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 06/06/2025 and 13/13/2025 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 system for defrosting, the evaporator coil in at least claim 1,
the camera sensor in at least claim 8,
the evaporator pressure regulator, evaporator pressure regulating valve and expansion valve in at least claim 11,
the scroll booster in at least claim 12,
the refrigerated case in claim 13,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 27 are objected to because the claim form and arrangement does not comply with the form and arrangement guidelines as set out in MPEP 608.01(n) III-IV, wherein a dependent claim should first declare the preceding claim from which it depends, then continuing to specify a further limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
For example, claim 13 may be rewritten in a similar form as follows:
“The system for defrosting the evaporator of claim 1, disposed within a refrigerated case, wherein:…”
For example, claim 27 may be rewritten in a similar form as follows:
“The non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 21, disposed within a controller…”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
System for defrosting an evaporator coil
Scroll booster system in at least claims 12 and 20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification show that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
A system for defrosting an evaporator coil only appears to be described as comprising a controller in at least ¶ 0022 of the specification.
A scroll booster system appears to be described as having at least a low temperature booster compressor and an electronic expansion valve in at least ¶ 0015 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A system for defrosting an evaporator” in line 1. The term “system,” being a non-structural term that is a substitute for the term "means," invokes a claim interpretation under the guise of 35 USC § 112(f), which requires a reliance on the corresponding disclosure to provide the limits on the structure, material or act that performs the claimed function. The disclosure must show with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed. Possession is shown by describing the claimed invention with all limitations. Here, the system, including its function, is discussed in ¶ 0022, wherein the only structure recited is regarding a controller. However, the corresponding structure that is capable of performing the claimed function (i.e. defrosting an evaporator) of the system is not provided in the specification. A mere restatement of the function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function, is a failure to provide adequate written description for a § 112(f) limitation claim interpretation. Because the specification fails to provide an adequate description of a structure for the function of defrosting an evaporator, the boundary of claim is not clearly defined. A claim without clearly defined boundaries is rendered indefinite. Therefore, the claim, and all claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 1-13, 15-17 and 21-27 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.
The limitation “system for defrosting an evaporator” in Claim 1 render the claims indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not understand the scope of the claimed invention when read in light of the specification. The lack of disclosure regarding the limitation "system for defrosting” as called for in independent claim 1 creates such an inconsistency between the claims and the description that it prevents a skilled artisan from understanding the scope of the independent claims (MPEP § 2173.03). The specification does not use the claim terminology to identify the “system.” For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be broadly interpreted as any known means to defrost. Therefore the claim, and all claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “...periodically changing an evaporator temperature setpoint…,” renders the claim unclear. For example, it is unclear as to what structure performs the recited function (i.e. what structure is controlled to change the setpoint). 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 1, the recitation of “...periodically changing an evaporator pressure setpoint…,” renders the claim unclear. For example, it is unclear as to what structure performs the recited function (i.e. what structure is controlled to change the setpoint). 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 2, the claim recites a method and an apparatus in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. MPEP 2173,05(p) (11); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In particular, independent claim 1 recites a “system for defrosting”. The limitation “system” is treated as an apparatus; however, the subsequent limitations require the performance of a method (i.e. after the controller determines…). The method limitations are drafted as steps performed by the “system for defrosting”. As such, the claims recite both an apparatus and method steps using the apparatus in the same claim and are thus indefinite. 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 3, the claim recites a method and an apparatus in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. MPEP 2173,05(p) (11); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In particular, independent claim 1 recites a “system for defrosting”. The limitation “system” is treated as an apparatus; however, the subsequent limitations require the performance of a method (i.e. after the controller determines…, after determining that…). The method limitations are drafted as steps performed by the “system for defrosting”. As such, the claims recite both an apparatus and method steps using the apparatus in the same claim and are thus indefinite. 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 4, the claim recites a method and an apparatus in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. MPEP 2173,05(p) (11); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In particular, independent claim 1 recites a “system for defrosting”. The limitation “system” is treated as an apparatus; however, the subsequent limitations require the performance of a method (i.e. after the controller determines…). The method limitations are drafted as steps performed by the “system for defrosting”. As such, the claims recite both an apparatus and method steps using the apparatus in the same claim and are thus indefinite. 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 Claims 2-4, 15-17 and 22-24, the recitation of “...about 33 °F to about 35 °F…,” and “...about -25 °F…,” renders the claim unclear. The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear as to what temperature range would not meet the limitations of “about 33 °F to about 35 °F”, therefore making it unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art as to when infringement would occur. Accordingly, 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 Claims 4, 17 and 24, the recitation of “...changing the evaporator pressure setpoint…,” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, the recitation is directly related to an alternative and optional feature (and/or) of independent claims 1, 14 and 21. 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]. Dependent claims which contain language referencing a previously optional feature as a requirement makes interpretation of the claims difficult, raising concerns as to precisely when infringement would occur. 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 claims and all claims depending therefrom are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 21, the recitation of “...periodically changing an evaporator temperature setpoint…,” renders the claim unclear. For example, it is unclear as to what structure performs the recited function (i.e. what structure is controlled to change the setpoint). 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 21, the recitation of “...periodically changing an evaporator pressure setpoint…,” renders the claim unclear. For example, it is unclear as to what structure performs the recited function (i.e. what structure is controlled to change the setpoint). 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 27, the recitation of “…a controller…” and “…an evaporator coil…” renders the claims unclear. Specifically, independent claim 21, has already disclosed “a controller” and “an evaporator coil”. Therefore, it is unclear if the new instance of the terms are referring to the previously disclosed elements, or if they are entirely new elements. Applicant should either fix antecedent basis issues for clarity, or Applicant should further name the elements to meet the minimum requirements for clarity and precision. Accordingly, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-14, 18, 20-21, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tippmann et al. (US 20250155174 A1, hereinafter “Tippmann”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tippmann teaches a system for defrosting an evaporator coil [118] [Figs. 1-3] , the system comprising a controller [102] configured to be operable for:
monitoring the evaporator coil to determine if a defrost of the evaporator coil is required [¶ 0042; the system controls evaporator defrost cycles as needed in response to signals received from a plurality of sensors];
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is required, initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil [¶ 0043, 0045; when the sensors reach a certain threshold, the controller initiates a defrost cycle] by:
periodically changing an evaporator temperature setpoint to a value just above freezing to defrost the evaporator coil [¶ 0032, 0055-0056, 0062, 0066-0067; the defrost cycle may be initiated and controlled using any of the disclosed parameters independently or in combination (i.e. evaporator surface temperature, air temperature, refrigerant temperature, coil pressure, etc.), such that the controller may operate any component of the system including the compressor, condenser, expansion valves, and solenoid valves until the temperature threshold condition for the defrost cycle arrives at another threshold indicating the absence of frost]; and/or
periodically changing an evaporator pressure setpoint to a value just above a pressure resulting in a temperature just above freezing to defrost the evaporator coil [Listed in the alternative, not considered to narrow the broadest reasonable interpretation; Note that Tippmann discloses measuring pressure as a known parameter to control defrost]; and
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is complete, terminating defrost of the evaporator coil by returning the evaporation temperature setpoint and/or the evaporator pressure setpoint to normal operation [¶ 0065; the controller may determine when to terminate the defrost cycle (i.e. return to normal operation) based at least on a coil temperature being above freezing].
Regarding Claim 5, Tippmann teaches the system of claim 1 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the controller is configured such that:
a frequency at which the periodic changes to the evaporator temperature setpoint initially occurs is frequent [¶ 0043; the controller continuously or periodically monitors differential date]; and/or
a frequency at which the periodic changes to the evaporator pressure setpoint initially occurs is frequent.
Regarding Claim 6, Tippmann teaches the system of claim 5 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the controller is configured such that:
the frequency at which the periodic changes to the evaporator temperature setpoint initially occurs is at least once per hour [¶ 0043; the disclosure that the controller may continuously monitor the temperature is necessarily greater than once per hour]; and/or
the frequency at which the periodic changes to the evaporator pressure setpoint initially occurs is at least once per hour.
Regarding Claim 7, Tippmann teaches the system of claim 5 above and Tippman teaches wherein the controller is configured such that the frequency at which the periodic changes to the evaporator temperature setpoint [¶ 0043; the controller may continuously monitor the temperature] and/or the frequency at which the periodic changes to the evaporator pressure setpoint is adjustable or optimizable based on one or more condition(s) of a space in which the evaporator coil is used including one or more of a temperature of the space, a humidity of the space, and/or door opening(s) of the space [¶ 0043, 0054; evaporator 118 exchanges heat with the air in housing 119, wherein upstream sensor 150 and downstream sensor 152 may be utilized to determine the temperature differential of the housing to be used for control of the defrost].
Regarding Claim 9, Tippmann teaches the system of claim 1 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the controller is configured to be operable for determining whether to initiate or terminate defrost of the evaporator coil based on frost formation estimated based on time [¶ 0062; the controller may make defrost determinations related to an expected temperature measured after a predetermined programmed time].
Regarding Claim 10, Tippmann teaches the system of claim 1 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the controller is configured to be operable for determining whether to initiate or terminate defrost of the evaporator coil based on frost formation detection algorithmically using relative humidity, temperature, and/or openings of a space in which the evaporator coil is used [¶ 0043-0045, 0092-0093; a plurality of temperature sensors on and around the evaporator may be used to determine beginning a defrost cycle or a termination of a defrost cycle, wherein Tippmann discloses the known technique of generic computer storage media containing memory for prestored readable instructions to control the system].
Regarding Claim 11, Tippmann teaches the system of claim 1 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the system is configured to obtain a higher evaporator temperature setpoint and/or a higher evaporator pressure setpoint by using one or more of an evaporator pressure regulator (EPR), an evaporator pressure regulating valve, or an expansion device [116] at an inlet to an evaporator [118] [¶ 0056; an expansion valve 116 may be controlled to limit the flow of refrigerant to the evaporator during the defrost cycle].
Regarding Claim 12, Tippmann teaches the system of claim 1 above and Tippmann teaches wherein a scroll booster system [¶ 0066; the system comprises at least a compressor 112 and an expansion valve 116, wherein compressors are known to raise the pressure of that which they are compressing] is in communication with the controller that is operable for rapid changes to the evaporator temperature setpoint and/or the evaporator pressure setpoint [¶ 0066].
Regarding Claim 13, Tippmann teaches a refrigerated case [119] comprising the evaporator coil and the system of claim 1 above [Fig. 3B] and Tippmann teaches wherein: the controller is a local case controller of the refrigerated case [¶ 0043; the controller may control operation of the devices within the case, and thus may be considered a local controller]; or the controller is a supervisory controller in communication with a local case controller.
Regarding Claim 14, Tippmann teaches a method for defrosting an evaporator coil [118] [Figs. 1-3], the method comprising:
monitoring the evaporator coil to determine if a defrost of the evaporator coil is required [¶ 0042; the system controls evaporator defrost cycles as needed in response to signals received from a plurality of sensors];
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is required, initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil [¶ 0043, 0045; when the sensors reach a certain threshold, the controller initiates a defrost cycle] by:
periodically changing an evaporator temperature setpoint to a value just above freezing to defrost the evaporator coil [¶ 0032, 0055-0056, 0062, 0066-0067; the defrost cycle may be initiated and controlled using any of the disclosed parameters independently or in combination (i.e. evaporator surface temperature, air temperature, refrigerant temperature, coil pressure, etc.), such that the controller may operate any component of the system including the compressor, condenser, expansion valves, and solenoid valves until the temperature threshold condition for the defrost cycle arrives at another threshold indicating the absence of frost]; and/or
periodically changing an evaporator pressure setpoint to a value just above a pressure resulting in a temperature just above freezing to defrost the evaporator coil [Listed in the alternative, not considered to narrow the broadest reasonable interpretation; Note that Tippmann discloses measuring pressure as a known parameter to control defrost]; and
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is complete, terminating defrost of the evaporator coil by returning the evaporation temperature setpoint and/or the evaporator pressure setpoint to normal operation [¶ 0065; the controller may determine when to terminate the defrost cycle (i.e. return to normal operation) based at least on a coil temperature being above freezing].
Regarding Claim 18, Tippmann teaches the method of claim 14 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the method includes adjusting and/or optimizing a frequency at which the periodic changes to the evaporator temperature setpoint occurs [¶ 0043; the controller may continuously monitor the temperature, and therefore adjusts the times at which it executes the defrost cycle] and/or a frequency at which the periodic changes to the evaporator pressure setpoint occurs based on one or more condition(s) of a space in which the evaporator coil is used including one or more of a temperature of the space, a humidity of the space, and/or door opening(s) of the space [¶ 0043, 0054; evaporator 118 exchanges heat with the air in housing 119, wherein upstream sensor 150 and downstream sensor 152 may be utilized to determine the temperature differential of the housing to be used for control of the defrost].
Regarding Claim 20, Tippmann teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the method includes:
obtaining a higher evaporator temperature setpoint and/or a higher evaporator pressure setpoint by using one or more of an evaporator pressure regulator (EPR), an evaporator pressure regulating valve, or an expansion device [116] at an inlet to an evaporator [118] [¶ 0056; an expansion valve 116 may be controlled to limit the flow of refrigerant to the evaporator during the defrost cycle]; or
changing the evaporator temperature setpoint [¶ 0043; the controller may continuously monitor the temperature to enable a defrost cycle] and/or the evaporator pressure setpoint by using a scroll booster system.
Regarding Claim 21, Tippman teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage media [at least 1200] [Figs. 8-9; ¶ 0092-0093] comprising computer- executable instructions [within 1204, which when executed by at least one processor [1202], cause a controller [102] to be operable for:
monitoring an evaporator coil to determine if a defrost of the evaporator coil is required [¶ 0042; the system controls evaporator defrost cycles as needed in response to signals received from a plurality of sensors];
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is required, initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil [¶ 0043, 0045; when the sensors reach a certain threshold, the controller initiates a defrost cycle] by:
periodically changing an evaporator temperature setpoint to a value just above freezing to defrost the evaporator coil [¶ 0032, 0055-0056, 0062, 0066-0067; the defrost cycle may be initiated and controlled using any of the disclosed parameters independently or in combination (i.e. evaporator surface temperature, air temperature, refrigerant temperature, coil pressure, etc.), such that the controller may operate any component of the system including the compressor, condenser, expansion valves, and solenoid valves until the temperature threshold condition for the defrost cycle arrives at another threshold indicating the absence of frost]; and/or
periodically changing an evaporator pressure setpoint to a value just above a pressure resulting in a temperature just above freezing to defrost the evaporator coil [Listed in the alternative, not considered to narrow the broadest reasonable interpretation; Note that Tippmann discloses measuring pressure as a known parameter to control defrost]; and
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is complete, terminating defrost of the evaporator coil by returning the evaporation temperature setpoint and/or the evaporator pressure setpoint to normal operation [¶ 0065; the controller may determine when to terminate the defrost cycle (i.e. return to normal operation) based at least on a coil temperature being above freezing].
Regarding Claim 25, Tippman teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 21 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the executable instructions include executable instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller to be operable for adjusting and/or optimizing a frequency at which the periodic changes to the evaporator temperature setpoint occurs [¶ 0043; the controller may continuously monitor the temperature, and therefore adjusts the times at which it executes the defrost cycle] and/or a frequency at which the periodic changes to the evaporator pressure setpoint occurs based on one or more condition(s) of a space in which the evaporator coil is used including one or more of a temperature of the space, a humidity of the space, and/or door opening(s) of the space [¶ 0043, 0054; evaporator 118 exchanges heat with the air in housing 119, wherein upstream sensor 150 and downstream sensor 152 may be utilized to determine the temperature differential of the housing to be used for control of the defrost].
Regarding Claim 27, Tippman teaches a controller [102] for a defrosting system for an evaporator coil [118], the controller comprising the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 21 [Figs. 1-3B and 8-9; ¶ 0042, 0092-0093; apparent from inspection].
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 2-4, 15-17 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tippmann as applied to claims 1, 14 and 21 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20210025639 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding Claim 2, Tippmann teaches the system of claim 1 above and Tippmann teaches wherein after the controller determines that defrost of the evaporator coil is required [¶ 0042; controller may initiate defrost cycle], the controller is configured to be operable for initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil by periodically [¶ 0007; repeatable] changing the evaporator temperature setpoint to a value within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator coil [¶ 0062; the controller may operate defrost until a predetermined temperature threshold above freezing is met to assume melted frost on the coils of the evaporator].
While Tippmann generally discusses the prerequisite for termination of the defrost cycle being evaporator surface temperature readings above freezing (i.e. discloses temperatures ≥ 32 °F) [¶ 0062], Tippmann does not explicitly disclose the specific evaporator temperature setpoint being a value within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F.
However, Choi discloses a refrigerator and method for controlling [Figs. 8-12] wherein a controller [40] may control operation of a defrosting device according to a measured temperatures relation to a preset reference temperature [¶ 0107-0112]. Choi discloses a plurality of preset reference temperatures including at least 32 degrees [¶ 0153], or furthermore 36 degrees [¶ 0165] wherein the comparison between measured and reference values may determine the defrost control [¶ 0166-0169]. Choi further discloses the known technique wherein the reference temperatures may be updated if the sensors still detect frost after a predetermined defrost cycle [¶ 0170]. Choi teaches wherein the increasing of a setpoint of a reference temperature, for a controller to determine a defrost operation for an evaporator, directly increases the defrost operation time, thereby reducing the likelihood of frost remaining on the evaporator after the defrost operation [¶ 0171-0174]. Thus, the arbitrary setpoint temperature is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result of a longer running defrost operation.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the specific evaporator temperature setpoint being a value within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F.
Regarding Claim 3, Tippmann, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2 above and Tippmann teaches wherein:
after the controller determines that defrost of the evaporator coil is required, the controller is configured to be operable for initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil by periodically changing the evaporator temperature setpoint from about -25 °F to the value within the range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator coil [See above; the setpoint temperature for a defrost operation is considered a result effective variable, wherein the temperature setpoint is proportional to the length of the defrost operation]; and
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is complete, the controller is configured to be operable for returning the evaporation temperature setpoint to about -25 °F for normal operation [¶ 0024; upon termination of the defrost cycle, the system begins normal operation] [¶ 0050; While Tippmann only explicitly discloses an operation of an evaporator to be in a range of -15 °F to -20 °F, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap but are close in the prior art (in this case, 5° difference) [MPEP 2144.05.I]. As further supporting evidence, see Liu (US 20150204589 A1) ¶ 0002, discussing the ordinary knowledge of general evaporators in the art, typically operating in the range of 32 °F to -30 °F when expecting to utilize a defrost operation, thus providing the claimed range as being commonly known in the art].
Regarding Claim 4, Tippmann teaches the system of claim 1 above and Tippmann teaches wherein after the controller determines that defrost of the evaporator coil is required [¶ 0042; controller may initiate defrost cycle], the controller is configured to be operable for initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil by periodically [¶ 0007; repeatable] changing the evaporator pressure setpoint to the value just above the pressure resulting in a temperature within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator coil [¶ 0062; the controller may operate defrost until a predetermined temperature threshold above freezing is met to assume melted frost on the coils of the evaporator; thus if the temperature is in the claimed range, the pressure may also be in the claimed range depending on a given system].
While Tippmann generally discusses the prerequisite for termination of the defrost cycle being evaporator surface temperature readings above freezing (i.e. discloses temperatures ≥ 32 °F) (and thus also proportional pressure conditions) [¶ 0062], Tippmann does not explicitly disclose the specific evaporator pressure setpoint resulting in a temperature range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F.
However, Choi discloses a refrigerator and method for controlling [Figs. 8-12] wherein a controller [40] may control operation of a defrosting device according to a measured temperatures relation to a preset reference temperature [¶ 0107-0112]. Choi discloses a plurality of preset reference temperatures including at least 32 degrees [¶ 0153], or furthermore 36 degrees [¶ 0165] wherein the comparison between measured and reference values may determine the defrost control [¶ 0166-0169]. Choi further discloses the known technique wherein the reference temperatures may be updated if the sensors still detect frost after a predetermined defrost cycle [¶ 0170]. Choi teaches wherein the increasing of a setpoint of a reference temperature for a controller to determine a defrost operation for an evaporator, directly increases the defrost operation time, thereby reducing the likelihood of frost remaining on the evaporator after the defrost operation [¶ 0171-0174]. Thus, the arbitrary setpoint temperature is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result of a longer running defrost operation.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the specific evaporator pressure setpoint to the value just above the pressure resulting in a temperature range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator.
Regarding Claim 15, Tippmann teaches the method of claim 14 above and Tippmann wherein after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is required [¶ 0042; controller may initiate defrost cycle], the method includes initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil by periodically [¶ 0007; repeatable] changing the evaporator temperature setpoint to a value within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator coil [¶ 0062; the controller may operate defrost until a predetermined temperature threshold above freezing is met to assume melted frost on the coils of the evaporator].
While Tippmann generally discusses the prerequisite for termination of the defrost cycle being evaporator surface temperature readings above freezing (i.e. discloses temperatures ≥ 32 °F) [¶ 0062], Tippmann does not explicitly disclose the specific evaporator temperature setpoint being a value within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F.
However, Choi discloses a refrigerator and method for controlling [Figs. 8-12] wherein a controller [40] may control operation of a defrosting device according to a measured temperatures relation to a preset reference temperature [¶ 0107-0112]. Choi discloses a plurality of preset reference temperatures including at least 32 degrees [¶ 0153], or furthermore 36 degrees [¶ 0165] wherein the comparison between measured and reference values may determine the defrost control [¶ 0166-0169]. Choi further discloses the known technique wherein the reference temperatures may be updated if the sensors still detect frost after a predetermined defrost cycle [¶ 0170]. Choi teaches wherein the increasing of a setpoint of a reference temperature for a controller to determine a defrost operation for an evaporator, directly increases the defrost operation time, thereby reducing the likelihood of frost remaining on the evaporator after the defrost operation [¶ 0171-0174]. Thus, the arbitrary setpoint temperature is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result of a longer running defrost operation.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the specific evaporator temperature setpoint being a value within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F.
Regarding Claim 16, Tippmann teaches the method of claim 15 above and Tippman teaches wherein:
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is required, the method includes initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil by periodically changing the evaporator temperature setpoint from about -25 °F to the value within the range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator coil [See above; the setpoint temperature for a defrost operation is considered a result effective variable, wherein the temperature setpoint is proportional to the length of the defrost operation]; and
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is complete, the method includes returning the evaporation temperature setpoint to about -25 °F for normal operation [¶ 0024; upon termination of the defrost cycle, the system begins normal operation] [¶ 0050; While Tippmann only explicitly discloses an operation of an evaporator to be in a range of -15 °F to -20 °F, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap but are close in the prior art (in this case, 5° difference) [MPEP 2144.05.I]. As further supporting evidence, see Liu (US 20150204589 A1) ¶ 0002, discussing the ordinary knowledge of general evaporators in the art, typically operating in the range of 32 °F to -30 °F when expecting to utilize a defrost operation, thus providing the claimed range as being commonly known in the art].
Regarding Claim 17, Tippmann teaches the method of claim 14 above and Tippman teaches wherein after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is required [¶ 0042; controller may initiate defrost cycle], the method includes initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil by periodically [¶ 0007; repeatable] changing the evaporator pressure setpoint to the value just above the pressure resulting in a temperature within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator coil [¶ 0062; the controller may operate defrost until a predetermined temperature threshold above freezing is met to assume melted frost on the coils of the evaporator; thus if the temperature is in the claimed range, the pressure may also be in the claimed range depending on a given system].
While Tippmann generally discusses the prerequisite for termination of the defrost cycle being evaporator surface temperature readings above freezing (i.e. discloses temperatures ≥ 32 °F) (and thus also proportional pressure conditions) [¶ 0062], Tippmann does not explicitly disclose the specific evaporator pressure setpoint resulting in a temperature range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F.
However, Choi discloses a refrigerator and method for controlling [Figs. 8-12] wherein a controller [40] may control operation of a defrosting device according to a measured temperatures relation to a preset reference temperature [¶ 0107-0112]. Choi discloses a plurality of preset reference temperatures including at least 32 degrees [¶ 0153], or furthermore 36 degrees [¶ 0165] wherein the comparison between measured and reference values may determine the defrost control [¶ 0166-0169]. Choi further discloses the known technique wherein the reference temperatures may be updated if the sensors still detect frost after a predetermined defrost cycle [¶ 0170]. Choi teaches wherein the increasing of a setpoint of a reference temperature for a controller to determine a defrost operation for an evaporator, directly increases the defrost operation time, thereby reducing the likelihood of frost remaining on the evaporator after the defrost operation [¶ 0171-0174]. Thus, the arbitrary setpoint temperature is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result of a longer running defrost operation.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the specific evaporator pressure setpoint to the value just above the pressure resulting in a temperature range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator.
Regarding Claim 22, Tippman teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 21 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the executable instructions include executable instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller to be operable for:
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is required [¶ 0042; controller may initiate defrost cycle], initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil by periodically [¶ 0007; repeatable] changing the evaporator temperature setpoint to a value within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator coil [¶ 0062; the controller may operate defrost until a predetermined temperature threshold above freezing is met to assume melted frost on the coils of the evaporator].
While Tippmann generally discusses the prerequisite for termination of the defrost cycle being evaporator surface temperature readings above freezing (i.e. discloses temperatures ≥ 32 °F) [¶ 0062], Tippmann does not explicitly disclose the specific evaporator temperature setpoint being a value within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F.
However, Choi discloses a refrigerator and method for controlling [Figs. 8-12] wherein a controller [40] may control operation of a defrosting device according to a measured temperatures relation to a preset reference temperature [¶ 0107-0112]. Choi discloses a plurality of preset reference temperatures including at least 32 degrees [¶ 0153], or furthermore 36 degrees [¶ 0165] wherein the comparison between measured and reference values may determine the defrost control [¶ 0166-0169]. Choi further discloses the known technique wherein the reference temperatures may be updated if the sensors still detect frost after a predetermined defrost cycle [¶ 0170]. Choi teaches wherein the increasing of a setpoint of a reference temperature for a controller to determine a defrost operation for an evaporator, directly increases the defrost operation time, thereby reducing the likelihood of frost remaining on the evaporator after the defrost operation [¶ 0171-0174]. Thus, the arbitrary setpoint temperature is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result of a longer running defrost operation.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the specific evaporator temperature setpoint being a value within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F.
Regarding Claim 23, Tippman teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 22 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the executable instructions include executable instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller to be operable for:
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is required, initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil by periodically changing the evaporator temperature setpoint from about -25 °F to the value within the range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator coil [See above; the setpoint temperature for a defrost operation is considered a result effective variable, wherein the temperature setpoint is proportional to the length of the defrost operation]; and
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is complete, returning the evaporation temperature setpoint to about -25 °F for normal operation [¶ 0024; upon termination of the defrost cycle, the system begins normal operation] [¶ 0050; While Tippmann only explicitly discloses an operation of an evaporator to be in a range of -15 °F to -20 °F, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap but are close in the prior art (in this case, 5° difference) [MPEP 2144.05.I]. As further supporting evidence, see Liu (US 20150204589 A1) ¶ 0002, discussing the ordinary knowledge of general evaporators in the art, typically operating in the range of 32 °F to -30 °F when expecting to utilize a defrost operation, thus providing the claimed range as being commonly known in the art].
Regarding Claim 24, Tippman teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 21 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the executable instructions include executable instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller to be operable for:
after determining that defrost of the evaporator coil is required [¶ 0042; controller may initiate defrost cycle], initiating the defrost of the evaporator coil by periodically changing the evaporator pressure setpoint to the value just above the pressure resulting in a temperature within a range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator coil [¶ 0062; the controller may operate defrost until a predetermined temperature threshold above freezing is met to assume melted frost on the coils of the evaporator; thus if the temperature is in the claimed range, the pressure may also be in the claimed range depending on a given system].
While Tippmann generally discusses the prerequisite for termination of the defrost cycle being evaporator surface temperature readings above freezing (i.e. discloses temperatures ≥ 32 °F) (and thus also proportional pressure conditions) [¶ 0062], Tippmann does not explicitly disclose the specific evaporator pressure setpoint resulting in a temperature range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F.
However, Choi discloses a refrigerator and method for controlling [Figs. 8-12] wherein a controller [40] may control operation of a defrosting device according to a measured temperatures relation to a preset reference temperature [¶ 0107-0112]. Choi discloses a plurality of preset reference temperatures including at least 32 degrees [¶ 0153], or furthermore 36 degrees [¶ 0165] wherein the comparison between measured and reference values may determine the defrost control [¶ 0166-0169]. Choi further discloses the known technique wherein the reference temperatures may be updated if the sensors still detect frost after a predetermined defrost cycle [¶ 0170]. Choi teaches wherein the increasing of a setpoint of a reference temperature for a controller to determine a defrost operation for an evaporator, directly increases the defrost operation time, thereby reducing the likelihood of frost remaining on the evaporator after the defrost operation [¶ 0171-0174]. Thus, the arbitrary setpoint temperature is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result of a longer running defrost operation.
Therefore, since the general condition of the claim is disclosed by the prior art reference, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the specific evaporator pressure setpoint to the value just above the pressure resulting in a temperature range from about 33 °F to about 35 °F to defrost the evaporator.
Claims 8, 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tippmann as applied to claims 1, 14 and 21 above, and further in view of Eckman et al. (US 20210140701 A1, hereinafter “Eckman”).
Regarding Claim 8, Tippmann teaches the system of claim 1 above, but Tippmann does not teach wherein the controller is configured to be operable for determining whether to initiate or terminate defrost of the evaporator coil by using camera sensor output.
However, Eckman teaches a system for controlling defrost of an environment, wherein a camera may be configured to capture images of one or more objects, wherein a controller may receive said images to analyze and quantify the amount of frost formation [Abstract]. Eckman discloses that the disclosed camera monitoring technique provides the advantage of reducing undesired frequent defrost cycles (resulting in wasted resources) and reducing undesired infrequent defrost cycles (resulting in inefficient operation or damage to components), thereby improving the system [¶ 0028]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. utilize a camera to detect frost levels on a heat exchanger) 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. provide a means for reducing undesired frequent defrost cycles (resulting in wasted resources) and reducing undesired infrequent defrost cycles (resulting in inefficient operation or damage to components), thereby improving the system [¶ 0028].
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 Tippmann to have wherein the controller is configured to be operable for determining whether to initiate or terminate defrost of the evaporator coil by using camera sensor output, in view of the teachings of Eckman, 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. provide a means for reducing undesired frequent defrost cycles (resulting in wasted resources) and reducing undesired infrequent defrost cycles (resulting in inefficient operation or damage to components), thereby improving the system.
Regarding Claim 19, Tippmann teaches the method of claim 14 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the method includes determining whether to initiate or terminate defrost of the evaporator coil by:
estimating frost formation based on time [¶ 0062; the controller may make defrost determinations related to an expected temperature measured after a predetermined programmed time]; and/or
detecting frost formation algorithmically using relative humidity, temperature, and/or openings of a space in which the evaporator coil is used [¶ 0043-0045, 0092-0093; a plurality of temperature sensors on and around the evaporator may be used to determine beginning a defrost cycle or a termination of a defrost cycle, wherein Tippmann discloses the known technique of generic computer storage media containing memory for prestored readable instructions to control the system].
Tippmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the method includes determining whether to initiate or terminate defrost of the evaporator coil by using camera sensor output.
However, Eckman teaches a system for controlling defrost of an environment, wherein a camera may be configured to capture images of one or more objects, wherein a controller may receive said images to analyze and quantify the amount of frost formation [Abstract]. Eckman discloses that the disclosed camera monitoring technique provides the advantage of reducing undesired frequent defrost cycles (resulting in wasted resources) and reducing undesired infrequent defrost cycles (resulting in inefficient operation or damage to components), thereby improving the system [¶ 0028]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. utilize a camera to detect frost levels on a heat exchanger) 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. provide a means for reducing undesired frequent defrost cycles (resulting in wasted resources) and reducing undesired infrequent defrost cycles (resulting in inefficient operation or damage to components), thereby improving the system [¶ 0028].
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 method of Tippmann to have wherein the method includes determining whether to initiate or terminate defrost of the evaporator coil by using camera sensor output, in view of the teachings of Eckman, 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. provide a means for reducing undesired frequent defrost cycles (resulting in wasted resources) and reducing undesired infrequent defrost cycles (resulting in inefficient operation or damage to components), thereby improving the system.
Regarding Claim 26, Tippman teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 21 above and Tippmann teaches wherein the executable instructions include executable instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the controller to be operable for determining whether to initiate or terminate defrost of the evaporator coil by:
estimating frost formation based on time [¶ 0062; the controller may make defrost determinations related to an expected temperature measured after a predetermined programmed time]; and/or
detecting frost formation algorithmically using relative humidity, temperature, and/or openings of a space in which the evaporator coil is used [¶ 0043-0045, 0092-0093; a plurality of temperature sensors on and around the evaporator may be used to determine beginning a defrost cycle or a termination of a defrost cycle, wherein Tippmann discloses the known technique of generic computer storage media containing memory for prestored readable instructions to control the system].
Tippmann does not explicitly disclose wherein the method includes determining whether to initiate or terminate defrost of the evaporator coil by using camera sensor output.
However, Eckman teaches a system for controlling defrost of an environment, wherein a camera may be configured to capture images of one or more objects, wherein a controller may receive said images to analyze and quantify the amount of frost formation [Abstract]. Eckman discloses that the disclosed camera monitoring technique provides the advantage of reducing undesired frequent defrost cycles (resulting in wasted resources) and reducing undesired infrequent defrost cycles (resulting in inefficient operation or damage to components), thereby improving the system [¶ 0028]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied a known technique to a known device (i.e. utilize a camera to detect frost levels on a heat exchanger) 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. provide a means for reducing undesired frequent defrost cycles (resulting in wasted resources) and reducing undesired infrequent defrost cycles (resulting in inefficient operation or damage to components), thereby improving the system [¶ 0028].
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 method of Tippmann to cause the controller to be operable for determining whether to initiate or terminate defrost of the evaporator coil by using camera sensor output, in view of the teachings of Eckman, 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. provide a means for reducing undesired frequent defrost cycles (resulting in wasted resources) and reducing undesired infrequent defrost cycles (resulting in inefficient operation or damage to components), thereby improving the system.
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