vs! “111%
`\.\_:
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`wwwusptogov
`
`
`
`
`
`15/567,892
`
`10/19/2017
`
`Yoshinori TAKEOKA
`
`20296.0112USWO
`
`1050
`
`0mm” —HAMRE, SCHUMANN,MUELLER&LARSONP.C. m
`7590
`53148
`45 South Seventh Street
`WEILAND, HANS R.
`Suite 2700
`
`3744
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/17/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/0r attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`PTOMail @hsml.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 15/567,892 TAKEOKA ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`HANS WEILAND $2213 3744
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/19/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) gas/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| CIaim(s)_1-5is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'I’\WIIW.usnto. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 10/19/2017is/are: a)|:l accepted or b)IXI objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`SIXI Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) E InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 10/19/2017 and 6/20/2018.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180628
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/567,892
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Drawings
`
`2.
`
`Figure 5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only
`
`that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in
`
`compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid
`
`abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled
`
`“Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct
`
`any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`(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.
`
`4.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/567,892
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/567,892
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`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: “PWM on ratio increasing-reducing unit” and “drive unit”
`
`in claim 1.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/567,892
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the
`
`claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`lf 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 § 1 12
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 2-5 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 pre-AIA the
`
`applicant regards as the invention.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 2 recites an apparatus as claimed in claim 1 from which claim 2 depends
`
`and method steps for using the apparatus. Claim 2, 4 and 5 are indefinite they it claims
`
`both an apparatus and method steps for using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 USC
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/567,892
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`112(b) as it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the system is created or when
`
`it is operated See MPEP 2173.05(p). In this case Claim 2 recites method steps for how
`
`the compress or is started up without reciting any structure to accomplish the starting of
`
`the compressor while a pressure difference is left between and inlet side and an outlet
`
`side of the compressor. As such it is unclear whether infringement would occur when
`
`the refrigerator with the compressor, condenser, decompressor and evaporator was
`
`made or when it was started up in the manner in which is claimed in claim 2. While
`
`dependent claims 4 and 5 appear to recite structure that can accomplish the pressure
`
`difference in claim 2 that structure is not positively tied to the pressure difference in
`
`claim 2. Claim 3-5 are rejected on their dependency from claim 2,
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`9.
`
`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 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.
`
`10.
`
`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.
`
`11.
`
`Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
`
`Sano et al. (JP 2004-254460, machine translation provided with the 6/20/2018 IDS).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/567,892
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Regarding claim 1, Sano discloses (Figure 1-6) a motor drive device
`
`comprising: a brushless DC motor (motor 6 is a brushless DC motor per paragraph
`
`0011 of the machine translation provided with the 6/20/2018 IDS) configured to drive a
`
`load (compressor 8); a speed controller (comparison unit 21 compares rotation speed
`
`instruction N1 with actual rotational speed N which in turn controls the PWM signal per
`
`paragraph 0021) configured to decide a pulse width modulation (PWM) ON ratio (the
`
`PWM signal is controlled based on the comparison between the speeds N and N1 in
`
`the comparison circuit 21 per paragraph 0021) for performing PWM control on the
`
`brushless DC motor (6);
`
`a PWM ON ratio increasing-reducing unit (PWM duty set part 18 and calculating
`
`means 19 and memory means 20 functions are executed by a microcomputer that
`
`construes PWM controlling circuit 12 per paragraph 0013) configured to increase or
`
`reduce the PWM ON ratio (PWM duty) in accordance with a driving speed (the PWM
`
`duty set part outputs a PWM duty set point signal based in the output of the speed
`
`controller/ comparison circuit 21 which controls the output based on the rotational speed
`
`N per paragraph 0021) of the brushless DC motor (6); and
`
`a drive unit (base driver 5) configured to perform the PWM control to drive the
`
`brushless DC motor (base driver 5 controls the inverter circuit 4 which in turn controls
`
`the brushless motor 6 per paragraph 0010 and 0011) in accordance with the PWM ON
`
`ratio decided by the PWM ON ratio increasing-reducing unit (drive 5 dives the motor 6
`
`based on the PWM signal per paragraph 0022),
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/567,892
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`wherein the PWM ON ratio increasing-reducing unit (18, 19, 20) sets the PWM
`
`ON ratio to a ratio equal to or lower than the PWM ON ratio decided by the speed
`
`controller in an interval in which the driving speed of the brushless DC motor is lower
`
`than a predetermined speed (per figures 5 and 6 and paragraph 0025 and 0026 there
`
`predetermined duty is corrected to a lower PWM duty ratio in the intervals I and VI as
`
`seen in figure 6 when the predetermined speed is less than 35rps), and sets the PWM
`
`ON ratio to a ratio equal to or higher than the PWM ON ratio decided by the speed
`
`controller in an interval in which the driving speed is higher than the predetermined
`
`speed (the PWM duty is not corrected and is equal to the average in intervals 1-Vl in
`
`figures 6 when the predetermined speed is higher than 35rps per paragraphs 0024 and
`
`0026).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`12.
`
`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 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.
`
`13.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/567,892
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`14.
`
`Claim 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Sano et al. (JP 2004-254460) in view of Mihara et al. (US Patent Application
`
`Publication US 2011/0154839 A1).
`
`Regarding Claim 2, Sano discloses the claim limitations of claim 1, and Sano
`
`further discloses a refrigerator comprising the motor drive device according to claim 1
`
`(motor 6 drives a compressor 8 of ta refrigeration device per paragraph 0002 of the
`
`machine translation provided with the 6/20/2018 IDS), wherein the motor drive device
`
`drives a compressor (8) in a refrigeration cycle.
`
`However Sano is silent as to a refrigeration cycle formed by sequentially
`
`connecting the compressor, a condenser, a decompressor, an evaporator, and the
`
`compressor, and starts up while a pressure difference is left between an inlet side and
`
`an outlet side of the compressor.
`
`Mihara teaches (figures 1and 4) a refrigerating apparatus with a refrigeration
`
`cycle formed by sequentially connecting a compressor (compressor 11), a condenser
`
`(gas cooler 46), a decompressor (reducing means 62A or 628 which are an expansion
`
`valve of or a capillary tube reducing means per paragraph 0199), an evaporator (either
`
`of evaporators 63A or 638), and the compressor (compressor 11 is connected in a
`
`refrigerant circuit with the other components through refrigerant circuit 1), and starts up
`
`while a pressure difference is left between an inlet side and an outlet side of the
`
`compressor (pressure in the refrigerant circuit is not equalized as it is kept in check by
`
`check valve 90 to improve the start properties of the compressor per paragraph 0194).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/567,892
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the
`
`invention was effectively filed to have modified generic refrigerator of Sano to include
`
`the refrigerant cycle of with the pressure difference maintaining device as taught by
`
`Mihara doing so would provide a known refrigerant circuit that could keep a high
`
`pressure on a high pressure side of the refrigerant circuit even when the compressor
`
`stops to improve start properties as recognized by Mihara (per paragraph 0057).
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Sano as modified discloses the claim limitations of claim 2
`
`and Mihara further discloses the pressure difference is set to not less than 0.05 MPa
`
`(high pressure is maintained per paragraph 0057 and the high pressure side of the
`
`refrigerant circuit 1
`
`including the condenser/gas cooler 46 and the reducing means 62A
`
`and 628 can be kept per paragraph 0192 and per paragraph 0081 the high pressure
`
`side is about 12Mpa)
`
`Regarding claims 4 and 5, Sano as modified discloses the claim limitations of
`
`claim 2 and 3 respectively and Mihara further discloses (figure 1 and 4) a valve (check
`
`valve 90 in regulator 91) provided between the compressor (11) and the condenser
`
`(46), wherein the valve is closed when the compressor is stopped and is opened when
`
`the compressor is operated (per paragraph 0187 refrigerant flows through the check
`
`valve 90 when the compressor 11 is in operation and prevents refrigerant from flowing
`
`back per paragraph 0192).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/567,892
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Conclusion
`
`15.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure. Mayershofer (US 2017/0010025) discloses a valve for
`
`maintaining a pressure difference between the inlet and outlet of the compressor. Toda
`
`et al. (US 5,712,540), Hamaoka et al. (US 6,014,004) and Takagi et al. (US 6,367,273)
`
`all discloses PWM control of a brushless compressor motor for a refrigerator.
`
`16.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to HANS WEILAND whose telephone number is (571 )272-
`
`9847. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 6:30AM-4:00PM EST.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video
`
`conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an
`
`interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
`
`(AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`lf attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Len Tran can be reached on 571-272-1184. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/567,892
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3744
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/HANS WEILAND/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3744
`
`/LEN TRAN/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3744
`
`