressor], the at least one memory storing instructions [¶ 0045-0048; the controller may be configured to perform a variety of computer-implemented functions based on available variables, such as sensor values or pre-stored values] that when executed by the at least one processor configures the controller to:
execute a duty cycle logic loop comprising:
receive temperature readings from the one or more temperature sensors for the one or more locations [¶ 0047; controller 260 receives temperature readings from at least 258 and 504];
if a determination is that any of the temperature readings are above an upper temperature threshold [Note: Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation [MPEP 2143.03]; an “IF” statement is considered optional language as they imply the system is capable of not meeting the prerequisite conditions, therefore the prior art need only teach the structure capable of performing the function of determining and of the contingent steps, i.e. a controller, a sensor, a stored first time, a stored second time, and a stored flag/signal; the remainder of the claims with “if” determinations are also treated as outlined above], open the cooling valve [¶ 0048, 0054; Perevozchikov discloses the controller, the temperature sensor, the processor, and the memory capable of storing instructions and variables, wherein the controller is capable of controlling and opening and closing of a coolant control valve, based on comparison/determination between detected values and stored values].
Perevozchikov does not explicitly teach to store a time TON, a time TOFF, and an override flag, to increment the time TON, and set the override flag to true, and if a determination is that the override flag is set to true and all of the temperature readings are below the upper temperature threshold, close the cooling valve, set the override flag to false, and begin time TOFF; and if the determination is that all temperature readings are lower than a lower temperature threshold, decrement time TON. However it is noted that Perevozchikov does teach that the controller comprises the necessary structure (CPU, memory, sensors) capable of receiving and storing variables, and comparing said variables with any generic suitable computer-readable instructions that when implemented, determine control over the coolant control valve and various other functions [¶ 0045, 0048, 0054]. Thus, the controller structure of Perevozchikov is capable of updating stored time variables and override flags in response to sensed parameters, if one of ordinary skill in the art has a reason to provide the claimed control conditions in the first place (see below).
Crane teaches a motor temperature control technique with override [Figs. 1-7] wherein a compressor motor [50], having a plurality of temperature sensors [124], are linked to a control system [122], such that the control system may operate a motor cooling valve [96] to provide cooling to the motor as a function of measured temperature [¶ 0035]. Crane further teaches a temperature control scheme [130] [Fig. 7] wherein monitored temperature may further define control over the system such that the control system may provide different override control operations [136, 140, 142, 146, 132] of the cooling valve based on detected values related to certain thresholds [¶ 0040-0043]. Crane further teaches that overrides provide a means to ensure cooling control systems to not close when cooling is required, thereby preventing overheating and improving the safety and sustainability of a device needing cooling [¶ 0040-0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide override capabilities to a cooling controller) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner (i.e. reduce overheating), and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. to provide a means to ensure cooling control systems to not close when cooling is required, thereby preventing overheating and improving the safety and sustainability of a device needing cooling [¶ 0040-0043].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Perevozchikov to have an override flag, to set the override flag to true, and to set the override flag to false, in view of the teachings of Crane where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to provide a means to ensure cooling control systems to not close when cooling is required, thereby preventing overheating and improving the safety and sustainability of a device needing cooling.
Ahn teaches a refrigerator and method of controlling [Fig. 4], wherein a control unit [50] is capable of controlling a cooling unit to output a first reference temperature for a first reference time, as well as a second cooling unit output for a second reference time, wherein both reference times are previously determined [¶ 0011]. The controller may determine control actions for the refrigerator via comparisons with calculated and reference values, wherein the controller is configured to increment or decrement either first or second reference times depending on the given determination [¶ 0100-0109; see at least S8-S11; Fig. 4]. Ahn further teaches that providing varied start and stop times that update as a function related to detected temperature difference provides the benefit of improved cooling and protection for items needing cooling, improved temperature recovery, and reduced temperature variation width [¶ 0038-0041]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide cooling control utilizing multiple modifiable reference times) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing varied start and stop times that update as a function related to detected temperature difference provides the benefit of improved cooling and protection for items needing cooling, improved temperature recovery, and reduced temperature variation width [¶ 0038-0041].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Perevozchikov to provide commonly known control variables and functions, a time TON, a time TOFF, to increment the time TON, and to decrement time TON, in view of the teachings of Ahn where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing varied start and stop times that update as a function related to detected temperature difference provides the benefit of improved cooling and protection for items needing cooling, improved temperature recovery, and reduced temperature variation width.
Regarding Claim 12, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the controller of Claim 11 above and Ahn teaches wherein the duty cycle logic loop further comprises if a determination is that time TOFF is complete [¶ 0090; Fig. 4; at least S2 is capable of stopping cooling for a stop reference time], open the cooling valve, start time TON, and determine if all compressor temperature readings are lower than the lower temperature threshold [The control structure of Perevozchikov is capable of opening the valve in response to a control signal, while Crane ¶ 0037 teaches that any combination of highest, lowest, or average temperature readings are known control signals].
Regarding Claim 13, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the controller system of Claim 11 above and Ahn teaches wherein the duty cycle logic loop further comprises if a determination is that time TON is complete, close the cooling valve and begin time TOFF [¶ 0089-0090; Fig. 4; S1-S2 runs for a running refence time and stops for a stop reference time].
Regarding Claim 14, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the controller of Claim 11 above and Crane teaches wherein the temperature readings include one or more of a first radial bearing temperature, a second radial bearing temperature, a thrust bearing temperature, a motor temperature, and a return line temperature [¶ 0035; the plurality of sensor may be associated with any one or a combination of the various components of a motor].
Regarding Claim 15, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the controller of Claim 11 above and Perevozchikov teaches wherein the duty cycle logic loop begins when the device enters an active control mode [¶ 0047; the controller is actively determining based at least on detected temperatures].
Regarding Claim 16, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the controller of Claim 11 above and Ahn teaches wherein the duty cycle logic loop further comprises decrement time TON when any temperature reading is below a superheat margin [¶ 0106; Fig. 4; S7-11; the system may increase or decrease either reference time in response to a determination of a temperature reading or a calculation from a temperature reading].
Regarding Claim 17, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the controller of Claim 11 above and Crane teaches if a determination is that the override flag is true [Fig. 7; monitored temperature determines level of override command] and that all of the compressor temperature readings are below the upper temperature threshold minus a deadband, close the cooling valve, set the override flag to false, and begin time TOFF [¶ 0040; Upon monitored temperatures falling below a threshold B, normal motor cooling operations are utilized, wherein the override is no longer active] [¶ 0037; Crane teaches that any combination of highest, lowest, or average temperature readings are known control signals] [Ahn ¶ 0089-0090; Fig. 4; S1-S2 runs for a running refence time and stops for a stop reference time].
Regarding Claim 18, Perevozchikov teaches a method for controlling a compressor [at least 102, 202 or 700; ¶ 0059] implemented by a controller [260] comprising at least one processor [280] and at least one memory [282] [¶ 0045], the controller in communication with one or more temperature sensors [at least 258, 504] to measure one or more locations on the compressor [¶ 0054; sensors detect fluid temperature in the compressor] and a cooling valve [at least 264 or 508 and 510] for controlling a flow of coolant to the one or more locations on the compressor [¶ 0054; sensors detect fluid temperature in the compressor], the method comprises:
executing a duty cycle logic loop comprising:
receiving temperature readings from the one or more temperature sensors for the one or more locations [¶ 0047; controller 260 receives temperature readings from at least 258 and 504];
[Note: The remaining limitations are considered contingent limitations, as a logical “if” statement necessitates that the system is capable of functioning without meeting the prerequisite conditions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the conditions precedent are not met [MPEP 2111.04.II]. Accordingly, the remaining limitations are not given patentable weight and not considered in the rejection]
if a determination is that any of the temperature readings are above an upper temperature threshold, incrementing the time TON, setting the override flag to true, and opening the cooling valve;
if a determination is that the override flag is set to true and all of the temperature readings are below the upper temperature threshold, closing the cooling valve, setting the override flag to false, and beginning time TOFF; and
if the determination is that all temperature readings are lower than a lower temperature threshold, decrementing time TON [See above Note].
Perevozchikov does not explicitly teach storing a time TON, a time TOFF, and an override flag. However it is noted that Perevozchikov does teach that the controller comprises the necessary structure (CPU, memory, sensors) capable of receiving and storing variables, and comparing said variables with any generic suitable computer-readable instructions that when implemented, determine control over the coolant control valve and various other functions [¶ 0045, 0048, 0054]. Thus, the controller structure of Perevozchikov is capable of updating stored time variables and override flags in response to sensed parameters, if one of ordinary skill in the art has a reason to provide the claimed control conditions in the first place (see below).
Crane teaches a motor temperature control technique with override [Figs. 1-7] wherein a compressor motor [50], having a plurality of temperature sensors [124], are linked to a control system [122], such that the control system may operate a motor cooling valve [96] to provide cooling to the motor as a function of measured temperature [¶ 0035]. Crane further teaches a temperature control scheme [130] [Fig. 7] wherein monitored temperature may further define control over the system such that the control system may provide different override control operations [136, 140, 142, 146, 132] of the cooling valve based on detected values related to certain thresholds [¶ 0040-0043]. Crane further teaches that overrides provide a means to ensure cooling control systems to not close when cooling is required, thereby preventing overheating and improving the safety and sustainability of a device needing cooling [¶ 0040-0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide override capabilities to a cooling controller) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner (i.e. reduce overheating), and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. to provide a means to ensure cooling control systems to not close when cooling is required, thereby preventing overheating and improving the safety and sustainability of a device needing cooling [¶ 0040-0043].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Perevozchikov to have an override flag, in view of the teachings of Crane where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to provide a means to ensure cooling control systems to not close when cooling is required, thereby preventing overheating and improving the safety and sustainability of a device needing cooling.
Ahn teaches a refrigerator and method of controlling [Fig. 4], wherein a control unit [50] is capable of controlling a cooling unit to output a first reference temperature for a first reference time, as well as a second cooling unit output for a second reference time, wherein both reference times are previously determined [¶ 0011]. The controller may determine control actions for the refrigerator via comparisons with calculated and reference values, wherein the controller is configured to increment or decrement either first or second reference times depending on the given determination [¶ 0100-0109; see at least S8-S11; Fig. 4]. Ahn further teaches that providing varied start and stop times that update as a function related to detected temperature difference provides the benefit of improved cooling and protection for items needing cooling, improved temperature recovery, and reduced temperature variation width [¶ 0038-0041]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. provide cooling control utilizing multiple modifiable reference times) and that in combination, the technique would improve the known device in a similar manner, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing varied start and stop times that update as a function related to detected temperature difference provides the benefit of improved cooling and protection for items needing cooling, improved temperature recovery, and reduced temperature variation width [¶ 0038-0041].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Perevozchikov to provide commonly known control variables and functions for a time TON and a time TOFF, in view of the teachings of Ahn where applying a known technique to a known device with no change in their respective function would improve the known device in a similar manner and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing varied start and stop times that update as a function related to detected temperature difference provides the benefit of improved cooling and protection for items needing cooling, improved temperature recovery, and reduced temperature variation width.
Regarding Claim 19, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 18 above and Crane teaches wherein the temperature readings include one or more of a first radial bearing temperature, a second radial bearing temperature, a thrust bearing temperature, a motor temperature, and a return line temperature [¶ 0035; the plurality of sensor may be associated with any one or a combination of the various components of a motor].
Regarding Claim 20, Perevozchikov, as modified, teaches the method of Claim 18 above and Ahn teaches wherein the duty cycle logic loop further comprises decrementing time TON when any temperature reading is below a superheat margin [¶ 0106; Fig. 4; S7-11; the system man increase or decrease either reference time in response to a determination of a temperature reading or a calculation from a temperature reading].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights