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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinnai KK (JP2016109376(A)) and Sutardja et al. (US 2026/0133611).
Regarding claim 1, Rinnai (R) discloses a heating system (100, Figure 1), comprising: a heat source having a heating unit configured to heat a fluid (1,[0011]); a heating terminal of which a plurality can be installed (110); an inflow pipe connected to a fluid inlet of the heating unit (7); an outflow pipe connected to a fluid outlet of the heating unit (8); a branch supply pipe directly or indirectly connected to the outflow pipe and connected to a fluid inlet of the heating terminal (114); a branch recovery pipe connected to a fluid outlet of the heating terminal and directly or indirectly connected to the inflow pipe (116); a plurality of fluid flowing part configured to circulate the fluid by operating (80,112, i.e., pumps); and control means configured to control operation of the plurality of fluid flowing part (30,[0102]), wherein the fluid flowing part is provided to the inflow pipe or the outflow pipe and is provided to the branch supply pipe or the branch recovery pipe (Figure 1), the fluid flowing part provided to the inflow pipe or the outflow pipe is a pump (80), the fluid flowing part provided to the branch supply pipe or the branch recovery pipe is a pump (112) or an on-off valve.
Rinnai does not disclose that the control means repeatedly executes, in a predetermined cycle, a sequence to start the operation of the fluid flowing part , the predetermined cycle is divided into a plurality of operation start permitted intervals, and each of the operation start permitted intervals has a control configuration in which, among the fluid flowing part, only a specific fluid flowing part determined for each operation start permitted interval is permitted to start operating, and the other fluid flowing part other than the specific fluid flowing part is prohibited from starting to operate.
However, Sutardja (S) et al. (US 2026/0133611) discloses a system to control the startup of fans (Abstract, as a clarification the fan utilizes a motor to rotate and move air whish in analogous to a fluid and so is similar to a pump in operation and thus analogous art) wherein the control means repeatedly executes, in a predetermined cycle, a sequence to start the operation of the fluid flowing part ([0036], Figure 5), the predetermined cycle is divided into a plurality of operation start permitted intervals (Figure 5), and each of the operation start permitted intervals has a control configuration in which, among the fluid flowing part, only a specific fluid flowing part determined for each operation start permitted interval is permitted to start operating , and the other fluid flowing part other than the specific fluid flowing part is prohibited from starting to operate ([0040,0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to modify the start-up of multiple pumps as disclosed by Sutardja for the purpose of presenting and inrush current spike that may damage the equipment.
Regarding claim 2, Rinnai (R), as modified, discloses the heating system according to claim 1, wherein an operation start prohibited interval for prohibiting all the fluid flowing part from starting to operate is provided between each the operation start permitted intervals ([0042], Figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Rinnai (R), as modified, discloses the heating system according to claim 2, wherein a period of the operation start prohibited interval is set to be equal to or longer than a time required for a current value of the fluid flowing part to become a steady-state current after operation of the fluid flowing part is started ([0041-0042], Figure 5).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinnai KK (JP2016109376(A)), Sutardja et al. (US 2026/0133611), and Chen et al. (US 2007/0116577)
Regarding claim 4, Rinnai (R), as modified, discloses the heating system according to claim 2, but not that a period of the operation start permitted interval is set to be a shorter time than a period of the operation start prohibited interval.
However, Chen (C) discloses a seriate starting system for controlling multiple fans (Abstract, Figure 3) capable of having a period of the operation start permitted interval is set to be a shorter time than a period of the operation start prohibited interval ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to modify the delay times (prohibited operational start and prohibited times) to any duration desired by the user for his particular desired results.
Regarding claim 5, Rinnai (R), as modified, discloses the heating system according to claim 3, but not that a period of the operation start permitted interval is set to be a shorter time than a period of the operation start prohibited interval.
However, Chen (C) discloses a seriate starting system for controlling multiple fans (Abstract, Figure 3) capable of having a period of the operation start permitted interval is set to be a shorter time than a period of the operation start prohibited interval ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this application to modify the delay times (prohibited operational start and prohibited times) to any duration desired by the user for his particular desired results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN E BARGERO whose telephone number is (571) 270-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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 E BARGERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 ***
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights