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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 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.
In line 25 of claim 1, the teaching of “the operation mode at the high load serving as a high-load mode” lacks antecedent basis as there is no previous recitation of this mode in the claim. Although the claim previously taught the second indoor unit to operate “in different operation modes from each other depending on whether the air conditioning system is at a low load or a high load” (lines 23-24), no individual modes were recited so that “the operation mode at the high load” does not clearly identify a mode to which it is referring. Similarly, in line 29, the teaching of “the operation mode at the low load serving as a low-load mode” lacks antecedent basis as “the mode” is not previously identified or defined. Because of the use of “the” in these recitations, the claim appears to suggest limitations which are not specifically included, such as only one operating mode corresponding to each of the high load and low load state so that it is unclear whether the claim excludes, for example, multiple modes which may be implemented at a high or low load, such as a high load, occupied and high load, unoccupied mode for the air conditioner based on both the load and the occupancy of the space. For this reason, the scope required by claim 1 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For purposes of examination, claim 1 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the claim has been interpreted as reciting “a high-load mode” and “a low-load mode” by the recitations of lines 25 and 29 without imposing further limitations on other modes which might be present in the air conditioner.
Further, claim 1 teaches in lines 29-30 that “the blowing temperature of the floor warm air is controlled based on the first upper limit temperature of the blowing temperature or a second upper limit temperature of the blowing temperature, and the second upper limit temperature is different from the first upper limit temperature.” This teaching does not place any limitation on the blowing temperature, as it requires that it is controlled based on the first upper limit temperature, or on any other temperature different from the first upper limit temperature. By the recitation of the “second upper limit temperature” it appears that the claim is intended to limit the values used to control the blowout temperature, but as presented the claim requires only that, in the low-load mode the temperature of the floor warm air is controlled based on some temperature which may have any value. For this reason, the scope of the claim, particularly regarding the differences in control between the high- and low-load modes, cannot be positively established and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 6, 7, and 8 include equivalent teachings to those of claim 1 and are each rejected as indefinite and interpreted for examination in the same manner set forth above.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 22 of claim 8, the word “he” in the phrase “he program” should be replaced with “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Publication No. 2009-264702 A to Asagiri in view of WIPO Publication No. 2019/167222 A1 to Kurihara et al. and US Publication No. 2011/0113800 A1 to Sekiya et al. An English translation of Asagiri has been provided with the Non-Final Rejection of 12 June 2025 and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Japanese language original document. Further, US Publication No. 2021/0215369 A1 is presented as an English-language equivalent for Kurihara, being a US Publication resulting from the same international application. All citations of particular passages and paragraphs of the disclosure of Kurihara are directed to the US Publication rather than to the Japanese-language document.
PNG
media_image1.png
340
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Asagiri teaches limitations from claim 6 in fig. 2, shown above, a floor blowing air conditioner (the fan convector installed in the underfloor space 14) provided in an air conditioning system in a building (U), the building including a floor (10) having [a] blowing outlet (73), a ceiling (16), and a side wall (17), the building having a space (15) surrounded by the floor (10), the ceiling (16), and the side wall (17) (as shown), the space having a lower space closer to the floor (10) than the ceiling (16, as shown, but not labeled),
the floor blowing air conditioner (4) being configured to blow floor warm air to an inside of the space (14) from the blowing outlets (73),
the floor blowing air conditioner comprising a blowing temperature controller (control unit 43 taught in ¶ 42) configured to control a blowing temperature of the floor warm air blown out from the blowing outlets to the inside of the space on the basis of a lower part temperature (as taught in ¶ 42, the temperature used in controlling the fan convector 4 is a temperature detected in the underfloor space 14).
Although Asagiri teaches the floor including a “blowout louver 73” in ¶ 32, Asagiri does not explicitly teach the inclusion of a plural number of “blowing outlets” as taught in claim 6. MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale states in subsection (VI)(B) that “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be a matter of obvious design choice to provide the system of Asagiri with a plurality of these blowout louvers in order to allow warm air to be distributed to multiple location around the space thus providing more even and comfortable heating and reducing the occurrence of hot and cold spots.
Although Asagiri teaches a temperature below the floor being used to control the air blown from the fan convector of their invention into the indoor space, they do not teach the temperature being “a lower part temperature at a position in the lower space” which is a portion of the space “closer to the floor than the ceiling” but within the space rather than an underfloor space. Kurihara teaches in ¶¶ 23 and 28, an air conditioning system comprising a plurality of temperature sensors associated with a control unit (30), including a floor temperature detection unit (28) taught as an infrared sensor for detecting the temperature of the floor in a space to be conditioned. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Asagiri to detect and employ a floor temperature as taught by Kurihara in the control of the under-floor heating system of his invention in order to improve user comfort by ensuring that the temperature is controlled such that the floor is a comfortable temperature for occupants of the space.
Neither Asagiri nor Kurihara teaches the floor blowing air conditioner being controlled on the basis of whether the system is operating at a high or low load. Sekiya teaches in ¶ 80 that in an air conditioning system, a target temperature of heat transfer medium is set to be high (thus providing air at a higher temperature) when the heating load is high and is set low when the heating load is low (thus providing air at a lower temperature), thus teaching the second upper limit temperature for a low-load mode being different from the first upper limit temperature for a high-load mode as taught in claim 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Asagiri with the load-responsive target temperatures taught by Sekiya in order to more quickly address a high heating load without risking an overheating of the space by using the same high target supply temperature when the heating load is relatively small, thus ensuring user comfort within the space regardless of the magnitude of the load.
Neither Asagiri nor Sekiya particularly teaches the target blowout temperature applied in a high-load mode (the first upper limit temperature of claim 6) being obtained by adding 10º C to the sensed temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have recognized the degree by which the blowout temperature is greater than the actual temperature in the space to be a result effective variable as it determines the speed at which the temperature in the space will be increased by the addition of the higher temperature air, and thus the speed with which a desired temperature may be reached and heating operations suspended. It has been held that determining an optimum or workable value for a result effective variable by routine experimentation is a matter of routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 and MPEP 2144.05 II. Obviousness of Ranges.
PNG
media_image2.png
276
258
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asagiri in view of US Publication No. 2012/0288363 A1 to Yumoto et al., US Publication No. 2015/0219382 to Uselton, and Sekiya.
Asagiri teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 1 and 2, shown above, an air conditioning system (shown in fig. 1) provided in a building (U), the building including a floor (10) having [a] blowing outlet (73), a ceiling (16), and a side wall (17), the building having a space (15) surrounded by the floor (10), the ceiling (16), and the side wall (17) (as shown), the space having a lower space closer to the floor (10) than the ceiling (16, as shown, but not labeled), the air conditioning system comprising:
a first indoor unit (the fan convector 4 shown near the ceiling 16 in fig. 2) configured to blow ceiling warm air from [near] the ceiling (16) to an inside of the space (15, as shown), the first indoor unit (4) being configured to control a temperature of the inside of the space by controlling the blowing of the ceiling warm air (providing heat from the heat pump 5 as taught in ¶ 38),
a second indoor unit (the fan convector 4 disposed in the underfloor space 14 shown in fig. 1) being configured to blow floor warm air to an inside of the space (14) from the blowing outlets (73), based on [a lower part temperature] (as taught in ¶ 42, the temperature used in controlling the fan convector 4 is a temperature detected in the underfloor space 14), the second indoor unit (4) being configured to control the blowing of the floor warm air (as taught in ¶ 42);
an outdoor unit (referred to as “heat pump 5” in ¶ 37) including a compressor (taught in ¶ 37);
a refrigerant pipe (shown in figs. 1 and 2) connecting the first indoor unit (4), second indoor unit (4), and the outdoor unit (5), the refrigerant pipe connecting the first indoor unit (4) and the second indoor unit (4) in parallel (as shown in fig. 1, the units 4 are arranged in parallel, branched from a single header 24).
Although Asagiri teaches the floor including a “blowout louver 73” in ¶ 32, Asagiri does not explicitly teach the inclusion of a plural number of “blowing outlets” as taught in claim 6. MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale states in subsection (VI)(B) that “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be a matter of obvious design choice to provide the system of Asagiri with a plurality of these blowout louvers in order to allow warm air to be distributed to multiple location around the space thus providing more even and comfortable heating and reducing the occurrence of hot and cold spots.
PNG
media_image3.png
442
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Although Asagiri teaches the fan convector (4) disposed in the space (15) being disposed near the ceiling (16), they do not tach this unit blowing air “from the ceiling to an inside of the space” or comprising a suction temperature sensor for measuring the temperature of air suctioned into the unit. Yumoto teaches in fig. 3, shown above, and in ¶¶ 69, 72, and 78-79, an indoor unit (4) of an heat pump air conditioning system, the unit (4) being configured for mounting in a ceiling (U) to blow air from air outlets (56) into a space to be conditioned, and further including an air inlet (55) adjacent to which is disposed an intake air temperature sensor (61) for detecting the temperature of air sucked into the casing of the unit from the space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Asagiri with the ceiling-mounted indoor unit and temperature sensor taught by Yumoto in order to allow a substantially flush, ceiling installation rather than a wall-mounting which protrudes into the space as shown in fig. 2 of Asagiri, thus reducing the use of space within the room by the air conditioning units and further because MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale states in subsection (VI)(C) that the mere rearrangement of the working parts of a system (such as moving the air conditioning unit of Asagiri from the upper wall to the ceiling according to the teachings of Yumoto) is a matter of obvious design choice where it does not modify the operation of the system.
PNG
media_image4.png
308
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Although Asagiri teaches a temperature below the floor being used to control the air blown from the underfloor fan convector of their invention into the indoor space, they do not teach the temperature being “a lower part temperature at a position in the lower space” which is a portion of the space “closer to the floor than the ceiling” but within the space rather than an underfloor space, or the system particularly including “a remote thermo-sensor installed on the side wall, the remote thermo-sensor being configured to measure a lower part temperature at a position in the lower space”. Uselton teaches in fig. 2, shown above, and in ¶ 17, an HVAC system in which, for a plurality of rooms (204, 206, 208) in a building (216), a respective temperature sensor (222, 224, 226) mounted on a sidewall (223) of the space and disposed nearer to a floor (225) than to a ceiling (in which respective air vents (220) are disposed, the sensors (222, 224, 226) communicating with a control unit (234) for controlling the HVAC system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Asagiri with the wall-mounted temperature sensors of Uselton in order to more accurately measure a temperature at a height in the space which will be occupied and experienced by users, rather than a temperature below the floor or near the ceiling, in order to accurately measure the thermal experience of occupants of the space and provide a comfortable environment.
Neither Asagiri nor Uselton teaches the underfloor blowing air conditioner being controlled on the basis of whether the system is operating at a high or low load. Sekiya teaches in ¶ 80 that in an air conditioning system, a target temperature of heat transfer medium is set to be high (thus providing air at a higher temperature) when the heating load is high and is set low when the heating load is low (thus providing air at a lower temperature), thus teaching the second upper limit temperature for a low-load mode being different from the first upper limit temperature for a high-load mode as taught in claim 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Asagiri with the load-responsive target temperatures taught by Sekiya in order to more quickly address a high heating load without risking an overheating of the space by using the same high target supply temperature when the heating load is relatively small, thus ensuring user comfort within the space regardless of the magnitude of the load.
Neither Asagiri nor Sekiya particularly teaches the target blowout temperature applied in a high-load mode (the first upper limit temperature of claim 6) being obtained by adding 10º C to the sensed temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have recognized the degree by which the blowout temperature is greater than the actual temperature in the space to be a result effective variable as it determines the speed at which the temperature in the space will be increased by the addition of the higher temperature air, and thus the speed with which a desired temperature may be reached and heating operations suspended. It has been held that determining an optimum or workable value for a result effective variable by routine experimentation is a matter of routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 and MPEP 2144.05 II. Obviousness of Ranges.
Asagiri as modified by Sekiya and discussed in the above rejection of claim 1 teaches limitations from claim 2, the air conditioning system according to claim 1, wherein the second indoor unit comprises a blowing temperature controller (control unit 43 taught in ¶ 42) configured to control a blowing temperature of the floor warm air (as taught in ¶ 42, the temperature used in controlling the fan convector 4 is a temperature detected in the underfloor space 14) on the basis of the first upper limit temperature determined for each temperature in the lower part of the space or the second upper limit temperature (as discussed in the above rejection of claim 1, Sekiya teaches in ¶ 80 the use of first and second target temperatures based on an air conditioning system operating according to a high or low heating load.)
a blowing temperature controller (control unit 43 taught in ¶ 42) configured to control a blowing temperature of the floor warm air blown out from the blowing outlets to the inside of the space on the basis of a lower part temperature (as taught in ¶ 42, the temperature used in controlling the fan convector 4 is a temperature detected in the underfloor space 14).
Regarding the limitations of claim 7, refer to the above rejection of claim 1.
Although claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus and claim 7 is drawn to a method, the discussion presented above with regard to the apparatus of claim 1 is sufficient to demonstrate the obviousness of the method of claim 7.
Regarding the limitations of claim 8, refer to the above rejection of claim 1.
Although Asagiri as discussed in the above rejection of claim 1 teaches the system and operating method taught in claim 8 and further teaches in ¶ 40 that the system includes a control unit, Asagiri does not explicitly teach “A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer of an air conditioning system” to execute the steps discussed above. Uselton teaches in ¶ 13, the controller (processing unit 134) including one or more processors (136) and one or more memories 138) which store thereon “instructions, programming or code” to be executed by the processors in the control of the HVAC system of his invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the system and method of Asagiri by storing the control process on a computer readable medium to be executed by a controller as taught by Uselton in order to ensure effective, reliable, and repeatable control of the system without requiring user oversight or intervention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asagiri in view of Yumoto, Uselton, and Sekiya as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2004/0261435 A1 to Chen et al.
PNG
media_image5.png
560
480
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Asagiri teaches an air conditioning system in which a conditioned space is provided with both a first indoor unit disposed in an upper portion of the conditioned space and a second indoor unit disposed below the floor of the conditioned space for causing warm air to be blown into the conditioned space from a space below the floor. Sekiya teaches the use of different target heat exchange medium temperature based on the heating load at which an HVAC system is being operated. Neither Asagiri nor Sekiya teaches the upper limit temperature used in the control of this air-blowing to be different based on whether or not “it is at the time of starting”. Chen teaches in fig. 1, shown above, a vapor compression refrigeration system similar to the heat pump (5) taught by Asagiri, in which a gas cooler (24) is used to heat a supply of water (38). Chen particularly teaches in ¶ 38 that the temperature setpoint for this water (and thus the possible temperature for air which might be heated by this water) can be lowered during a startup or warmup stage of the system and then gradually increased “after the system 20 is running efficiently and steadily”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Asagiri with the gradual ramping of temperature settings taught by Chen in order to improve the operating efficiency of the system during startup and warmup states as taught in ¶ 38 of Chen.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asagiri in view of Yumoto, Uselton, and Sekiya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 4,931,948 to Parker et al.
Regarding claim 4, Asagiri teaches an air conditioning system in which a conditioned space is provided with both a first indoor unit disposed in an upper portion of the conditioned space and a second indoor unit disposed below the floor of the conditioned space for causing warm air to be blown into the conditioned space from a space below the floor. Asagiri does not teach the upper indoor unit controlling the temperature of the conditioned space to be less than a designated set temperature by a predetermined amount. Parker teaches in col. 3, lines 10-15 teaches a heating system which is controlled to provide heating specifically when the temperature in a zone to be heated is below a temperature set point by at least a predetermined amount (and thus does not heat when the temperature is brought to be within this predetermined amount of the set point). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Asagiri set point offset amount taught by Parker in order to prevent overwarming of the space when the actual temperature is near the desired temperature, thus reducing waste of energy from unnecessary heating and improving the comfort of users in the space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on pp. 13-14 that the amendments to the instant claims, including clarifications regarding “the inside of a space” and “the warm air” overcome the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Rejection of 12 June 2025 as well as the objection to a minor informality in claim 6.
In response and upon review, these rejections and the objection to claim 6 have been withdrawn, although attention is directed to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action based on language added to the claims by the amendment.
Applicant argues on pp. 14-16 that Asagiri does not teach the limitations added to the instant independent claims by amendment, particularly with regard to the control of the blowing temperature of the second (floor) indoor unit based on high and low load operating modes and further argues that the secondary references of Ito and Kurihara also fail to teach these limitations.
In response, examiner agrees but directs applicant’s attention to the new grounds of rejection set forth above in which Sekiya is relied upon in combination with Asagiri to teach the limitations regarding the load-based operating modes (as well as further references such as Uselton and Yumoto which has been introduced to address other limitations added to the instant independent claims 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 DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763