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 .
Claims 1-18 have been presented for examination.
Claims 7-10 and 16-18 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons et al [Lyons] US Pat No 9851111.
Referring to claim 1, Lyons teaches the heating system comprising:
a state monitoring device configured to monitor state information upon heating control [col. 9 lines 43-53].
a controller configured to perform temperature compensation control depending on the result of comparing a heating burning time for a heating operation according to the monitored result with a predetermined allowable burning time [col. 1 lines 43-53, col. 9 lines 43-53].
wherein when the heating burning time is not greater than the predetermined allowable burning time, the performing the supply air temperature compensation control comprises continuing to determine whether the heating burning time is greater than the predetermined allowable burning time until the heating burning operation ends [col. 9 lines 43-53].
In summary, Lyons teaches a heating system which adjusts a boiler temperature to determine an optimal temperature for maximizing efficiency. If the temperature is set too low, the call for heat will not be satisfied within a predetermined time limit tset. When this occurs, the boiler temperature is stepped up and the iterative process of determining adequate heating is repeated until heating is sufficient. While Lyons teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to perform supply air temperature compensation control. Rather, boilers are a hydronic form of heat which radiates from hot water baseboards as opposed to heating a supply of air. The examiner is taking official notice that furnaces are another well-known type of heater wherein a substantially similar process occurs wherein a burner is used to heat air to be supplied to a area instead of heating water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try incorporating the teachings on Lyons into a furnace-based heating system because Lyons teaches a way to increase efficiency in gas burning heating systems and one of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. It should be noted that a predetermined allowable burning time is interpreted as the allowable burning time that is considered efficient for reaching a desired room temperature at a given boiler/furnace temperature since that would represent the allowable temperature for efficient operation.
Referring to claims 2-3, Lyons teaches that throughout operation, if heating is satisfied, then the temperature can be reduced. Once reducing the boiler temperature, there is a wait period for the energy transfer medium (i.e., water) to reach a new target level. Once that occurs, then a timer is activated and a heating cycle is called. If heating is unsatisfactory, wherein the demand is not met within a predetermined time limit tset, then the boiler temperature is increased [col. 8, lines 30-42, col. 9 lines 44-46].
Referring to claim 4, Lyons teaches increasing the temperature by a boost amount [col. 8, lines 30-42, col. 9 lines 44-46].
Referring to claim 5, Lyons teaches that the call for heat is not satisfied when heating does not end before the predetermined time limit tset expires [col. 9 lines 44-46].
Referring to claim 6, Lyons teaches performing subsequent boosts until heat demand is met or until a system temperature limit is reached [col. 9 lines 51-53]. Once met, the boiler remains at the boosted temperature [col. 11-12 lines 64-3].
Referring to claims 11-15, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Lyons teaches the system and therefore teaches the method performed by the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the REMARKS, applicants argue in substance that Lyons only discloses that the temperature compensation control (i.e., the thermal boost) is based on whether the heating demand has been satisfied and that Lyons does not disclose that the temperature compensation control is based on a comparison between a heat burning time and a predetermined allowable burning time.
Referring to applicants’ argument, Lyons teaches their temperature compensation control as a two-part analysis. First part is to determine if the demand for heat is satisfied. This includes determining if a room temperature reaches a preset temperature such as 72 degrees. The second part is determining if the preset temperature is reached within the predetermined time limit tset. If the preset temperature is not reached within the time limit, the boiler temperature is increased. This process is continuously repeated in order to determine the optimal boiler temperature [Fig. 2 and cols. 10-12 lines 61-18]. This process is necessary since outdoor temperature can fluctuate and has a direct influence on indoor heating operation.
To further clarify, if we look at Figure 2, we see that time tcall, the room temperature reaches a low threshold of 70 degrees (ROOM TEMPERATURE) which results in a call for heat (TSTAT CALLS). At time t1, the preset temperature is reached within a predetermined time period so the boiler temperature remains the same (BOILER TEMP/TARGET TEMP). Once the preset temperature of 72 degrees is reached, the call for heat is disabled and the room gradually cools over time. Since the time to cool back to 70 degrees exceeds a second predetermined time period tset2 (i.e., 30 min) [col. 10 lines 52-60] the boiler temperature is reduced. At time t4, the room temperature returns to 70 degrees and the call for heat occurs again. At time t5, we see that the temperature has not yet reached 70 degrees so the boiler temperature is increased and heating is continued and timed. At t6, 72 degrees is reached and the call for heat is again disabled. This process is repeated over and over again because the boiler temperature needs to be adjusted based on the outdoor temperature. We can see that as the outdoor temperature (48) drops, the boiler temperature required to satisfy the heating requirement within the needs to increase and by continuing the process, we can continuously adapt the boiler temperature to that which is necessary based on outdoor environmental conditions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 4/23/26
Prosecution Insights