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 1-26 have been presented for examination.
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, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aeberhard1.
Referring to claim 1, Aeberhard teaches a flow control device for an HVAC fluid transportation system, the flow control device comprising:
a sensor module comprising a flow measurement system configured to be connected with a flow tube and configured to measure a volumetric flow of a fluid through the flow tube, the sensor module further comprising [13 Fig. 1, 0054].
a logic module connected to the sensor module, the logic module comprising a control signal output terminal and generate and apply on the control signal output terminal an actuator control signal, using the volumetric flow of the fluid measured by the flow measurement system, for an actuator, arranged outside the flow tube of the flow control device, to actuate a valve of the HVAC fluid transportation system [1, 11 Fig. 1, 0069].
In summary, Aeberhard teaches controlling a valve for a pipe section (12) of an HVAC system wherein flow is measured by a flow sensor (13). The flow measurement is sent to a control device (1) which controls an actuator (11) based on the received flow signal. While Aeberhard teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to include first and second electronic circuits connected to one another. Both the flow sensor (13) and control device (1) are coupled to one another to transfer the flow signal from the flow sensor to the control device. The examiner is taking official notice that interfaces are well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include first and second interfaces with the flow sensor and control device respectively so that the flow sensor can send and the control device can receive the flow signal. The combination of the flow sensor and first interface are interpreted as the claimed sensor module while the control device and second interface are interpreted as the logic module.
While Aeberhard teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught that the logic and sensor modules fit together via protrusion/depression type engagement (i.e., similar to LEGO blocks). The examiner is taking official notice that LEGO includes in their Technic style blocks, hubs/function blocks (interpreted as a logic module) and sensors (interpreted as a sensor module) that can fit together using the traditional LEGO style connections of protrusions of one component fitting in a depression of another. It would have been obvious by design choice to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date to modify Aeberhard to removably couple the flow sensor and control device using LEGO style connection because it provides a way to couple the two together.
Referring to claim 8, Aeberhard teaches that the control device receives a flow signal and outputs a control signal to control the actuator [0069].
Referring to claims 9-10, Aeberhard teaches controlling the flow-based sensors signals indicating room temperature/humidity or even a difference between fluid temperatures at different points [0010].
Referring to claim 13, Aeberhard teaches that the flow parameters are expected to be stable in the system [col. 15 lines 5-7]. Since the actuator-controlled valve controls the flow rate, the actuator would be controlled to maintain the valve at a position to maintain the flow rate.
Referring to claim 14, the examiner is taking official notice that ultrasonic flow sensors are well known in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include into the walls of the flow tube because doing so would provide a way to measure flow as is required in Aeberhard.
Referring to claims 16-17, Aeberhard teaches sending a control signal from the control device to the actuator to control the valve position [0058]. Inherently, the connection between the control device and actuator must be wired or wireless as those are the only two communication mediums. It is interpreted that the connection between the control device and the actuator is wired and connectors are known for facilitating connections between a wired connection and a component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a connector because it provides what is needed to couple the control device to the wired connection.
Referring to claim 18, while Aeberhard teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to power the flow control device wirelessly. Rather, it is merely assumed that the device is powered via wired connection. The examiner is taking official notice that wireless power, otherwise known as inductive power, is well known in the art and operates by including an antenna or coil which receives electromagnetic radiation from a sender to generate an electric current to power/charge a local device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to power the flow control device taught in Aeberhard using wireless power because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Referring to claim 23, the examiner is taking official notice that including a display with a sensor is well known in the art and it would have been obvious to include a display with the flow sensor in Aeberhard because doing to would allow a user to confirm the flow rates provided by the flow sensor.
Referring to claim 26, this is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Furthermore, the control device is interpreted as including an interface as stated above. Interfaces are known to provide both input and output functionality, and the control device further outputs a control signal to the actuator. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the interface for the control device (i.e., the second electronic circuit) to include output functionality because doing so would enable the interface to send the control signal to the actuator as necessitated by Aeberhard.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aeberhard as applied to claims 1, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, 23 and 26 above, and further in view of Risbeck2.
Referring to claims 4-5, while Aeberhard teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly that the system control parameters can be received via a network cloud-based computer system and providing control based on weather/energy pricing. Rather, Aeberhard simply states control parameters can be received via building control system [0061]. Risbeck teaches building control systems can take the form of cloud-based managers [0066]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Aeberhard to use a cloud-based manager like that taught in Risbeck because doing so would allow for multiple buildings to be managed by the same manager as taught by Risbeck.
Referring to claims 6-7, Risbeck further teaches the cloud controller (402) can factor things such as weather data, energy prices, temperature and humidity [0037, 0068].
Referring to claim 19, while Risbeck teaches communication via Ethernet based communications [0067], it is not explicitly taught that power can be provided to the sensor and/or logic modules via the same. The examiner is taking official notice that Power over Ethernet (PoE) is well known in the art and it would have been obvious to include in Aeberhard because the interfaces and/or flow sensor would require power to operate and PoE could provide that required power.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aeberhard and Risbeck as applied to claims 1, 4-10, 13-14, 16-18, 23 and 26 above, and further in view of Sakai3.
Referring to claim 21, while the Aeberhard-Risbeck combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to further include NFC for a mobile device to send control data. Sakai teaches control of an HVAC from a mobile via Bluetooth (i.e., a type of NFC) [0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Sakai into the Aeberhard-Risbeck combination because doing so would enable a user to control operation via their smartphone as taught by Sakai.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aeberhard as applied to claims 1, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, 23 and 26 above, and further in view of Liljegren4.
Referring to claims 11-12, while Aeberhard teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to include an input to receive actuator data to identify an actuator type. Liljegren teaches receiving an actuator identification signal to identify between different actuator types [abstract, col. 1 lines 20-25, col. 2 lines 9-21]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Liljegren into Aeberhard because doing so would allow the actuator to be replaced with a different type of actuator as taught by Aeberhard [col. 2 lines 46-50].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aeberhard as applied to claims 1, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, 23 and 26 above, and further in view of Grabinger5.
Referring to claim 15, while Aeberhard teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to include removable auxiliary sensors for generating control signals. Grabinger teaches providing temporary sensors (i.e., removable auxiliary sensors) for calibrating an HVAC system [cols. 6-7 lines 54-17]. While Grabinger specifically talks about damper position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Grabinger into Aeberhard because doing so would provide a way calibrate the HVAC system. Because cooling is controlled via damper in Aeberhard, it is interpreted that in the Aeberhard-Grabinger combination the calibration process would control/adjust the actuator to calibrate the valve position.
Claim(s) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aeberhard as applied to claims 1, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, 23 and 26 above, and further in view of Horne et al [Horne] PGPUB 2014/036612.
Referring to claim 20, while Aeberhard teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught that the sensor comprises a memory to store control parameter and that the first electronic circuit is configured to process the measured flow using the control parameters. Rather, Aeberhard is practically silent on the specifics of the sensor apart from that it measures a fluid flow using either an ultrasonic flow sensor, inductive magnetic sensor or a heat transport sensor. Horne teaches an acoustic flow sensor which receives its control parameters from its microcontroller to control the individual sensing device by controlling the sensors acoustic frequency range, sampling rate and other settings [0016, 0021, 0023, 0046]. Receiving the control parameters implies a memory being included with the microcontroller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the flow sensor taught in Horne into the Aeberhard device because doing so provides the actual hardware necessary to monitor flow. It should be further stated that the controller in Horne further includes a communication device (250) [0023] that is required in Aeberhard for communicating between the flow sensor (13) and control device (1). In claim 20, the controller (240) and communication device (250) are interpreted as the first electronic device.
Referring to claim 22, Horne teaches the flow sensor further comprising a battery (220) for powering the controller (240) [0023].
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aeberhard as applied to claims 1, 8-10, 13-14, 16-18, 23 and 26 above, and further in view of Arumozhi6.
Referring to claim 24, while Aeberhard teaches the invention as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to exchange the flow sensor after a predetermined time. Arumozhi teaches that sensors can have an expected life and can be scheduled to be replaced [0053]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Arumozhi into Aeberhard because doing so would ensure the sensor will be operational at an expected precision and accuracy within the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the REMARKs, applicants argue in substance that 1) interfaces are not well known nor obvious to use in transferring signals between components; 2) LEGO blocks are non-analogous since they are intended for low mechanical loads and are not designed for precise alignment and mechanical interconnection; and 3) the examiners motivation to combine the protrusion-depression connections into Aeberhard is insufficient because the office has not presented a proper alternative solution which would have the same technical effect.
Referring to applicants first argument, it should be noted that with respect to applicant's traversal of the examiner's taking of Official Notice to reject claims 1-3, MPEP 2144.03 states that " To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).” Such reasoning has not been provided by applicant. It is believed that providing applicant with art to support his finding of official notice is premature due to applicants’ failure to state why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner has instead decided to present applicant with art supporting the examiners taking of official notice. The examiner would like to direct applicants’ attention first to Debak et al PGPUB 2018/0274957 who teaches a sensor (a flow sensor no less) includes an interface (101) to process the transducer data into a computed flow value which can be sent to another system via output line to module or system (124) [Fig. 1 and 0017].
The examiner would also like to direct applicants’ attention to Stachler PGPUB 2010/0299563 who teaches a controller using an interface to receive data [Fig. 2, 0023-0025].
The sending and receiving of data between components require at a fundamental level, each component having some mechanism to transmit data from one component and another mechanism to receive the data at the receiving component. Both Debak and Stachler provide such examples. It should be noted that Aeberhard sends data from a sensor to a controller which both Debak and Stachler cover respectively.
Referring to applicants second argument, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., different technical requirements such as mechanical stability, precise positioning of sensor and logic modules and reliable electrical connection between circuits) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In fact, the claims do not address how the protrusion-depression style connection claimed accomplishes the technical requirements above. Rather, claim 1 (previously claims 2-3) simply state the use of a generic protrusion-depression style connection.
Referring to applicants third argument, not providing a proper alternative does not make a rejection under KSP insufficient. While KSR does include such rationale (E), other rationales also exist. For example, the rationale can combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (A). In the instant case, one could include the protrusion-depression style connection that are used in LEGO blocks to releasably attach the logic module with the sensor module. In fact, LEGO even teaches that sensors can include protrusion-depression style connections [See PGPUB 2011/0151743 to Munch et al; Fig. 4 and 0038]. The inclusion of LEGO style protrusion-depression style connections for the flow sensor and control device provides the predictable result that they could be releasably connected to one another.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, limitations taught in claim 25 which recite the sensor module transmitting, prior to being removed, data to the logic module and wherein the logic module transmits, after being connected to the newly added module, the received data from the removed sensor to the newly added sensor.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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 4/21/26
1 Cited in the previous office action
2 Cited in the previous office action.
3 Cited in the previous office action.
4 Cited in the previous office action.
5 Cited in the previous office action.
6 Cited in the previous office action.
Prosecution Insights