DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1, 14, 17, 18, and 20 as amended, claim 23 as canceled, and claim 24 as added. Claims 1-22 and 24 remain pending examination.
The amendment is sufficient in overcoming the previous grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) of claims 14-15 and one of the rejections to claim 18. The amendment, nor the accompanying Remarks, address the remaining rejections under 35 USC 112 (b).
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an interior of the air duct air duct” repeats “air duct.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 sets forth that the heater includes a controller that controls a heating power and fan speed. Claim 1, as amended, requires the heater to include a controller “configured to control a heating power of the heating element and a fan speed of the fan.” It is unclear if claim 5 refers to the same controller of claim 1 or to another, separate, controller performing the same function. If claim 5 is intended to refer to the same as claim 1, then it remains unclear if what way, if any, claim 5 further defines or limits the subject matter of claim 1.
Claims 6-22 inherit the above deficiencies due to their respective dependency from claim 5.
Claim 18 sets forth a contingent limitation in which if a temperature measurement is greater than a threshold “then if the temperature difference is greater than the predetermined threshold value, then increasing the preset fan speed.” It is unclear if both “then” statements must occur or if the claim intends to set forth alternative limitations. The use of “then if” creates confusion in this regard. The amendment, nor the accompanying Remarks, address this rejection.
Claim 20 recites that if the temperature measurement remains at a temperature greater than a threshold value for longer than a first time period, then lowering the heating power to “or maintaining the heating power at zero” which renders the claim indefinite. The claim, therefore, can be understood as requiring maintaining the heating power at 0 (i.e., 0 watts) if the temperature measurement remains at a temperature greater than a threshold value for longer than a first time period. The use of “maintaining” is the center for confusion as such term is understood to mean “to keep in an existing state…preserve from failure or decline” (see www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maintain, viewed on 10/28/2025). Based on this definition, the claim can be understood to mean that the heating power is kept at zero state (i.e., no power) if the temperature measurement is greater than the threshold value. This creates confusion in that if the heating power is 0, then in what way could the second temperature measurement actually become greater than a threshold since the heating element is not powered. The amendment, nor the accompanying Remarks, address this rejection.
Claim 21 recites “the predetermined second threshold value” which renders the claim indefinite as such term lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what second threshold value is being referenced. It is unclear, for instance, if there are two predetermined threshold values or if “the predetermined second threshold value” should refer to the “the predetermined first threshold value” of claim 20. The amendment, nor the accompanying Remarks, address this rejection.
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.
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) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudich in view of Zhang (US2016/0161145) and in further view of Jones et al. (US20050082277).
Regarding claim 1, Rudich teaches a heater for heating air (Fig. 1; air heater 10) within an interior space surrounding the heater (1:5-26; space heating system), the heater comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
292
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Rudich
a housing designed to be positioned within the interior space, the housing comprising an inlet (indicated by arrow where outdoor air enters duct 11), an outlet (outlet of duct 11 allowing for heated air to enter space 13), and an air duct (11) between the inlet and the outlet [Here, the housing is defined as the inlet, outlet, and air duct 11 which aid in directing heated air into space 13];
a fan (21) positioned in the air duct (11) and configured to establish a flow of air (3:10-15; fan 21 is provided for air movement) from an ambient space outside (outdoor air) the housing into the inlet, through the air duct (11), and to the outlet;
a heating element (resistance heater 31) positioned in the air duct (11) and configured to heat the air flowing through the air duct (3:218-22; “when energized, will heat the air passing through the duct 11 and flowing into the space 13.”);
a first temperature sensor (23) positioned at or near the inlet (See Fig. 1) and configured to measure a first temperature of ambient air at the inlet (3:15-18; sensor 23 generates signals “representative of the outdoor air temperature”); and
a second temperature sensor (27) positioned in the air duct (11; downstream of heating element 31) and configured to measure a second temperature of heated air flowing through the air duct (3:15-18; sensor 27 generates signals “representative of…the discharge air temperature…”); and
a controller (Fig. 3; controller 73) configured to control a preset heating power of the heating element (4:66 to 5:32; controller 73 receives signals which represents the actual and set point temperatures and energizes the heaters to raise the actual temperature to the value of the set point temperature).
Rudich is silent on the housing being a portable housing designed to be positioned within the interior space and the controller being positioned within the portable housing, with the controller also controlling a fan speed of the fan.
While Rudich teaches that the heater is a space heater used to provide heated air flow into a space, Rudich does not disclose the details of what the space is or in what way the heater is disposed relative to such a space.
Zhang relates to electric space heaters (para. 0001) for heating an internal space (para. 0092 and 0094 disclose using the heater to heat a room), where the heater includes a housing (Figs. 1-2; 110), a heating element (150) and a fan (para. 0092, a fan can be included to accelerate convection).
Zhang teaches the housing being a portable housing designed to be positioned within the interior space (para. 0092 and 0094 the heater 100 is portable and easily moved from one room to another) and the controller being positioned within the portable housing (para. 0099).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich with Zhang, by modifying the housing of the heater and modifying the relative positioning of the controller of Rudich, with the housing being portable and the controller being positioned within the housing taught by Zhang, for in doing so would allow the space heater to be easily moved from room to room, which would allow for greater versatility in using the space heater. Additionally, positioning the controller within the housing would provide an alternative placement for the controller (as opposed to externally placed) which would allow for the controller to be protected from external forces. Further, the “[f]act that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.” See MPEP 2144.04-V-A. In this case, the claimed invention merely being portable does not impart patentability over the heater of Rudich.
Rudich, as modified by Zhang, teaches substantially the claimed invention except for the controller also controlling a fan speed of the fan.
Jones relates to an air heating system and a control system for controlling the air heating system (para. 0002-0003) and teaches a controller controlling the preset fan speed of the fan (See Fig. 1A; controller 106 operatively coupled to input device 102, temperature sensor 122, heater 132, and fan 147. [Note: temperature sensor 122 is an outlet air temperature sensor, which is considered to correspond to the second temperature sensor of Rudich] (para. 0052; “At block 204 a heat demand signal is received by the controller. The controller energizes the fan or blower motor to an initial speed. Preferably, the initial speed is selected to create the minimum required air flow velocity. Optionally, the initial fan speed can be set at a lower velocity and ramped up to the minimum velocity while the heating elements are heating up. Thus, providing a soft start and reducing an initial blast of cold air when the system starts.” See also, steps 210-220 where the fan speed is controlled based on the sensed air outlet temperature. In this case, the preset fan speed is understood to refer to the selected or target value of the fan before or after heating occurs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich, as modified by Zhang, with Jones, by adding to the control methodology of Rudich, with the controlling of the preset fan speed of Jones, for in doing so would provide control to the fan speed of the fan that provides a soft start and reduces an initial blast of cold air when the system starts (para. 0052 of Jones), while allowing the fan speed to increase in response to the temperature of the heated air at the output, which would improve upon the flow of heated air (para. 0040 of Jones).
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second temperature sensor (27) is positioned at one of the following positions (Rudich):
at the heating element and spaced from the heating element (27 is downstream of heating element 31);
between the heating element and the outlet (See Fig. 1);
between the heating element and the outlet, and closer to the heating element than to the outlet [Rudich teaches the other alternative limitations and need not teach all of them as the claim recites “one of the following”].
Regarding claim 5, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, and further teaches a controller (Rudich; Fig. 3; controller 73) configured to control a preset heating power of the heating element (4:66 to 5:32; controller 73 receives signals which represents the actual and set point temperatures and energizes the heaters to raise the actual temperature to the value of the set point temperature)
Rudich is silent on the controller controlling the preset fan speed of the fan.
Here, “preset” is understood to refer to a predetermined, setpoint, desired, selected, or target value. See para. 0032 of the instant application.
Jones relates to an air heating system and a control system for controlling the air heating system (para. 0002-0003) and teaches a controller controlling the preset fan speed of the fan (See Fig. 1A; controller 106 operatively coupled to input device 102, temperature sensor 122, heater 132, and fan 147. [Note: temperature sensor 122 is an outlet air temperature sensor, which is considered to correspond to the second temperature sensor of Rudich] (para. 0052; “At block 204 a heat demand signal is received by the controller. The controller energizes the fan or blower motor to an initial speed. Preferably, the initial speed is selected to create the minimum required air flow velocity. Optionally, the initial fan speed can be set at a lower velocity and ramped up to the minimum velocity while the heating elements are heating up. Thus, providing a soft start and reducing an initial blast of cold air when the system starts.” See also, steps 210-220 where the fan speed is controlled based on the sensed air outlet temperature. In this case, the preset fan speed is understood to refer to the selected or target value of the fan before or after heating occurs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich with Jones, by adding to the control methodology of Rudich, with the controlling of the preset fan speed of Jones, for in doing so would provide control to the fan speed of the fan that provides a soft start and reduces an initial blast of cold air when the system starts (para. 0052 of Jones), while allowing the fan speed to increase in response to the temperature of the heated air at the output, which would improve upon the flow of heated air (para. 0040 of Jones).
Regarding claim 6, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 5, and further teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the preset heating power and the preset fan speed based on measurement signals received by the controller from the second temperature sensor, or from both the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor (Rudich teaches the controller configured to control the preset heating power based on signals representing the actual and set point temperatures. As such, Rudich teaches controlling heating power based on signals received from either the second temperature sensor or from both the first and second temperature sensors. Jones teaches the controller controlling the preset fan speed based on sensed air outlet temperature-See Fig. 2A, steps 210-220 where the fan speed is dependent on sensed air outlet temperature).
Regarding claim 7, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 5, and further teaches wherein the controller (the controller of Rudich, as modified by Jones) is configured to control an operation comprising the following:
receiving from the first temperature sensor a first measurement of a first temperature of the ambient air at the inlet (Rudich, first temperature sensor 23);
receiving from the second temperature sensor a second measurement of a second temperature of heated air in the air duct (Rudich, second temperature 27); and
determining if one or more criteria have been met, wherein the one or more criteria are based on the second measurement, or both the first measurement and the second measurement (Rudich; “The system controller 73, having received therewithin signals which represent the actual and set point temperatures, computes the aggregate number of resistance heaters 31, 31a required to be energized to raise the actual temperature within the space 13 to the value of the set point temperature.” In this case, “one or more criteria” includes energizing the heating element to reach the set point temperature) (Jones; teaches the controller controlling the preset fan speed based on sensed air outlet temperature-See Fig. 2A, steps 210-220 where the fan speed is dependent on sensed air outlet temperature.), and wherein:
if none of the one or more criteria has been met, continuing to operate the heater at the preset heating power and the preset fan speed (Rudich as detailed above)(see Jones, steps 210-220. Operating the heater and fan in a loop until heat demand is satisfied); and
if any of the one or more criteria has been met, adjusting the preset heating power, or adjusting the preset fan speed, or adjusting both the preset heating power and the preset fan speed (Rudich, as detailed above) (Jones, step 220, adjusting fan speed or stopping fan and heater in steps 222/224 based on sensed air outlet temperature).
Note: Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the above “if” limitations are understood to refer to contingent limitations. See MPEP 2111.04-II.
Regarding claim 8, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 7, and further teaches wherein the one or more criteria are based on a running average of the second measurement (The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is not limited to the controller actually calculated the average of the temperature measurements. Rather, the claim merely requires “based on” the running average. In Jones, for instance, the control loops between steps 210 and 220 where the air outlet temperature is continuously monitored. As such, a running average mathematically exists. Jones, therefore, teaches, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the one or more criteria being based on a running average of the air outlet temperature), or running averages of both the first measurement and the second measurement.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudich in view of Zhang (US2016/0161145), Jones et al. (US20050082277), and in further view of Kopel (US20060006167).
Regarding claim 3, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor each are configured as one of: a thermistor; a negative temperature coefficient (NTC) sensor; a resistance temperature detector (RTD); a thermocouple.
Kopel relates to a forced air heater system (Title) and teaches the system comprising a duct (30) having an inlet (16) and an outlet (18), a heating element (20/22) positioned within the duct (30), a first temperature sensor (Ta) positioned at or near the inlet (See Fig. 1), and a second temperature sensor (Tb) positioned in the air duct (30; downstream of heating element 20).
Kopel teaches that the first and second temperature sensors (Ta and Tb) being thermistors (para. 0026; although “Other sensors which can provide an electrical signal based upon exposure to heat may also be used.”). Kopel also teaches, in claim 11, that the sensors can be resistive temperature detectors (RTD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich, as modified by Zhang and Jones, with Kopel, by substituting the temperature sensors of Rudich, with the thermistors or RTDs of Kopel, for in doing so would merely involve using an alternative sensor known in the art for being able to generate an electrical signal upon detecting heat. Furthermore, using a thermistor or RTD would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized temperature sensors performing the same function of detecting temperature and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2144.06-II.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudich in view of Zhang (US2016/0161145), Jones et al. (US20050082277), and in further view of Hanauer et al.(DE3546214).
Regarding claim 4, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the air duct comprises a top side and an opposing bottom side (Rudich; See Fig. 1), the first temperature sensor
Rudich, therefore, is silent on the first temperature sensor being positioned at the top side.
Hanauer relates to an electric flow heater for heating a fluid flowing through a duct (Abstract) and teaches the duct (Fig. 1) having an inlet (20) and an outlet (22) with heating element (R1-R6) and first and second temperature sensors (F1/F2) positioned within the duct. Hanauer teaches that the first temperature sensor (F1) being positioned at the top side of the duct (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich, as modified by Zhang and Jones, with Hanauer, by rearranging the positive of the first temperature sensor within the duct of Rudich, with the first temperature sensor being positioned at a top side of the duct taught by Hanauer, for in doing so would merely involve using an alternative position placement for a temperature sensor within a duct. Furthermore, placing the first temperature sensor at the top side of the duct amounts to the mere rearrangement of parts which lacks a patentable distinction over the prior art because shifting the position of the first temperature sensor would not have modified the operation of the heating system (i.e., the heating system of Rudich would still operate as a forced air heater with the first temperature sensor positioned at the top side of the duct rather than the bottom side). See MPEP 2144.04-VI-C.
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudich in view of Zhang (US2016/0161145), Jones et al. (US20050082277), and in further view of Vega (US2021/0325086).
Regarding claim 9, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 7, except for calculating a rate of temperature change, wherein the one or more criteria comprise: if the rate of temperature change is greater than a predetermined threshold value, then lowering the heating power of the heating element to a reduced value.
Vega relates to a fluid heating system and a method of controlling based on received temperature data (abstract) and teaches a controller (Fig. 2; 108) operatively coupled to a heating element (106), an inlet temperature sensor (111) and an outlet temperature sensor (112). Vega teaches calculating a rate of temperature change (Fig. 4; step 406 and para. 0050), wherein the one or more criteria comprise: if the rate of temperature change is greater than a predetermined threshold value, then lowering the heating power of the heating element to a reduced value (para. 0053-0054; instructing heating device to decrease heat output if the change rate exceeds a predetermined threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich as modified by Zhang and Jones, with Vega by adding to the control methodology of modified Rudich, with the calculating a rate of temperature change, wherein the one or more criteria comprise: if the rate of temperature change is greater than a predetermined threshold value, then lowering the heating power of the heating element to a reduced value of Vega, for in doing so would provide a means for controlling temperature overshoot, thereby further regulating the output of the heating element to within a predetermined value or range of values (para. 0048 of Vega).
Regarding claim 10, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 9, including wherein the reduced value is 0% of a maximum limit of the heating power at which the heating element operates (Vega, as detailed above. Here, the reduced value of the heating output of the heating elements is necessarily 0% of some maximum limit. For instance 0% includes decreasing the heating power to 0% or 0 watts).
Regarding claim 11, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 9, including wherein the one or more criteria further comprise: if the rate of temperature change is greater than the predetermined threshold value (Vega, as detailed in claim 9 above), then increasing the preset fan speed (Jones, as detailed in claim 7) (The prior art, in combination, suggests the entire claimed invention including increasing the fan speed when a condition precedent occurs, as in Jones, and calculating a rate of temperature change as in Vega).
Regarding claim 12, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 11, including wherein the preset fan speed is increased to 100% of a maximum limit at which the fan operates (Jones, the increasing the fan speed step can be understood to mean the final speed of the fan is 10% of the maximum limit at which the fan operates).
Regarding claim 13, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 7, except for calculating a temperature difference between the first measurement and the second measurement, wherein the one or more criteria comprise: if the temperature difference is greater than a predetermined threshold value, then lowering the heating power to a reduced value.
Vega relates to a fluid heating system and a method of controlling based on received temperature data (abstract) and teaches a controller (Fig. 2; 108) operatively coupled to a heating element (106), an inlet temperature sensor (111) and an outlet temperature sensor (112). Vega teaches calculating a temperature difference between the first measurement and the second measurement (Fig. 4; step 406 and para. 0050; calculating a change rate of temperature based on the difference between sensor data detected by the first and second temperature sensor. Here, the difference between the temperature measurements is necessarily calculated to be used as a basis for calculating the rate of temperature change), wherein the one or more criteria comprise: if the temperature difference is greater than a predetermined threshold value, then lowering the heating power to a reduced value (para. 0053-0054; instructing heating device to decrease heat output if the calculation exceeds a predetermined threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich as modified by Zhang and Jones, with Vega by adding to the control methodology of modified Rudich, with the calculating a temperature difference between the first measurement and the second measurement, wherein the one or more criteria comprise: if the temperature difference is greater than a predetermined threshold value, then lowering the heating power to a reduced value of Vega, for in doing so would provide a means for controlling temperature overshoot, thereby further regulating the output of the heating element to within a predetermined value or range of values (para. 0048 of Vega).
Regarding claim 14, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 13, including wherein the one or more criteria further comprise: if the temperature difference is greater than the predetermined threshold value (Vega, as detailed in claim 13 above), then increasing the preset fan speed (Jones, as detailed in claim 7) (The prior art, in combination, suggests the entire claimed invention including increasing the fan speed when a condition precedent occurs, as in Jones, and calculating a rate of temperature change as in Vega).
Regarding claim 15, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 14, including wherein the preset fan speed is increased to 100% of a maximum limit at which the fan operates (Jones, the increasing the fan speed step can be understood to mean the final speed of the fan is 10% of the maximum limit at which the fan operates).
Claim(s) 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudich in view of Zhang (US2016/0161145), Jones et al. (US20050082277), and in further view of Kopel (US20060006167).
Regarding claim 16, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 7, except for wherein the one or more criteria comprise: if the first temperature measurement is greater than a predetermined first threshold value or the second temperature measurement is greater than a predetermined second threshold value, then lowering the heating power to a reduced value.
Specifically, Rudich states that the controller functions to operate the heating element to raise the temperature to the set point temperature and that control “in this manner permits the precise introduction of only that quantity of heat required to increase the space temperature and causes the actual temperature to approach the set point substantially asymptotically rather than by overshooting and undershooting the set point temperature” (5:53-60). In other words, Rudich teaches regulating the heating element up to the set point temperature but does not state what, if anything, happens if the measured temperature happens to exceed the setpoint.
Kopel relates to a forced air heater system (Title) and teaches the system comprising a duct (30) having an inlet (16) and an outlet (18), a heating element (20/22) positioned within the duct (30), a first temperature sensor (Ta) positioned at or near the inlet (See Fig. 1), and a second temperature sensor (Tb) positioned in the air duct (30; downstream of heating element 20).
Kopel teaches if the first temperature measurement is greater than a predetermined first threshold value or the second temperature measurement is greater than a predetermined second threshold value, then lowering the heating power to a reduced value (Fig. 3 and para. 0032; “threshold detector blocks A and B produce output signals 54 and 56, respectively. Each of threshold detector blocks A and B produces a disable or OFF output signal if the conditioned signals 44, 46 from either T.sub.A or T.sub.B, respectively, reaches a predetermined critical high value. This is a safety feature in that if either heat sensor T.sub.A, T.sub.B produces a signal representing a threshold maximum heat level based upon heat sensed in their respective upstream and downstream zones, the system 10 disables the heating elements 20, 22. All signals discussed herein may be represented by high or low level signals. That is, the control system 10 may be designed such that a low signal output signifies an enable or ON condition, and vice-versa.”) (para. 0040; “The sensors T.sub.A, T.sub.B send a signal representative of the sensed heat to difference circuit 50. The difference circuit 50 outputs a difference between the two signals and outputs that difference-signal 52 to control 60. So long as that difference output signal 52 is lower than a predetermined value, and neither of the signals from T.sub.A or T.sub.B are above a predetermined maximum threshold value, the controller 60 sends an enable or ON signal to switch 90 via the PWM generator 70 and opto-isolator 74. Controller 90 utilizes difference-output signal 52 and determines whether that value is below the predetermined value, which, depending upon the circuitry involved, whether digital or analog, varies. The key is that the predetermined value is representative of a particular difference in the heat sensed at T.sub.A and T.sub.B. Assuming neither conditioned signals from T.sub.A, T.sub.B have reached a maximum threshold value, controller 60 outputs an enable signal 62, causing PWM generator 70 to output a modulated enable signal output 72 to power supply 98. Hence, heater control system 10 of the present invention utilizes the difference in temperature between T.sub.A and T.sub.B, which represents air velocity the convection heat absorbed by the air from the heaters, to control the operation of the heaters.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich as modified by Zhang and Jones, with Kopel by adding to the control methodology of modified Rudich, with the lowering the heating power to a reduced value if the first temperature measurement is greater than a predetermined first threshold value or the second temperature measurement is greater than a predetermined second threshold value of Kopel, for in doing so provide control to deactivate the heating element (para. 0011, 0032 of Kopel) which would further aid in preventing temperature overshoot.
Regarding claim 17, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 16, including wherein the reduced value causes the heating element to stop heating (Kopel, deactivating heating element is understood to represent a reduced value of 0%, or 0 watts).
Regarding claim 18, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 16, including wherein the one or more criteria further comprise: if the first temperature measurement is greater than the predetermined first threshold value or the second temperature measurement is greater than the predetermined second threshold value (See Kopel applied in claim 16), then if the rate of temperature difference is greater than the predetermined threshold value, then increasing the preset fan speed (The prior art, in combination, suggests the entire claimed invention including increasing the fan speed when a condition precedent occurs, as in Jones).
Regarding claim 19, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 18, including wherein the preset fan speed is increased to 100% of a maximum limit at which the fan operates (Jones, the increasing the fan speed step can be understood to mean the final speed of the fan is 10% of the maximum limit at which the fan operates).
Regarding claim 20, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 7, except for wherein the one or more criteria comprise: if the second temperature measurement remains at a temperature greater than a predetermined first threshold value for longer than a predetermined first period of time, then lowering the heating power to, or maintaining the heating power at zero.
Specifically, Rudich states that the controller functions to operate the heating element to raise the temperature to the set point temperature and that control “in this manner permits the precise introduction of only that quantity of heat required to increase the space temperature and causes the actual temperature to approach the set point substantially asymptotically rather than by overshooting and undershooting the set point temperature” (5:53-60). In other words, Rudich teaches regulating the heating element up to the set point temperature but does not state what, if anything, happens if the measured temperature happens to exceed the setpoint. Further, it is understood that the second temperature measurement indicative of the air temperature downstream of the heating element, during heating, is of some value that remains for some period of time.
Kopel relates to a forced air heater system (Title) and teaches the system comprising a duct (30) having an inlet (16) and an outlet (18), a heating element (20/22) positioned within the duct (30), a first temperature sensor (Ta) positioned at or near the inlet (See Fig. 1), and a second temperature sensor (Tb) positioned in the air duct (30; downstream of heating element 20).
Kopel teaches if the second temperature measurement remains at a temperature greater than a predetermined first threshold value for longer than a predetermined first period of time, then lowering the heating power to, or maintaining the heating power at, zero (Fig. 3 and para. 0032; “threshold detector blocks A and B produce output signals 54 and 56, respectively. Each of threshold detector blocks A and B produces a disable or OFF output signal if the conditioned signals 44, 46 from either T.sub.A or T.sub.B, respectively, reaches a predetermined critical high value. This is a safety feature in that if either heat sensor T.sub.A, T.sub.B produces a signal representing a threshold maximum heat level based upon heat sensed in their respective upstream and downstream zones, the system 10 disables the heating elements 20, 22. All signals discussed herein may be represented by high or low level signals. That is, the control system 10 may be designed such that a low signal output signifies an enable or ON condition, and vice-versa.”) (para. 0040; “The sensors T.sub.A, T.sub.B send a signal representative of the sensed heat to difference circuit 50. The difference circuit 50 outputs a difference between the two signals and outputs that difference-signal 52 to control 60. So long as that difference output signal 52 is lower than a predetermined value, and neither of the signals from T.sub.A or T.sub.B are above a predetermined maximum threshold value, the controller 60 sends an enable or ON signal to switch 90 via the PWM generator 70 and opto-isolator 74. Controller 90 utilizes difference-output signal 52 and determines whether that value is below the predetermined value, which, depending upon the circuitry involved, whether digital or analog, varies. The key is that the predetermined value is representative of a particular difference in the heat sensed at T.sub.A and T.sub.B. Assuming neither conditioned signals from T.sub.A, T.sub.B have reached a maximum threshold value, controller 60 outputs an enable signal 62, causing PWM generator 70 to output a modulated enable signal output 72 to power supply 98. Hence, heater control system 10 of the present invention utilizes the difference in temperature between T.sub.A and T.sub.B, which represents air velocity the convection heat absorbed by the air from the heaters, to control the operation of the heaters.”) [Note: the claim does not recite, nor require the controller to calculate the time period or that the time period is an input parameter. As such, the claim is understood, under broadest reasonable interpretation, to include a controller that deactivates the heater, when the second temperature exceeds a threshold value for any time period].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich as modified by Zhang and Jones, with Kopel by adding to the control methodology of modified Rudich, with the lowering the heating power to, or maintaining the heating power at zero if the second temperature measurement remains at a temperature greater than a predetermined first threshold value for longer than a predetermined first period of time, of Kopel, for in doing so provide control to deactivate the heating element (para. 0011, 0032 of Kopel) which would further aid in preventing temperature overshoot.
Regarding claim 21, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 20, including wherein the one or more criteria comprise: if the second temperature measurement remains at a temperature greater than the predetermined second threshold value for longer than a predetermined second period of time that is longer than the predetermined first period of time, then powering down the heater (as detailed above in claim 20, Kopel teaches deactivating the heater when the temperature measurement exceeds a threshold value, which necessarily occurs for some period of time. The claim does not recite, nor require the controller to calculate the time period or that the time period is an input parameter. As such, the claim is understood, under broadest reasonable interpretation, to include a controller that deactivates the heater, when the second temperature exceeds a threshold value for any time period. For instance, the second time period could be understood to refer to the time period that elapses after the temperature measurement exceeds the threshold while the first temperature could be understood to refer to a time period at any point prior. In this case, the second time period can be longer than the first.).
Regarding claim 22, the primary combination teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 7, except for wherein the one or more criteria comprise: if the second temperature measurement is greater than a predetermined threshold value, then powering down the heater.
Specifically, Rudich states that the controller functions to operate the heating element to raise the temperature to the set point temperature and that control “in this manner permits the precise introduction of only that quantity of heat required to increase the space temperature and causes the actual temperature to approach the set point substantially asymptotically rather than by overshooting and undershooting the set point temperature” (5:53-60). In other words, Rudich teaches regulating the heating element up to the set point temperature but does not state what, if anything, happens if the measured temperature happens to exceed the setpoint.
Kopel relates to a forced air heater system (Title) and teaches the system comprising a duct (30) having an inlet (16) and an outlet (18), a heating element (20/22) positioned within the duct (30), a first temperature sensor (Ta) positioned at or near the inlet (See Fig. 1), and a second temperature sensor (Tb) positioned in the air duct (30; downstream of heating element 20).
Kopel teaches if the second temperature measurement is greater than a predetermined threshold value, then powering down the heating element (Fig. 3 and para. 0032; “threshold detector blocks A and B produce output signals 54 and 56, respectively. Each of threshold detector blocks A and B produces a disable or OFF output signal if the conditioned signals 44, 46 from either T.sub.A or T.sub.B, respectively, reaches a predetermined critical high value. This is a safety feature in that if either heat sensor T.sub.A, T.sub.B produces a signal representing a threshold maximum heat level based upon heat sensed in their respective upstream and downstream zones, the system 10 disables the heating elements 20, 22. All signals discussed herein may be represented by high or low level signals. That is, the control system 10 may be designed such that a low signal output signifies an enable or ON condition, and vice-versa.”) (para. 0040; “The sensors T.sub.A, T.sub.B send a signal representative of the sensed heat to difference circuit 50. The difference circuit 50 outputs a difference between the two signals and outputs that difference-signal 52 to control 60. So long as that difference output signal 52 is lower than a predetermined value, and neither of the signals from T.sub.A or T.sub.B are above a predetermined maximum threshold value, the controller 60 sends an enable or ON signal to switch 90 via the PWM generator 70 and opto-isolator 74. Controller 90 utilizes difference-output signal 52 and determines whether that value is below the predetermined value, which, depending upon the circuitry involved, whether digital or analog, varies. The key is that the predetermined value is representative of a particular difference in the heat sensed at T.sub.A and T.sub.B. Assuming neither conditioned signals from T.sub.A, T.sub.B have reached a maximum threshold value, controller 60 outputs an enable signal 62, causing PWM generator 70 to output a modulated enable signal output 72 to power supply 98. Hence, heater control system 10 of the present invention utilizes the difference in temperature between T.sub.A and T.sub.B, which represents air velocity the convection heat absorbed by the air from the heaters, to control the operation of the heaters.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich as modified by Zhang and Jones, with Kopel by adding to the control methodology of modified Rudich, with the powering down the heater if the second temperature measurement is greater than a predetermined threshold value of Kopel, for in doing so provide control to deactivate the heating element (para. 0011, 0032 of Kopel) which would further aid in preventing temperature overshoot.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudich in view of Zhang (US2016/0161145).
Regarding claim 1, Rudich teaches a space heater for heating air within a room in which the space heater is positioned (1:5-26; space heating system), the heater comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
292
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Rudich
a housing comprising an inlet (indicated by arrow where outdoor air enters duct 11), an outlet (outlet of duct 11 allowing for heated air to enter space 13), and an air duct (11) between the inlet and the outlet [Here, the housing is defined as the inlet, outlet, and air duct 11 which aid in directing heated air into space 13];
a fan (21) positioned in the air duct (11) and configured to establish a flow of air (3:10-15; fan 21 is provided for air movement) from an ambient space outside (outdoor air) the housing into the inlet, through the air duct (11), and to the outlet;
a heating element (resistance heater 31) positioned in the air duct (11) and configured to heat the air flowing through the air duct (3:218-22; “when energized, will heat the air passing through the duct 11 and flowing into the space 13.”);
a first temperature sensor (23) positioned at or near the top of an interior of the air duct (See Fig. 1) and configured to measure a temperature of ambient air at the inlet (3:15-18; sensor 23 generates signals “representative of the outdoor air temperature”); and
a second temperature sensor (27) positioned in the air duct (11; downstream of heating element 31) to measure the temperature of heated air flowing through the air duct (3:15-18; sensor 27 generates signals “representative of…the discharge air temperature…”) after it has been heated by the heating element, where the second temperature sensor (27) is positioned between the heating element (31) and the outlet (Fig. 1); and
Rudich is silent on the heater being portable where the ambient space outside the housing is within the space to be heated by the heater and the temperature measured by the first temperature sensor represents the temperature of the space to be heated or that is being heated by the heater during operation.
While Rudich teaches that the heater is a space heater used to provide heated air flow into a space, Rudich does not disclose the details of what the space is or in what way the heater is disposed relative to such a space.
Zhang relates to electric space heaters (para. 0001) for heating an internal space (para. 0092 and 0094 disclose using the heater to heat a room), where the heater includes a housing (Figs. 1-2; 110), a heating element (150) and a fan (para. 0092, a fan can be included to accelerate convection).
Zhang teaches the housing being a portable housing designed to be positioned within the interior space (para. 0092 and 0094 the heater 100 is portable and easily moved from one room to another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich with Zhang, by modifying the housing of the heater of Rudich, with the housing being portable taught by Zhang, for in doing so would allow the space heater to be easily moved from room to room, which would allow for greater versatility in using the space heater. Further, the “[f]act that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.” See MPEP 2144.04-V-A. In this case, the claimed invention merely being portable does not impart patentability over the heater of Rudich.
The combination of Rudich and Zhang teaches substantially the claimed invention including the space heater (of Rudich) being a portable space heater (modified by Zhang) for heating air within a room in which the space heater is positioned (modified Rudich). Additionally, modified Rudich, being portable, would allow the heater to move readily from room to room and that the first temperature sensor would measure the ambient temperature of the room air temperature at the inlet of the air duct.
Modified Rudich is silent on the second temperature sensor being closer to the heating element than to the outlet. However, Rudich does teach the temperature sensor being positioned between the heating element and the outlet to measure the temperature of the heated airflow prior to exiting the outlet of the air duct.
Logically, there are three possible positions of the second temperature sensor between the heating element and the outlet: 1) the second temperature sensor is positioned equidistant between the heating element and the outlet, 2) the second temperature sensor is positioned closer to the heating element than the outlet, and 3) the second temperature sensor is positioned closer to the outlet than the heating element.
Rudich teaches that the second temperature sensor (27) generates signals “representative of…the discharge air temperature…” (3:15-18). Here, Rudich teaches the desire to measure the temperature of the air after it is heated by the heating element and to use such information in order to control the heater.
Here, Rudich teaches a recognized problem or need in the art for accurately controlling a space heater in which the temperature of the heated air is measured and used as a control parameter. Rudich attempts to solve this problem by placing a temperature sensor downstream of the heating element. As detailed above, there are a finite number of predictable placements to the relative positioning of the second temperature sensor.
One of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In this case, placing the second temperature sensor closer to the heating element than the outlet of the air duct would provide a more accurate reading in the temperature of the heated air flow (as opposed to the second temperature sensor being placed closer to the outlet or at a midpoint between the heating element and the outlet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Rudich with Zhang, by modifying the position of the second temperature sensor, relative to the heating element and outlet of Rudich, to be closer to the heating element than the outlet, for in doing so would provide improved accuracy in measuring the temperature of the heated air flow after being heated. Additionally, it would have been obvious to try the above indicated relative placement of the second temperature sensor with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143-I-E.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights