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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 42-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamada (US 20200326086 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Hamada teaches a ventilation unit (FIG. 1, air conditioning system 1) for providing forced ventilation of ambient air into an indoor space bounded by a structure when installed in a flow passage provided through the structure, the ventilation unit comprising: an inlet (FIG. 2, the inlet where outdoor air enters the air conditioning ventilation device 4); an outlet (FIG. 2, the outlet where exhaust air exits the air conditioning ventilation device 4) providing access to the indoor space, in use; a fan (FIG. 2, air supply fan 42, which draws in outdoor air and propels it into the room that it will eventually be exhausted from) arranged to draw ambient air into the ventilation unit via the inlet and expel air through the outlet; and a controller (FIG. 2, control unit 40) arranged to access information associated with a target air condition (TAC) parameter of the indoor space air, and determine a TAC level of the associated TAC parameter (FIG. 6, step 102, paragraph 55); access information from at least one first sensor arranged to sense a first air condition (AC 1) parameter associated with the ambient air, in use, and determine an AC1 level of the associated AC1 parameter; access information from at least one second sensor arranged to sense a second air condition (AC2) parameter associated with air in the indoor space, in use, and determine an AC2 level of the associated AC2 parameter (FIG. 6, step 102, paragraph 55, the system compares the metrics measured by the two sensors); determine that an adverse air condition exists when the ambient air with the associated AC1 level if introduced into the indoor space would result in moving the AC2 level further away from the TAC level (FIG. 6, step 102, paragraph 55); activate the fan subject to the determined adverse air condition (FIG. 6, step 104); and send a control signal to an external air treatment unit (FIG. 2, total heat echanger 45) fluidly connected to the indoor space for controlling an operation mode of the external air treatment unit to bring the AC2 level closer to the TAC level based on the activation of the fan (FIG. 6, steps 103 and 104).
Regarding claim 43, Hamada teaches that the controller is arranged to determine that an adverse air condition exists when the TAC level equals the AC2 level while the AC 1 level differs from the TAC level (FIG. 6, paragraph 55, the system compares the interior and exterior air qualities, and acts in response to multiple scenarios, including if an interior air quality is at a desired value, while the exterior air is not).
Regarding claim 44, Hamada teaches that the controller is arranged to determine that an adverse air condition exists when the TAC level differs from the AC2 level to an extent while the TAC level differs from the AC 1 level to an even greater extent, while the AC 1 level and the AC2 level are both higher or lower than the TAC level (FIG. 6, paragraph 55, the system compares the interior and exterior air qualities, and acts in response to multiple scenarios, including if an interior air quality is at not at desired value, while the exterior air is even further away).
Regarding claim 45, Hamada teaches the at least one first sensor or the at least one second sensor (FIG. 2, sensors 48a and 48b).
Regarding claim 46, Hamada teaches that the at least one first sensor comprises at least one of the following: a temperature sensor (paragraph 44, sensors 48a and 48b may be temperature or humidity sensors), wherein the associated AC 1 parameter relates to ambient air temperature; a humidity sensor, a relative humidity sensor, or an absolute humidity sensor, wherein the associated AC 1 parameter relates to ambient air humidity; and an air particle sensor, wherein the associated AC 1 parameter relates to ambient air particle content.
Regarding claim 47, Hamada teaches that one or more of the at least one first sensor is arranged in the vicinity of the inlet (FIG. 2, sensor 48a is disposed near the inlet for outdoor air).
Regarding claim 48, Hamada teaches that the at least one second sensor comprises at least one of the following: a temperature sensor (paragraph 44, sensors 48a and 48b may be temperature or humidity sensors), wherein the associated AC2 parameter relates to air temperature; a humidity sensor, a relative humidity sensor, or an absolute humidity sensor, wherein the associated AC2 parameter relates to air humidity; and an air particle sensor, wherein the associated AC2 parameter relates to air particle content.
Regarding claim 49, Hamada teaches that one or more of the at least one second sensor is arranged in the vicinity of the outlet (FIG. 2, sensor 48b is disposed near the outlet for exhaust air).
Regarding claim 50, Hamada teaches that one or more of the at least one first sensor is an external sensor or integral with the ventilation unit (FIG. 2, sensor 48a is an integral part of the assembly), or one or more of the at least one second sensor is an external sensor or integral with the ventilation unit.
Regarding claim 51, Hamada teaches that the external sensor is a wired or wireless sensor (FIG. 2, sensor 48a is either wired or wireless, since those are the only two options for any sensor).
Regarding claim 52, Hamada teaches that the TAC parameter relates to air temperature, air humidity, relative air humidity, absolute air humidity, or air particle content (paragraph 55, the operation is run based on measured temperature and humidity).
Regarding claim 53, Hamada teaches that the external air treatment unit is a heat pump or an air conditioning unit (FIG. 2, the assembly surrounding total heat exchanger unit 45 conditions air), or an air purifier unit.
Regarding claim 54, Hamada teaches that the control unit is arranged to derive at least one setting parameter to be included in the control signal based on at least one of: the dimensions of the indoor space, at least one AC1 parameter, at least one AC2 parameter, at least one TAC parameter (FIG. 6, the desired condition is based on an input desired condition), an operation parameter of the ventilation unit, and an operation parameter of the external air treatment unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada as applied to claims 42-54 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20200021785 A) and deSa (US 20210057101 A1).
Regarding claim 55, Hamada fails to teach that the controller comprises a first interface for machine-to-machine communication between the ventilation unit and one or more Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices; and wherein the first interface is arranged to receive software updates via Over-The-Air- programming (OTA) from one or more devices over the Internet.
However, Kim teaches that the controller comprises a first interface for machine-to-machine communication between the ventilation unit and one or more Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices (“To this end, the communication unit 35 transmits detection data to the VPS server 80 through the LoRa system 40 using an Internet of things (IOT)”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hamada by connecting the unit to an Internet-of-Things device, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hamada with these aforementioned teachings of Kim with the motivation of allowing for the system to take in more information and be adjusted more easily.
Kim fails to teach that the first interface is arranged to receive software updates via Over-The-Air- programming (OTA) from one or more devices over the Internet.
However, deSa teaches that the first interface is arranged to receive software updates via Over-The-Air- programming (OTA) from one or more devices over the Internet (paragraph 54, the system receives updates via OTA).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hamada by updating it via OTA, as taught by deSa, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hamada with these aforementioned teachings of deSa with the motivation of allowing for easy software fixes.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada as applied to claims 42-54 above, and further in view of Yajima (US 20180045424 A1).
Regarding claim 56, Hmada fails to teach that the controller comprises a second interface for receiving and transmitting information from/to and an application (app) accessible by a user; and wherein information received by the second interface is information relating to the TAC parameter, ventilation unit control settings, operation mode settings of the ventilation unit, or operation parameters of the external air treatment unit.
However, Yajima teaches that the controller comprises a second interface for receiving and transmitting information from/to and an application (app) accessible by a user; and wherein information received by the second interface is information relating to the TAC parameter, ventilation unit control settings, operation mode settings of the ventilation unit, or operation parameters of the external air treatment unit (paragraph 70, a user may input instructions via an interface).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hamada by including a user interface for setting temperature parameters, as taught by Yajima, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hamada with these aforementioned teachings of Yajima with the motivation of allowing a user to more easily set the desired conditions within a space.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada as applied to claims 42-54 above, and further in view of Ramirez (US 20200393152 A1).
Regarding claim 57, Hamada teaches that the controller is arranged to deactivate the fan when a level of the associated … content exceeds a safety threshold (FIG. 6, step 103).
Hamada fails to teach that when either of the at least one first sensor or the at least one second sensor comprises a particle sensor, and wherein the associated AC1 or AC2 parameter(s) relates to air particle content.
However, Ramirez teaches that when either of the at least one first sensor or the at least one second sensor comprises a particle sensor, and wherein the associated AC1 or AC2 parameter(s) relates to air particle content (paragraph 31, the assembly includes an air particle sensor array and operates based on particle readings).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hamada by including a particle sensor, as taught by Ramirez, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hamada with these aforementioned teachings of Ramirez with the motivation of giving the system more parameters by which to adjust the settings.
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada as applied to claims 42-54 above, and further in view of Amino (TW 202010987 A).
Regarding claim 58, Hamada fails to teach a motion detector or an occupancy sensor for detecting the motion or presence of an object; wherein the controller is arranged to execute a specific task based on receiving a signal from the motion detector, the specific task being selected from at least one of the following: to lower the fan speed by a certain increment or to a certain speed setting, to reduce the noise levels upon receiving a signal from the motion detector relating to a detected presence of a moving object, and to increase the fan speed to an original setting by a certain increment or to a certain setting speed, to increase the forced ventilation when an object is no longer detected by the motion detector, when a predetermined time period has lapsed from when the controller last received a signal from the motion detector relating to a detected presence of a moving object.
However, Amino teaches a motion detector or an occupancy sensor for detecting the motion or presence of an object (“The control means is to detect … the presence of a person by the first person detection means”); wherein the controller is arranged to execute a specific task based on receiving a signal from the motion detector, the specific task being selected from at least one of the following: to lower the fan speed by a certain increment or to a certain speed setting, to reduce the noise levels upon receiving a signal from the motion detector relating to a detected presence of a moving object, and to increase the fan speed to an original setting by a certain increment or to a certain setting speed (“When there is a person, when the movement amount of the person is high, control is performed in such a manner that the rotation speed of the fan motor becomes high”), to increase the forced ventilation when an object is no longer detected by the motion detector, when a predetermined time period has lapsed from when the controller last received a signal from the motion detector relating to a detected presence of a moving object.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hamada by including a presence sensor, as taught by Amino, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hamada with these aforementioned teachings of Amino with the motivation of allowing the system to run more efficiently by tareting heavy operation when users are present.
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada and Amino as applied to claim 58 above, and further in view of Desmet (WO 2014071046 A1).
Regarding claim 59, the combination of Hamada and Amino fails to teach that the controller is arranged to connect to a home security system to allow the motion detector to act as a wired motion detector, when operatively coupled to the home security system.
However, Desmet teaches that the controller is arranged to connect to a home security system to allow the motion detector to act as a wired motion detector, when operatively coupled to the home security system (“Thermal comfort control system (100) may be utilized as or integrated with a security system. Occupancy sensors (150), placed on fan (110) as shown in FIG. 12, or in other places within a space as shown in FIGS. 1 or 11, may be utilized to detect the presence of a person(s) within a certain range of fan(s) (110), and then trigger a warning signal indicating occupancy.”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hamada by connecting the system to a security system, as taught by Desmet, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hamada with these aforementioned teachings of Desmet with the motivation of allowing the system to run security measures.
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada and Yajima as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Wagner (GB 2441221 A).
Regarding claim 60, the combination of Hamada and Yajima fails to teach that he controller is arranged to receive a calendar schedule of desired TAC parameter levels via the second interface and the associated app, and control the external air treatment unit based on the received calendar schedule.
However, Wagner teaches that the controller is arranged to receive a calendar schedule of desired TAC parameter levels via the second interface and the associated app, and control the external air treatment unit based on the received calendar schedule (“the user interface (48) also displaying a list of one or more of the remote devices 24, 26, 28, 38, 40, 42 and a calendar (figs 4 and 5) for programming the thermostat 12”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hamada by connecting the system to calendar system where a user can input a schedule of desired temperatures, as taught by Wagner, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hamada with these aforementioned teachings of Wagner with the motivation of allowing a user to preplan the condition of air in the building at different times.
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada as applied to claims 42-54 above, and further in view of Eubanks (US 20200224899 A1).
Regarding claim 61, Hamada fails to teach a WIFI extender interface arranged to create an extended WIFI network surrounding the ventilation unit and/or be part of a mesh network.
However, Eubanks teaches a WIFI extender interface arranged to create an extended WIFI network surrounding the ventilation unit and/or be part of a mesh network (paragraph 95, “The local network may be a mesh network constructed based on the devices connected to the mesh network.”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Hamada by connecting the system to a mesh network, as taught by Eubanks, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hamada with these aforementioned teachings of Eubanks with the motivation of providing better network connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762