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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected below.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner believes that the preamble for the first claim set has a typographical error. The preamble states “An indoor unit”, however, the elements described in the claim seems to be in the outdoor unit. The speciation and drawing show these elements in the outdoor unit as well. Furthermore, “an indoor unit” is a then reintroduced in line 8, however, it is believed that this is correctly defined it for the first time. The other claim sets are different than this and correspond to the specification and the drawings
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim U/S PG Pub. 2020/0132319 in view of Liu (U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0063045).
As to claims 1, 9 and 16, Kim teaches an 136 may calculate the current compressor frequency based on the previous compressor frequency and the amount of change in the compressor, and control the rotation speed of the outdoor fan by using the calculated current compressor frequency and the outdoor temperature], identify a driving speed corresponding to the operation frequency of the compressor and an outdoor temperature received from the temperature sensor[0080], and control the fan motor at the identified driving speed[0080].
Kim teaches most of the claimed invention, but does not teach that the fan is controlled by frequency. Although it is known to those skilled in the art how to change the fan speed to fan frequency to move prosecution along Examiner has including an air conditioning unit that controls a fan by frequency.
As to claim 1, 9, and 16, Liu teaches that fans can be controlled based on motor frequency[0075].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Liu into the system and methods of Kim prior to the effective filing date. The motivation to combine is that to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify Kim with Liu since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). In this case, controlling a fan based on frequency rather than speed. The system of Kim would still function properly, and the predictable result would be the compressor and the fan running correctly in the system.
As to claim 2, 10, and 17, Kim teaches at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to: identify an operation frequency of the compressor while the compressor is controlled according to the operation frequency information, and identify the driving frequency corresponding to the identified operation frequency and the outdoor temperature received from the temperature sensor[0080].
As to claim 3, 11, and 18, Kim wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to: control the fan motor at the identified driving frequency during a specified time, re-identify the operation frequency of the compressor after the specified time passes, and re-identify the driving frequency corresponding to the re-identified operation frequency and the outdoor temperature re-received from the temperature sensor [0080 and the specific time is the cooling operation s310 [0106]]. This also occurs when the system runs in a loop.
As to claim 4, 12, and 19, Kim wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to: control the fan motor at the identified driving frequency during a specified time, and identify an operation frequency corresponding to the operation frequency information re-received from the indoor unit and a driving frequency corresponding to the outdoor temperature re-received from the temperature sensor after the specified time passes. This would occur during the next loop of fig. 4.
As to claim 5, 13, and 20, Kim at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to: during a specified time after an instruction for turning on the outdoor unit is received, control the fan motor at a specified driving frequency, and identify the driving frequency corresponding to the operation frequency and the outdoor temperature after the specified time passes (fig. 4 anytime the fan is running can be considered the specified driving speed and once changed say for a second loop of fig. 4 it would be the new driving speed/frequency since the specified driving frequency isn’t a predetermined default frequency/speed ).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim U/S PG Pub. 2020/0132319 in view of Liu (U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0063045) in view of Song (U.S. PG Pub. 20220412592).
Kim and Liu teach most of the claimed invention, but fail to teach all of claims 6 and 14, however, this is an obvious variation as is taught by Song as follows:
As to claims 6 and 14, Song teaches further comprising: memory storing information on the driving frequency that increases in stages in proportion to at least one of the operation frequency or the outdoor temperature [0069 and especially table 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to include the teachings of Song into the system and method of Kim modified by Liu. The motivation to combine is that Song teaches control over the rotating speed of the outdoor fan in the defrosting process may be determined by quickly by using a looking up table [0070].
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim U/S PG Pub. 2020/0132319 in view of Liu (U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0063045) in view of Isshiki (U.S. Pat. 5,568,732).
Kim and Liu teach most of the claimed invention, but fail to teach all of claims 7 and 15, however, this is an obvious variation as is taught by Isshiki as follows:
As to claims 7 and 15,Isshiki teaches conditioner of the indoor unit of the air conditioner of wherein the fan motor comprises a DC motor wherein the driving frequency is variable (col. 9 lines 27-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Isshiki into the system and methods of Kim prior to the effective filing date. The motivation to combine is that to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify Kim with Liu since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Isshiki teaches that the fans can be DC fan that can be controlled by an output frequency. As shown above the combination adjusts based on frequency so one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the DC fans of Isshiki could be used as they are well known in the art.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim U/S PG Pub. 2020/0132319 in view of Liu (U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0063045) in view of Mu (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0235911).
Kim and Liu teach most of the claimed invention, but fail to teach all of claim 8, however, this is an obvious variation as is taught by Mu as follows:
As to claim 8, Mu teaches the communication interface is configured to perform one-way communication from the indoor unit to the outdoor unit[0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to include the teachings of Mu into the system and method of Kim modified by Liu. The motivation to combine is that MU teaches
the sending end may also output a high-frequency signal carrying transmitter parameters. The indoor unit, the outdoor unit, and the temperature protector each output transmitter parameters, so as to realize the real-time communication between the indoor unit, the outdoor unit, and the temperature protector. Furthermore, the high-frequency signal is loaded on the power communication line, the transmission of the two signals may not be affected, and there is no need to add the circuit for the AC power line carrier communication, thus simplifying the circuit structure and saving costs[0070].
Other Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ikeda (U.S. PG Pub. 2025/0093065) teaches a model that controls a fan speed based on compressor frequency.
Ishigaki (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0280283) teaches a memory for storing various air conditioning parameters including compressor frequency and temperatures.
Kotani (U.S. PG Pub. 2009/0007577) teaches an air conditioner that has fans with multiple stages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights