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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/14/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, “a target building” should be --the building-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis because it appears that they are referring to the same building recited in line 1.
In claim 1, line 9, “the BEMS measurement data” should be --the pieces of measurement data-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 10-11, “indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation identified by the identifying unit” should be --the indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation identified by the identifying unit-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis.
In claim 4, lines 2-3, “the change in the indoor setting temperature value of the building to perform the simulation to predict the annual cooling and heating load” should be --a change in an indoor setting temperature value of the building to perform the simulation to predict the annual cooling and heating loads-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 5, line 1, “A method for performing a simulation system for predicting heating and cooling loads” should be --A method for predicting heating and cooling loads-- for better clarity.
In claim 5, line 5, “a target building” should be --the building-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis because it spears that they are referring to the same building recited in line 2.
In claim 5, lines 8-9, “the BEMS measurement data” should be --the pieces of measurement data-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 5, lines 10-11, “indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation identified by the identifying step” should be --the indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation identified by the identifying step-- to avoid creating another antecedent basis.
In claim 5, line 14, “the simulation” should be --a simulation-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 8, lines 2-3, “the change in the indoor setting temperature value of the building to perform the simulation to predict the annual cooling and heating load” should be --a change in an indoor setting temperature value of the building to perform the simulation to predict the annual cooling and heating loads-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a collection unit,” “an identification unit,” “a correlation derivation unit,” “a simulation unit,” and “an information provision unit”, plus their respective functions recited in claim 1.
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. Specifically, “a collection unit” plus the respective function is interpreted to “encompass all technical configurations of collecting various measurement data that may have an effect on identifying the cooling and heating loads of a target building.” See specification [48]. However, no corresponding structures are found for “an identification unit,” “a correlation derivation unit,” “a simulation unit,” and “an information provision unit”, plus their respective functions.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 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 claim 1, the limitations “an identification unit,” “a correlation derivation unit,” “a simulation unit,” and “an information provision unit”, plus their respective functions each invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As indicated above, claim 1 invokes 35 US 112(f), but there are no correspondent structures disclosed in the specification (see discussion for 35 USC 112(b) above). Consequently, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Additionally, regarding claims 1 and 5, it recites (claim 5 as the representative) “an identifying step for identifying indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation measured in the building in real time based on radiant time series (RTS) method.” It is well-known that the indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation can be measured in real time. However, it is not well-known how to identify indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation measured in the building in real time based on radiant time series (RTS) method, as claimed.
The relevant support is in specification ¶¶ [18]-[21], other than those with the same text as the limitation at issue in ipsis verbis:
[0018] The radiant time series (RTS) method is a new simple method for performing design heating and cooling load calculations derived from the heat balance (HB) method, and it can replace other simple methods such as the TFM method, CLTD/CLF method, and TETD/TA method.
[0019] The RTS method multiplies the hourly heat gain by a 24-hour time series to represent the conductive time lag and radiative time lag effects. Multiplying the time series distributes the heat gain over time. The series coefficients, called radiative time components and conductive time components, are obtained using the thermal equilibrium method.
[0020] The radiative time components reflect the percentage of radiant heat gain, that is, the cooling load for the current hour over the total radiant heat gain.
[0021] The conductive time components reflect the percentage of heat gain, that is, the cooling load for the current hour over the heat gain from the outer wall or roof. By definition, the sum of each radiative or conductive time series must add up to 100%.
It shows that the RTS method is for predicting heating and cooling loads, but shows nothing about how to identify indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation measured in the building in real time based on radiant time series (RTS) method.
MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a) states “What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail.” MPEP 2163.03 (V) states “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated… The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification.”
Here, there is no indication that the limitation “an identifying step for identifying indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation measured in the building in real time based on radiant time series (RTS) method” is conventional or well known in the art. The claim limitation defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. Accordingly, one skilled in the relevant art would not be conveyed that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Additionally, regarding claims 1 and 5, it recites (claim 5 as the representative) “a correlation deriving step for deriving a correlation between energy usage based on the BEMS measurement data collected by the collecting step and the cooling and heating loads according to indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation identified by the identifying step.” It is interpreted that 1) energy usage is determined based on the BEMS measurement data collected by the collecting step, 2) the cooling and heating loads are determined according to indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation identified by the identifying step, and 3) deriving a correlation between 1) energy usage and 2) the cooling and heating loads. That is, the limitation recites three functions. However, there is no sufficient support for how to perform the functions.
The relevant support is in specification ¶ [56], other than those with the same text as the limitation at issue in ipsis verbis:
[0056] The radiative time components reflect the percentage of radiant heat gain, that is, the cooling load for the current hour over the total radiant heat gain. The conductive time components reflect the percentage of heat gain, that is, the cooling load for the current hour over the heat gain from the outer wall or roof. By definition, the sum of each radiative or conductive time series must add up to 100%.
This paragraph describes the relationship between the cooling load and radiant heat gain over time, but lacks of explaining 3) the derivation of the correlation between 1) energy usage and 2) the cooling and heating loads as claimed. There is no indication that the limitation at issue is conventional or well known in the art. The claim limitation defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. Accordingly, one skilled in the relevant art would not be conveyed that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? No.
The claim recites “A simulation system” comprising several units plus functions. The “collection unit” plus function can be interpreted to “encompass all technical configurations of collecting various measurement data that may have an effect on identifying the cooling and heating loads of a target building.” See specification [48] and claim interpretation above. Therefore it can be a program per se. The other recited units plus functions, as indicated in the claim interpretation and rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) above, are not limited to a physical structure, and thus can be computer programs per se. As a result, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a “computer program” per se is not one of the statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03.I.
For the sake of completeness, the claim is further analyzed below.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim is directed to an abstract idea because it recites:
1. A simulation system for predicting heating and cooling loads of a building, the system comprising:
a collection unit configured to collect pieces of measurement data including energy usage, electricity, air conditioning, crime prevention, and disaster prevention facility management data of a target building from a building energy management system (BEMS);
an identification unit configured to identify indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation measured in the building in real time based on radiant time series (RTS) method;
a correlation derivation unit configured to derive a correlation between energy usage based on the BEMS measurement data collected by the collection unit and the cooling and heating loads according to indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation identified by the identification unit;
a simulation unit configured to predict a change in cooling and heating loads according to a change in at least one of pieces of measurement data based on the correlation derived from the correlation derivation unit to perform a simulation; and
an information provision unit configured to provide a simulation result from the simulation unit in a visible form to a user terminal.
The above bold-faced limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined in the claim above. The collection unit is recited at a high level of generality to collect data for the abstract idea, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The information provision unit is recited at a high level of generality to provide a visual result, which is also an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are insignificant extra-solution activities. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 passes the Step 1 test (a process), but is similarly rejected by analogy to claim 1 for being directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 8 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
Notes
Claims 1 and 5 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of claim 1 (as the representative): “an identification unit configured to identify indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation measured in the building in real time based on radiant time series (RTS) method; a correlation derivation unit configured to derive a correlation between energy usage based on the BEMS measurement data collected by the collection unit and the cooling and heating loads according to indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, and insolation identified by the identification unit; a simulation unit configured to predict a change in cooling and heating loads according to a change in at least one of pieces of measurement data based on the correlation derived from the correlation derivation unit to perform a simulation,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
DING et al. (CN 208567008 U) teaches an air conditioning load forecasting method for a building based on a radiant time series (RTS) method, involving providing meteorological parameter comprising outdoor temperature, outdoor humidity, solar radiation intensity and scattering radiation intensity; providing various parameters including interior design parameter, enclosure structure heat transfer coefficient, radiation time sequence, multi-conducting time sequence, the lighting power index, device power index, personnel density index, radiation ratio and various equipment, personnel, lighting schedule; providing user input comprising building height, land area, window-wall ratio, building density, volume fraction, layer number, use function of the building, total building area, and shape coefficient; and calculating cooling and heating loads from the provided data based on RTS method.
NAM et al. (KR 101928516 B1; cited in IDS) teaches a method for deriving heating and cooling loads by time using an RTS-SAREK program which can derive heating and cooling loads by time, thereby checking heating and cooling loads except the maximum load on the coldest day or the maximum cooling load on the hottest day.
Hoff (US 20240151415 A1) teaches a method of reducing peak energy consumption load for a building, involving calculating time series change in indoor temperature data using only inputs of time series change in the time series HVAC load data combined with thermal mass, thermal conductivity, and HVAC efficiency.
Yan et al. (US 20210123625 A1) teaches a low-cost commissioning method for air-conditioning systems in existing large public buildings, involving a load prediction sub-module which obtains hourly cooling load prediction value of the building by constructing a load prediction model of air-conditioning system, through activity information of the building occupant, the basic information and operation law of energy use equipment, the basic information and the turn-on law of the luminaire, the basic information of the building, and local weather parameters.
Papadopoulos et al. (US 20210240147 A1) teaches a method of predicting a time of effect of an intervention of a point of a Building Management System (BMS), involving an internal loading model which uses space occupancy, zone air temperature, space size of a building or spaces within a building, and outside weather values to predict equipment cooling load. The internal loading model can be a LSTM model that can use timeseries data and/or predictive timeseries data to make predictions.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. ("Indoor cooling/heating load analysis based on coupled simulation of convection, radiation and HVAC control" Building and Environment 36 (2001) 901-908) teaches a method to analyze indoor cooling load with changes of target thermal environments of a room and/or changing clothing conditions of occupants considering the temperature and air-velocity distribution in the room.
Spitler et al. ("The Radiant Time Series Cooling Load Calculation Procedure" ASHRAE TRANSACTIONS 1997, V. 103, Pt. 2) teaches a radiant time series method for cooling load calculation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857