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 .
Summary
Claims 21-29, and 31-44 are pending. Claims 22-25 and 31-40 were previously withdrawn due to a Restriction Requirement. Claims 21, 26-29, and 41-44 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 01 Dec 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 41: Claim 41 recites “receiving direct communication from the pneumatic consumers.” This limitation is not enabled by the specification. Para. 102 of the specification as published states “This can be detected 401 by means of direct communication with consumers” (emphasis added). This is important because direct communication from the pneumatic consumer connotes a signal being generated and sent by the consumer, but the consumer can be a simple mechanical device with no means of sending a direct communication. However, being in communication with a consumer means that information can be sensed in order to determine whether the consumer is inactive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 29, 34, 35, 41, and 42: These claims use the term "and/or." This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of."
Regarding claim 44: Claim 44 recites “the compressor according to claim 42,” but claim 42 is a method claim dependent from claim 27. Therefore it is unclear which is the parent claim of claim 44. It is assumed that claim 44 should recite “the method according to claim 42.”
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) 21, 26-29, 41, 43, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN GORP et al. (US 2017/0016800) in view of NOBOA et al. (US 2016/0169572) and “Introduction to the LONworks system,” Echelon Corporation, 1999 (hereinafter LONWORKS).
Regarding claim 21: VAN GORP discloses: A compressor (at 12 in FIG. 1) configured to compress and supply a gas (This is the definition of a compressor) comprising: a control unit (para. 36-39); and, a wireless coupling unit for communicating with a user device over a network (para. 36-38), said user device configured to manage the compressor wirelessly through the wireless coupling unit by managing compressor operating parameters, including at least one of inspecting, modifying, verifying, controlling, monitoring or setting (para. 36-39), and wherein the control unit is also configured to manage the compressor by managing said compressor operating parameters (para. 36-39), enabling a user to intervene in compressor management in the event of a potentially harmful situation at a moment when a network connection to the wireless coupling unit is unavailable (On-site monitoring and control including emergency shut-down in para. 36).
Although VAN GORP discloses on-site monitoring and control including emergency shut-down in para. 36 and manual regulation and optimization of the compressor units with direct manipulation in para. 38. VAN GORP does not explicitly disclose that the control unit is hardwired to the compressor.
NOBOA however teaches several types of human machine interfaces for interacting with an HVAC system that includes compressors in para. 178. NOBOA further teaches that these different computers can be implemented with many different types of hardware and can be hardwired or wireless in para. 180. Para. 65, 66, and 178 teach that all control can be local or remote. FIG. 4 shows that all local and remote controllers (240, 242, 244) share the same communications interface.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the combination of wireless and hardwired connection as set forth in para. 180 of NOBOA to implement the local and remote control of VAN GORP because it increases network data communication reliability.
The system of VAN GORP as modified by NOBOA does not get into the details of the communication protocol, and therefore does not specify that the control unit is configured to take over operation of the compressor from the user device responsive to an instruction being received at the control unit, and wherein the user device is configured to take over operation of the compressor from the control unit responsive to an instruction being received at the user device.
However, this kind of distributed control is well known in the art as shown in LONWORKS page 6-6 which details how a distributed control system, such as that of NOBOA, actually functions. With such as system “a network tool connected anywhere can interact with any device on the entire network” (page 6-6) and the network “is designed to move very short sense and control messages that contain commands and status information to trigger actions” (page A3, definition of LON). This is simply a more detailed explanation of how a distributed network, such as that of NOBOA, operates. This is decades-old technology (the cited guide was published in 1999), therefore many documents do not go into the details of distributed control protocols.
Regarding claim 26: VAN GORP discloses: A computer-implemented method for managing a compressor according to claim 21 by a user through the user device (para. 38). comprising steps of: when a network connection to the wireless coupling unit is available, using said user device to manage said compressor wirelessly through the wireless coupling unit (para. 36).
Although VAN GORP discloses on-site monitoring and control including emergency shut-down in para. 36 and manual regulation and optimization of the compressor units with direct manipulation in para. 38. VAN GORP does not explicitly disclose that the control unit is hardwired to the compressor.
NOBOA however teaches several types of human machine interfaces for interacting with an HVAC system that includes compressors in para. 178. NOBOA further teaches that these different computers can be implemented with many different types of hardware and can be hardwired or wireless in para. 180. Para. 65, 66, and 178 teach that all control can be local or remote.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the combination of wireless and hardwired connection as set forth in para. 180 of NOBOA to implement the local and remote control of VAN GORP because it increases network data communication reliability. Therefore it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use the hardwired connection if the wireless one was unavailable.
The system of VAN GORP as modified by NOBOA does not get into the details of the communication protocol, and therefore does not specify that the control unit is configured to take over operation of the compressor from the user device responsive to an instruction being received at the control unit, and wherein the user device is configured to take over operation of the compressor from the control unit responsive to an instruction being received at the user device.
However, this kind of distributed control is well known in the art as shown in LONWORKS page 6-6 which details how a distributed control system, such as that of NOBOA, actually functions. With such as system “a network tool connected anywhere can interact with any device on the entire network” (page 6-6) and the network “is designed to move very short sense and control messages that contain commands and status information to trigger actions” (page A3, definition of LON). This is simply a more detailed explanation of how a distributed network, such as that of NOBOA, operates. This is decades-old technology (the cited guide was published in 1999), therefore many documents do not go into the details of distributed control protocols.
Regarding claim 27: VAN GORP discloses: when the compressor is connected to a pneumatic network (pipeline operation with multiple compressors in para. 38) comprising one or more pneumatic consumers (These are inherent in “compressed air systems” as discussed in para. 4-5. The only reason for a compressed air system to exist is to supply air to one or more pneumatic consumers.), the method further includes the steps of: detecting when one or more pneumatic consumers are inactive for an inactive time period (para. 6, 25); and recording a compressor power consumption during the inactive time period (FIG. 2); determining a severity of the leakage based on energy consumption during the inactive time period (“the predetermined amount may need to exceed a threshold that represents an increase or decrease in air leakage that is of interest to the user;” para. 29), and reporting at least one of the severity of the leakage or the energy consumption over the network for display on the user device (para. 27-29), wherein the leakage severity is a measure of the significance of the leakage based on its effect on energy consumption and a length of the inactive time period (para. 27-29).
Regarding claim 28: VAN GORP discloses: the inactive time period is a recurring time period derived from the compressor consumer profile (para. 28-29).
Regarding claim 29: VAN GORP discloses: the inactive time period is detected by a start and/or stop time entered by the user (“user may configure the monitoring system” in para. 29).
Regarding claim 41: VAN GORP discloses: detecting when one or more pneumatic consumers are inactive for an inactive time period comprises: receiving direct communication from the pneumatic consumers that the one or more pneumatic consumers are inactive and/or receiving a manually input indication that the one or more pneumatic consumers are inactive (“Compressor running times and intervals between compressor operations are analyzed to establish a baseline for air leakage in the compressed air system.” Para. 28-29. This means that there is direct communication, at least through some kind of sensor, detecting when the compressors are active or inactive. This generates FIG. 2.)
Regarding claims 43 and 44: GORP does not disclose that the compressor is configured to communicate with the user device through a secure or encrypted connection.
However the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the digital communications art to encrypt data transmission on the basis of unique identifiers and codes so that third parties cannot detect or interfere with the communicated data.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN GORP et al. (US 2017/0016800), NOBOA et al. (US 2016/0169572), and LONWORKS in view of KAWAI (EP 2746744).
Regarding claim 42: GORP discloses determining a severity of the leak (“exceed a threshold that represents an increase or decrease in air leakage that is of interest to a user” in para. 29, but does not express it as a number of consumers or the size of an area.
KAWAI however teaches a system (FIG. 1) with a compressor (10) and many consumers (50A, 50B, 70A, 70 B, 80A, 80B, etc.) and detects specifically the number of leaks and location in the system as discussed in para. 58-60.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the specific determination of air consumers that are leaking as taught by KAWAI to easily detect the fluid leakage at low cost (para. 10 of KAWAI).
Response to Amendment/Argument
The amendment to claim 27 to overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 is acknowledged and said rejection is accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (pages 10-11 of the Response) that the rejection of claim 21 conflates the “user device” and “control unit.” The Applicant emphasizes that these are distinct devices because the claim language states that one may be used without the other. The Applicant states that this is not disclosed by GORP, which only discloses a “sensor controller”. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The referenced passage of VAN GORP, para. 36-39, state “The controller may comprise a single computer or a multiplicity of computers” and “the controller is not limited to a single physical location.” Para. 36-39 state that control can be done on-site, remotely, or a combination of on-site and remote control. Therefore, the “sensor controller” is not a singular device, but can be many devices with control available from multiple locations therefore a single computer of the “sensor controller” (such as one located on-site) can be considered the control unit, and another (such as a remote computer) can be considered the user device. Please note that separate devices for control of the system is more plainly set forth in NOBOA. More attention has been drawn to this aspect of NOBOA in the rejection of claim 21 above. Therefore there is no improper use of a single element to disclose two separately claimed elements as alleged by the Applicant.
The Applicant has argued (page 11 of the Response) that because para. 36 of VAN GORP states “typically, at least some of the controller function is remote to the compressor site,” this means that VAN GORP teaches away from fully local control of a compressor. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Firstly, the quoted language uses the word “typically,” which means that other configurations are used. Secondly, stating that at least some of the controller function is remote, does not preclude local control in addition to remote control. VAN GORP does not state “always, at least some of the controller function is only remote to the compressor site.” Furthermore, the plainer language of NOBOA is used show both local hard-wired control and remote wireless control.
The Applicant has argued (page 11 of the Response) that an “emergency shut-down control” equated to an “unavailable network connection.” This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The rejection of claim 21 is based on VAN GORP and NOBOA and while VAN GORP was relied upon to show “on-site monitoring and control including emergency shut-down in para. 36 and manual regulation and optimization of the compressor units with direct manipulation in para. 38,” the rejection specifically relies upon NOBOA to teach “that all control can be local or remote.”
The Applicant has argued (page 11 of the Response) that neither VAN GORP nor NOBOA teaches the added limitation of “the control unit is configured to take over operation of the compressor from the user device responsive to an instruction being received at the control unit, and wherein the user device is configured to take over operation of the compressor from the control unit responsive to an instruction being received at the user device.” This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive as set forth in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896