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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/13/2025, 4/25/2025 and 4/15/2026 were filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract speaks to the merits of the invention i.e. ‘thereby effectively avoiding failure.’. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 16-26 and 32-35 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 16, the recitation of “…a processor; and a memory comprising control logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: determine one or more parameters associated with operation of a first compressor of the refrigeration system and a second compressor of the refrigeration system, wherein the first compressor and the second compressor are configured to be driven coaxially; determine whether respective loads of the first compressor and the second compressor are balanced based on the one or more parameters; and in response to a determination that the respective loads are unbalanced, adjust operation of the first compressor to adjust a first flow rate of a first flow of refrigerant through the first compressor, adjust operation of the second compressor to adjust a second flow rate of a second flow of refrigerant through the second compressor, or both,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor and memory that is configured to perform the functional steps of “determining” and “adjusting.” However, pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function of “determining” one or more parameters i.e. the claim is void of sensors or detectors that aid in the ‘determining’ step. The claim does not recite the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function of “adjusting” operations of the compressors to adjust respective flow rates.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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 32, the recitation of “…a control device configured to: monitor a first flow rate associated with the first compressor and a second flow rate associated with the second compressor; determine a flow rate deviation based on a difference between the first flow rate and the second flow rate; determine that the flow rate deviation is greater than a threshold value; and generate a control signal to shut down the driving device, the first compressor, the second compressor, or a combination thereof,” renders the claim unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor and memory that is configured to perform the functional steps of “monitoring.” However, pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function of “monitoring” one or more flow rates i.e. the claim is void of sensors or detectors that aid in the ‘monitoring’ step.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Snell et al. (US2016/0265815).
Regarding Claim 16, Snell teaches a control device [90] for a refrigeration system [0037; fig 7], comprising:
a processor [96; 0051]; and a memory [0051] comprising control logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
determine one or more parameters associated with operation of a first compressor of the refrigeration system and a second compressor of the refrigeration system, wherein the first compressor and the second compressor are configured to be driven coaxially [0051; 0053; 0054; 0038];
determine whether respective loads of the first compressor and the second compressor are balanced based on the one or more parameters [0057; 0096; where detection of a surge event indicates imbalance in the compressors];
and
in response to a determination that the respective loads are unbalanced, adjust operation of the first compressor to adjust a first flow rate of a first flow of refrigerant through the first compressor, adjust operation of the second compressor to adjust a second flow rate of a second flow of refrigerant through the second compressor, or both [0097; 0109; 0111; claim 2; figs 7 & 22; where is response to an imbalance, the flow rate of the compressor via PRV vanes are adjusted].
Regarding Claim 27, Snell teaches a control device [90] for a refrigeration system [0037; fig 7], comprising:
a processor [96; 0051] and a memory [92; 0051] comprising control logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to:
receive sensor data from one or more sensors of the refrigeration system, wherein the sensor data is indicative of one or more parameters associated with operation of a first compressor and a second compressor of the refrigeration system [See 0051; 0053; 0054];
control a driving device [14] to drive the first compressor and the second compressor coaxially [0038];
determine whether respective loads of the first compressor and the second compressor are balanced based on the one or more parameters [0057; 0096; where detection of a surge event indicates imbalance in the compressors]; and
in response to a determination that the respective loads are unbalanced, transmit a control signal to one or more pre-rotation vanes of the refrigeration system to adjust a respective flow rate through the first compressor, a respective flow rate through the second compressor, or both [0097; 0109; 0111; claim 2; figs 7 & 22; where is response to an imbalance, the flow rate of the compressor via PRV vanes are adjusted].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 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.
Claims 27 and 32 are allowable over recited prior art references.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-19, 23-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,469, hereinafter the 469 Patent in view of Snell et al. (US2016/0265815).
Regarding Claim 16 the 469 Patent teaches determining one or more parameters associated with operation of a first compressor of the refrigeration system and a second compressor of the refrigeration system, wherein the first compressor and the second compressor are configured to be driven coaxially [469 Patent at claim 1];
determining whether respective loads of the first compressor and the second compressor are balanced based on the one or more parameters [469 Patent at claim 1]; and
in response to a determination that the respective loads are unbalanced, adjust operation of the first compressor to adjust a first flow rate of a first flow of refrigerant through the first compressor, adjust operation of the second compressor to adjust a second flow rate of a second flow of refrigerant through the second compressor, or both [469 Patent at claim 1] in view of Snell
where Snell teaches a control device [90] for a refrigeration system [0037; fig 7], comprising: a processor [96; 0051]; and a memory [0051] comprising control logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to determine one or more parameters [0051; 0053; 0054; 0038].
Regarding Claim 17, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprise the first flow rate of the first flow of refrigerant through the first compressor and the second flow rate of the second flow of refrigerant through the second compressor, and the control logic, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: calculate a flow rate deviation value between an initial value of the first flow rate and an initial value of the second flow rate; compare the flow rate deviation value to a preset value; and in response to the flow rate deviation value being equal to or greater than the preset value, determine that the first compressor and the second compressor are in an unbalanced state [469 Patent at claim 4].
Regarding Claim 18, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein the control logic, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: in response to the determination that the first compressor and the second compressor are in the unbalanced state: determine updated values of the first flow rate and updated values of the second flow rate for a preset time period; and calculate, based on the updated values of the first flow rate and the updated values of the second flow rate, updated values of the flow rate deviation value between the first flow rate and the second flow rate for the preset time period [469 Patent at claim 17]
Regarding Claim 19, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein the control logic, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: in response to a determination that the updated values of the flow rate deviation value are equal to or greater than the preset value for the preset time period: compare a value of the first flow rate and a value of the second flow rate; in response to a determination that the value of the first flow rate is less than the value of the second flow rate, increase a first opening degree of first pre-rotation guide vanes of the first compressor; and in response to a determination that the value of the first flow rate is greater than the value of the second flow rate, increase a second opening degree of second pre-rotation guide vanes of the second compressor [469 Patent at claims 6 & 7].
Regarding Claim 23, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein the control logic, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: in response to the determination that the first compressor and the second compressor are in the unbalanced state: determine a shutdown time period, wherein a duration of the shutdown time period corresponds to flow rate deviation value; and upon lapse of the duration of the shutdown time period, initiate a shutdown operation of the first compressor and the second compressor [469 Patent at claim 8]
Regarding Claim 24, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein: the one or more parameters comprise a temperature TA of the first flow of refrigerant and a temperature TB of the second flow of refrigerant; and the control device is configured to determine whether the respective loads of the first compressor and the second compressor are balanced by determining whether at least one of the temperature TA or the temperature TB exceeds a threshold temperature [469 Patent at claim 11].
Regarding Claim 25, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein: the one or more parameters comprise a degree of superheat ΔTA of the first flow of refrigerant upstream of the first compressor and a degree of superheat ΔTs of the second flow of refrigerant upstream of the second compressor; and the control device is configured to determine whether the respective loads of the first compressor and the second compressor are balanced by determining whether at least one of the degree of superheat ΔTA or the degree of superheat ΔTs exceeds a threshold value [469 Patent at claim 12].
Regarding Claim 26, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprise a degree of superheat ΔTc of the first flow of refrigerant downstream of the first compressor and a degree of superheat ΔTD of the second flow of refrigerant downstream of the second compressor; and the control device is configured to determine whether the respective loads of the first compressor and the second compressor are balanced by determining whether at least one of the degree of superheat ΔTc or the degree of superheat ΔTD exceeds a threshold value [469 Patent at claim 12].
Regarding Claim 27, the 469 Patent teaches receiving sensor data from one or more sensors of the refrigeration system, wherein the sensor data is indicative of one or more parameters associated with operation of a first compressor and a second compressor of the refrigeration system; control a driving device to drive the first compressor and the second compressor coaxially; determine whether respective loads of the first compressor and the second compressor are balanced based on the one or more parameters; and in response to a determination that the respective loads are unbalanced, transmit a control signal to one or more pre-rotation vanes of the refrigeration system to adjust a respective flow rate through the first compressor, a respective flow rate through the second compressor, or both [469 Patent at claim 1] in view of Snell
where Snell teaches a control device [90] for a refrigeration system [0037; fig 7], comprising: a processor [96; 0051]; and a memory [0051] comprising control logic that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to determine one or more parameters [0051; 0053; 0054; 0038].
Regarding Claim 28, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein the control logic, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: in response to a determination that the respective loads remain unbalanced after the control signal is transmitted, transmit an additional control signal to the driving device to stop the first compressor and the second compressor [469 Patent at claim 1].
Regarding Claim 29, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprise a first flow rate associated with the first compressor and a second flow rate associated with the second compressor, and wherein the control logic, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: determine whether a difference between the first flow rate and the second flow rate exceeds a threshold flow rate difference to determine whether the respective loads are balanced [469 Patent at claim 4].
Regarding Claim 30, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprise a first temperature associated with the first compressor and a second temperature associated with the second compressor, and wherein the control logic, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: determine whether at least one of the first temperature or the second temperature exceeds a threshold temperature to determine whether the respective loads are balanced. [469 Patent at claim 11]
Regarding Claim 31, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprise a first degree of superheat associated with the first compressor and a second degree of superheat associated with the second compressor, and wherein the control logic, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: determine whether at least one of the first degree of superheat or the second degree of superheat exceeds a threshold superheat difference to determine whether the respective loads are balanced [469 Patent at claim 12].
Regarding Claim 32 the 469 Patent teaches monitoring a first flow rate associated with the first compressor and a second flow rate associated with the second compressor determining a flow rate deviation based on a difference between the first flow rate and the second flow rate [469 Patent at claim 4]; determining that the flow rate deviation is greater than a threshold value; and generate a control signal to shut down the driving device, the first compressor, the second compressor, or a combination thereof [469 Patent at claim 4].
In view of Snell where Snell teaches a system, comprising: a first compressor [12]; a second compressor [12]; a driving device [14] configured to drive the first compressor and the second compressor coaxially; and a control device [90; See 0038; 0051; 0053; 0054; fig 1].
Regarding Claim 33, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches wherein the control device is configured to: determine a shutdown time based on the flow rate deviation; and generate the control signal upon lapse of the shutdown time [469 Patent at claim 8].
Regarding Claim 34, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches first pre-rotation guide vanes configured to adjust the first flow rate; and second pre-rotation guide vanes configured to adjust the second flow rate, wherein the control device is configured to control the first pre-rotation guide vanes and the second pre- rotation guide vanes based on the flow rate deviation [469 Patent at claim 11].
Regarding Claim 35, the 469 Patent in view of Snell teaches a first flow rate sensor disposed downstream of the first compressor and configured to measure the first flow rate; and a second flow rate sensor disposed downstream of the second compressor and configured to measure the second flow rate [469 Patent at claim 4].
Claims not specifically addressed are rejected based upon dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arnou (US2017/0009775) cited to teach a chiller system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights