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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant amendment 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1,3,6-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (PG/PUB 20220003447) in view over Muchow (PG/PUB 20080288607) in view over Pettis (USPN 9476657) in view over Micka et al. (USPN 6189079)
Claim 1.
Williams teaches a fluid conditioning system for conditioning a fluid, the fluid conditioning system comprising:
a plurality of fluid conditioning units, each unit of the plurality of fluid conditioning units being configured to condition a fluid, each fluid conditioning unit of the plurality of fluid conditioning units including a unit controller configured to operate the fluid conditioning unit, the unit controllers of the plurality of fluid conditioning units being communicatively coupled to each other (Figure 1, 0037-38, 0049, 0056 e.g. see coordinated control of multiple air conditioners associated with a space)
wherein one unit controller of the plurality of the unit controllers functions as a master control module, the master control module periodically providing at least one operational set point to each of the unit controllers (0038, 0049, 0056 e.g. see master/slave control for coordinating operation of individual slave controllers)
However, Williams does not expressly teach the selection limitations described below. Muchow teaches the selection limitations described below
wherein, when at least one unit controller does not receive the at least one operational set point over a set duration of time, the remaining unit controllers select a new unit controller to function as the master control module from the unit controllers of the plurality of fluid conditioning units (Muchow, 0007, 0042-44 e.g. see timeout associated master controller failure prior to slave controllers electing a new master controller. As interpreted, a failure of a master controller and associated messaging, when applied to Williams, results in an election process responsive to failing to receive set-points due to communication failure)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Muchow, namely slave controllers electing a new master controller after failing to receive a message for a predetermined time period, to the teachings of Williams, namely coordinating communication and control using a master controller coupled to multiple slave controllers, would achieve an expected and predictable result of employing a delay prior to selecting a new master to account for transient conditions, as described. Muchow is reasonably pertinent to a problem of controller election and would commend itself to electing controllers in light of delays.
However, the applied combination teaches the use of heartbeat loss due to master controller failure but does not expressly teach the election is due to a predetermined timeout upon failing to receive the set-point. Pettis teaches a communication loss/controller failure results in ta failure to receive a set-point, Col 7 lines 57-65, and Williams teaches communicating set-point, Figure 1, 0037-38, 0049, 0056)
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art applying the teachings of Williams, as modified by Muchow, namely electing a new master controller upon failing to receive a heartbeat due to master controller failure based on a time expiration, to the teachings of Pettis namely failing to receive a set-point due to a controller failure (e.g. unreachable controller), would achieve an expected and predictable result of electing a new controller upon not receiving a set-point command for a predetermined time. One of ordinary skill in the art substituting a set-point command, which is periodically transmitted, in place of or in addition to a heartbeat message as an indication of a master controller failure, would achieve an expected and predictable result of determining master controller failure for enabling controller selection. Pettis is reasonably pertinent to determining controller failure resulting in set-points/commands being unavailable and would commend itself to the applied teachings for electing a new master when a set-point is not received indicating master controller failure.
However, the applied combination of prior art does not expressly teach the “regardless” limitation described below. Micka teaches the “regardless” limitation described below.
the master control module periodically providing at least one operational set point to each of the unit controllers regardless of whether the at least one operational set point has changed (Micka, ABSTRACT, Figure 4a-66, 72, 80-88 e.g. see copying primary controller memory data to a secondary controller memory, supra above for providing main controller set-point values associated with distributed controllers)
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art applying the teachings of Williams, as modified by Muchow, namely electing a new master controller upon failing to receive a heartbeat due to master controller failure based on a time expiration, to the teachings of Pettis namely failing to receive a set-point due to a controller failure (e.g. unreachable controller), to the teachings of Micka, namely duplicating primary controller data to secondary controller, would achieve an expected and predictable result of duplicating primary controller set-points regardless of changes by maintaining synchronous data contents between primary and secondary controllers.
Claim 3.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system of claim 1, wherein
wherein each of the unit controllers includes a memory and is configured to store the at least one operational set point received by unit controller from the master control module in the memory (0038, 0047, 0049, 0056 , ABSTRACT, supra claim 1 e.g. see master communicating commands to distributed slave controllers for set-point implementation)
Claim 6.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system of claim 1, wherein the master control module is configured to selectively turn on or off the fluid conditioning units of the plurality of fluid conditioning units (e.g. as interpreted, set-point adjustments result in selective on/off operations in response, 0047, 0050-56)
Claim 7.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system of claim 1, wherein the master control module is communicatively coupled to a user input device and configured to set the at least one operational set point based on input received from the user input device (0047, 0050-56 e.g. see user inputting commands into master for propagating to slave air conditioners)
Claim 8.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system of claim 1, wherein the master control module is communicatively coupled to a building management system and configured to set the at least one operational set point based on input received from the building management system (Williams, see building management as remote devices configured to input commands into master controller, 0037, 0047, 0050-56 e.g. see building management system as distributed control systems for providing at least a set-point to the master controller for distribution to slave controllers)
Claim 9.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system of claim 1, wherein the master control module is communicatively coupled to at least one sensor and configured to set the at least one operational set point based on information received from the sensor (0036, 0053, 0059-60, claim 19 e.g. see controlling temperature responsive to actual, sensed temperatures)
Claim 10.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system of claim 1, wherein each fluid conditioning unit of the plurality of fluid conditioning units includes at least one adjustable component, the unit controller of the fluid conditioning unit being operatively coupled to the at least one adjustable component to adjust the operation of the at least one adjustable component based on the at least one operational set point received from the master control module (0023-25 e.g. see compressors)
Claim 11.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system of claim 10, wherein the adjustable component is one of a fan, a compressor, a pump, a valve, a damper, an electric heater, an actuator, a motor, a switch, and a relay (0023-25, Figure 1)
Claim 15.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system of claim 1, wherein the fluid is air and the plurality of fluid conditioning units is a plurality of air conditioning units, each of the air conditioning units being fluidly coupled to a space and configured to provide conditioned air to the space (Figure 1, ABSTRACT, supra claim 1)
Claim 16.
Williams teaches a controller for a fluid conditioning unit, the controller comprising:
a processor; 0032, supra claim 1
a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which, when executed by the processor, cause the controller, 0032, supra claim 1
(i) to receive at least one operation set-point, supra claim 1
(i) to operate as a unit controller controlling the fluid conditioning unit based on at least one operational set point; supra claim 1
(ii) to operate as a master controller, the controller being selectively operable as the master controller, and, when operating as the master controller, the instructions causing the controller to output the at least one operational set point regardless of whether at least one operational set poit has changed, supra claim 1
wherein, when at least one unit controller does not receive the at least one operational set point over a set duration of time, the remaining unit controllers select a new unit controller to function as the master control module from the unit controllers of the plurality of fluid conditioning units, supra claim 1
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (PG/PUB 20220003447) in view over Muchow (PG/PUB 20080288607) in view over Pettis (USPN 9476657) in view over Micka et al. (USPN 6189079) in view over Kephart (PG/PUB 20070168058)
Claim 5.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system of claim 3 but does not expressly teach the most recent values. Kephart teaches the most recent values,
wherein the new master control module provides the most recent at least one operational set point stored in the memory as the at least one operational set point (Williams, see propagating recent commands to multiple air conditioners configured as slaves, each having memory and processor for implementing the target temperature, 0004, 0050, 0056, 0059, claim 3, Kephart, ABSTRACT e.g. synchronization between multiple controllers ensures most recent values are used and see the set-point values of Williams)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Kephart, namely synchronizing data between controllers for fault tolerance, to the teachings of Williams, as modified, namely selectively electing a master air conditioner controller responsive to a fault, would achieve an expected and predictable result of ensuring the new master is providing recent commands and set-point temperatures. Kephart is reasonably pertinent to a problem of redundancy and would commend itself to ensuring recent values are employed for maintaining target environmental conditions.
Claims 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (PG/PUB 20220003447) in view over Micka et al. (USPN 6189079)
Claim 12.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system
wherein the plurality of fluid conditioning units in a first group (Figure 4, 0038 e.g. see slave controllers w/ master controller as a first group), each unit of the plurality of fluid conditioning units in the first group being configured to condition the fluid, each fluid conditioning unit of the plurality of fluid conditioning units in the first group including a unit controller configured to operate the fluid conditioning unit (figure 4, 0038), the unit controllers (e.g. slave controllers) of the plurality of fluid conditioning units of the first group being communicatively coupled to each other (figure 4, 0039), wherein one unit controller of the plurality of unit controllers of the first group functions as a master control module for the first group, the master control module for the first group providing at least one operational set point to each of the unit controllers of the first group, (Williams figure 1, 0038, 0050-56, claim 1, see a master control module coupled to multiple slave controllers, each slave controller forms a group of slave controllers coupled to a master, Figure 4)
However, Williams does not expressly teach a second, duplicate group described above. Pursuant to MPEP 2144.04, VI, duplication of parts, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to duplicate the plurality of air conditioners and master controller of the first group to comprise a second, identical group. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, would recognize that second groups of air conditioners having localized and centralized control are well-known, see 20160178225, Figure 1, USPN 7809472 – Col 8 lines 65-57 through Col 9 lines 1-34 e.g. see peer-to-peer groupings of HVAC units each comprising control units and coupled to central PLC, each controller configured to “share information and cooperative manage….. each HVAC unit,” see MPEP 2141.03 (e.g. References which are not prior art may be relied upon to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at or around the relevant time. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1098, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Evidence of contemporaneous invention is probative of ‘the level of knowledge in the art at the time the invention was made.’" (citing In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 720, 219 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983))). Accordingly, a duplication of the first group into a second group would provide an expected and predictable result of copies of the configuration for a purpose of installing in different locations, rooms, or buildings. The configuration of Williams is not isolated or limited to a single are but may be replicated for use in other locations. Williams, as modified, teaches:
a plurality of fluid conditioning units in a second group, each unit of the plurality of fluid conditioning units in the second group being configured to condition a fluid (e.g. see duplicate air conditioner units), each fluid conditioning unit of the plurality of fluid conditioning units in the second group including a unit controller configured to operate the fluid conditioning unit (see duplicate controllers , the unit controllers of the plurality of fluid conditioning units of the second group being communicatively coupled to each other (see duplicate communication), wherein one unit controller of the plurality of the unit controllers of the second group functions as a master control module for the second group (see duplicate master controller function), the master control module for the second group providing at least one operational set point to each of the unit controllers of the second group (see duplicate master controller sharing set-point)
However, the applied combination of prior art does not expressly teach “coordinate operation between the first group and the second group. Micka teaches “coordinate operation between the first group and the second group.” (e.g. as interpreted, maintaining duplicate data via copy/coordinated operations)
,wherein the master control module for the first group and the master control module for the second group are simultaneously active and communicatively coupled to each other to coordinate operation between the first group and the second group ( Micka, ABSTRACT, Figure 4a-66, 72, 80-88 e.g. see copying primary controller memory data to a secondary controller memory, supra above for providing main controller set-point values associated with distributed controllers)
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art applying the teachings of Williams, as modified by Muchow, namely electing a new master controller upon failing to receive a heartbeat due to master controller failure based on a time expiration, to the teachings of Pettis namely failing to receive a set-point due to a controller failure (e.g. unreachable controller), to the teachings of Micka, namely duplicating primary controller data to secondary controller, would achieve an expected and predictable result of duplicating primary controller set-points regardless of changes by maintaining synchronous data contents between primary and secondary controllers. The duplication provides a coordinated operation between the first group and the second group.
Claim 22.
The fluid conditioning system of claim 12, wherein the master control module for the first group is configured to periodically provide the at least one operational set point to each of the unit controllers of the first group, each of the unit controllers of the first group including a memory and being configured to store the at least one operational set point received by the unit controller from the master control module of the first group in the memory, and wherein the master control module for the second group is configured to periodically provide the at least one operational set point to each of the unit controllers of the second group, each of the unit controllers of the second group including a memory and being configured to store the at least one operational set point received by the unit controller from the master control module for the second group in the memory, supra claim 12 for first and second groups of controllers, each comprising a master controller and configured to receive, store, and implement set-point commands received from the master.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (PG/PUB 20220003447) in view over Micka et al. (USPN 6189079) in view over Wensen (PG/PUB 20180365184)
Claim 13.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system of claim 12 but does not expressly teach the master to master controller communication limitations described below. Wensen teaches the master to master communication limitations described below.
wherein one unit controller of the plurality of the unit controllers of either the first group or the second group functions as a master control module for the fluid conditioning system providing at least one operational set point to each of the master control module for the first group and the master control module for the second group (supra claim 12 for providing redundant group configurations comprising two master controllers communicatively coupled to slave air conditioner controllers, see Wensen for synchronizing data between first and second master controllers, 0005, Figure 1 e.g. see “tracking memories” between master controllers for fault tolerance)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Wensen, namely providing fault tolerance master controllers, to the teachings of Williams, as modified, namely providing multiple master controllers, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Wensen is reasonably pertinent to the problem of redundancy and would commend itself to employing redundant master controllers for enabling system operation in light of controller failure.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (PG/PUB 20220003447) in view over Micka et al. (USPN 6189079) in view over Wensen (PG/PUB 20180365184) in view over MAEDA (PG/PUB 20160245542)
Claim 14.
Williams teaches the fluid conditioning system of claim 13 but does not teach the change limitations describe below. MAEDA teaches the change limitations described below
wherein the master control module for the fluid conditioning system is configured to change a fluid conditioning unit from the first group of the plurality of fluid conditioning units to the second group of the plurality of fluid conditioning units (MAEDA, ABSTRACT, 0066-73, 0194, 0238, Figure 19 e.g. see re-arranging air conditioners to specific groups via registration)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of MAEDA, namely re-arranging and assigning air conditioners to different groups, to the teachings of Williams, as modified, namely providing first and second groups, would achieve an expected and predictable result via adapting the master controller to integrate the group arrangement functions of MAEDA to reallocate air conditioners to target spaces for temperature distributions. MAEAD is in the same field of endeavor and commend itself to a problem of air conditioner assignment.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (PG/PUB 20220003447) in view over Micka et al. (USPN 6189079) in view over Muchow (PG/PUB 20080288607).
Claim 21.
The fluid conditioning system of claim 12 but does not expressly teach the selection limitations described below. Muchow teaches the selection limitations described below while Williams, as modified, teaches first and second groups of controllers, each group having a master controller.
wherein, when the unit controller functioning as the master control module for the first group goes offline, the remaining unit controllers of the first group select a new unit controller to function as the master control module or the first group from the unit controllers of the plurality of fluid conditioning units of the first group, and wherein, when the unit controller functioning as the master control module for the second group goes offline, the remaining unit controllers of the second group select a new unit controller to function as the master control module for the second group from the unit controllers of the plurality of fluid conditioning units of the second group (supra claim 12 for first and second groups, each having a master, and see Muchow for electing new master controllers responsive to master controller failure, 0007-0010, 0059, 0076, 0082)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Muchow, namely slave controllers electing a new master controller after failing to receive a message for a predetermined time period, to the teachings of Williams, as modified, namely coordinating communication and control using a master controller coupled to multiple slave controllers in a first group and a second group of controllers coupled to a master controller, would achieve an expected and predictable result of employing a delay prior to selecting a new master to account for transient conditions, as described. Muchow is reasonably pertinent to a problem of controller election and would commend itself to electing controllers in light of delays.
Claim 23.
The fluid conditioning system of claim 22, wherein, when at least one unit controller of the first group does not receive the at least one operational set point from the master control module for the first group over a set duration of time, the remaining unit controllers of the first group select a new unit controller to function as the master control module for the first group from the unit controllers of the plurality of fluid conditioning units of the first group, and wherein, when at least one unit controller of the second group does not receive the at least one operational set point from the master control module for the second group over a set duration of time, the remaining unit controllers of the second group select a new unit controller to function as the master control module for the second group from the unit controllers of the plurality of fluid conditioning units of the second group, supra claim 21
Claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (PG/PUB 20220003447) in view over Micka et al. (USPN 6189079) in view over Muchow (PG/PUB 20080288607) in view over Kephart (PG/PUB 20070168058)
Claim 24.
The fluid conditioning system of claim 23 but does not expressly teach the master using the most recent set-point. Kephart teaches employing synchronization to ensure the most recent value is employed described below.
wherein the new master control module of the first group provides the most recent at least one operational set point stored in the memory as the at least one operational set point for the first group, and wherein the new master control module of the second group provides the most recent at least one operational set point stored in the memory as the at least one operational set point for the second group, supra claim 12 (0059 e.g. “As explained above, aspects of the present subject matter may be directed to methods of coordinating programming settings, such as operating mode or temperature setpoints among a system of air conditioner unite in a single space. In this regard, for example, the operating mode or temperature setpoints of a master unit may regulate the operation of all units within the system (i.e., the slave units). The master unit that may be determined based on which unit was last changed by a user, by user selection, by programming, etc,” see Kephart, ABSTRACT e.g. synchronization between multiple controllers ensures most recent values are used and see the set-point values of Williams)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Kephart, namely synchronizing data between controllers for fault tolerance, to the teachings of Williams, as modified, namely selectively electing a master air conditioner controller responsive to a fault, would achieve an expected and predictable result of ensuring the new master is providing recent commands and set-point temperatures. Kephart is reasonably pertinent to a problem of redundancy and would commend itself to ensuring recent values are employed for maintaining target environmental conditions.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (PG/PUB 20220003447) in view over Micka et al. (USPN 6189079) in view over Muchow (PG/PUB 20080288607) in view over Pettis (USPN 9476657) in view over Takahashi et al. (PG/PUB 20130283837)
Claim 25. Williams, as modified, does not expressly teach the data center. Takahashi teaches a data center described below.
A data center comprising:
a server room with electronic components be mounted on a plurality of racks, the electronic components generating heat during operation and the heat from the electronic components heating return air within the server room; and the fluid conditioning system of claim 1, wherein each fluid conditioning unit of the plurality of fluid conditioning units cools the return air from the server room (Takahashi, ABSTRACT, Figure 2- 71a, 61c)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Takahashi, namely cooling multiple racks using multiple air conditioner units, to the teachings of Williams, as modified, namely coordinating multiple air conditioners, would achieve an expected and predictable result of providing redundant cooling in light of air conditioner failure. Takahashi is reasonably pertinent to a problem of cooling airflow for data center thermal management.
Claim 26.
The data center of claim 25, wherein each fluid conditioning unit of the plurality of fluid conditioning units includes an interior air handler (e.g. fan) and an exterior condensing unit (71c) , the interior air handler of each fluid conditioning unit being located on a same floor that is the same as the server room (ABSTRACT, Figure 2, supra claim 25)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20200208866- 0061-65 20220066402 20220003447 20210318013 20210247089 20210088240 20180225244 20180119974 20170147018 7797953 20080033599 20060123811 20200088438 20190017720 20180328615 20180135879 20170205104 -sensor association, 20140081467 HVAC( 20130123992 (location/position) 8359112, 6351829 20050114741 5966301 9740178 20150323910 20070240016 20230053114 20180328615 20190017720
20220066402 20220003447 20210318013 20210247089 20210088240 20180225244 20180119974 20170147018 7797953 20080033599 20060123811 20200088438 20190017720 20180328615 20180135879 20170205104 20140081467 20130123992 11490537 (distributed automation controllers)
Claim 1 relevancy
20180356115 20060287774 20220003447 20240028536 20080053122 20060123811
Fault tolerant
20080126853 20070168058 4141066
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117