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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "an expansion device" in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation, “expansion device” has been described in the specification as an expansion valve (see paragraphs 34-35).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-15, 17, 18 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation, "the processing circuitry/processors configured to respond to refrigerant leak based on the second pre-defined relationship differently than based on the first pre-defined relationship," in claims 1 and 15, is not fully supported by applicant’s original disclosure because the specification does not include any comparison between the pre-defined relationships or their respective responses when the controller responds to refrigerant leak based on second pre-defined relationship. It is unclear where applicant found support for a controller with processing circuitry configured to select a response to refrigerant leak based on the second pre-defined relationship that is different and dependent on the response to leak based on the first pre-defined relationship; where the selected response for the second relationship is different/distinct from the response picked based on the first pre-defined relationship. Such comparison by the controller is not part of the original disclosure.
For examination, purposes, the above claimed limitation is interpreted as the processing circuitry is capable of having multiple responses to the refrigerant leak based on first/second pre-defined relationship; however, the response to refrigerant leak based on the second pre-defined relationship does not depend upon the response based on the first pre-defined relationship.
The limitation, "the processing circuitry configured to mitigate the refrigerant leak based on the second pre-defined relationship differently than based on the first pre-defined relationship," in claim 9, is not fully supported by applicant’s original disclosure because the specification does not include any comparison between the pre-defined relationships or their respective responses to mitigate leak when the controller responds to refrigerant leak based on second pre-defined relationship. It is unclear where applicant found support for a controller with processing circuitry configured to select a response to mitigate refrigerant leak based on the second pre-defined relationship that is different and dependent on the response to mitigate leak based on the first pre-defined relationship; where the selected response to mitigate leak for the second relationship is different/distinct from the response picked based on the first pre-defined relationship. Such comparison by the controller is not part of the original disclosure.
For examination, purposes, the above claimed limitation is interpreted as the processing circuitry is capable of having multiple responses to mitigate refrigerant leak based on first/second pre-defined relationship; however, the response to mitigate refrigerant leak based on the second pre-defined relationship does not depend upon the response to mitigate leak based on the first pre-defined relationship.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-15, 17-18, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2017/0016797 A1) and in view of Suzuki (US 2019/0024931 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Park teaches a fluid leak management system (10, see fig. 2) comprising: memory circuitry (138) storing instructions (see paragraph 56 and fig. 18) thereon; and processing circuitry (sound field signal processor 130, 136) configured to execute the instructions to:
receive, from a sensor assembly (receiving sound wave, see paragraph 52; where sensor assembly includes 110, 120, 130, see figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 13, 44; Also see gas sensors, paragraphs 39, 127, where the gas sensors are distributed about a plurality of locations of the system, see paragraphs 127-128, including a sensor disposed at the location of the gas leak and at the location of the sound receiver 120, see paragraphs 47, 83-84, 127-128 and 134), sensor data corresponding to a characteristic indicative of a refrigerant leak of a refrigerant in the system (sensed data from one of the gas sensors matching with one of the sound field spectrum variations, see paragraphs 10-12 and fig. 18, wherein sound field spectrum analysis establishes the reference value for determining gas leak, see paragraphs 116-117; In addition, sound data/sound pressure/coefficient correlation/frequency shift sent to gas leak determination unit 132 to determine presence or absence of gas leak, see paragraphs 55-58 and 28-42);
determine, based on the sensor data, that the gas/refrigerant leak has occurred in the system (gas sensors that directly/indirectly sense gas leak, see paragraph 127; Also gas leak determination unit 132, based on sound/gas data determines presence/absence of gas leak, see paragraphs 55-58, and 44; wherein the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system is determined by the processor 130 determining location of methane/propane/gas leak at the location of the sound receiver 120 by the variations in amplitude/sound pressures, see paragraphs 47, 83-86 and 134 and figs. 8-10); and
the processing circuitry is also configured to execute the instructions to:
respond to the refrigerant leak (by alarm unit 150 alerting of a gas leak, see paragraphs 44 and 69; alarm unit 150 alerting a gas leak, see paragraphs 44, 69, which implies that a gas leak has been sensed and/or has occurred) based on the determined first pre-defined relationship of the characteristic with one or more reference characteristics (one of the variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 8B, 8C with respect to fig. 8A, where figs. 8B, 8C show sound pressure level change due to a gas leak in the monitored space, while fig. 8A shows sound field spectrum for entire gas monitoring spacing containing only air, see paragraph 83; Also see variation of sound field spectrum in figs. 9A-11C; In addition, when gas leak is determined based on variation in correlation coefficient at steps S210-S220, the controller rings or lights an alarm and/or delivers information, see fig. 18 and paragraphs 112, 120, 108-109 and 69);
receive, from the sensor assembly (repeatedly receiving sound wave, see paragraphs 52 and 106; where sensor assembly includes 110, 120, 130, see figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 13, 44; Also see gas sensors, paragraphs 39, 127, where the gas sensors are distributed about a plurality of locations of the system, see paragraphs 127-128, including a sensor disposed at the location of the gas leak and at the location of the sound receiver 120, see paragraphs 47, 83-84, 127-128 and 134), additional sensor data corresponding to an additional characteristic indicative of an additional refrigerant leak in the system (remeasured sound data/sound pressure resent to gas leak determination unit 132 to redetermine presence or absence of gas leak repeatedly, see paragraphs 55-58 and 106; and sensed data from another one of the gas sensors matching with another one of the sound field spectrum variations, see paragraphs 10-12 and fig. 18, wherein sound field spectrum analysis establishes the reference value for determining gas leak, see paragraphs 116-117; In addition, sound data/sound pressure/coefficient correlation/frequency shift sent to gas leak determination unit 132 to determine presence or absence of gas leak, see paragraphs 55-58 and 28-42);
determine, based on the additional sensor data, that the additional gas/refrigerant leak has occurred in the system (another one of the gas sensors that directly/indirectly sense gas leak, see paragraph 127; Also gas leak determination unit 132, based on additional sound/gas data determines presence/absence of gas leak, see paragraphs 55-58, and 44; wherein the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system is determined by the processor 130 determining location of methane/propane/gas leak at the location of the sound receiver 120 by the variations in amplitude/sound pressures, see paragraphs 47, 83-86 and 134 and figs. 8-10); and
respond to the additional refrigerant leak differently (by image capture unit 160 and/or communication unit 140 capturing images of leaked gas (paragraph 70), and/or communicating with device(s) outside of gas monitoring system 100 via various communication protocols (paragraph 68), respectively) in response to determining that the additional refrigerant leak has occurred in the system (image capturing and communication via 150 and 140 respectively after gas leak is sensed/determined, see paragraphs 67-70) and in response to the additional characteristic having a second pre-defined relationship with the one or more reference characteristics (another of the variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 10B, 10C with respect to fig. 10A, where figs. 10B, 10C show sound pressure level change due to a gas leak in the monitored space, while fig. 10A shows sound field spectrum for entire gas monitoring spacing containing only air, see paragraphs 87-88; Also see variation of sound field spectrum in figs. 8A-8C, 9A-9C, and 11A-11C), wherein
the second pre-defined relationship (variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figures 10B, 10C) is different than the first pre-defined relationship (variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 10B and 10C are different than the variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 8B, 8C), and
the response to the second relationship is different from the response to the first relationship (response by the image capture unit 160 and/or communication unit 140 to capture images of leaked gas (paragraph 70), and/or communicate with device(s) outside of gas monitoring system 100 via various communication protocols (paragraph 68) is different from the response by an alarm unit 150 for alerting a gas leak, see paragraphs 44 and 69, respectively); wherein the responses to refrigerant leaks comprise plurality of actions including the control actions by each of the alarm unit (150), image capture unit (160) and the communication unit (140) in response to gas leak detection (see fig. 1 and paragraphs 67-70).
However, Park does not explicitly teach that the fluid leak management system is used for determining leak of the refrigerant in the HVAC system and the response action is for a leak in the HVAC system.
Suzuki teaches a refrigerant leak management system (see fig. 7 and paragraphs 8 and 15) with a plurality of sensors (91, 92, 93, 99) distributed about a plurality of locations of the HVAC system (see fig. 3); wherein the HVAC system includes a compressor (3), a condenser (5/7), an expansion valve (6/13), an evaporator (7/5); and a controller (30), which is configured to determine refrigerant leak in the HVAC system (see fig. 7 and paragraph 15), wherein the refrigerant gas sensor (99, see paragraph 38) for measuring refrigerant concentration are associated with heat exchanger (7), refrigerant pipes (10a, 10b, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 38-39) and casing (111) of the indoor unit (1) of the HVAC system; and the controller (30) is configured to determine that refrigerant leak in part of the HVAC system has occurred based on the sensed data from refrigerant leak sensor (controller 30 receives refrigerant leak signal from sensor 99, and in response, determines that refrigerant has leaked, see paragraphs 38, 25, in the HVAC system, fig. 3); the controller (30) is also configured to perform different response actions of continuously and/or intermittently controlling the indoor fan control (continuous and/or restarting control of fan 7f, see paragraphs 39-40 and figs. 5-6) in response to refrigerant leak detected in the HVAC system (see fig. 3) by refrigerant leak sensor (see paragraphs 38-39). In addition, Suzuki teaches one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media (at least ROM/RAM and controller 30, see paragraph 26) storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (controller 30), are configured to cause the one or more processor to:
receive, from a sensor assembly (receiving from detection unit 99 with gas sensor, see paragraphs 25-26) of a gas/fluid/refrigerant leak detection assembly (at least detection unit 99, control 30, see fig. 1) corresponding to a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (figs. 1-4),
additional sensor data (data detected by detection unit 99 with gas sensor, see paragraphs 25-26; and receiving gas detection data from gas sensor, see paragraph 38), corresponding to an additional characteristic indicative of an additional refrigerant leak in the HVAC system (detection signal received by controller 30 for the refrigerant concentration data detected by the gas sensor, which indicates that refrigerant has leaked within casing 111, see paragraphs 38-39);
perform additional control actions (by disconnecting the main power source of the air conditioning system, see fig. 5 and stopping and/or restarting the air-sending fan 7f, see fig. 5 and paragraphs 45-47; continuously or intermittently operating the fan 7f to reach 10 hours cumulative limit, see figs. 5-7 and paragraph 48) in response to the additional characteristics having plurality of additional pre-defined relationship with one or more reference characteristics (stopping and/or restarting the air-sending fan 7f to allow refrigerant to accumulate within and then dissipate from within the casing 111 of the indoor unit 1 while the refrigerant concentration is less than the lower flammability limit, see fig. 5, 7 and paragraphs 46, 64; continuously or intermittently operating the fan 7f to reach 10 hours cumulative limit under force operation of step S3, see figs. 5-7 and paragraph 48 in response to the refrigerant concentration being equal to or larger that the threshold value, see fig. 7 and paragraphs 52-54 and 61-64), wherein each control action is different from the other control action (disconnecting the main power source of the air conditioning system, and stopping and/or restarting the air-sending fan 7f are different from continuously or intermittently operating the fan 7f to reach 10 hours cumulative limit under force operation of step S3, see figs. 5-7 and paragraphs 52-54 and 61-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid leak management system of Park by using a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system as part of the fluid leak management system, where refrigerant leak is detected, as taught by Suzuki in order to accurately and efficiently determine the exact location/distribution/amount/type of the leaked refrigerant gases within the HVAC system and to prioritize remedial actions necessary to protect occupants of the indoor spaces (see paragraphs 3, 18, 22, Park). It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Park to perform two different first and second response actions based on refrigerant leak occurring in the HVAC system after at least one of the sensors determines the occurrence of refrigerant leak in the HVAC system based on the teachings of Suzuki in order to prevent, refrigerant concentration that has leaked in/around the HVAC system equipment, from increasing locally and gathering; to direct the leaked refrigerant toward an exit away from air conditioned indoor spaces occupied by occupants; alert the maintenance personnel via different modes with/without partial/full refrigerant leak containment plans; and assess refrigerant leak condition based on data from plurality of sensors and take plurality of actions necessary for the leak conditions while safeguarding the refrigeration and conditioning capacity of the HVAC system.
In regards to claim 2, Park as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1 and Suzuki further teaches that the HVAC system includes a compressor (3); a condenser (5); an evaporator (7); and an expansion device (6), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the instructions to determine, based on the sensor data, whether a location of the refrigerant leak in the HVAC system corresponds to the compressor (3), the condenser (5), the evaporator (7), or the expansion device (controller 30 configured to determining refrigerant leak in the HVAC system, see fig. 7 and paragraph 15, wherein the refrigerant gas sensor (99, see paragraph 38) for measuring refrigerant concentration are associated with heat exchanger (7), refrigerant pipes (10a, 10b, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 38-39) and casing (111) of the indoor unit (1) of the HVAC system (see figs. 7, 4; and paragraphs 38-39)), wherein the compressor, the condenser, the evaporator, or the expansion device also correspond(s) to the location of the refrigerant leak in the HVAC system (refrigerant leak location at sensor 99 that corresponds to the evaporator, refrigerant pipes and the indoor unit 1, see figs. 1, 4 and paragraphs 38-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Park as modified to determine that the location of refrigerant leak corresponds to a location near one of the components of the HVAC system based on the teachings of Suzuki in order to take contain the refrigerant leak within a manageable space and take immediate action over a small region without affecting operation of rest of the components of the HVAC system.
In regards to claim 3, Park as modified teaches the limitation of claim 1 and Suzuki further teaches a plurality of refrigerant conduits (9a, 9b, 10a, 10b); and a joint (15a, 15b) between two or more refrigerant conduits of the plurality of refrigerant conduits (see figs. 3-4), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the instructions to determine, based on the sensor data, whether a location of the refrigerant leak in the HVAC system corresponds to the joint or a refrigerant conduit of the plurality of refrigerant conduits (controller 30 configured to determining refrigerant leak in the HVAC system, see fig. 7 and paragraph 15, wherein the refrigerant gas sensor (99, see paragraph 38) for measuring refrigerant concentration are associated with heat exchanger (7), refrigerant pipes (10a, 10b, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 38-39) and casing (111) of the indoor unit (1) of the HVAC system (see figs. 7, 4; and paragraphs 38-39), wherein the joint or a refrigerant conduit of the plurality of refrigerant conduits corresponds to the location of the refrigerant leak in the HVAC system (controller 30 determine refrigerant leak by sensor 99 at a location which corresponds to refrigerant leak location of joint portions 15a, 15b, which are between conduits 9 and 10, see paragraph 38 and figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Park as modified to determine that the location of refrigerant leak corresponds to a location near one of the components of the HVAC system based on the teachings of Suzuki in order to take contain the refrigerant leak within a manageable space and take immediate action over a small region without affecting operation of rest of the components of the HVAC system.
In regards to claim 6, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Park further discloses that the characteristic comprises a location of the refrigerant leak (one of the gas leak locations within a cube-shaped gas monitoring space, which emphasizes gas leak and at least one location of gas leak, see figs. 3-5 and 8-9); the additional characteristics comprises an additional location of the additional refrigerant leak, the additional location differing from the location (see multiple locations of gas leak, fig. 3 and paragraph 71; and figs. 6 and 10-11, where each corner or center of gas leak location is different from another corner or center of gas leak location); and the one or more reference characteristics comprise a plurality of reference locations (plurality of reference locations of sound pressure simulation of air, see figs. 4A-11A and plurality of reference locations of sound pressure simulation of leaked refrigerant gases, see figs. 4B-11B and 4C-11C; Also see figs. 3-11 and paragraph 71 for plurality of locations of gas leak).
In regards to claim 7, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Park further discloses that the characteristic comprises a concentration of refrigerant in air (0.6cm thick layer of leaked refrigerant gas in air within a cube-shaped gas monitoring space, see figs. 3-11 and paragraph 77); the additional characteristics comprises an additional concentration of refrigerant in air, the additional concentration differing from the concentration (see multiple gas leaks of 16cm and 20 cm diameters of globe shaped concentrations of leaked gas, paragraph 72 and 0.6cm thick layer of leaked refrigerant gas in air within a cube-shaped gas monitoring space, see figs. 3-11 and paragraph 77; wherein the 16cm diameter, 20cm diameter and 0.6cm thick layer are different from one another); and the one or more reference characteristics comprise a threshold concentration of refrigerant (see refrigerant concentration is less than the lower flammability limit, see fig. 5, 7 and paragraphs 46, 64; and refrigerant concentration being equal to or larger that the threshold value, see fig. 7 and paragraphs 52-54 and 61-64).
In regards to claim 8, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the sensor assembly comprises at least one vibration sensor (sound receiver 120, microphone, see paragraphs 44, 52) configured to measure a vibration pattern (one of the measured sound waves, sound fields, sound pressures, see figs. 4-7) corresponding to the characteristic of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system (sound pressure/field variation indicating gas leak, see paragraph 51) and
an additional vibration pattern (additional/another one of the measured sound waves, sound fields, sound pressures, see figs. 4-7) corresponding to the additional characteristic of the additional gas/refrigerant leak in the system (various sound pressure/field variation indicating various gas leaks, see paragraph 51 and figs. 4-7), and
the processing circuitry is configured to execute the instructions to:
locate, in a database and based on the vibration patterns, respective plurality of reference vibration patterns (controller stores the reference sound fields based on non-leak condition, see paragraph 9 and 56; and retrieves the reference sound fields for comparison with the measured/calculated sound field during leak to determine gas leak, see paragraphs 9, 14, 19, 59-60, and 56; and fig. 18; see plural sound field spectra, figs. 8-11 and paragraphs 83-89), wherein the plurality of reference vibration patterns correspond to a plurality of locations in the system (see plurality of locations analyzed by the sound field analysis, figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 83-89), and the plurality of locations in the system include the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system (when gas leak and/or location is detected by comparison of measured sound pressure/field with reference sound pressure/field, see fig. 18 and paragraphs 51, 58, 47 and 134; Also see paragraph 113 for measured sound field stored in the memory, which could be the refrigerant leak location); and
determine, based on the reference vibration pattern, the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system (gas leak determination at the location of the gas sensor based on variations in sound field with respect to the reference sound field, see fig. 18 and paragraphs 51, 58; Also, processor 130 determines location of methane/propane/gas leak at the location of the sound receiver 120 by the variations in amplitude/sound pressures, see paragraphs 47, 83-86 and 134 and figs. 8-10); and wherein determine additional location of the additional gas/refrigerant leak in the system (processor 130 redetermines location of methane/propane/gas leak at the locations of the sound receiver 120 by the variations in amplitude/sound pressures, see paragraphs 47, 83-86, and 8; figs. 8-10; and determine gas/refrigerant leak at various locations at various times, see paragraphs 134, 106-109); wherein the plurality of location data is indicative of plurality of refrigerant leak locations in the system (see plurality of locations analyzed by the sound field analysis, figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 83-89), and the plurality of locations in the system include the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system (when gas leak and/or location is detected by comparison of measured sound pressure/field with reference sound pressure/field, see fig. 18 and paragraphs 51, 58, 47 and 134; Also see paragraph 113 for measured sound field stored in the memory, which could be the refrigerant leak location; Also see multiple locations of gas leak, fig. 3 and paragraph 71; and figs. 6 and 10-11, where each corner or center of gas leak location is different from another corner or center of gas leak location).
In regards to claims 9 and 10, Park teaches a fluid/gas/refrigerant leak detection system (10, see fig. 2), the fluid/gas/refrigerant leak detection system comprising:
a sensor assembly (110, 120, 130, see figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 13, 44);
memory circuitry (138) storing instructions (see paragraph 56) thereon; and
processing circuitry (sound field signal processor 130, 136) configured to execute the instructions to: receive, from the sensor assembly (receiving sound wave, see paragraph 52; where sensor assembly includes 110, 120, 130, see figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 13, 44; Also see gas sensors, paragraphs 39, 127, where the gas sensors are distributed about a plurality of locations of the system, see paragraphs 127-128, including a sensor disposed at the location of the gas leak and at the location of the sound receiver 120, see paragraphs 47, 83-84, 127-128 and 134), sensor data corresponding to a characteristic indicative of a refrigerant leak of a refrigerant in the system (sensed data from gas sensors matching with sound field spectrum variations, see paragraphs 10-12 and fig. 18, wherein sound field spectrum analysis establishes the reference value for determining gas leak, see paragraphs 116-117; In addition, sound data/sound pressure/coefficient correlation/frequency shift sent to gas leak determination unit 132 to determine presence or absence of gas leak, see paragraphs 55-58 and 28-42);
determine, based on the sensor data, that the gas/refrigerant leak has occurred (gas sensors that directly/indirectly sense gas leak, see paragraph 127; Also gas leak determination unit 132, based on sound/gas data determines presence/absence of gas leak, see paragraphs 55-58, and 44; wherein the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system is determined by the processor 130 determining location of methane/propane/gas leak at the location of the sound receiver 120 by the variations in amplitude/sound pressures, see paragraphs 47, 83-86 and 134 and figs. 8-10); and
the processing circuitry is also configured to execute the instructions to:
respond to mitigate the refrigerant leak (by alarm unit 150 alerting of a gas leak, see paragraphs 44 and 69; alarm unit 150 alerting a gas leak, see paragraphs 44, 69, which implies that a gas leak has been sensed and/or has occurred) based on the determination that the characteristic includes a first pre-defined relationship of the characteristic with one or more reference characteristics (variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 8B, 8C with respect to fig. 8A, where figs. 8B, 8C show sound pressure level change due to a gas leak in the monitored space, while fig. 8A shows sound field spectrum for entire gas monitoring spacing containing only air, see paragraph 83; Also see variation of sound field spectrum in figs. 9A-11C; In addition, when gas leak is determined based on variation in correlation coefficient at steps S210-S220, the controller rings or lights an alarm and/or delivers information, see fig. 18 and paragraphs 112, 120, 108-109 and 69);
determine, based on the sensor data, that the gas/refrigerant leak has occurred in the system (gas sensors that directly/indirectly sense gas leak, see paragraph 127; Also gas leak determination unit 132, based on sound/gas data determines presence/absence of gas leak, see paragraphs 55-58, and 44; wherein the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system is determined by the processor 130 determining location of methane/propane/gas leak at the location of the sound receiver 120 by the variations in amplitude/sound pressures, see paragraphs 47, 83-86 and 134 and figs. 8-10); and
respond to mitigate the refrigerant leak differently (by image capture unit 160 and/or communication unit 140 capturing images of leaked gas (paragraph 70), and/or communicating with device(s) outside of gas monitoring system 100 via various communication protocols (paragraph 68), respectively) in response to determining that the refrigerant leak has occurred in the system (image capturing and communication via 150 and 140 respectively after gas leak is sensed/determined, see paragraphs 67-70) and in response to determining that the characteristic includes a second pre-defined relationship with the one or more reference characteristics (variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 10B, 10C with respect to fig. 10A, where figs. 10B, 10C show sound pressure level change due to a gas leak in the monitored space, while fig. 10A shows sound field spectrum for entire gas monitoring spacing containing only air, see paragraphs 87-88; Also see variation of sound field spectrum in figs. 8A-8C, 9A-9C, and 11A-11C), wherein
the second pre-defined relationship (variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figures 10B, 10C) is different than the first pre-defined relationship (variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 10B and 10C are different than the variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 8B, 8C), and
the response to the second relationship is different from the response to the first relationship (response by the image capture unit 160 and/or communication unit 140 to capture images of leaked gas (paragraph 70), and/or communicate with device(s) outside of gas monitoring system 100 via various communication protocols (paragraph 68) is different from the response by an alarm unit 150 for alerting a gas leak, see paragraphs 44 and 69, respectively); wherein the responses to refrigerant leak comprise plurality of actions including the control actions by each of the alarm unit (150), image capture unit (160) and the communication unit (140) in response to gas leak detection (see fig. 1 and paragraphs 67-70).
However, Park does not explicitly teach that the fluid leak management system is used for determining leak of the refrigerant in the HVAC system and the response action is for a leak in the HVAC system.
Suzuki teaches a refrigerant leak management system (see fig. 7 and paragraphs 8 and 15) with a plurality of sensors (91, 92, 93, 99) distributed about a plurality of locations of the HVAC system (see fig. 3); wherein the HVAC system includes a compressor (3), a condenser (5/7), an expansion valve (6/13), an evaporator (7/5); and a controller (30), which is configured to determine refrigerant leak in the HVAC system (see fig. 7 and paragraph 15), wherein the refrigerant gas sensor (99, see paragraph 38) for measuring refrigerant concentration are associated with heat exchanger (7), refrigerant pipes (10a, 10b, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 38-39) and casing (111) of the indoor unit (1) of the HVAC system; and the controller (30) is configured to determine that refrigerant leak in part of the HVAC system has occurred based on the sensed data from refrigerant leak sensor (controller 30 receives refrigerant leak signal from sensor 99, and in response, determines that refrigerant has leaked, see paragraphs 38, 25, in the HVAC system, fig. 3); the controller (30) is also configured to perform the control actions of continuously or intermittently controlling the indoor fan control (continuous and/or restarting control of fan 7f, see paragraphs 39-40 and figs. 5-6) in response to refrigerant leak detected in the HVAC system (see fig. 3) by refrigerant leak sensor (see paragraphs 38-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid leak management system of Park by using a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system as part of the fluid leak management system, where refrigerant leak is detected, as taught by Suzuki in order to accurately and efficiently determine the exact location/distribution/amount/type of the leaked refrigerant gases within the HVAC system and to prioritize remedial actions necessary to protect occupants of the indoor spaces (see paragraphs 3, 18, 22, Park). It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Park to perform two different first and second control actions based on refrigerant leak occurring in the HVAC system after at least one of the sensors determines the occurrence of refrigerant leak in the HVAC system based on the teachings of Suzuki in order to prevent, refrigerant concentration that has leaked in/around the HVAC system equipment, from increasing locally and gathering; to direct the leaked refrigerant toward an exit away from air conditioned indoor spaces occupied by occupants; and alert the maintenance personnel via different modes with/without partial/full refrigerant leak containment plans.
Park also does not explicitly teach methods to mitigate refrigerant leak.
However, Suzuki teaches that mitigating the refrigerant leak based on the first/second pre-defined relationship comprises:
disabling a compressor of the HVAC system (by disconnecting the main power source of the air conditioning system, see fig. 5 and paragraph 48);
confining a refrigerant corresponding to the refrigerant leak in the HVAC system to a particular portion of the HVAC system (stopping the air-sending fan 7f to allow refrigerant to accumulate within the casing 111 of the indoor unit 1 while the refrigerant concentration is less than the lower flammability limit, see fig. 7 and paragraphs 46, 64);
changing operation of a fan of the HVAC system (varying operations of fan 7f, see figs. 5-7); or
deactivating a spark source in fluid communication with the HVAC system, an environment surrounding the HVAC system, or a space conditioned by the HVAC system (these are alternative limitations), wherein the method of mitigating refrigerant leak by confining the refrigerant leak to a portion of the HVAC system and operating fan (7f) to inhibit flammable concentration region from being formed (see fig. 7 and paragraphs 46, 63-64) is different from the method of mitigating refrigerant leak by changing operation of a fan of the HVAC system (see figs. 5-7) and by disabling the compressor of the HVAC system (see fig. 5 and paragraph 48); and each of the method of mitigating refrigerant leak is based on different risks of formation of flammable concentration regions (see abstract; paragraphs 40, 63-64, 43; and fig. 6).
It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the step of mitigating refrigerant leak in response to determining the first pre-defined relationship at the controller of Park as modified to change operation of a fan of the HVAC system to mitigate the refrigerant leak in different ways based on different flammable concentration regions in the HVAC system for different predefined relationship between characteristics and their respective reference characteristics based on the teachings of Suzuki in order to take appropriate action based on the level of refrigerant leak without significantly hampering the efficiency and operation of the HVAC system.
In regards to claim 11, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 and further teaches that the processing circuitry (130, 136) is configured to execute the instructions to: determine, based on the sensor data, a location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system (processor 130 determines location of methane/propane/gas leak at the location of the sound receiver 120 by the variations in amplitude/sound pressures, see paragraphs 47, 83-86 and 134 and figs. 8-10).
In regards to claim 12, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches that the sensor assembly comprises a plurality of sensors (gas sensors, paragraphs 39, 127) distributed about a plurality of locations of the system (see paragraphs 127-128), including a sensor disposed at the location (gas sensor detecting gas leak at the location of the gas leak and at the location of the sound receiver 120, see paragraphs 47, 83-84, 127-128 and 134).
However, Park does not explicitly teach that the HVAC system includes plurality of sensors.
Suzuki teaches a plurality of sensors (91, 92, 93, 99) distributed about a plurality of locations of the HVAC system (see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the HVAC system of Park as modified to include a plurality of sensors distributed about a plurality of locations of the HVAC system as taught by Suzuki in order to measure various parameters associated with various conditions of refrigerant through out the refrigeration system of the HVAC system.
In regards to claim 13, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 and Park further discloses that the characteristic comprises a location of the refrigerant leak (gas leak location within a cube-shaped gas monitoring space, which emphasizes gas leak and gas leak location, see figs. 3-5 and 8-9); and one or more reference characteristics comprise a plurality of reference locations (plurality of reference locations of sound pressure simulation of air, see figs. 4A-11A and plurality of reference locations of sound pressure simulation of leaked refrigerant gases, see figs. 4B-11B and 4C-11C).
In regards to claim 14, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 and Park further disclose that the characteristic comprises a concentration of refrigerant in air (0.6cm thick of leaked refrigerant gas layer in air within a cube-shaped gas monitoring space, see figs. 3-11 and paragraph 77); and the one or more reference characteristics comprise a threshold concentration of refrigerant (see refrigerant concentration is less than the lower flammability limit, see fig. 5, 7 and paragraphs 46, 64; and refrigerant concentration being equal to or larger that the threshold value, see fig. 7 and paragraphs 52-54 and 61-64).
In regards to claim 15, Park teaches one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media (at least memory 138 and processor 130) storing instructions thereon (see paragraph 56) that, when executed by one or more processors (sound field signal processor 130, 136), are configured to cause the one or more processor to:
receive, from a sensor assembly (receiving sound wave, see paragraph 52; where sensor assembly includes 110, 120, 130, see figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 13, 44; Also see gas sensors, paragraphs 39, 127, where the gas sensors are distributed about a plurality of locations of the system, see paragraphs 127-128, including a sensor disposed at the location of the gas leak and at the location of the sound receiver 120, see paragraphs 47, 83-84, 127-128 and 134), sensor data corresponding to a characteristic indicative of a refrigerant leak of a refrigerant in the system (sensed data from gas sensors matching with sound field spectrum variations, see paragraphs 10-12 and fig. 18, wherein sound field spectrum analysis establishes the reference value for determining gas leak, see paragraphs 116-117; In addition, sound data/sound pressure/coefficient correlation/frequency shift sent to gas leak determination unit 132 to determine presence or absence of gas leak, see paragraphs 55-58 and 28-42);
determine, based on the sensor data, that the gas/refrigerant leak has occurred (gas sensors that directly/indirectly sense gas leak, see paragraph 127; Also gas leak determination unit 132, based on sound/gas data determines presence/absence of gas leak, see paragraphs 55-58, and 44; wherein the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system is determined by the processor 130 determining location of methane/propane/gas leak at the location of the sound receiver 120 by the variations in amplitude/sound pressures, see paragraphs 47, 83-86 and 134 and figs. 8-10); and
the processor is also configured to execute the instructions to:
respond to the refrigerant leak (by alarm unit 150 alerting of a gas leak, see paragraphs 44 and 69; alarm unit 150 alerting a gas leak, see paragraphs 44, 69, which implies that a gas leak has been sensed and/or has occurred) based on the determination that the characteristic includes a first pre-defined relationship of the characteristic with one or more reference characteristics (variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 8B, 8C with respect to fig. 8A, where figs. 8B, 8C show sound pressure level change due to a gas leak in the monitored space, while fig. 8A shows sound field spectrum for entire gas monitoring spacing containing only air, see paragraph 83; Also see variation of sound field spectrum in figs. 9A-11C; In addition, when gas leak is determined based on variation in correlation coefficient at steps S210-S220, the controller rings or lights an alarm and/or delivers information, see fig. 18 and paragraphs 112, 120, 108-109 and 69);
determine, based on the sensor data, that the gas/refrigerant leak has occurred in the system (gas sensors that directly/indirectly sense gas leak, see paragraph 127; Also gas leak determination unit 132, based on sound/gas data determines presence/absence of gas leak, see paragraphs 55-58, and 44; wherein the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system is determined by the processor 130 determining location of methane/propane/gas leak at the location of the sound receiver 120 by the variations in amplitude/sound pressures, see paragraphs 47, 83-86 and 134 and figs. 8-10); and
respond to the refrigerant leak differently (by image capture unit 160 and/or communication unit 140 capturing images of leaked gas (paragraph 70), and/or communicating with device(s) outside of gas monitoring system 100 via various communication protocols (paragraph 68), respectively) in response to determining that the refrigerant leak has occurred in the system (image capturing and communication via 150 and 140 respectively after gas leak is sensed/determined, see paragraphs 67-70) and in response to determining that the characteristic includes a second pre-defined relationship with the one or more reference characteristics (variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 10B, 10C with respect to fig. 10A, where figs. 10B, 10C show sound pressure level change due to a gas leak in the monitored space, while fig. 10A shows sound field spectrum for entire gas monitoring spacing containing only air, see paragraphs 87-88; Also see variation of sound field spectrum in figs. 8A-8C, 9A-9C, and 11A-11C), wherein
the second pre-defined relationship (variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figures 10B, 10C) is different than the first pre-defined relationship (variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 10B and 10C are different than the variation in sound field spectrum as shown in figs. 8B, 8C), and
the response to the second relationship is different from the response to the first relationship (response by the image capture unit 160 and/or communication unit 140 to capture images of leaked gas (paragraph 70), and/or communicate with device(s) outside of gas monitoring system 100 via various communication protocols (paragraph 68) is different from the response by an alarm unit 150 for alerting a gas leak, see paragraphs 44 and 69, respectively); wherein the responses to refrigerant leak comprise plurality of actions including the control actions by each of the alarm unit (150), image capture unit (160) and the communication unit (140) in response to gas leak detection (see fig. 1 and paragraphs 67-70). In addition, Park is also configured to determine, based on the sensor data (measured vibration patterns/pressure/field) and reference data which includes location data (reference vibration patterns/pressure/field covering variety of positions within the space, see figs. 3-10 and paragraphs 73-81), a location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system (processor 130 determines location of methane/propane/gas leak at the location of the sound receiver 120 by the variations in amplitude/sound pressures, see paragraphs 47, 83-86, 8 and 134 and figs. 8-10); wherein the location data is indicative of plurality of locations in the system (see plurality of locations analyzed by the sound field analysis, figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 83-89), and the plurality of locations in the system include the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system (when gas leak and/or location is detected by comparison of measured sound pressure/field with reference sound pressure/field, see fig. 18 and paragraphs 51, 58, 47 and 134; Also see paragraph 113 for measured sound field stored in the memory, which could be the refrigerant leak location).
However, Park does not explicitly teach that the fluid leak management system is used for determining leak of the refrigerant in the HVAC system and the response action is for a leak in the HVAC system.
Suzuki teaches a refrigerant leak management system (see fig. 7 and paragraphs 8 and 15) with a plurality of sensors (91, 92, 93, 99) distributed about a plurality of locations of the HVAC system (see fig. 3); wherein the HVAC system includes a compressor (3), a condenser (5/7), an expansion valve (6/13), an evaporator (7/5); and a controller (30), which is configured to determine refrigerant leak in the HVAC system (see fig. 7 and paragraph 15), wherein the refrigerant gas sensor (99, see paragraph 38) for measuring refrigerant concentration are associated with heat exchanger (7), refrigerant pipes (10a, 10b, see fig. 4 and paragraphs 38-39) and casing (111) of the indoor unit (1) of the HVAC system; and the controller (30) is configured to determine that refrigerant leak in part of the HVAC system has occurred based on the sensed data from refrigerant leak sensor (controller 30 receives refrigerant leak signal from sensor 99, and in response, determines that refrigerant has leaked, see paragraphs 38, 25, in the HVAC system, fig. 3); the controller (30) is also configured to perform different response actions of continuously and/or intermittently controlling the indoor fan control (continuous and/or restarting control of fan 7f, see paragraphs 39-40 and figs. 5-6) in response to refrigerant leak detected in the HVAC system (see fig. 3) by refrigerant leak sensor (see paragraphs 38-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid leak management system of Park by using a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system as part of the fluid leak management system, where refrigerant leak is detected, as taught by Suzuki in order to accurately and efficiently determine the exact location/distribution/amount/type of the leaked refrigerant gases within the HVAC system and to prioritize remedial actions necessary to protect occupants of the indoor spaces (see paragraphs 3, 18, 22, Park). It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reprogrammed the controller of Park to perform two different first and second response actions based on refrigerant leak occurring in the HVAC system after at least one of the sensors determines the occurrence of refrigerant leak in the HVAC system based on the teachings of Suzuki in order to prevent, refrigerant concentration that has leaked in/around the HVAC system equipment, from increasing locally and gathering; to direct the leaked refrigerant toward an exit away from air conditioned indoor spaces occupied by occupants; and alert the maintenance personnel via different modes with/without partial/full refrigerant leak containment plans.
In regards to claim 17, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15 and Suzuki further teaches that responding to the refrigerant leak based on the first/second pre-defined relationships comprise:
disabling a compressor of the HVAC system (by disconnecting the main power source of the air conditioning system, see fig. 5 and paragraph 48);
confining a refrigerant corresponding to the refrigerant leak in the HVAC system to a particular portion of the HVAC system (stopping the air-sending fan 7f to allow refrigerant to accumulate within the casing 111 of the indoor unit 1 while the refrigerant concentration is less than the lower flammability limit, see fig. 7 and paragraphs 46, 64);
changing operation of a fan of the HVAC system (varying operations of fan 7f, see figs. 5-7); or
deactivating a spark source in fluid communication with the HVAC system, an environment surrounding the HVAC system, or a space conditioned by the HVAC system (these are alternative limitations).
In regards to claim 18, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15 and further teaches that the system includes a database containing data indicative of plurality of locations of the system (memory stores reference sound field spectra, see paragraphs 56-58, 83-89 and figs. 8-11), and wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
search in a database a reference vibration pattern, which includes locations within a space, of a plurality of reference vibration patterns (controller stores the reference sound field based on non-leak condition, see paragraph 9 and 56; and retrieves the reference sound field for comparison with the measured/calculated sound field during leak to determine gas leak, see paragraphs 9, 14, 19, 59-60, and 56; and fig. 18; see plural sound field spectra, figs. 8-11 and paragraphs 83-89), wherein the plurality of reference vibration patterns correspond to a plurality of locations in the system (see plurality of locations analyzed by the sound field analysis, figs. 3-7 and paragraphs 83-89), and the plurality of locations in the system include the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system (when gas leak and/or location is detected by comparison of measured sound pressure/field with reference sound pressure/field, see fig. 18 and paragraphs 51, 58, 47 and 134; Also see paragraph 113 for measured sound field stored in the memory, which could be the refrigerant leak location); and
determine, based on the searched/located reference vibration pattern, the location of the gas/refrigerant leak in the system (gas leak determination at the location of the gas sensor based on variations in sound field with respect to the reference sound field, see fig. 18 and paragraphs 51, 58; Also, processor 130 determines location of methane/propane/gas leak at the location of the sound receiver 120 by the variations in amplitude/sound pressures, see paragraphs 47, 83-86 and 134 and figs. 8-10).
In regards to claims 21-23, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 23 and Suzuki further teaches that the reference characteristics include one or more refrigerant concentration thresholds (see refrigerant concentration is less than the lower flammability limit, see fig. 5, 7 and paragraphs 46, 64; and refrigerant concentration being equal to or larger that the threshold value, see fig. 7 and paragraphs 52-54 and 61-64).
In regards to claim 24, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15 and Park further discloses that the characteristic comprises a location of the refrigerant leak (gas leak location within a cube-shaped gas monitoring space, which emphasizes gas leak and gas leak location, see figs. 3-5 and 8-9); and one or more reference characteristics comprise a plurality of reference locations (plurality of reference locations of sound pressure simulation of air, see figs. 4A-11A and plurality of reference locations of sound pressure simulation of leaked refrigerant gases, see figs. 4B-11B and 4C-11C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument, "112(a) written description rejection is improper because the original disclosure supports the claims 1, 9 and 15 by disclosing a machine learning module that may take first/second actions based on probability of refrigerant leak compared to first/second thresholds," examiner maintains the written description rejection of claims 1, 9 and 15 and points out that applicant has not addressed the crux of the written description rejection because applicant has not provided any arguments or support for the comparison of the pre-defined relationship or their respective responses to mitigate gas/refrigerant leak (see above written description rejection of claims). Therefore, applicants’ arguments are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument, "Park does not distinguish between control actions performed in response to refrigerant leak associated with figs. 8 and the refrigerant leak associated with figs. 10, therefore Park does not teach different response to the additional refrigerant leak based on second pre-defined relationship that the first pre-defined relationship," examiner maintains the rejection of claims and points out that an additional written description rejection of claims 1, 9 and 15 highlights the absence of support for the comparison of responses or pre-defined relationships. Park teaches plurality of responses for plurality of refrigerant leak states based on plurality of pre-defined relationships. In addition, the claims require a controller/processor to be programmed to response to refrigerant leaks in differently, which is a broad term and only requires the program to have options to respond to refrigerant leak, which Park clearly teaches, where the controller is programmed to respond to the refrigerant leak through communication unit (140), alarm unit (150) and image capturing unit (160), which are all distinct responses to refrigerant leak and the controller is fully programmed to choose one response or another for refrigerant leak. In addition, the claims do not require the processor to confirm the first response chosen for one refrigerant leak to decide the second response to be different from the first response for a second refrigerant leak. Therefore, applicants’ arguments are not found persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERAJ A SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-3027. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 9:00-1:00 pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 571-270-7740. 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.
/MERAJ A SHAIKH/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights