DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action per the Response to the Election/Restriction Requirement received on 10 September 2025. Claims 1-18 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-42 are pending in this application. Claims 19-42 have been examined on their merits.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification includes the grammatical issue of “… that stores instruction …” in par. [0018] and [0040] of the Specification as filed on 2 September 2022. Suggested claim language: “… stores instructions that …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 19, 24, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 40, and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19, 24, 27, 32, 35, and 40 recite limitations that lack sufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claims:
Claim 19 recites “the air conditioner” in lines 7 and 9. Suggested claim language “an air conditioner” in line 7; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 24 recites “the difference” in line 1. Suggested claim language “a difference” in line 1; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 27 recites “the air conditioner” in lines 7 and 9. Suggested claim language “an air conditioner” in line 7; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 32 recites “the difference” in line 1. Suggested claim language “a difference” in line 1; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 35 recites “the air conditioner” in lines 9 and 11. Suggested claim language “an air conditioner” in line 9; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 40 recites “the difference” in line 1. Suggested claim language “a difference” in line 1; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 19 incudes the punctuation issues of “… the inverter, and the power …” in line 14. Suggested claim language: “… the inverter, and the power …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 19 recites “inverter efficiency” in lines 13-14 and claim 26 recites “inverter efficiency” in line 1. The limitation “inverter efficiency” in claim 26 should read “the inverter efficiency” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “inverter efficiency” in claim 19; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 27 incudes the punctuation issues of “… the inverter, and the power …” in line 14. Suggested claim language: “… the inverter, and the power …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 recites “inverter efficiency” in line 13 and claim 34 recites “inverter efficiency” in line 1. The limitation “inverter efficiency” in claim 34 should read “the inverter efficiency” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “inverter efficiency” in claim 27; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 35 recites the grammatical issue “… stores instruction that …” in line 2. Suggested claim language: “… stores instructions that …”; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim 35 recites “inverter efficiency” in line 15 and claim 42 recites “inverter efficiency” in line 1. The limitation “inverter efficiency” in claim 42 should read “the inverter efficiency” since the limitation has antecedent support from the limitation “inverter efficiency” in claim 35; and for the purpose of examination the limitation has been interpreted as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 19, 20, 22-28, 30-36 and 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19:
At step 1, the claim recites an air conditioner comprising of concrete devices, and therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… determine a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy”.
The limitations of “… determine a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy” (see U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0072190 A1 (instant application): pg. 3, par. [0152]: “At 408, efficiency parameters associated with the system are calculated.”) is are process performed by use of a mathematical calculations.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “an irradiance sensor configured to detect an ambient solar irradiance”; “a renewable meter configured to detect a power amount generated by a renewable source”; “an inverter meter configured to detect a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source”; “an array of air conditioning sensors configured to detect: a differential pressure across a fan associated with the air conditioner, an ambient humidity, an ambient temperature, a supply humidity, a supply temperature, a return humidity, a return temperature, and a power consumption associated with the air conditioner”; and “a controller “.
The limitation of “a controller “ is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “the air conditioner” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “an irradiance sensor configured to detect an ambient solar irradiance”; “a renewable meter configured to detect a power amount generated by a renewable source”; “an inverter meter configured to detect a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source”; and “an array of air conditioning sensors configured to detect: a differential pressure across a fan associated with the air conditioner, an ambient humidity, an ambient temperature, a supply humidity, a supply temperature, a return humidity, a return temperature, and a power consumption associated with the air conditioner” are recited at a high level of generality and represent mere means for data gathering and actions of data gathering that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception, as the gathered data is used in the abstract mental concept of “determine”. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a controller “ amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitation of “the air conditioner” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of ““an irradiance sensor configured to detect an ambient solar irradiance”; “a renewable meter configured to detect a power amount generated by a renewable source”; “an inverter meter configured to detect a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source”; and “an array of air conditioning sensors configured to detect: a differential pressure across a fan associated with the air conditioner, an ambient humidity, an ambient temperature, a supply humidity, a supply temperature, a return humidity, a return temperature, and a power consumption associated with the air conditioner”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… a particular parameter of the plurality of parameters falls within a predetermined threshold”.
The limitation of “… a particular parameter of the plurality of parameters falls within a predetermined threshold”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “falls” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment (i.e. a comparison) of data to a system characteristic. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the controller is configured to transmit an alert …”.
The limitation of “the controller “ is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “transmit an alert …” represents mere data output. The limitation of “transmit” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the controller “ amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “transmit an alert …”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the Courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… air conditioner efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold …”.
The limitation of “… air conditioner efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “falls” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment (i.e. a comparison) of data to a system characteristic. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “the controller is configured to transmit an alert …”.
The limitation of “… in response … the alert indicates that a system inspection is required represents mere data output. The limitation of “indicates” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… in response … the alert indicates that a system inspection is required”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the Courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional element in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 23:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the airflow rate falling within the predetermined threshold …”.
The limitation of “… the airflow rate falling within the predetermined threshold …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “falls” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment (i.e. a comparison) of data to a system characteristic. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… in response … the alert indicates a filter replacement is required”.
The limitation of “… in response … the alert indicates a filter replacement is required” represents mere data output. The limitation of “indicates” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… in response … the alert indicates a filter replacement is required”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the Courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional element in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 24:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the airflow rate falling within the predetermined threshold …”.
The limitation of “… the difference between the return enthalpy and the supply enthalpy …” is a process performed by use of mathematical calculation.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… the difference between the return enthalpy and the supply enthalpy falling within the predetermined threshold …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “falling” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment (i.e. a comparison) of data to a system characteristic. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required”.
The limitation of “… the alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required” represents mere data output. The limitation of “indicates” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… the alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the Courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional element in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 25:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… the solar efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold …”.
The limitation of “… the solar efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “falling” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment (i.e. a comparison) of data to a system characteristic. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites … in response … the alert indicates a panel inspection is required.
The limitation of “… in response … the alert indicates a panel inspection is required” represents mere data output. The limitation of “indicates” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… in response ... the alert indicates a panel inspection is required”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the Courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional element in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 26:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold …”.
The limitation of “… inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performing the limitation in the mind. Wherein, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “falling” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment (i.e. a comparison) of data to a system characteristic. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites … in response ... the alert indicates a panel inspection is required.
The limitation of “… in response … the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required” represents mere data output. The limitation of “indicates” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… in response … the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the Courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), presenting offers and gathering statistics.
Considering the additional element in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 27:
Claim 27 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 19 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 19.
Claim 28:
Claim 28 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 20 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 20.
Claim 30:
Claim 30 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 22 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 22.
Claim 31:
Claim 31 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 23 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 23.
Claim 32:
Claim 32 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 24 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 24.
Claim 33:
Claim 33 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 25 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 25.
Claim 34:
Claim 34 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 26 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 26.
Claim 35:
Claim 5 represents an equivalent apparatus claim comprising of non-transitory storage medium claim to claim 19 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 19.
Additionally, at step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “instruction that, when executed by at least one processor”.
The limitation of “instruction that, when executed by at least one processor” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the element of “instruction that, when executed by at least one processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 36:
Claim 28 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 20 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 20.
Claim 38:
Claim 30 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 22 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 22.
Claim 39:
Claim 31 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 23 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 23.
Claim 40:
Claim 32 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 24 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 24.
Claim 41:
Claim 33 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 25 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 25.
Claim 42:
Claim 34 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 26 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 26.
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.
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.
Claims 19, 27, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0185728 A1 (hereinafter Guo) in view of WIPO Publication 2014/141498 A1 (hereinafter Tsuruta) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0285409 A1 (hereinafter Galasso), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0071155 A1 (hereinafter Kastle), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0307733 A1 (hereinafter Karamanos), European Patent Publication No. EP 3 335 803 A1 (hereinafter Jang), U.S. Patent No. 6,111,767 (hereinafter Handleman), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0341617 A1 (hereinafter Spalink).
As per claim 19, Guo substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Guo teaches the limitations of an air conditioning system (pg. 5, par. [0089] and Fig .1, element 100; i.e. HVAC system), comprising:
an array of air conditioning sensors (pg. 5, par. [0089] and Fig. 1, element 122; i.e. sensing system comprising of a number of sensors) configured to detect: a differential pressure associated with the air conditioner (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0108]), an ambient humidity (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0102]), an ambient temperature (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0112]), a supply humidity (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0102]), a supply temperature (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0100]), a return humidity (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0102]), a return temperature (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0100]), and a power consumption associated with the air conditioner (pg. 5, par. [0091]; i.e. energy consumption from power meters); and
a controller (Fig. 1, element 124; i.e. control system) configured to determine return air enthalpy (pg. 5, par. [0102]) and outside air enthalpy (pg. 5, par. [0102]).
Not explicitly taught are an irradiance sensor configured to detect an ambient solar irradiance;
a renewable meter configured to detect a power amount generated by a renewable source;
an inverter meter configured to detect a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source;
detect a differential pressure across a fan associated with the air conditioner; and
determine a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Tsuruta, in an analogous art of abnormality determination system (pg. 3, paragraph 2), teaches the missing limitations of an irradiance sensor (Fig. 1, element 15; a solar radiation meter) configured to detect an ambient solar irradiance (pg. 4, paragraph 9);
a renewable meter (Fig. 1, element 13, i.e. power measurement unit) configured to detect a power amount generated by a renewable source (pg. 9, paragraph 11; i.e. “The power measurement unit 13 … measures the generated power generated by the solar power generation module 12.”); and
detect a power output of an inverter associated with an renewable source (pg. 6, paragraph 11; i.e. “… the AC power output from the inverter 14 measured in a certain two days.”) for the purpose of accessing whether an anomaly has occurred and generating electric power (pg. 3, paragraphs 9 and 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo to include the addition of the limitations of an irradiance sensor configured to detect an ambient solar irradiance; a renewable meter configured to detect a power amount generated by a renewable source; and detect a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source to accurately determine an occurrence of an abnormality (Tsuruta: pg. 3, paragraph 2).
Guo in view of Tsuruta does not expressly teach an inverter meter configured to detect a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source;
detect a differential pressure across a fan associated with the air conditioner; and
determine a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Galasso, in an analogous art of solar generation (pg. 2, par. [0016]), teaches the missing limitation of an inverter meter configured to detect a power output of an inverter associated with a renewable source (pg. 2, par. [0017]; i.e. “… each inverter 111, 112, 113, 114 is a solar micro-inverter which includes an internal sensor for detecting the output power or energy of electrical output 115, 116, 117, 118 and provides an output signal to signal lines 119a, 120a, 121a, 122a which is proportional to the output power or energy provided by the associated micro-inverter, each signal line 119a, 120a, 121a, 121b coupled to a controller 125.”) for the purpose of measuring the output power of an inverter (pg. 2, par. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in further view of Tsuruta to include the addition of the limitation of an inverter meter configured to detect a power output of an inverter associated with a renewable source to advantageously enable a system to generate electricity in an efficient manner (Galasso: pg. 2, par. [0016]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso does not expressly teach detect a differential pressure across a fan associated with the air conditioner; and
determine a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Kastle, in an analogous art of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of detect a differential pressure across a fan associated with an air conditioner and an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan (pg. 2, par. [0014] and [0044]; i.e. [0014]: “… the air flow rate is estimated based on the differential pressure over the fan.” and [0044]: “Additionally or alternatively, the pressure sensors may be provided upstream and downstream of the fan 122 at the air side in order measure the differential pressure across the fan.”) for the purpose of monitoring a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso to include the addition of the limitations of detect a differential pressure across a fan associated with an air conditioner and an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan to advantageously optimize an energy flow in an HVAC system (Kastle: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle does not expressly teach determine a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Karamanos, in an analogous art of an air conditioning system (pg. 1, par. [0012]), teaches the missing limitation of determine a supply enthalpy based on a supply humidity and supply temperature and a return enthalpy based on a return humidity and return temperature (pg. 13, par. [0119]; i.e. “A supply airflow enthalpy calculator 422 calculates the enthalpy of the supply airflow based on the supply airflow temperature 424 and the supply airflow humidity 426. Similarly, a return airflow enthalpy calculator 428 calculates the enthalpy of the mixed airflow based on the mixed airflow temperature 430 and the mixed airflow humidity 432.”) for the purpose of minimizing energy usage (pg. 13, par. [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso and Kastle to include the addition of the limitation of determine a supply enthalpy based on a supply humidity and supply temperature and a return enthalpy based on a return humidity and return temperature to advantageously improve controllability, decrease energy usage, and increase maintainability (Karamanos: pg. 1, par. [0010]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle and Karamanos does not expressly teach determine a plurality of parameters comprising: an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Jang, in an analogous art of air conditioning systems (pg. 2, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of determine an ambient enthalpy based on an ambient humidity and ambient temperature (pg. 4, par. [0038]; i.e. “… the controller 25 may calculate first enthalpy on the basis of the temperature of the outside air measured by the first temperature sensor 21 and the humidity of the outside air measured by the first humidity sensor 22 …”) for the purpose of controlling an air conditioning system (pg. 2, par. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle and Karamanos to include the addition of the limitation of determine an ambient enthalpy based on an ambient humidity and ambient temperature to prevent excessive energy consumption and provide efficient operation (Jang: pgs. 5-6, par. [0056]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle, Karamanos, and Jung does not expressly teach determine a plurality of parameters comprising: an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Handleman, in an analogous art of renewable energy (col. 1, lines 13-17), teaches the missing limitations of determine an inverter efficiency based on power output of inverter, and power amount generated by an renewable source (col. 7, lines 32-34; i.e. “The inverter efficiency is a measure of how much energy is wasted in converting DC power to AC power.”) and a solar efficiency based on ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source (col. 7, lines 24-28 and 30-32; i.e. “array efficiency” and “The system efficiency is a measure of how well the overall system converts sunlight to AC power.”) for the purpose of obtaining data useful in ascertaining a system's economics, obtaining useful operations and maintenance data, and for educational purposes (col. 7, lines 34-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle and Karamanos to include the addition of the limitations of determine an inverter efficiency based on power output of inverter, and power amount generated by an renewable source and a solar efficiency based on ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source to advantageously reduce cost of PV system data acquisition capability while dramatically increasing functionality (Handleman: col. 2, lines 31-33).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle, Karamanos, Jung, and Handleman does not expressly teach determine an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Spalink, in an analogous art of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of determine an air conditioner efficiency based on airflow rate, supply enthalpy, and return enthalpy (pgs. 12-13, par. [0102]; i.e. “The determination and quantification of the energy efficiency of these HVAC systems, individually or in conjunction with each other, involves the measurement of a number of parameters, such as, but not limited to, airflow through various parts of ducts, air flow through the expansion coil, enthalpy before and after the expansion coil, spatial and/or temporal distribution of temperature and humidity of the air both when it enters or exits ducts, and/or the expansion coil.”) for the purpose of controlling energy efficiency in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle, Karamanos, Jung, and Handleman to include the addition of the limitation of determine an air conditioner efficiency based on airflow rate, supply enthalpy, and return enthalpy to advantageously improve comfort of occupants of a building and energy consumption of a home can be reduced (pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 27, Guo substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Guo teaches the limitations of a method for monitoring an air conditioning system (pg. 5, par. [0089] and Fig .1, element 100; i.e. an HVAC system), the method comprising:
detecting, with an array of air conditioning sensors (pg. 5, par. [0089] and Fig. 1, element 122; i.e. sensing system comprising of a number of sensors), a differential pressure associated with the air conditioner (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0108]), an ambient humidity (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0102]), an ambient temperature (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0112]), a supply humidity (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0102]), a supply temperature (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0100]), a return humidity (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0102]), a return temperature (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0100]), and a power consumption associated with the air conditioner (pg. 5, par. [0091]; i.e. energy consumption from power meters); and
determining, using a controller, determine return air enthalpy (pg. 5, par. [0102]) and outside air enthalpy (pg. 5, par. [0102]).
Not explicitly taught are detecting, with an irradiance sensor, an ambient solar irradiance;
detecting, with a renewable meter, a power amount generated by a renewable source;
detecting, with an inverter meter, a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source;
detecting a differential pressure across a fan associated with the air conditioner; and
determining a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Tsuruta, in an analogous art of abnormality determination system (pg. 3, paragraph 2), teaches the missing limitations of detecting, with an irradiance sensor (Fig. 1, element 15; a solar radiation meter), an ambient solar irradiance (pg. 4, paragraph 9);
detecting, with a renewable meter (Fig. 1, element 13, i.e. power measurement unit), a power amount generated by a renewable source (pg. 9, paragraph 11; i.e. “The power measurement unit 13 … measures the generated power generated by the solar power generation module 12.”); and
detecting a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source (pg. 6, paragraph 11; i.e. “… the AC power output from the inverter 14 measured in a certain two days.”) for the purpose of accessing whether an anomaly has occurred and generating electric power (pg. 3, paragraphs 9 and 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo to include the addition of the limitations of detecting, with an irradiance sensor; detecting, with a renewable meter, a power amount generated by a renewable source; and detecting a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source to accurately determine an occurrence of an abnormality (Tsuruta: pg. 3, paragraph 2).
Guo in view of Tsuruta does not expressly teach detecting, with an inverter meter, a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source;
detecting a differential pressure across a fan associated with an air conditioner; and
determining a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Galasso, in an analogous art of solar generation (pg. 2, par. [0016]), teaches the missing limitation of detecting, with an inverter meter, a power output of an inverter associated with a renewable source (pg. 2, par. [0017]; i.e. “… each inverter 111, 112, 113, 114 is a solar micro-inverter which includes an internal sensor for detecting the output power or energy of electrical output 115, 116, 117, 118 and provides an output signal to signal lines 119a, 120a, 121a, 122a which is proportional to the output power or energy provided by the associated micro-inverter, each signal line 119a, 120a, 121a, 121b coupled to a controller 125.”) for the purpose of measuring the output power of an inverter (pg. 2, par. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in further view of Tsuruta to include the addition of the limitation of detecting, with an inverter meter, a power output of an inverter associated with a renewable source to advantageously enable a system to generate electricity in an efficient manner (Galasso: pg. 2, par. [0016]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso does not expressly teach detecting a differential pressure across a fan associated with the air conditioner; and
determining a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Kastle, in an analogous art of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of detecting a differential pressure across a fan associated with an air conditioner and an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan (pg. 2, par. [0014] and [0044]; i.e. [0014]: “… the air flow rate is estimated based on the differential pressure over the fan.” and [0044]: “Additionally or alternatively, the pressure sensors may be provided upstream and downstream of the fan 122 at the air side in order measure the differential pressure across the fan.”) for the purpose of monitoring a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso to include the addition of the limitations of detecting a differential pressure across a fan associated with an air conditioner and an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan to advantageously optimize an energy flow in an HVAC system (Kastle: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle does not expressly teach determining a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Karamanos, in an analogous art of an air conditioning system (pg. 1, par. [0012]), teaches the missing limitation of determining a supply enthalpy based on a supply humidity and supply temperature and a return enthalpy based on a return humidity and return temperature (pg. 13, par. [0119]; i.e. “A supply airflow enthalpy calculator 422 calculates the enthalpy of the supply airflow based on the supply airflow temperature 424 and the supply airflow humidity 426. Similarly, a return airflow enthalpy calculator 428 calculates the enthalpy of the mixed airflow based on the mixed airflow temperature 430 and the mixed airflow humidity 432.”) for the purpose of minimizing energy usage (pg. 13, par. [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso and Kastle to include the addition of the limitation of determining a supply enthalpy based on a supply humidity and supply temperature and a return enthalpy based on a return humidity and return temperature to advantageously improve controllability, decrease energy usage, and increase maintainability (Karamanos: pg. 1, par. [0010]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle and Karamanos does not expressly teach determining a plurality of parameters comprising: an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Jang, in an analogous art of air conditioning systems (pg. 2, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of determining an ambient enthalpy based on an ambient humidity and ambient temperature (pg. 4, par. [0038]; i.e. “… the controller 25 may calculate first enthalpy on the basis of the temperature of the outside air measured by the first temperature sensor 21 and the humidity of the outside air measured by the first humidity sensor 22 …”) for the purpose of controlling an air conditioning system (pg. 2, par. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle and Karamanos to include the addition of the limitation of determining an ambient enthalpy based on an ambient humidity and ambient temperature to prevent excessive energy consumption and provide efficient operation (Jang: pgs. 5-6, par. [0056]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle, Karamanos, and Jung does not expressly teach determining a plurality of parameters comprising: an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Handleman, in an analogous art of renewable energy (col. 1, lines 13-17), teaches the missing limitations of determining an inverter efficiency based on power output of inverter, and power amount generated by an renewable source (col. 7, lines 32-34; i.e. “The inverter efficiency is a measure of how much energy is wasted in converting DC power to AC power.”) and a solar efficiency based on ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source (col. 7, lines 24-28 and 30-32; i.e. “array efficiency” and “The system efficiency is a measure of how well the overall system converts sunlight to AC power.”) for the purpose of obtaining data useful in ascertaining a system's economics, obtaining useful operations and maintenance data, and for educational purposes (col. 7, lines 34-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle and Karamanos to include the addition of the limitations of determining an inverter efficiency based on power output of inverter, and power amount generated by an renewable source and a solar efficiency based on ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source to advantageously reduce cost of PV system data acquisition capability while dramatically increasing functionality (Handleman: col. 2, lines 31-33).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle, Karamanos, Jung, and Handleman does not expressly teach determining an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Spalink, in an analogous art of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of determining an air conditioner efficiency based on airflow rate, supply enthalpy, and return enthalpy (pgs. 12-13, par. [0102]; i.e. “The determination and quantification of the energy efficiency of these HVAC systems, individually or in conjunction with each other, involves the measurement of a number of parameters, such as, but not limited to, airflow through various parts of ducts, air flow through the expansion coil, enthalpy before and after the expansion coil, spatial and/or temporal distribution of temperature and humidity of the air both when it enters or exits ducts, and/or the expansion coil.”) for the purpose of controlling energy efficiency in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle, Karamanos, Jung, and Handleman to include the addition of the limitation of determining an air conditioner efficiency based on airflow rate, supply enthalpy, and return enthalpy to advantageously improve comfort of occupants of a building and energy consumption of a home can be reduced (pg. 1, par. [0003]).
As per claim 35, Guo substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Guo teaches the limitations of an apparatus comprising a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium that stores instruction that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
detecting, with an array of air conditioning sensors (pg. 5, par. [0089] and Fig. 1, element 122; i.e. sensing system comprising of a number of sensors), a differential pressure associated with the air conditioner (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0108]), an ambient humidity (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0102]), an ambient temperature (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0112]), a supply humidity (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0102]), a supply temperature (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0100]), a return humidity (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0102]), a return temperature (pg. 5, par. [0089] and [0100]), and a power consumption associated with the air conditioner (pg. 5, par. [0091]; i.e. energy consumption from power meters); and
determining, using a controller, determine return air enthalpy (pg. 5, par. [0102]) and outside air enthalpy (pg. 5, par. [0102]).
Not explicitly taught are detecting, with an irradiance sensor, an ambient solar irradiance;
detecting, with a renewable meter, a power amount generated by a renewable source;
detecting, with an inverter meter, a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source;
detecting a differential pressure across a fan associated with the air conditioner; and
determining a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Tsuruta, in an analogous art of abnormality determination system (pg. 3, paragraph 2), teaches the missing limitations of detecting, with an irradiance sensor (Fig. 1, element 15; a solar radiation meter), an ambient solar irradiance (pg. 4, paragraph 9);
detecting, with a renewable meter (Fig. 1, element 13, i.e. power measurement unit), a power amount generated by a renewable source (pg. 9, paragraph 11; i.e. “The power measurement unit 13 … measures the generated power generated by the solar power generation module 12.”); and
detecting a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source (pg. 6, paragraph 11; i.e. “… the AC power output from the inverter 14 measured in a certain two days.”) for the purpose of accessing whether an anomaly has occurred and generating electric power (pg. 3, paragraphs 9 and 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo to include the addition of the limitations of detecting, with an irradiance sensor; detecting, with a renewable meter, a power amount generated by a renewable source; and detecting a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source to accurately determine an occurrence of an abnormality (Tsuruta: pg. 3, paragraph 2).
Guo in view of Tsuruta does not expressly teach detecting, with an inverter meter, a power output of an inverter associated with the renewable source;
detecting a differential pressure across a fan associated with an air conditioner; and
determining a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Galasso, in an analogous art of solar generation (pg. 2, par. [0016]), teaches the missing limitation of detecting, with an inverter meter, a power output of an inverter associated with a renewable source (pg. 2, par. [0017]; i.e. “… each inverter 111, 112, 113, 114 is a solar micro-inverter which includes an internal sensor for detecting the output power or energy of electrical output 115, 116, 117, 118 and provides an output signal to signal lines 119a, 120a, 121a, 122a which is proportional to the output power or energy provided by the associated micro-inverter, each signal line 119a, 120a, 121a, 121b coupled to a controller 125.”) for the purpose of measuring the output power of an inverter (pg. 2, par. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in further view of Tsuruta to include the addition of the limitation of detecting, with an inverter meter, a power output of an inverter associated with a renewable source to advantageously enable a system to generate electricity in an efficient manner (Galasso: pg. 2, par. [0016]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso does not expressly teach detecting a differential pressure across a fan associated with the air conditioner; and
determining a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Kastle, in an analogous art of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitations of detecting a differential pressure across a fan associated with an air conditioner and an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan (pg. 2, par. [0014] and [0044]; i.e. [0014]: “… the air flow rate is estimated based on the differential pressure over the fan.” and [0044]: “Additionally or alternatively, the pressure sensors may be provided upstream and downstream of the fan 122 at the air side in order measure the differential pressure across the fan.”) for the purpose of monitoring a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso to include the addition of the limitations of detecting a differential pressure across a fan associated with an air conditioner and an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan to advantageously optimize an energy flow in an HVAC system (Kastle: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle does not expressly teach determining a plurality of parameters comprising: a supply enthalpy based on the supply humidity and supply temperature, a return enthalpy based on the return humidity and return temperature, an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an airflow rate based on the differential pressure across the fan, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Karamanos, in an analogous art of an air conditioning system (pg. 1, par. [0012]), teaches the missing limitation of determining a supply enthalpy based on a supply humidity and supply temperature and a return enthalpy based on a return humidity and return temperature (pg. 13, par. [0119]; i.e. “A supply airflow enthalpy calculator 422 calculates the enthalpy of the supply airflow based on the supply airflow temperature 424 and the supply airflow humidity 426. Similarly, a return airflow enthalpy calculator 428 calculates the enthalpy of the mixed airflow based on the mixed airflow temperature 430 and the mixed airflow humidity 432.”) for the purpose of minimizing energy usage (pg. 13, par. [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso and Kastle to include the addition of the limitation of determining a supply enthalpy based on a supply humidity and supply temperature and a return enthalpy based on a return humidity and return temperature to advantageously improve controllability, decrease energy usage, and increase maintainability (Karamanos: pg. 1, par. [0010]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle and Karamanos does not expressly teach determining a plurality of parameters comprising: an ambient enthalpy based on the ambient humidity and ambient temperature, an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Jang, in an analogous art of air conditioning systems (pg. 2, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of determining an ambient enthalpy based on an ambient humidity and ambient temperature (pg. 4, par. [0038]; i.e. “… the controller 25 may calculate first enthalpy on the basis of the temperature of the outside air measured by the first temperature sensor 21 and the humidity of the outside air measured by the first humidity sensor 22 …”) for the purpose of controlling an air conditioning system (pg. 2, par. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle and Karamanos to include the addition of the limitation of determining an ambient enthalpy based on an ambient humidity and ambient temperature to prevent excessive energy consumption and provide efficient operation (Jang: pgs. 5-6, par. [0056]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle, Karamanos, and Jung does not expressly teach determining a plurality of parameters comprising: an inverter efficiency based on the power output of the inverter, and the power amount generated by the renewable source, a solar efficiency based on the ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source, and an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Handleman, in an analogous art of renewable energy (col. 1, lines 13-17), teaches the missing limitations of determining an inverter efficiency based on power output of inverter, and power amount generated by an renewable source (col. 7, lines 32-34; i.e. “The inverter efficiency is a measure of how much energy is wasted in converting DC power to AC power.”) and a solar efficiency based on ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source (col. 7, lines 24-28 and 30-32; i.e. “array efficiency” and “The system efficiency is a measure of how well the overall system converts sunlight to AC power.”) for the purpose of obtaining data useful in ascertaining a system's economics, obtaining useful operations and maintenance data, and for educational purposes (col. 7, lines 34-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle and Karamanos to include the addition of the limitations of determining an inverter efficiency based on power output of inverter, and power amount generated by an renewable source and a solar efficiency based on ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source to advantageously reduce cost of PV system data acquisition capability while dramatically increasing functionality (Handleman: col. 2, lines 31-33).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle, Karamanos, Jung, and Handleman does not expressly teach determining an air conditioner efficiency based on the airflow rate, the supply enthalpy, and the return enthalpy.
However Spalink, in an analogous art of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of determining an air conditioner efficiency based on airflow rate, supply enthalpy, and return enthalpy (pgs. 12-13, par. [0102]; i.e. “The determination and quantification of the energy efficiency of these HVAC systems, individually or in conjunction with each other, involves the measurement of a number of parameters, such as, but not limited to, airflow through various parts of ducts, air flow through the expansion coil, enthalpy before and after the expansion coil, spatial and/or temporal distribution of temperature and humidity of the air both when it enters or exits ducts, and/or the expansion coil.”) for the purpose of controlling energy efficiency in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso in view of Kastle, Karamanos, Jung, and Handleman to include the addition of the limitation of determining an air conditioner efficiency based on airflow rate, supply enthalpy, and return enthalpy to advantageously improve comfort of occupants of a building and energy consumption of a home can be reduced (pg. 1, par. [0003]).
Claims 20, 28, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0143037 A1 (hereinafter Kamel).
As per claim 20, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink does not expressly teach transmitting an alert if a particular parameter of the plurality of parameters falls within a predetermined threshold.
However Kamel, in an analogous art of power systems (pg. 1, par. [0003]), teaches the missing limitation of transmitting an alert if a particular parameter of a plurality of parameters falls within a predetermined threshold (pg. 9, par. [0088] and pg. 10, par. [0094] and [0095]) for the purpose of reporting data to users (pg. 9, par. [0088] and pg. 10, par. [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink to include the addition of the limitation of transmitting an alert if a particular parameter of plurality of parameters falls within a predetermined threshold to ensure relevant and accurate data is transmitted with accuracy (Kamel: pg. 6, par. [0054]).
As per claim 28, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink does not expressly teach the controller is configured to transmit an alert if a particular parameter of the plurality of parameters falls within a predetermined threshold.
However Kamel, in an analogous art of power systems (pg. 1, par. [0003]), teaches the missing limitation of transmit an alert if a particular parameter of a plurality of parameters falls within a predetermined threshold (pg. 9, par. [0088] and pg. 10, par. [0094] and [0095]) for the purpose of reporting data to users (pg. 9, par. [0088] and pg. 10, par. [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink to include the addition of the limitation of transmit an alert if a particular parameter of plurality of parameters falls within a predetermined threshold to ensure relevant and accurate data is transmitted with accuracy (Kamel: pg. 6, par. [0054]).
As per claim 36, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink does not expressly teach the controller is configured to transmit an alert if a particular parameter of the plurality of parameters falls within a predetermined threshold.
However Kamel, in an analogous art of power systems (pg. 1, par. [0003]), teaches the missing limitation of transmit an alert if a particular parameter of a plurality of parameters falls within a predetermined threshold (pg. 9, par. [0088] and pg. 10, par. [0094] and [0095]) for the purpose of reporting data to users (pg. 9, par. [0088] and pg. 10, par. [0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink to include the addition of the limitation of transmit an alert if a particular parameter of plurality of parameters falls within a predetermined threshold to ensure relevant and accurate data is transmitted with accuracy (Kamel: pg. 6, par. [0054]).
Claims 21, 29, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and U.S. Patent No. 5,564,626 (hereinafter Kettler).
As per claim 21, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink does not expressly teach in response to ambient enthalpy being less than return enthalpy the controller sends a signal to activate an economizer in the air conditioner.
However Kettler, in an analogous art of an air conditioning unit (col. 1, lines 8-12), teaches the missing limitation of in response to ambient enthalpy being less than return enthalpy a controller sends a signal to activate an economizer in an air conditioner (col. 7, line 45-col. 8, line 12; i.e. “… when the outside air quality is identified to be above the minimum acceptable level, flow passes to step 106 at which the controller 29 modulates the outside air damper 30 to effect an ‘economizer cycle.’”) to supply conditioned air (col. 1, lines 8-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink to include the addition of the limitation of in response to ambient enthalpy being less than return enthalpy a controller sends a signal to activate an economizer in an air conditioner to minimize energy consumption (Kettler: col. 3, lines 1-5).
As per claim 29, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink does not expressly teach in response to ambient enthalpy being less than return enthalpy the controller sends a signal to activate an economizer in the air conditioner.
However Kettler, in an analogous art of an air conditioning unit (col. 1, lines 8-12), teaches the missing limitation of in response to ambient enthalpy being less than return enthalpy a controller sends a signal to activate an economizer in an air conditioner (col. 7, line 45-col. 8, line 12; i.e. “… when the outside air quality is identified to be above the minimum acceptable level, flow passes to step 106 at which the controller 29 modulates the outside air damper 30 to effect an ‘economizer cycle.’”) to supply conditioned air (col. 1, lines 8-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink to include the addition of the limitation of in response to ambient enthalpy being less than return enthalpy a controller sends a signal to activate an economizer in an air conditioner to minimize energy consumption (Kettler: col. 3, lines 1-5).
As per claim 37, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink does not expressly teach in response to ambient enthalpy being less than return enthalpy the controller sends a signal to activate an economizer in the air conditioner.
However Kettler, in an analogous art of an air conditioning unit (col. 1, lines 8-12), teaches the missing limitation of in response to ambient enthalpy being less than return enthalpy a controller sends a signal to activate an economizer in an air conditioner (col. 7, line 45-col. 8, line 12; i.e. “… when the outside air quality is identified to be above the minimum acceptable level, flow passes to step 106 at which the controller 29 modulates the outside air damper 30 to effect an ‘economizer cycle.’”) to supply conditioned air (col. 1, lines 8-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink to include the addition of the limitation of in response to ambient enthalpy being less than return enthalpy a controller sends a signal to activate an economizer in an air conditioner to minimize energy consumption (Kettler: col. 3, lines 1-5).
Claims 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0116595 A1 (hereinafter Mizuno).
As per claim 22, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel does not expressly teach in response to air conditioner efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates that a system inspection is required.
However Mizuno, in an analogous art of air conditioners (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to air conditioner efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates that a system inspection is required (pg. 15, par. [0254] and [0259]; i.e. [0259]: “… when the COP falls below the COP threshold, the management server 100 performs relocation or notifies the administrator that the COP has fallen below the COP threshold. With this configuration, the management burden on the administrator can be reduced. In addition, it is also made possible to promptly respond to a case where the cooling efficiency of an air conditioner 700 has fallen below the COP threshold.”) for the purpose of reporting information to a user (pg. 15, par. [0259]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel to include the addition of the limitation of in response to air conditioner efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates that a system inspection is required to advantageously ensure power consumption of an air-conditioner is reduced (Mizuno: pg. 15, par. [0258]).
As per claim 26, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, and Jang does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
However Handleman, in an analogous art of renewable energy (col. 1, lines 13-17), teaches the missing limitation of the inverter efficiency (col. 7, lines 32-34; i.e. “The inverter efficiency is a measure of how much energy is wasted in converting DC power to AC power.”) and a solar efficiency based on ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source (col. 7, lines 24-28 and 30-32; i.e. “array efficiency” and “The system efficiency is a measure of how well the overall system converts sunlight to AC power.”) for the purpose of obtaining data useful in ascertaining a system's economics, obtaining useful operations and maintenance data, and for educational purposes (col. 7, lines 34-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, and Jang to include the addition of the limitation of the inverter efficiency to advantageously reduce cost of PV system data acquisition capability while dramatically increasing functionality (Handleman: col. 2, lines 31-33).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, and Handleman does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
However Mizuno, in an analogous art of air conditioners (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to an efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates an inspection is required (pg. 15, par. [0254] and [0259]; i.e. [0259]: “… when the COP falls below the COP threshold, the management server 100 performs relocation or notifies the administrator that the COP has fallen below the COP threshold. With this configuration, the management burden on the administrator can be reduced. In addition, it is also made possible to promptly respond to a case where the cooling efficiency of an air conditioner 700 has fallen below the COP threshold.”) for the purpose of reporting information to a user (pg. 15, par. [0259]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel to include the addition of the limitation of an efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates an inspection is required is required to advantageously ensure power consumption of an air-conditioner is reduced (Mizuno: pg. 15, par. [0258]).
As per claim 30, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel does not expressly teach in response to air conditioner efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates that a system inspection is required.
However Mizuno, in an analogous art of air conditioners (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to air conditioner efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates that a system inspection is required (pg. 15, par. [0254] and [0259]; i.e. [0259]: “… when the COP falls below the COP threshold, the management server 100 performs relocation or notifies the administrator that the COP has fallen below the COP threshold. With this configuration, the management burden on the administrator can be reduced. In addition, it is also made possible to promptly respond to a case where the cooling efficiency of an air conditioner 700 has fallen below the COP threshold.”) for the purpose of reporting information to a user (pg. 15, par. [0259]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel to include the addition of the limitation of in response to air conditioner efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates that a system inspection is required to advantageously ensure power consumption of an air-conditioner is reduced (Mizuno: pg. 15, par. [0258]).
As per claim 34, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, and Jang does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
However Handleman, in an analogous art of renewable energy (col. 1, lines 13-17), teaches the missing limitation of the inverter efficiency (col. 7, lines 32-34; i.e. “The inverter efficiency is a measure of how much energy is wasted in converting DC power to AC power.”) and a solar efficiency based on ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source (col. 7, lines 24-28 and 30-32; i.e. “array efficiency” and “The system efficiency is a measure of how well the overall system converts sunlight to AC power.”) for the purpose of obtaining data useful in ascertaining a system's economics, obtaining useful operations and maintenance data, and for educational purposes (col. 7, lines 34-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, and Jang to include the addition of the limitation of the inverter efficiency to advantageously reduce cost of PV system data acquisition capability while dramatically increasing functionality (Handleman: col. 2, lines 31-33).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, and Handleman does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
However Mizuno, in an analogous art of air conditioners (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to an efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates an inspection is required (pg. 15, par. [0254] and [0259]; i.e. [0259]: “… when the COP falls below the COP threshold, the management server 100 performs relocation or notifies the administrator that the COP has fallen below the COP threshold. With this configuration, the management burden on the administrator can be reduced. In addition, it is also made possible to promptly respond to a case where the cooling efficiency of an air conditioner 700 has fallen below the COP threshold.”) for the purpose of reporting information to a user (pg. 15, par. [0259]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel to include the addition of the limitation of an efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates an inspection is required is required to advantageously ensure power consumption of an air-conditioner is reduced (Mizuno: pg. 15, par. [0258]).
As per claim 38, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel does not expressly teach in response to air conditioner efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates that a system inspection is required.
However Mizuno, in an analogous art of air conditioners (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to air conditioner efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates that a system inspection is required (pg. 15, par. [0254] and [0259]; i.e. [0259]: “… when the COP falls below the COP threshold, the management server 100 performs relocation or notifies the administrator that the COP has fallen below the COP threshold. With this configuration, the management burden on the administrator can be reduced. In addition, it is also made possible to promptly respond to a case where the cooling efficiency of an air conditioner 700 has fallen below the COP threshold.”) for the purpose of reporting information to a user (pg. 15, par. [0259]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel to include the addition of the limitation of in response to air conditioner efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates that a system inspection is required to advantageously ensure power consumption of an air-conditioner is reduced (Mizuno: pg. 15, par. [0258]).
As per claim 42, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, and Jang does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
However Handleman, in an analogous art of renewable energy (col. 1, lines 13-17), teaches the missing limitation of the inverter efficiency (col. 7, lines 32-34; i.e. “The inverter efficiency is a measure of how much energy is wasted in converting DC power to AC power.”) and a solar efficiency based on ambient solar irradiance and the power amount generated by the renewable source (col. 7, lines 24-28 and 30-32; i.e. “array efficiency” and “The system efficiency is a measure of how well the overall system converts sunlight to AC power.”) for the purpose of obtaining data useful in ascertaining a system's economics, obtaining useful operations and maintenance data, and for educational purposes (col. 7, lines 34-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, and Jang to include the addition of the limitation of the inverter efficiency to advantageously reduce cost of PV system data acquisition capability while dramatically increasing functionality (Handleman: col. 2, lines 31-33).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, and Handleman does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, and Spalink does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel does not expressly teach in response to inverter efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates inverter inspection or replacement is required.
However Mizuno, in an analogous art of air conditioners (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to an efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates an inspection is required (pg. 15, par. [0254] and [0259]; i.e. [0259]: “… when the COP falls below the COP threshold, the management server 100 performs relocation or notifies the administrator that the COP has fallen below the COP threshold. With this configuration, the management burden on the administrator can be reduced. In addition, it is also made possible to promptly respond to a case where the cooling efficiency of an air conditioner 700 has fallen below the COP threshold.”) for the purpose of reporting information to a user (pg. 15, par. [0259]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel to include the addition of the limitation of an efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates an inspection is required is required to advantageously ensure power consumption of an air-conditioner is reduced (Mizuno: pg. 15, par. [0258]).
Claims 23, 31, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, Mizuno, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0251520 A1 (hereinafter Bentley).
As per claim 23, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno does not expressly teach in response to the airflow rate falling within the predetermined threshold the alert indicates a filter replacement is required.
However Bentley, in an analogous art of reporting system (pg. 1, par. [0115] and pg. 11, par. [0115]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to an airflow rate falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates a filter replacement is required (pg. 11, par. [0115]; i.e. “… in response to the airflow rate falling within the predetermined threshold the alert indicates a filter replacement is required.”) for the purpose of providing notification to a user (pg. 11, par. [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno to include the addition of the limitation of in response to an airflow rate falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates a filter replacement is required to advantageously ensure power consumption of an air-conditioner is reduced to advantageously increase safety of a property (Bentley: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
As per claim 31, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno does not expressly teach in response to the airflow rate falling within the predetermined threshold the alert indicates a filter replacement is required.
However Bentley, in an analogous art of reporting system (pg. 1, par. [0115] and pg. 11, par. [0115]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to an airflow rate falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates a filter replacement is required (pg. 11, par. [0115]; i.e. “… in response to the airflow rate falling within the predetermined threshold the alert indicates a filter replacement is required.”) for the purpose of providing notification to a user (pg. 11, par. [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno to include the addition of the limitation of in response to an airflow rate falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates a filter replacement is required to advantageously ensure power consumption of an air-conditioner is reduced to advantageously increase safety of a property (Bentley: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
As per claim 39, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno does not expressly teach in response to the airflow rate falling within the predetermined threshold the alert indicates a filter replacement is required.
However Bentley, in an analogous art of reporting system (pg. 1, par. [0115] and pg. 11, par. [0115]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to an airflow rate falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates a filter replacement is required (pg. 11, par. [0115]; i.e. “… in response to the airflow rate falling within the predetermined threshold the alert indicates a filter replacement is required.”) for the purpose of providing notification to a user (pg. 11, par. [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno to include the addition of the limitation of in response to an airflow rate falling within a predetermined threshold an alert indicates a filter replacement is required to advantageously ensure power consumption of an air-conditioner is reduced to advantageously increase safety of a property (Bentley: pg. 1, par. [0006]).
Claims 24, 32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, Mizuno, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0247194 A1 (hereinafter Kang), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0365659 A1 (hereinafter Yamanami).
As per claim 24, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno does not expressly teach in response to the difference between the return enthalpy and the supply enthalpy falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required.
However Kang, in an analogous art of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0020]), teaches the missing limitation in response to a difference between a return enthalpy and a supply enthalpy falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert is output (pg. 6, par. [0082] and [0083]) for the purpose of detecting an alarm condition (pg. 6, par. [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno to include the addition of the limitation of in response to a difference between a return enthalpy and a supply enthalpy falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert is output to advantageously provide an effective and economical detection technique (Kang: pg. 6, par. [0084]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, Mizuno, and Kang does not expressly teach the alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required.
However Yamanami, in an analogous art of an inspection system (pg. 1, par. [0001] and [0008]), teaches the missing limitation of an alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required (pg. 6, par. [0076] and [0081]) for the purpose of reporting information about an operation condition (pg. 1, par. [0005] and pg. 5, par. [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, Mizuno, and Kang to include the addition of the limitation of an alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required to reduce burdens on an inspector in charge of a regular inspection (Yamanami: pg. 6, par. [0110]).
As per claim 32, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno does not expressly teach in response to the difference between the return enthalpy and the supply enthalpy falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required.
However Kang, in an analogous art of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0020]), teaches the missing limitation in response to a difference between a return enthalpy and a supply enthalpy falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert is output (pg. 6, par. [0082] and [0083]) for the purpose of detecting an alarm condition (pg. 6, par. [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno to include the addition of the limitation of in response to a difference between a return enthalpy and a supply enthalpy falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert is output to advantageously provide an effective and economical detection technique (Kang: pg. 6, par. [0084]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, Mizuno, and Kang does not expressly teach the alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required.
However Yamanami, in an analogous art of an inspection system (pg. 1, par. [0001] and [0008]), teaches the missing limitation of an alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required (pg. 6, par. [0076] and [0081]) for the purpose of reporting information about an operation condition (pg. 1, par. [0005] and pg. 5, par. [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, Mizuno, and Kang to include the addition of the limitation of an alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required to reduce burdens on an inspector in charge of a regular inspection (Yamanami: pg. 6, par. [0110]).
As per claim 40, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno does not expressly teach in response to the difference between the return enthalpy and the supply enthalpy falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required.
However Kang, in an analogous art of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (pg. 1, par. [0020]), teaches the missing limitation in response to a difference between a return enthalpy and a supply enthalpy falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert is output (pg. 6, par. [0082] and [0083]) for the purpose of detecting an alarm condition (pg. 6, par. [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and Mizuno to include the addition of the limitation of in response to a difference between a return enthalpy and a supply enthalpy falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert is output to advantageously provide an effective and economical detection technique (Kang: pg. 6, par. [0084]).
Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, Mizuno, and Kang does not expressly teach the alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required.
However Yamanami, in an analogous art of an inspection system (pg. 1, par. [0001] and [0008]), teaches the missing limitation of an alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required (pg. 6, par. [0076] and [0081]) for the purpose of reporting information about an operation condition (pg. 1, par. [0005] and pg. 5, par. [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, Mizuno, and Kang to include the addition of the limitation of an alert indicates that a heat exchanger inspection is required to reduce burdens on an inspector in charge of a regular inspection (Yamanami: pg. 6, par. [0110]).
Claims 25, 33, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, Kamel, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0408967 A1 (hereinafter Anderegg).
As per claim 25, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel does not expressly teach in response to the solar efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates a panel inspection is required.
However Anderegg, in analogous art of renewable power systems (pg. 1, par. [0003]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to an solar efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates a panel inspection is required (pg. 4, par. [0052] and [0053] and [0103]; i.e. [0052]: “After the mathematical model 125 calculates the expected solar panel power output, the monitoring server 126 compares the model-estimated power output to the actual power output data 109 measured by the power meter 106.” and [0103]: “… the server may send a notification to a user device to recommend inspecting the solar panels.”) to send notifications to a user (pg. 1, par. [0006] and [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel to include the addition of the limitation of an solar efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates a panel inspection is required to advantageously reduce costs while providing access to significant levels of useful visual information (Anderegg: pgs. 13-14, par. [0146]).
As per claim 33, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel does not expressly teach in response to the solar efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates a panel inspection is required.
However Anderegg, in analogous art of renewable power systems (pg. 1, par. [0003]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to an solar efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates a panel inspection is required (pg. 4, par. [0052] and [0053] and [0103]; i.e. [0052]: “After the mathematical model 125 calculates the expected solar panel power output, the monitoring server 126 compares the model-estimated power output to the actual power output data 109 measured by the power meter 106.” and [0103]: “… the server may send a notification to a user device to recommend inspecting the solar panels.”) to send notifications to a user (pg. 1, par. [0006] and [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel to include the addition of the limitation of an solar efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates a panel inspection is required to advantageously reduce costs while providing access to significant levels of useful visual information (Anderegg: pgs. 13-14, par. [0146]).
As per claim 41, Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel does not expressly teach in response to the solar efficiency falling within the predetermined threshold, the alert indicates a panel inspection is required.
However Anderegg, in analogous art of renewable power systems (pg. 1, par. [0003]), teaches the missing limitation of in response to an solar efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates a panel inspection is required (pg. 4, par. [0052] and [0053] and [0103]; i.e. [0052]: “After the mathematical model 125 calculates the expected solar panel power output, the monitoring server 126 compares the model-estimated power output to the actual power output data 109 measured by the power meter 106.” and [0103]: “… the server may send a notification to a user device to recommend inspecting the solar panels.”) to send notifications to a user (pg. 1, par. [0006] and [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Guo in view of Tsuruta in further view of Galasso, Kastle, Karamanos, Jang, Handleman, Spalink, and Kamel to include the addition of the limitation of an solar efficiency falling within a predetermined threshold, an alert indicates a panel inspection is required to advantageously reduce costs while providing access to significant levels of useful visual information (Anderegg: pgs. 13-14, par. [0146]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to monitoring and renewable energy systems.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0189298 A1 discloses a first estimator estimates first power to be generated by a photovoltaic power generation apparatus during an interested period.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0146969 A1 discloses a server apparatus, a control system, and a control method for remotely operating and monitoring an appliance by using a terminal apparatus.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0138042 A1 discloses a method includes receiving a photovoltaic output from a solar module; determining a reflection profile for the solar module, wherein the reflection profile describes an illumination pattern of light incident onto the solar module; and increasing, based upon the determined reflection profile, the photovoltaic output of the solar module to match a requested photovoltaic output.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0363672 A1 discloses a metering and control subsystem for a photovoltaic solar system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0231330 A1 discloses systems and methods for monitoring a performance of an HVAC unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117