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 .
Application Status
This communication is in response to the Amendment and Request for Reconsideration filed 6 October 2025. Claims 1-7 and 10-23 are pending in the application. No claim amendments are presented. Claims 8 and 9 have been deleted previously.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0226792).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses an HVAC system (FIG.’s 1-8, Abstract, para.’s 0001-0002, outdoor unit of air conditioner) comprising:
a first blower 21, 31 (FIG. 1, para. 0077, fan 21 and motor 31 form first blower) installed within a cabinet 2 (para. 0078, outdoor unit 2, as shown), the first blower having a motor 31 and a fan 21 connected to be driven by the motor 31 of the first blower;
a second blower 22, 32 (Id., fan 22 and motor 32 form second blower) installed within the cabinet (shown), the second blower having a motor 32 and a fan 22 connected to be driven by the motor 32 of the second blower; and
a motor controller 4 (FIG.’s 1 & 2, para. 0079, control unit 4) connected to control operation of both the motor 31 of the first blower and the motor 32 of the second blower Id., wherein the motor controller 4 is configured to synchronize the motor 31 of the first blower and the motor 32 of the second blower (FIG. 2, para. 0079, “[t]he control unit 4 further comprises a microcomputer 40, which controls the two drive circuits 51, 52. … CPU and memory are built into the microcomputer 40”), and the motor controller 4 is configured to continually monitor rotation (para. 0081, by rotational speed sensors 71, 72) of the motor 31 of the first blower and the motor 32 of the second blower and to maintain synchronization of the motor 31 of the first blower and the motor 32 of the second blower at a constant rotational speed (para. 0082, “[t]he rotational speeds of the first motor 31 and the second motor 32 substitute for the rotational speeds of the first fan 21 and the second fan 22… [w]hile monitoring the detection signals output from the first rotational speed sensor 71 and the second rotational speed sensor 72, the microcomputer 40 inputs the drive signals to the transistors of the inverter circuits 61, 62 such that the first fan 21 and the second fan 22 reach a prescribed rotational speed”, __the prescribed rotational speed is interpreted as the claimed constant rotational speed) during operation of the first blower and the second blower to reduce or avoid uneven loading or slippage between the motor 31 of the first blower and the motor 31 of the second blower (intended result condition met by Sato; see also para. 0085, describing starting/stopping operations preventing loss of synchronization).
Re. claim 3, Sato further discloses the motor controller 4 is installed apart from the motor 31 of the first blower and from the motor 32 of the second blower (FIG. 2, para. 0078, “[a] control unit 4 is housed in a prescribed electrical equipment box of the air conditioner's outdoor unit 2 __interpreted as apart from the motors).
Re. claim 4, Sato further discloses the fan 21 of the first blower and the fan 22 of the second blower are each a scroll cage fan, an axial fan (FIG. 1, axial fan shown), or a tangential fan.
Re. claim 5, Sato further discloses the motor 31 of the first blower and the motor 32 of the second blower are direct-drive motors (FIG. 1 shows direct connection to fans from motors by a single shaft for each, i. e., a direct-drive).
Re. claim 10, Sato further discloses a heat exchanger 13 (para. 0078), wherein the first blower 21, 31 and the second blower 22, 32 are arranged to cause air to flow through the heat exchanger 13 during operation of the first blower and the second blower (Id., as shown and described).
Re. claim 11, Sato further discloses the heat exchanger 13 is installed within the cabinet 2 (FIG. 1, as shown).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0226792) in view of Cocks et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0084268).
As to claim 2, Sato is discussed above but is silent as to the motor controller being incorporated in the motor of the first blower or in the motor of the second blower. In this regard, Cocks teaches a motor controller for a blower with the controller incorporated within the motor of the blower (para. 0021). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the motor controller of Sato within the motor of the first blower so as to reduce the amount of wiring and provide a more compact form factor as demonstrated by Cocks.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0226792) in view of Story et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0355874).
As to claim 6, Sato is discussed above but is silent as to at least one additional blower installed within the cabinet. However, adding another blower is simply duplicating the known working elements of Sato. It has been held, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Since the blowers are used to provide heat exchanger cooling airflow, having duplicate blowers would only produce an expected redundancy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to duplicate the blowers in order to provide redundancy and additional heat exchanger cooling airflow. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Also to claim 6, Sato is silent as to the additional blower being installed in the cabinet. In this regard, Story teaches an array of blowers 12 installed in the cabinet of air handling unit 15 (FIG. 4, para.’s 0029-0031). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide an additional blower in the cabinet in order to provide an array of blowers in a single air handling unit so as to provide additional air flow handling capacity as demonstrated by Story.
As to claim 7, upon modification, the applied art further teaches that the at least one additional blower (upon Sato modification) installed within the cabinet (Story – FIG. 4) has a motor and a fan (Sato - blower configured with motor and fan logically) connected to be driven by the motor of the at least one additional blower, and the motor controller 4 (Sato – para. 0079) is connected to control operation of each of the motor 31 of the first blower, the motor 32 of the second blower. Having the additional blower being controlled by the motor controller 4 of Sato would logically follow upon modification of Sato with the additional blower.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0226792) in view of Patil et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0240672).
As to claim 12, Sato is discussed above but is silent as to a compressor. However, Sato teaches its fan control system installed in the outdoor unit 2 of an air conditioner, generally known to include a compressor. To this point, Patil teaches an outdoor unit of an HVAC system including a compressor 42 (FIG. 2, para. 0033). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a compressor in the outdoor unit of the air conditioner in order to raise the pressure and temperature of the refrigerant before the refrigerant enters the heat exchanger to effect a phase change of the refrigerant that transfers the heat from the inside of the air conditioned space to the outside according to the common thermodynamic principles of HVAC systems.
As to claim 13, once modified, Sato and Patil further teach or suggest the HVAC system includes a packaged HVAC unit with the compressor (Patil – compressor 42 in unit 12), the first blower 21, 31, and the second blower 22, 32 (Sato, FIG. 1) installed within the cabinet (as shown, Sato outdoor unit 2 and Patil unit 12).
As to claim 14, Sato is silent as to the HVAC system includes a split system in which the compressor is installed in a different cabinet than the first blower and the second blower. To this point, Patil teaches an HVAC system 50, 52 with indoor and outdoor units 56, 58 in a split system embodiment depicted in FIG. 3, with blower and fan units arranged in different cabinets (para.’s 0030-0032, see also para. 00481). Patil further indicates that the FIG. 5 blower arrangement may be used with the previously disclosed HVAC systems, including the FIG. 3 embodiment (para. 0045, inter alia). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to install the first and second blower system of FIG. 5 in the split-system HVAC unit 50, 52 of FIG. 3 in order to provide airflow for its heat exchanger(s) accordingly (para. 0031).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Sato et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0226792) in view of Chen et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0195515).
As to claim 15, Sato discloses an HVAC system (FIG.’s 1-8, Abstract, para.’s 0001-0002) comprising:
a cabinet 2 (FIG.1, para. 0078, outdoor unit 2);
a plurality of blowers 21, 31, 22, 32 (FIG. 1, para. 0077) wherein each blower of the plurality of blowers 21, 31, 22, 32 includes a blower motor 31, 32 Id.;
and a motor controller 4 (FIG. 2, para. 0079) shared by each blower of the plurality of blowers 21, 31, 22, 32 to control operation of the blower motor 31, 32 of each blower Id., wherein the motor controller 4 is configured to synchronize rotational positions of the blower motors 31, 32 (para. 0082, “[t]he rotational speeds of the first motor 31 and the second motor 32 substitute for the rotational speeds of the first fan 21 and the second fan 22… [w]hile monitoring the detection signals output from the first rotational speed sensor 71 and the second rotational speed sensor 72, the microcomputer 40 inputs the drive signals to the transistors of the inverter circuits 61, 62 such that the first fan 21 and the second fan 22 reach a prescribed rotational speed”, a prescribed rotational speed is a constant rotational speed which is interpreted as providing synchronized rotational positions of the blower motors in the manner claimed; see also para. 0085, describing starting/stopping operations preventing loss of synchronization).
Sato is silent as to the motor controller being configured to synchronize rotational positions of the blower motors so that the blower motor of each blower can be brought into operation at the same phase. In this regard, Chen teaches a motor/fan control useable in a heat dissipation system (FIG.’s 2-5, Abstract) having a motor controller 10 (para.’s 0030 & 0047, control module 10 includes synchronous control unit 227) configured to synchronize operation of first and second fan modules 20, 30, each having a respective fan 21, 31, so that they may start to rotate simultaneously (para.0037, inter alia, interpreted as providing a control “to synchronize rotational positions of the motor” in the manner claimed; see also para.’s 0043-0046, discussing Hall sensor 225 operation with processing unit 221 and lock unit 226 regarding detecting phase variation of one of the fans providing trigger and adjustment signals that are interpreted to provide the recited operation at the same phase). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Sato with a synchronizing motor control for a plurality of blowers to provide a system with high stability that is able to start or stop rotating of the blowers simultaneously and thereby provide stable heat dissipation in the system as taught by Chen (para.’s 0003, 0004 & 0036).
As to claim 16, Sato further discloses the plurality of blowers includes a first blower 21, 31 and a second blower 22, 32 (FIG. 1, para. 0077) that are installed in parallel within the cabinet 2 (FIG. 1, considered to be installed in parallel).
As to claim 17, Sato further discloses the motor controller 4 is configured to operate the blower motor 31, 32 of each blower in a constant rotational speed mode or a constant torque mode (para. 0085, operation at prescribed speed is a constant rotational speed).
As to claim 18, Sato further discloses sensor 71, 72 (para. 0081, rotational speed sensors) installed in communication with the motor controller 4 to provide operational data to the motor controller 4, Id.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0226792) in view of Chen et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0195515).
As to claim 19, Sato inherently discloses a method comprising (FIG.’s 1-8, Abstract)2:
operating a motor 31 (FIG. 1, para.0077) of a first blower 21, 31 of an HVAC system (para.’s 0001-0002) to generate airflow;
operating a motor 32 Id., of a second blower 22, 32 of the HVAC system to generate airflow;
and using a motor controller 4 (FIG. 1, para. 0079, control unit 4), of the HVAC system to synchronize operation of the motor 31 of the first blower 21, 31 and the motor 32 of the second blower 22, 32 (para. 0082, “[t]he rotational speeds of the first motor 31 and the second motor 32 substitute for the rotational speeds of the first fan 21 and the second fan 22… [w]hile monitoring the detection signals output from the first rotational speed sensor 71 and the second rotational speed sensor 72, the microcomputer 40 inputs the drive signals to the transistors of the inverter circuits 61, 62 such that the first fan 21 and the second fan 22 reach a prescribed rotational speed”, __the prescribed rotational speed is a constant rotational speed which is interpreted as providing synchronized operation in the manner claimed; see also para. 0085, describing starting/stopping operations preventing loss of synchronization), wherein the motor controller 4 is a single motor controller (evidently as shown) shared by the motor 31 of the first blower and the motor 32 of the second blower (FIG. 2, para. 0079, inter alia, describing operation of motors – interpreted as synchronized operation;).
Sato is silent as to synchronizing operations so that the motor of the first blower and the motor of the second blower can be brought into operation at the same phase. In this regard, Chen teaches a motor/fan control useable in a heat dissipation system (FIG.’s 2-5, Abstract) having a motor controller 10 (para.’s 0030 & 0047, control module 10 includes synchronous control unit 227) configured to synchronize operation of first and second fan modules 20, 30, each having a respective fan 21, 31, so that they may start to rotate simultaneously (para.0037, inter alia, interpreted as providing a control “to synchronize rotational positions of the motor” in the manner claimed; see also para.’s 0043-0046, discussing Hall sensor 225 operation with processing unit 221 and lock unit 226 regarding detecting phase variation of one of the fans providing trigger and adjustment signals that are interpreted to provide the recited operation at the same phase in the manner claimed). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Sato with a synchronizing motor control for its first and second blowers to provide a system with high stability that is able to start or stop rotating of the blowers simultaneously and thereby provide stable heat dissipation in the system as taught by Chen (para.’s 0003, 0004 & 0036).
As to claim 20, Sato further discloses determining an operating parameter of the motor 31 of the first blower 21, 31 (para. 0077, broadly, rotational speed control); and based on the determined operating parameter, generating a command signal from the motor controller 4 to vary operation of the motor 31 of the first blower (FIG. 2, para. 0079., inter alia, control unit 4 control drive circuits 51, 52 __interpreted as generating command signals in the manner claimed).
As to claim 21, Sato further discloses determining the operating parameter of the motor 31 of the first blower includes using a sensor 71 (para. 0081, rotational speed sensor 71) to determine the operating parameter of the motor 31 of the first blower and generating the command signal from the motor controller 4 to vary operation of the motor of the first blower includes automatically generating the command signal from the motor controller 4 in response to the determined operating parameter (Id., rotational speed). Alternatively upon modification, Chen further teaches using a Hall effect sensor 225 (para. 0044) for detecting phase variation of the fan/motor for generating command signals in the manner claimed (Id., lock and trigger signals). Therefore, it would further have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adapt the control with a Hall sensor to detect phase variation and provide control signals accordingly as suggested by Chen, Id.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0226792) in view of Chen et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0195515) as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of Malwitz et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0178266).
As to claim 22, Sato is discussed above and further teaches using a sensor 71, 72 (para. 0081, rotational speed sensor) to determine the operating parameter of the motor 31 of the first blower (Id., speed) but is silent as to using a motor current sensor, a voltage sensor, a position sensor, an angular encoder, or a temperature sensor to determine the operating parameter of the motor of the first blower. However, Malwitz teaches an HVAC system motor controller adapted to use temperature sensors (FIG. 7, para. 0043). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt Sato’s motor control to use a temperature sensor in order to determine a cooling need and adjust the speed of the motor as taught by Malwitz Id.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0226792) in view of Chen et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0195515) as applied to claim 19 above, further in view of Patil et al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0240672).
As to claim 23, Sato is silent as to operating the motor of the first blower of the HVAC system to generate airflow includes operating the motor of the first blower of the HVAC system to generate airflow of conditioned air into an indoor space of a structure. Sato appears to be primarily concerned with driving the two fans of an air conditioner’s outdoor unit heat exchangers. To this point, Patil teaches an HVAC system 50, 52 with indoor and outdoor units 56, 58 in a split system embodiment depicted in FIG. 3, with blower and fan units arranged in different cabinets (para.’s 0030-0032, see also para. 00483), one inside and one outside. Patil further teaches operating the motor 107A of the first blower 108A of an HVAC system 100 to generate airflow includes operating the motor 107A of the first blower 108B of the HVAC system 100 to generate airflow of conditioned air into an indoor space of a structure 10 (FIG.’s 1 & 2, para. 0065, “controller 102 may determine a target airflow... that should be provided to the conditioned space’). With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adapt Sato’s fan control arrangement for use in the indoor unit of an HVAC system in order to generate airflow of conditioned air in an indoor space as demonstrated by Patil.
Response to Affidavit/Declaration Traversing Rejections
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 6 October 2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of at least claims 15 and 19 based upon the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over the applied art, specifically the Chen reference as set forth in the last Office action because:
Declarant asserts that the problem faced by the inventors of the instant invention is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Chen because, “[a]t the time of invention, my co-inventors and I were faced with the problem of undesirable mechanical interference between multiple blowers from airflow interaction within an HVAC unit.” “We conceived maintaining synchronization of multiple motors at a constant rotational speed and synchronizing the rotational positions of the multiple motors to bring the motors into operation at the same phase to reduce such mechanical interference.” “In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the Chen et al. reference is not reasonably pertinent to this problem.” In response, the Examiner finds these assertions unsatisfactory and insufficient to overcome the rejections over. First, Declarant presents one possible view of the problem domain that, for starters, appears to be gleaned in hindsight following the outstanding rejections over Chen because “undesirable mechanical interference” per se has not been described in the specification. Further, it is not clear what “mechanical interference between multiple blowers from airflow interaction within in an HVAC” is referring to exactly. Nor is it clear how operating the motors of the blowers in synchronization solves this problem. It is suggested that Applicant point to a passage in the specification or file another Affidavit/Declaration for additional clarification and support. Even assuming that Chen is not faced with a similar problem, both the instant invention and Chen are related to cooling with airflow in heat exchanger arrangements which is essentially in the same filed of endeavor. While Declarant’s view of problem is noted, Chen is at least partially concerned with maintaining synchronization for analogous reasons such as stability (Chen – para. 0004). Applicant is referred to the Examiner’s response to arguments in the previous Office-action (Non-Final Rejection of 5 May 2025, pp. 16-17) that addressed similar arguments and assertions. With this in mind, Declarant’s assertions are simply not persuasive. Chen is analogous art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 7-8 of the response that Applicant does not agree with the rejections over Sato because, inter alia, “Sato et al. reference is directed to the problem of controlling multiple fans and, when one of those fans becomes overloaded during operation, eliminating that overload.” “See, e.g., Sato et al. reference, paragraphs 2-5.” “The Sato et al. reference describes various solutions to this problem that include taking corrective action based on whether the speed of the overloaded fan has fallen below a threshold level, which the Sato et al. reference refers to throughout as the "prescribed rotational speed." See id., paragraphs 12, 14, 32, 57, 92, 94-96, 118, 122, and 125-127.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sato drives the motor of each fan based upon sensor feedback from rotational speed sensors, controlling the motors to synchronize the fans and run at the same speed (see Sato - para.’s 0079-0082, inter alia). Applicant appears to have a specific and unfoundedly narrow view of the meaning of synchronization, somehow purporting it to mean that the fans must operate like two clocks that have their minute hands always pointing at the same number on the clock. First of all, this view of synchronization is not evidently described in Applicant’s specification and is beyond a reasonable interpretation of the terms. Applicant’s specification at para. 0048 is the only place where synchronization in phase is discussed, as follows:
Additionally, the single motor controller132 may be programmed or otherwise configured to synchronize the rotational positions of the motors136so that motors136 that are out of phase (e.g., at motor start-up) can be brought into operation at the same phase.
The claims are interpreted broadly in accordance with this passage of the spec. to mean that the motors of the fans are started in synchronization and proceed to run at the same constant speed. There is no reasonable interpretation of these claims limitations that can be interpreted as the fans run like a clock with their minute hands always pointing at the same clock position but in this case, the fan blades presumably doing so. This appears to simply be an opinion asserted by Counsel that is not supported by factual evidence or described in specification at any level of detail. In light of these facts, the claims are interpreted in a manner where the end result is the same, i. e., starting and running the fans at the same constant rotational speed which clearly how Sato operates. The instant claims cannot be deemed to imply more than this level of synchronization without further definition and support. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 10-11 of the response that “the Chen et al. reference also does not teach or suggest synchronizing rotational positions of the motors, let alone synchronizing such rotational positions so that the motors can be brought into operation at the same phase.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument has been presented and addressed in at least one previous Office-action (Non-Final Rejection, 14 May 2024, pp. 19-21), its response to arguments repeated herein. Once again, Applicant presents a narrow unfounded view of the meaning of the terms “synchronize rotational positions of the blower motors so that the blower motor of each blower can be brought into operation at the same phase”. Chen is directed starting the motor of each fan in synchronization using signals from sensors detecting phase variation to trigger adjustment signals as set forth in the statement of the rejections above (Chen – para.’s 0043-0046, inter alia). It is for these reasons that the combined teachings of Sato and Chen render Applicant’s broad claims obvious. There is no patentable distinction presented in the instant claims. Operating two fans in synchronization in the manner claimed is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. This argument is also not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments presented on pp. 11-13 of the response regarding Chen being nonanalogous art have been addressed above in the response to the Affidavit/Declaration and in previous Office-actions.
Applicant has not presented any substantive arguments with regard to the rejections of the dependent claims over the art of record including the combinations of proposed modification, rationale, or motivations to make those combinations. Applicant simply asserts that they are allowable for the same reasons made for the independent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH J HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (MT).
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/KENNETH J HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
1 “For example, in some embodiments, the HVAC system 100 may be implemented in the HVAC unit 12 and building 10 illustrated in FIG. 1, and the fan assemblies 106 may correspond to the fans 32. In other embodiments, the HVAC system 100 may be implemented in a split HVAC system that may be utilized to provide conditioned air to a residence, such as a house, as discussed above.”
2 Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
3 See Footnote 1, supra.