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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 7-10 and 16-18 in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Claims 1 and 7 are not directed to independent and distinct inventions, but rather to a single inventive concept wherein the system of Claim 7 is structurally and functionally configured to perform the method of Claim 1. Specifically, Claim 1 recites a method for operating a heat pump that includes acquiring an outside temperature, monitoring the runtime or energy consumption of an electric heating rod when the outside temperature exceeds a limit, and outputting a message based on threshold conditions. These steps correspond directly to the structural elements of Claim 7, which includes an outside temperature sensor, a heat pump, an electric heating rod, and a control device configured to perform the same acquisition and output functions. The control device in Claim 7 is not generic, but is expressly configured to execute the logic required by the method, including conditional monitoring and message output based on specific operational thresholds”. Examiner finds these arguments persuasive as the art relied upon to teach independent claim 7 in the current office action can be relied upon to teach claim 1. Thus, the restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
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:
Claim 7: “a control device for controlling an operating state of the heat pump and the heating rod;”
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.
With regards to the control device recited in claims 2, 4-5, 7-9, and 16, the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is understood to be a computer. Although the written disclosure doesn’t explicitly say “computer,” and Fig. 2 assigns number 10 to the control device shown as a box, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the control device 10 is a computer based on the entirety of the disclosure. For example, referencing the 06/01/2023 specification, [0055] states “The control device 10 is communicatively connected to a server 20 and a cloud 30 via a network 40” and [0057] states “The server 20 and/or the cloud 30 are used as a memory and/or computing device for storing and evaluating data acquired and transmitted by the control device”.
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.
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) 1-2 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN107091494B), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026, in view of Braier (US20190107293A1).
NOTE: “acquiring a runtime of an electric heating rod of the heat pump and/or energy consumed by the heating rod, when the outside temperature is higher than a limit temperature” and “outputting a message, when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time or the energy consumed by the heating rod exceeds a second limit value in the specified period of time” of the method of claim 1 are contingent limitations, and are not required to be taught in order to teach the method.
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches
a method for operating a heat pump that transfers heat to a fluid heat transfer medium circulating in a heating circuit (“The invention relates to the technical field of indoor hot water supply, in particular to a heat storage device and a heat supply method for a regenerative electric boiler and an air source heat pump”) [002], said method comprising:
acquiring an outside temperature (via outdoor temperature sensor 42);
acquiring a runtime of an electric heating rod of the heat pump and/or energy consumed by the heating rod (“in the step S5, the distributed regenerative electric boiler and the air source heat pump are output according to a preset energy efficiency ratio, and the specific ratio is electric boiler power/heat pump power=T2-T/T-T1, or the ratio is Fixed electric boiler power / heat pump power = 1:1” [0048]; thus energy use of regenerative electric boiler is acquired by output according to a preset energy efficiency ratio), when the outside temperature is higher than a limit temperature (“when the outdoor temperature T is greater than the first temperature T1 and less than the second temperature T2, step S5 is performed”) [0047]
Ma does not teach
outputting a message, when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time or the energy consumed by the heating rod exceeds a second limit value in the specified period of time
Braier teaches
outputting a message, when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time or the energy consumed by the heating rod exceeds a second limit value in the specified period of time (“activating said heater for a predetermined heating time; measuring a rise in temperature of water in said chamber; calculating the expected rise in temperature from said maximum volume, said predetermined heating time, and energy supplied to said heater; and, comparing said rise in temperature with said expected rise in temperature, thereby obtaining an efficiency of said heater. In some preferred embodiments of the method, it comprises automatically updating system control software according to results of said step of determining an efficiency of said heaters. In some preferred embodiments of the method, it comprises providing a warning to a user if said efficiency is below a predetermined level” [0139]; efficiency value is lower when energy supplied to said heater is higher; thus, efficiency will drop below a predetermined level when energy supplied to said heater is beyond normal levels)
Ma teaches regulating the energy levels of electric boiler 2, but does not specifically teach warning a user when the energy supplied to electric boiler 2 rises above a threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the control method of Braier to Ma, in order to effectively warn a user about excess energy use to prevent further waste.
Regarding claim 2, Ma, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the message is a warning that is output by a control device of the heat pump to a terminal of a user of the heat pump or via a display device of the control device (“In various embodiments of the invention, this warning signal is visual (e.g. a flashing light)”) [0280 of Braier]
Regarding claim 4, Ma, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting the acquired values of the outside temperature, the runtime of the heating rod and the energy consumed by the heating rod from a control device of the heat pump via a network to a cloud or a server, wherein the cloud or the server: evaluates the transmitted values as a function of the first limit value and the second limit value; and generates and outputs the message (this step is depending upon “acquiring a runtime of an electric heating rod of the heat pump and/or energy consumed by the heating rod, when the outside temperature is higher than a limit temperature”, and is thus not required to be taught when the outside temperature is lower than a limit temperature)
Regarding claim 5, Ma, as modified, teaches the method of claim 4,
wherein the cloud or server: determines optimized control parameters for the operation of the heat pump and the heating rod and transmits the optimized control parameters via the network to the control device of the heat pump, when the runtime within the specified period of time exceeds the first limit value or the energy consumed by the heating rod in the specified period of time exceeds the second limit value (this step of the method is further dependent on claim 4, which is not required to be taught for being dependent upon the contingent limitation of claim 1)
Regarding claim 7, Ma teaches
a heating system for providing heat (“The invention relates to the technical field of indoor hot water supply, in particular to a heat storage device and a heat supply method for a regenerative electric boiler and an air source heat pump”) [002], comprising:
an outside temperature sensor for acquiring an outside temperature (outdoor temperature sensor 42);
a heat pump (air source heat pump 1) for transferring heat to a fluid heat transfer medium circulating in a heating circuit of the heating system (“air source heat pump 1 is configured to heat water in the water tank 3 by using air heat energy, and the air source heat pump 1 includes a condenser 11 connected in sequence”) [0036];
an electric heating rod for transferring heat to the fluid heat transfer medium (regenerative electric boiler 2 comprising heat exchange tube 32);
a control device for controlling an operating state of the heat pump and the heating rod (“the central controller 4 detects the outdoor temperature of the air source heat pump 1, determines and controls the air source heat pump 1 to supply heat or storage to the water tank 3. The thermal electric boiler 2 supplies heat to the water tank 3, or controls the air source heat pump 1 and the regenerative electric boiler 2 to simultaneously supply heat in proportion”) [0036], said control device being configured to:
acquire a runtime of the heating rod or the energy consumed by the heating rod (“in the step S5, the distributed regenerative electric boiler and the air source heat pump are output according to a preset energy efficiency ratio, and the specific ratio is electric boiler power/heat pump power=T2-T/T-T1, or the ratio is Fixed electric boiler power / heat pump power = 1:1” [0048]; thus energy use of regenerative electric boiler is acquired by output according to a preset energy efficiency ratio), when the outside temperature is higher than a limit temperature (“when the outdoor temperature T is greater than the first temperature T1 and less than the second temperature T2, step S5 is performed”) [0047];
Ma does not teach
output a message, when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time or the energy consumed by the heating rod in the specified period exceeds a second limit value
Braier teaches
output a message, when the runtime exceeds a first limit value within a specified period of time or the energy consumed by the heating rod in the specified period exceeds a second limit value (“activating said heater for a predetermined heating time; measuring a rise in temperature of water in said chamber; calculating the expected rise in temperature from said maximum volume, said predetermined heating time, and energy supplied to said heater; and, comparing said rise in temperature with said expected rise in temperature, thereby obtaining an efficiency of said heater. In some preferred embodiments of the method, it comprises automatically updating system control software according to results of said step of determining an efficiency of said heaters. In some preferred embodiments of the method, it comprises providing a warning to a user if said efficiency is below a predetermined level” [0139]; efficiency value is lower when energy supplied to said heater is higher; thus, efficiency will drop below a predetermined level when energy supplied to said heater is beyond normal levels)
Ma teaches regulating the energy levels of electric boiler 2, but does not specifically teach warning a user when the energy supplied to electric boiler 2 rises above a threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the control method of Braier to Ma, in order to effectively warn a user about excess energy use to prevent further waste.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN107091494B), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026, in view of Braier (US20190107293A1), in further view of Im (KR20000024491A), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026.
Regarding claim 3, Ma, as modified, does not teach the method according to claim 1,
wherein the message indicates whether the heating rod is currently in operation
Im teaches
wherein the message indicates whether the heating rod is currently in operation (as shown on figure on page 13 showing the digital display unit 400, the display unit comprises ref. no. 2 indicating electric boiler operation)
While Ma, as modified by Braier, teaches a system to emit a warning light to a user indicative of the energy consumed by the heating rod exceeds a second limit value, the light display does not additionally indicate the operation status of regenerative electric boiler 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric boiler operation module of Im, to Ma, as modified, in order to allow a user to monitor the usage status of regenerative electric boiler 2 in a convenient location, without monitoring the boiler directly.
Regarding claim 11, Ma, as modified, does not teach the method according to claim 2,
wherein the message indicates whether the heating rod is currently in operation
Im teaches
wherein the message indicates whether the heating rod is currently in operation (as shown on figure on page 13 showing the digital display unit 400, the display unit comprises ref. no. 2 indicating electric boiler operation)
While Ma, as modified by Braier, teaches a system to emit a warning light to a user indicative of the energy consumed by the heating rod exceeds a second limit value, the light display does not additionally indicate the operation status of regenerative electric boiler 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric boiler operation module of Im, to Ma, as modified, in order to allow a user to monitor the usage status of regenerative electric boiler 2 in a convenient location, without monitoring the boiler directly.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN107091494B), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026, in view of Braier (US20190107293A1), in further view of Wagner (DE102014014325A1), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026.
Regarding claim 6, Ma, as modified, does not teach the method according to claim 1,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is specified as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the second limit value of Ma, as modified, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 10, Ma, as modified, does not teach the heating system according to claim 7,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the second limit value of Ma, as modified, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 12, Ma, as modified, does not teach the method according to claim 2,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is specified as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the second limit value of Ma, as modified, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 14, Ma, as modified, does not teach the method according to claim 4,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is specified as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the second limit value of Ma, as modified, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 15, Ma, as modified, does not teach the method according to claim 5,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is specified as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the second limit value of Ma, as modified, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN107091494B), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026, in view of Braier (US20190107293A1), in further view of Leibfried (DE102016015503A1), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026.
Regarding claim 9, Ma, as modified, teaches the heating system according to claim 7, further comprising
a heat store (water tank 3)
Ma, as modified, does not teach
wherein the control device is configured to determine a storage temperature of the heat store as a function of the acquired runtime of the heating rod or the energy consumed by the heating rod and as a function of the first or second limit value
Leibfried teaches
wherein the control device is configured to determine a storage temperature of the heat store as a function of the acquired runtime of the heating rod or the energy consumed by the heating rod and as a function of the first or second limit value (“The heating energy generation and thus the heating energy consumption is calculated from the predicted energy consumption of the heat generators per time interval, taking into account the conversion efficiencies such as the power factor of the heat pump and optionally the calorific value efficiency of the heating boiler. The temporal profile of the generated or consumed heating energy calculated in this way is smoothed in time (i.e. averaging over time, in the form of a curve oriented, for example, on the profile of the external temperature). From the energy generation per time interval optimized according to quality criterion, the heating energy generation is calculated-also taking into account the conversion efficiencies. From the difference between the predicted produced heating energy and the averaged heating energy consumption, the heating or cooling of the storage is calculated” [0048]; if the energy consumption reaches the second limit value, then control device is configured to determine a storage temperature further based on energy consumption equal to second limit value)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the storage temperature calculation system of Leibfried to Ma, as modified, in order to effectively allow the control system to monitor the heat store temperature and thus operate the heat pump and heat rod according to hot water needs.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN107091494B), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026, in view of Braier (US20190107293A1) and Im (KR20000024491A), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026, in further view of Wagner (DE102014014325A1), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026.
Regarding claim 13, Ma, as modified, does not teach the method according to claim 3,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is specified as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the second limit value of Ma, as modified, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN107091494B), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026, in view of Braier (US20190107293A1) and Wagner (DE102014014325A1), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026, in further view of Leibfried (DE102016015503A1), referring to the English translation dated 01/16/2026.
Regarding claim 18, Ma, as modified, does not teach the heating system according to claim 9,
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump
Wagner teaches
wherein the first limit value or the second limit value is defined as a function of an operating state of the heat pump (“With the regulator of the heat pump system according to the invention, it is now possible to calculate or estimate a heat requirement for a house, i.e. for heating and/or hot water preparation, for one or more days in advance. The required power demand or energy demand can be determined from the required heat demand and, if appropriate, transmitted to the energy supply companies for planning. According to one aspect of the present invention, power bands, i.e. for the minimum and maximum power consumed by the heating system over the day, are defined. These power bands need not be constant, but may vary over the day. In particular, it is assumed that the required power decreases during the time period between 24:00 and 6:00” [0024]; thus, maximum level of power bands during daytime, associated with a first operating state, is a higher limit value due to higher demand, wherein maximum level of power bands during nighttime, associated with a second operating state, is a lower limit value due to lower demand)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the second limit value of Ma, as modified, as a fluctuating value as taught in Wagner, based on heat and hot water usage throughout the day, thus accounting for higher use during the day and lower use at night, thus optimizing the efficiency of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the subject matter not found includes “wherein the control device is connected to a cloud or a server via a network and the control device is further configured to: transmit the acquired values of the outside temperature, the runtime of the heating rod and the energy consumed by the heating rod to the cloud or the server via the network; receive optimized control parameters for the operation of the heat pump and the heating rod via the network from the cloud or server, when the runtime within the specified period of time exceeds the first limit value or the energy consumed by the heating rod in the specified period of time exceeds the second limit value; and control the operating state of the heat pump and the heating rod depending on the optimized control parameters”, in combination with the other elements of claim 7 from which claim 8 depends. The closest art of record is Ma in view of Braier and Leibfried, as applied in the office action, however a modification to include the amended claim language would have been non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. While Leibfried teaches a computing unit 8 capable of receiving values of outside temperature, heat pump power consumption, etc. for optimizing parameters , it does not does not teach specifically optimizing control parameters for the operation of the heat pump and the heating rod when the runtime within the specified period of time exceeding the first limit value or the energy consumed by the heating rod in the specified period of time exceeding the second limit value; and controlling the operating state of the heat pump and the heating rod depending on the optimized control parameters. No other prior art was found to teach the claim in its entirety.
Claims 16-17 are indicated as allowable based on their dependence to claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art of record not relied upon includes:
Hayashida (EP2799784A2) [0080-0081], which teaches a similar cloud server control system to that claimed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT P. MALLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8am to 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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/BRETT P. MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762