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 .
Summary
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-14 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 10 Sep 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 14: Claim 1 recites “the controller outputs defect information indicating a location where a defect has occurred, a possible location where the defect has occurred, or an area where the defect has occurred.” Claim 1 then recites “a first sensor and a second sensor that detect the location as a candidate” (my emphasis). It is unclear what “the location” refers back to since the final output of the controller is many different versions of “location.” Furthermore, it is unclear how both the first and second sensor detect the same location since the added text at the end of the claim is based on using information from both sensors to change a threshold for extracting “the possible location.” This same language appears in claims 13 and 14. For the purposes of this action, the claims have been understood to recite using a time difference between the output of the two sensors to determine the location of a leak.
Regarding claims 2-12: These claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUPTE et al. (US 2019/0170603) in view of SERGEEV (WO 2018/030919 A1). Please note that a machine translation of SERGEEV has been included with this office action and is deemed sufficient. All references to text in SERGEEV is to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, GUPTE discloses: A defect location estimation system (abstract; para. 54) comprising, a controller (130 in FIG. 5; para. 45) configured to control a refrigerating and air-conditioning system (para. 45), wherein the controller outputs defect information indicating a location where a defect has occurred (para. 54, 58), a possible location where the defect has occurred, or an area where the defect has occurred, by using both sensor information of a first sensor and a second sensor that detect the location as a candidate for the defect that has occurred in the refrigerating and air-conditioning system (para. 54, 58) and installation position information indicating one or more positions where one or more components are installed in the refrigerating and air-conditioning system (para. 59, 62).
GUPTE does not disclose using a time difference between sensor signals.
SERGEEV however does teach that there is a time difference between a first time until the defect is detected by the first sensor and a second time until the defect is detected by the second sensor (page 1 lines 37-53), and the controller changes a threshold value associated with a predetermined distance from the first sensor or the second sensor for extracting the possible location based on the time difference between the first sensor and the second sensor (page 2 lines 47-52, Please note that there will always be a threshold to a measurement of this type because it is based on imperfect measurements of time and velocity of sound, therefore the final location will only be to within whatever uncertainty the system allows, this envelope of uncertainty is a threshold for the determined position of the leak.).
Regarding claim 2: GUPTE discloses: the defect information includes information on a component where the defect has possibly occurred among the one or more components (Para. 62-63 discuss having the vibration sensors installed on different components such as the different sides of the evaporator, in the enclosure, and on the condenser. Therefore pinpointing the leak location as discussed in para. 59 will show which component is leaking.).
Regarding claim 3: GUPTE discloses: the sensor information includes information about a position where the sensor is installed (para. 59, 62-63).
Regarding claim 4: GUPTE discloses: the controller outputs the defect information (para. 45-47) by further using sensor information from one or more sensors that acquire environmental information (vibration sensors or acoustic sensors in para. 19).
Regarding claim 5: GUPTE discloses: the controller outputs the defect information by using the installation position information and sensor information of two or more sensors that detect the defect (para. 62-63).
Regarding claim 6: GUPTE discloses: the controller limits a location, a possible location, or an area where the defect has occurred by using the sensor information of the two or more sensors (para. 62-63).
Regarding claim 7: GUPTE discloses: the controller improves an accuracy of the defect information by combining sensor information of a plurality of sensors of the same type or different types (As discussed in para. 59, the resolution of the location information is based on the number and density of the sensors in the array. Therefore using more sensors will yield more accurate location information.).
Regarding claim 8: GUPTE discloses: the installation position information includes information indicating a position of a connector of a pipe connected to a device included in the refrigerating and air-conditioning system (position of braze or solder joints as discussed in para. 54), and wherein the controller estimates a possible refrigerant leakage location by using sensor information of one or more refrigerant sensors or gas sensors and by using the installation position information (para. 54, 59).
Regarding claim 9: GUPTE discloses: the installation position information includes information indicating positions of a device included in the refrigerating and air-conditioning system (para. 54, 59) and a connector of a pipe or a duct connected to the device (para. 54, 59), and wherein the controller estimates a possible location where the defect has occurred from sensor information obtained by a plurality of sound sensors that acquire sound, a sound volume or a detection time of each of the sound sensors, and the installation position information (para. 54, 59).
Regarding claim 10: GUPTE discloses: the installation position information includes information indicating a position of a device included in the refrigerating and air-conditioning system (para. 54, 59), and wherein the controller estimates a possible location where the defect has occurred from sensor information obtained by a plurality of vibration sensors that detect vibration (para. 59), a magnitude (amplitude discussed in para. 59) or a detection time of vibration of each of the vibration sensors, and the installation position information (para. 59).
Regarding claim 13: As best understood, GUPTE discloses: A method of estimating defect location comprising: controlling a refrigerating and air-conditioning system by a computer (130 in FIG. 5; para. 45); outputting defect information indicating a location where a defect has occurred (para. 54, 58), a possible location where the defect has occurred, or an area where the defect has occurred, by using both sensor information of a first sensor and a second sensor that detect the location as a candidate for the defect that has occurred in the refrigerating and air-conditioning system (para. 54, 58) and installation position information indicating one or more positions where one or more components are installed in the refrigerating and air-conditioning system (para. 59, 62).
GUPTE does not disclose using a time difference between sensor signals.
SERGEEV however does teach that there is a time difference between a first time until the defect is detected by the first sensor and a second time until the defect is detected by the second sensor (page 1 lines 37-53), and the controller changes a threshold value associated with a predetermined distance from the first sensor or the second sensor for extracting the possible location based on the time difference between the first sensor and the second sensor (page 2 lines 47-52, Please note that there will always be a threshold to a measurement of this type because it is based on imperfect measurements of time and velocity of sound, therefore the final location will only be to within whatever uncertainty the system allows, this envelope of uncertainty is a threshold for the determined position of the leak.).
Regarding claim 14: As best understood, GUPTE discloses: A non-transitory storage medium (memory 134 in FIG. 5) for causing a computer (130) that controls a refrigerating and air-conditioning system (para. 45) comprising, outputting defect information indicating a location where a defect has occurred (para. 54, 58), a possible location where the defect has occurred, or an area where the defect has occurred, by using both sensor information of a first sensor and a second sensor that detect the location as a candidate for the defect that has occurred in the refrigerating and air-conditioning system (para. 54, 58) and installation position information indicating one or more positions where one or more components are installed in the refrigerating and air-conditioning system (para. 59, 62).
GUPTE does not disclose using a time difference between sensor signals.
SERGEEV however does teach that there is a time difference between a first time until the defect is detected by the first sensor and a second time until the defect is detected by the second sensor (page 1 lines 37-53), and the controller changes a threshold value associated with a predetermined distance from the first sensor or the second sensor for extracting the possible location based on the time difference between the first sensor and the second sensor (page 2 lines 47-52, Please note that there will always be a threshold to a measurement of this type because it is based on imperfect measurements of time and velocity of sound, therefore the final location will only be to within whatever uncertainty the system allows, this envelope of uncertainty is a threshold for the determined position of the leak.).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUPTE and SERGEEV in view of LAMONT (US 2020/0225653).
Regarding claim 11: GUPTE discloses: the installation position information includes information indicating a connector of a pipe connected to a device included in the refrigerating and air-conditioning system (position of braze or solder joints as discussed in para. 54), and wherein the controller estimates a possible location where the defect has occurred from the sensor information (para. 54, 59).
GUPTE does not disclose water leakage sensors.
LAMONT however does teach using water leakage sensors (para. 71-72; FIG. 12), in his building monitoring system (abstract), which includes HVAC monitoring (abstract). LAMONT also teaches detection time that the wetness is detected (para. 76).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use incorporate the water sensor monitoring of LAMONT in addition to the vibration/acoustic sensor monitoring of GUPTE because water leaks can cause substantial damage (para. 6 of LAMONT), and being alerted to the presence of a water leak can allow for a technician to be quickly dispatched (para. 8 of LAMONT) or even for the building water to be remotely shut off (para. 76 of LAMONT).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUPTE and SERGEEV in view of LIND (US 2020/0240667).
Regarding claim 12: GUPTE discloses knowing the location of leaks and HVAC components (para. 59), but does not specify that this information is in the form of drawing information. GUPTE also does not disclose a camera.
LIND however does teach using drawing information (para. 9), even in the form of a DGW file (para. 23), and that this information includes layout and dimension information of the HVAC equipment (para. 72, 79, 114), on their HVAC management system (abstract), that can detect a defect in the situation (para. 99-101). LIND also teaches a camera as one of the information-gathering devices (para. 103).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the camera of LIND in addition to the sensors of GUPTE because it can show photos or videos of the HVAC components to verify their configuration or functioning (para. 147 of LIND).
Response to Amendment/Argument
The amendment to the title is acknowledged and the previous objection thereto is accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (pages 1-2 of the Response) that GUPTE does not teach the added limitations of using a time difference from the sensor signals. This argument is moot as new grounds of rejection are presented herein as necessitated by amendment.
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 NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896