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, 4-11 and 13-18 have been presented for examination.
Claims 7-10 and 16-18 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations presented in cancelled claims 2-3.
Claim 11 has been amended to include the limitation in claim 12 and the cancelled portion of claim 13.
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, 4-6 and 11 and 13-15 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].
wherein the state monitoring device monitors the heating burning time in real time when heating burning control in one cycle starts [col. 8, lines 30-42, col. 9 lines 44-46], and
wherein the controller determines that a first condition for supply air temperature compensation is met when the heating burning time monitored while the heating burning control in the one cycle is performed is greater than the allowable burning time [col. 8, lines 30-42, col. 9 lines 44-46].
In summary, Lyons teaches a heating system which continuously adjusts a boiler temperature to determine an optimal temperature for maximizing efficiency. If the temperature is set too low, the call for heat will fail to be satisfied within a predetermined time limit tset and requires more time than desired to heat a space to a set temperature. The time limit tset is interpreted as the allowable burning time. When this occurs, the boiler temperature is stepped up or boosted by an amount ΔTboost 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 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 and 13-15, 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 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the REMARKS, applicants argue that 1) “Lyons only discloses that the temperature compensation control (i.e., the thermal boost) is based on whether the heating demand has been satisfied. 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.”; and 2) Lyons “fails to disclose monitoring the heating burning time in real time and using whether the heating burning time is greater than the allowable burning time as a condition for temperature compensation.”
Referring to applicants first and second arguments, the examiner would like to first point out that applicant specifically states immediately before the above argument that “Lyons discloses that a thermal boost is performed if the demand for heat is not satisfied within a time period.” In order to determine if the demand for heat is or is not satisfied within a time period, one must compare the heat demand time against the time period tset. Lyons specifically teaches that “[i]f the demand for heat is not satisfied within time period tset, a thermal boost is performed.” This clearly illustrates that the heating time is compared against the time period tset to determine if the heating time is within the time period or exceeds it. The time period tset is interpreted as the predetermined allowable burning time since that represents the amount of time before a temperature boost is initiated [col. 9 lines 44-46].
Furthermore, Lyons teaches a continuously active adjustment process which is acknowledged as being influenced by ambient weather conditions [abstract, col. 1 lines 53-58]. In response, Lyons teaches a dynamic heating system that controls boiler temperature based on how a room temperature responds to the heating cycle. As stated above, if it is determined that a room temperature does not reach its intended temperature within the time limit tset, then the boiler temperature is boosted. This describes determining a condition for temperature compensation (boosting the boiler temperature) if the current heat demand time exceeds tset (the burning time exceeds/is greater than the allowable burning time). While Lyons does not explicitly state that the heating time is a real time parameter, it obviously is because it relates to a currently active heating cycle and thus would reflect real time conditions.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 7/9/26
Prosecution Insights