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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 18, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks, Amendments
Applicant is thanked for their May 18, 2026 response to the Office Action filed February 19, 2026. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 13, and 15 – 19 have been considered, and inasmuch as they pertain to prior art still being relied upon, the examiner’s response follows below. Respectfully, any arguments/ remarks directed towards newly amended limitations are moot if they resulted in a new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to the 35 USC §103 rejection of:
Claim 1 as being anticipated by Nomura et al (JPH 8 200904), in view of Yokura et al (US 2004/018862), in view of Sotani (JPH 09184803);
Claims 2, 9, 11 and 18 as being anticipated by Nomura et al, in view of Yokura et al, in view of Sotani, and further in view of Kates (US 2006/0267756);
Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 as being anticipated by Nomura et al, in view of Yokura et al, in view of Sotani, in view of Kates, and further in view of Taira et al (US 2002/0178738);
Claims 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, and 19 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al, in view of Yokura et al, in view of Sotani, in view of Kates, and further in view of Hansmann et al (DE 10 2015 003 745); and
Claims 8 and 17 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al, in view of Yokura et al, in view of Sotani, in view of Kates, and further in view of Bhatnagar (US 2001/0039190) ;
Applicant remarked that the rejections are overcome by the amendments to claims 1, 2, and 11.
Applicant remarked that the amended claims further recite “an air conditioning system that includes a unit receptive of a refrigerant having a moderate-to-low global warming potential (GWP) value for thermal interaction with a fluid, an enclosure including a main section surrounding the unit and having a vent, an outlet and an inlet, an exhaust duct leading from the outlet to the vent and a return-air duct extending from the exhaust duct to the inlet, a fan disposed and configured for urging a flow of the fluid through the unit and a controllable moderate-to-low GWP value refrigerant leak detector for detecting a leak of the refrigerant having the moderate-to-low GWP value.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the prior art, in particular Nomura et al (JPH 8 200904). Nomura et al discloses an air conditioning system, comprising:
a unit (fig 3B (3)) receptive of a refrigerant (at (11)) having a moderate-to-low global warming potential (GWP) value for thermal interaction with a fluid (air);
an enclosure (fig 2: (1)) comprising a main section (annotated, below) surrounding the unit (3) and having a vent (at 27),
an outlet ((17) at (19)) and an inlet (at (9)),
an exhaust duct ((21) at (25)) leading from the outlet (17) to the vent (at 27) and
a return-air duct (annotated, below) extending from the exhaust duct (21) to the inlet (17) (via fan (15))
PNG
media_image1.png
529
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore the exhaust duct must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
PNG
media_image2.png
680
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Provided only for clarity, it appears that Applicant has exchanged an exhaust duct for the conditioned air duct, as the newly amended portions of claims 1, 2, and 11
Figure 1 could be construed as disclosing an enclosure (14) comprising a main section (140) surrounding the unit (13) and having conditioned air duct (145) leading from the outlet (141) to [[the]] a vent and a return-air duct (142) extending from the conditioned air duct to the inlet (at (14)/(142)).
Additionally, figure 1 discloses a building (11) having a vent (143), or an air conditioning system (10) having a vent (143), however figure 1 lacks wherein the enclosure comprises a vent.
Lastly, it may be possible that Applicant may be identifying the vent duct (143) as an “exhaust duct” leading from the damper (144) to the vent (143), and the return air duct (142) extending from the damper (144) to the inlet.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(a)
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) 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.
In re Claims 1, 2, and 11, the amended limitation “an exhaust duct leading from the outlet to the vent and a return-air duct extending from the exhaust duct to the inlet” has not been described in the specification such that one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation
MPEP 2164.01 establishes the analysis required to determine whether the filed disclosure contains sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The factors to be considered to determine whether any necessary experimentation is undue, also known as The Wand factors, (see In re Wands, 858 F. 2d 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Claim 1, 2, and 11, after analyzing the application with the above factors, the examiner concluded that Specification paragraph [0042] discloses that “The enclosure 14 includes a main section 140 that surrounds the indoor unit 13 and has an outlet 141 and a return air duct 142, an optional vent 143 that is opened and closed by a damper 144 and a conditioned air duct 145.” Even though Applicant has support for a return air duct (142), a conditioned air duct (145), and a vent (143) there is no enabling disclosure for wherein “an exhaust duct leading from the outlet to the vent and a return-air duct extending from the exhaust duct to the inlet;”.
Claims 3, 4, 6 – 10, 12 – 13, and 15 – 19 are rejected, as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (JPH 8 200904), in view of Yokura et al (US 2004/018862), in view of Sotani (JPH 09184803).
In re Claim 1, Nomura et al discloses an air conditioning system, comprising:
a unit (fig 3B (3)) receptive of a refrigerant (at (11)) having a moderate-to-low global warming potential (GWP) value for thermal interaction with a fluid (air);
an enclosure (fig 2: (1)) comprising a main section (annotated, below) surrounding the unit (3) and having a vent (at 27),
an outlet ((17) at (19)) and an inlet (at (9)),
an exhaust duct ((21) at (25)) leading from the outlet (17) to the vent (at 27) and
a return-air duct (annotated, below) extending from the exhaust duct (21) to the inlet (17) (via fan (15))
PNG
media_image1.png
529
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a fan (15) disposed and configured for urging flow through the unit; and
a controllable moderate-to-low GWP) value refrigerant [0001: ammonia] leak detector (fig 1: (35)), comprising:
a detection assembly (figs 1, 3: (35)) [0017]; and
an actuation assembly [0018] receptive of a signal (fig 5: (s1[Wingdings font/0xE8]s2)) which is reflective of a magnitude of the portion of the refrigerant, from the detector and configured for generation of a binary output based on the signal (via control device (39)) and for issuance of the binary output to a fan/vent controller.
Please note that “a signal reflective of a magnitude” has been interpreted as a binary Y/N signal; that refrigerant is sensed reflects a magnitude. Additionally, it has been understood that a binary Y/N signal is issued to the dampers (open/close) and to the fans (operate/ stop)
Nomura et al lacks the structures within the detection assembly, and so accordingly lacks:
an emitter;
a detector;
an optical element to reflect radiation emitted by the emitter toward the detector such that the radiation passes through an elongate section of the enclosure twice, once along a first radiation pathway, which is defined between the emitter and the optical element, and once along a second radiation pathway, which is angled relative to the first radiation pathway and which is defined between the optical element and the detector; and
a band pass filter disposed along the second radiation pathway, wherein:
the band pass filter is tuned for detection of the moderate-to-low GWP value refrigerant, and
the detector is receptive of a portion of the radiation passing through the band pass filter;
Yokura et al teaches a gas detection device, for gases including ammonia [0003], including a prior art gas detection device in JP-A-9-184803 (Sotani), discussed below.
Sotani teaches a detection assembly (figs 1 – 5) which is used as a gas alarm or gas concentration measuring instrument to be installed in the air conditioning control for a gas sensor and gas management within the area [0001], comprising:
an emitter (4);
a detector (5) (fig 5);
an optical element (2a) to reflect radiation emitted by the emitter toward the detector such that the radiation passes through a section of an enclosure twice, once along a first radiation pathway (S1), which is defined between the emitter and the optical element, and once along a second radiation pathway (S2), which is angled relative to the first radiation pathway and which is defined between the optical element and the detector; and
a band pass filter [0013] disposed along the second radiation pathway (“in the optical filter installation hole 18”), wherein:
the band pass filter is tuned for detection of a gas [0033]; and
the detector is receptive of a portion of the radiation passing through the band pass filter (apparent).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed system of Nomura et al as taught by Yokura et al /Sotani, such that the detection assembly comprises:
an emitter;
a detector;
an optical element to reflect radiation emitted by the emitter toward the detector such that the radiation passes through an elongate section of an enclosure twice, once along a first radiation pathway, which is defined between the emitter and the optical element, and once along a second radiation pathway, which is angled relative to the first radiation pathway and which is defined between the optical element and the detector; and
a band pass filter disposed along the second radiation pathway, wherein:
the band pass filter is tuned for detection of a gas, and
the detector is receptive of a portion of the radiation passing through the band pass filter.
for the benefit of “an air conditioning operation can be controlled surely” {Abstract].
Regarding the limitation wherein the enclosure comprises an elongate section, Sotani teaches that an optical path length is as long as possible to increase detection sensitivity [0004], and by using a concave mirror, a doubled optical path length is formed [Abstract], reducing the length of an elongate section of the enclosure.
Upon consideration of the disclosure of Sotani, it would have been obvious to try forming the radiation passage as an elongate section to increase detection sensitivity, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
Please note that criticality for an “elongate” section has not been discussed1 in the disclosure.
Claims 2, 9, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (JPH 8-200904), in view of Yokura et al (US 2004/018862)/ Sotani (JPH 09184803), in view of Kates (US 2006/0267756).
In re Claim 2, Nomura et al discloses a method of operating an air conditioning system (fig 5)) comprising
a unit (fig 3B (3)) receptive of a refrigerant (at (11)) having a moderate-to-low global warming potential (GWP) value for thermal interaction with a fluid (air);
an enclosure (fig 2: (1)) comprising a main section (annotated, below) surrounding the unit (3) and having a vent (at 27),
an outlet ((17) at (19)) and an inlet (at (9)),
an exhaust duct ((21) at (25)) leading from the outlet (17) to the vent (at 27) and
a return-air duct (annotated, below) extending from the exhaust duct (21) to the inlet (17) (via fan (15))
a fan (15) disposed and configured for urging flow through the unit; and
a refrigerant detection sensor (figs 1, 3: (35)) configured to execute leak detection [0017] with respect to leakage of refrigerant having a moderate-to-low (GWP) value [0001: ammonia] into the enclosure (cabinet (3)), the method comprising:
setting the refrigerant detection sensor to a detection mode;
It has been understood that, at system start up, the refrigerant detection system is off (binary 0)
“First , it is monitored by the sensor 35 whether or not refrigerant leakage is detected; [0017]
If a refrigerant leak is not detected: fan 15 is engaged, the dampers 25 and 27 of the air supply / exhaust port 21 and the damper 31 of the exhaust port 29 are closed, the damper 19 of the outlet 17 is opened, indoor air is taken in from the intake port 9, cooled, and blown into the room.” [0017]
determining, at the refrigerant detection sensor, that a concentration of the refrigerant in a sample drawn from the enclosure exceeds a threshold defined in accordance with a most recent recalibration;
It has been understood that, when a concentration exceeds a threshold, the refrigerant detection system is on (binary 1)
It has been understood that a most recent calibration was a factory recalibration.
setting a binary output of the refrigerant detection sensor to correspond to leak or non-leak signals in an event the concentration exceeds or does not exceed the threshold, respectively; and
In response to a concentration exceeding a threshold, corresponding to a leak, the refrigerant detection system will perform an “on”, or “1” operation, (fig 4: S1[Wingdings font/0xE8]S2[Wingdings font/0xE8]S3[Wingdings font/0xE8]S4)
Conversely, a binary output of “off” or “0” will correspond to a non-leak signals in an event the concentration does not exceed the threshold,
mitigating the leakage of the refrigerant based on the binary output (“on” or “1”) corresponding to the leak signal. [0018] (fig 5: (s1[Wingdings font/0xE8]s2))
Please note that in the method of claim 4, while Nomura et al does not explicitly state that S1[Wingdings font/0xE8]S4 is the “on” or “1” state, but as the system has a standard operating mode (refrigerant detection system concentration below threshold and mitigation response off) and a leakage detection mode (refrigerant detection system concentration above threshold and mitigation response on), a person of ordinary skill would expect such an on/off mode.
Nomura et al lacks wherein the method comprises:
recalibrating the refrigerant detection sensor;
iteratively determining, at the refrigerant detection sensor, that a concentration of the refrigerant in a sample drawn from the enclosure exceeds a threshold defined in accordance with a most recent recalibration; and
wherein the refrigerant detection sensor comprises a detection assembly, the detection assembly comprises:
an emitter:
a detector;
an optical element to reflect radiation emitted by the emitter toward the detector such that the radiation passes through an elongate section of the enclosure twice, once along a first radiation pathway, which is defined between the emitter and the optical element, and once along a second radiation pathway, which is angled relative to the first radiation pathway and which is defined between the optical element and the detector; and
a band pass filter disposed along the second radiation pathway.
Yokura et al teaches a method for detecting a gas comprising a gas detection device, for gases including ammonia [0003], including a prior art gas detection device in JP-A-9-184803 (Sotani), discussed below.
Sotani teaches a method for detecting a gas comprising a detection assembly (figs 1 – 5) which is used as a gas alarm or gas concentration measuring instrument to be installed in the air conditioning control for a gas sensor and gas management within the area [0001], the detection assembly comprising:
an emitter (4);
a detector (5) (fig 5);
an optical element (2a) to reflect radiation emitted by the emitter toward the detector such that the radiation passes through a section of an enclosure twice, once along a first radiation pathway (S1), which is defined between the emitter and the optical element, and once along a second radiation pathway (S2), which is angled relative to the first radiation pathway and which is defined between the optical element and the detector;
a band pass filter [0013] disposed along the second radiation pathway (“in the optical filter installation hole 18”);
wherein optical paths can be formed even for gas species having different sensitivity ratios, and by changing the division ratio of the mirror piece [0027, 0033].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method of Nomura et al as taught by Yokura et al /Sotani, such that the method of operating an air conditioning system comprises:
an emitter;
a detector;
an optical element to reflect radiation emitted by the emitter toward the detector such that the radiation passes through an elongate section of an enclosure twice, once along a first radiation pathway, which is defined between the emitter and the optical element, and once along a second radiation pathway, which is angled relative to the first radiation pathway and which is defined between the optical element and the detector; and
a band pass filter disposed along the second radiation pathway
for the benefit of “an air conditioning operation can be controlled surely” [Abstract].
Regarding the limitation wherein the enclosure comprises an elongate section, Sotani teaches that an optical path length is as long as possible to increase detection sensitivity [0004], and by using a concave mirror, a doubled optical path length is formed [Abstract], reducing the length of an elongate section of the enclosure.
Upon consideration of the disclosure of Sotani, it would have been obvious to try forming the radiation passage as an elongate section to increase detection sensitivity, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions is within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the mechanical arts, and they would have a reasonable expectation of success, based upon the characteristics of the science or technology, its state of advance, the nature of the known choices, the specificity or generality of the prior art, and the predictability of results in the area of interest.
Please note that criticality for an “elongate” section has not been discussed2 in the disclosure.
Kates teaches a method of operating an air conditioning system (fig 2:(350)) [0099] comprising a plurality of sensor units (102 – 106: “flammable gases, poison gasses etc.” [0034], the method (fig 6, fig 11) comprising:
recalibrating a detection sensor (fig 2 (102)) [0093];
setting the detection sensor to a detection mode (fig 6: (614) ;
iteratively determining (as seen in fig 6), at the detection sensor, that a concentration of the (gas) in a sample drawn from the enclosure exceeds a threshold defined in accordance with a most recent recalibration; [0056]
setting an output of the detection sensor (102) to correspond to a leak signals in an event a detected gas concentration exceeds a threshold (fig 6 606[Wingdings font/0xE8]607[Wingdings font/0xE8]608); and
transmit a signal that alerts personnel [0012].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method, as taught by Kates, such that the method comprises:
recalibrating the refrigerant detection sensor;
iteratively determining, at the refrigerant detection sensor, that a concentration of the refrigerant in a sample drawn from the enclosure exceeds a threshold defined in accordance with a most recent recalibration;
for the benefit of adjusting between factory calibration and installed calibration, to compensate for differences in operational conditions and improving reliability.
In re Claim 9, the proposed method has been discussed, wherein Kates teaches further comprising executing diagnostics [0020, 0037 ] at the predefined intervals (“at programmed intervals”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method, as taught by Kates, such that the method comprises executing diagnostics at predefined intervals, for the benefit of automatically generating a report if a diagnostic issue is detected, improving user safety.
In re Claim 11, see above In re Claim 2, wherein the proposed combination discloses a method of operating an air conditioning system comprising:
a unit (fig 3B (3)) receptive of a refrigerant (at (11)) having a moderate-to-low global warming potential (GWP) value for thermal interaction with a fluid (air);
an enclosure (fig 2: (1)) comprising a main section (annotated, below) surrounding the unit (3) and having a vent (at 27),
an outlet ((17) at (19)) and an inlet (at (9)),
an exhaust duct ((21) at (25)) leading from the outlet (17) to the vent (at 27) and
a return-air duct extending from the exhaust duct (21) to the inlet (17) (via fan (15))
a fan (15) disposed and configured for urging flow through the unit; and
a refrigerant detection sensor configured to execute leak detection with respect to leakage of refrigerant having a moderate-to-low (GWP) value into the enclosure, the method comprising:
setting the refrigerant detection sensor to a detection mode;
iteratively determining, at the refrigerant detection sensor, that a concentration of the refrigerant in a sample drawn from the enclosure exceeds a threshold defined in accordance with a most recent recalibration of the refrigerant detection sensor;
setting a binary output of the refrigerant detection sensor to correspond to leak or non-leak signals in an event the concentration exceeds or does not exceed the threshold, respectively; and
mitigating the leakage of the refrigerant based on the binary output corresponding to the leak signal,
wherein the refrigerant detection sensor comprises a detection assembly, the detection assembly comprises:
an emitter;
a detector;
an optical element to reflect radiation emitted by the emitter toward the detector such that the radiation passes through an elongate section of the enclosure twice, once along a first radiation pathway, which is defined between the emitter and the optical element, and once along a second radiation pathway, which is angled relative to the first radiation pathway and which is defined between the optical element and the detector; and
a band pass filter disposed along the second radiation pathway.
In re Claim 18, see above In re Claim 9, wherein the proposed method further comprising executing diagnostics at the predefined intervals.
Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (JPH 8-200904), in view of Yokura et al (US 2004/018862)/Sotani (JPH 09184803), in view of Kates (US 2006/0267756), and further in view of Taira et al (US 2002/0178738).
In re Claim 3, Nomura et al discloses disposing the refrigerant detection sensor 35 proximate a vicinity of an air outlet (17), but is silent as to whether it is also proximate to a pooling region of the enclosure. However, such a technique is known the mechanical arts, as evidenced by Taira et al.
Taira et al teaches a method of operating an air conditioner, comprising a casing (2), heat exchanger(3), and a gas sensor (11) placed proximate to a collection region of the enclosure [0011], wherein when a refrigerant gas is sensed by the gas sensor it can reliably be detected.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method as taught by Taira et al such that the method comprises disposing the refrigerant detection sensor proximate to a pooling region of the enclosure, for the benefit of easily detecting refrigerant that is heavier than air, for improved response time.
In re Claim 4, Nomura et al discloses wherein the refrigerant detection sensor further comprises:
an actuation assembly [0018] receptive of a signal from the detection assembly (fig 5: (s1[Wingdings font/0xE8]s2)) and configured for generation of a binary output based on the signal (via control device (39)) and for issuance of the binary output to the ( fan/vent) controller.
Please note that “a signal reflective of a magnitude” has been interpreted as a binary Y/N signal; that refrigerant is sensed reflects a magnitude. Additionally, it has been understood that a binary Y/N signal is issued to the dampers (open/close) and to the fans (operate/ stop)
In re Claim 12, see above In re Claim 3, wherein the proposed combination discloses further comprising disposing the refrigerant detection sensor proximate to a pooling region of the enclosure.
In re Claim 13, see above In re Claim 4, wherein the proposed combination discloses the refrigerant detection sensor further comprises:
an actuation assembly receptive of a signal from the detection assembly and configured for generation of the binary output based on the signal and for issuance of the binary output to the controller.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (JPH 8-200904), in view of Yokura et al (US 2004/018862)/Sotani (JPH 09184803), in view of Kates (US 2006/0267756), and further in view of Hansmann et al (DE 10 2015 003 745).
In re Claim 6, the proposed method has been discussed wherein Hansmann et al teaches further comprising configuring the detection assembly to detect multiple types of the gasses 3[0004], and
[0004] “In order to be able to make such qualitative statements, gas detectors generally have a bandpass filter which is arranged at the emitter and/or the detector and is configured only for transmitting light waves of a specific wavelength or a discrete spectrum of a plurality of wavelengths.”
The above has been understood to disclose that multiple types of gases, that share the same “discrete spectrum of a plurality of wavelengths”, would be detected.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method, as taught by Hansmann et al, such that the method comprises configuring the detection assembly to detect multiple types of the refrigerant, for the benefit of cost savings by using the same sensor even if the manufacturer refrigerant is replaced with an alternate refrigerant .
In re Claim 7, the proposed method has been discussed wherein Kates teaches the detection assembly comprises a flow driving element [0008].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method, as taught by Kates, such that the assembly comprises a flow driving element, for the benefit of improving air exchange between the sensor and ambient air to improve response time [0109] and improve system reliability.
In re Claim 10, see above In re Claim 2, wherein Nomura et al further discloses the mitigating comprises:
activating a fan (15) and opening a vent (25, 27) (fig 4: S3, S4)[0018] on the binary output corresponding to the leak signal (fig 4, S1), and
deactivating the fan and closing the vent(fig 4, SS7[Wingdings font/0xE8]S8[Wingdings font/0xE8]S9) [0019] based on the binary output corresponding to the non-leak signal.
In re Claim 15, see above In re Claim 6, wherein the proposed method further comprising configuring the detection assembly to detect multiple types of the refrigerant.
In re Claim 16, see above In re Claim 7, wherein the proposed detection assembly comprises a flow driving element.
In re Claim 19, see above in re Claim 14, wherein the proposed mitigating method comprises:
activating a fan and opening a vent based on the binary output corresponding to the leak signal, and
deactivating the fan and closing the vent based on the binary output corresponding to the non-leak signal.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al (JPH 8-200904), in view of Yokura et al (US 2004/018862)/Sotani (JPH 09184803), in view of Kates (US 2006/0267756), and further in view of Bhatnagar (US 2001/0039190).
In re Claim 8, the proposed method has been discussed (see in re Claim 5), however, the refrigerant detection sensor lacks an analog-to-binary** output conversion circuit.
Bhatnagar teaches a configurable electronic controller for HVAC systems (claim 52) comprising an input interface circuitry, comprising the steps of
processing digital** input signals, and
performing an analog-to-digital** conversion, when the input signal is analog [0040],
to provide a digital output by means of configuration data supplied by the said configuration memory [0012 - 0013] at low cost.
**Please note that it has been understood that digital signals are analogous to binary signals
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method as taught by Bhatnagar, such that the system comprises an analog-to-binary output conversion circuit, for the benefit of an interface that is capable of flexible and configurable to process both analog and digital inputs, with a digital output, at low cost.
In re Claim 17, see above in re Claim 8, wherein the proposed method further comprises the refrigerant detection sensor comprises an analog-to-binary output conversion circuit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Of particular importance is Wong (US 5,502,308), who teaches a gas detection assembly (fig 2) comprising;
an emitter (26)
a detector (28)
an optical element (reflective coating (18)) to reflect radiation emitted by the emitter toward the detector such that the radiation passes through an elongate section of an enclosure twice (as seen in fig 2), once along a first radiation pathway, which is defined between the emitter (26) and the optical element (18), and once along a second radiation pathway, which is angled (α) relative to the first radiation pathway and which is defined between the optical element (18) and the detector (28); and
PNG
media_image3.png
409
891
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a band pass filter (30) disposed along the second radiation pathway between the emitter (26) and the detector (28), wherein:
the band pass filter (30) is tuned for detection of an analyte gas the moderate-to-low GWP value refrigerant, and the detector is receptive of a portion of the radiation passing through the band pass filter (col 4, lns 37 – 40).
Boyle et al (US 2004/0129884) teaches a gas detector (fig 16), comprising:
a detection assembly (371) comprising;
an emitter (19)
a detector (23)
an optical element (reflective coating (373) on convex surface (9) [0111, 0115) to reflect radiation emitted by the emitter toward the detector such that the radiation passes (375) through an elongate section of an enclosure twice, once along a first radiation pathway, which is defined between the emitter and the optical element, and once along a second radiation pathway, which is angled relative to the first radiation pathway and which is defined between the optical element and the detector; and
“a substantial light emitted by the source is twice reflected, as shown by light ray 375, from convex surface 9 of IRE 3 before light of the filter frequency is received by the detector.” [0111]
a band pass filter (51) disposed along the second radiation pathway between the emitter(19) and the detector (23), wherein:
the band pass filter (51) is tuned for detection of a gas, and
the detector is receptive of a portion of the radiation passing through the band pass filter [0111]; and
an actuation assembly (“controller”) receptive of a signal (via (41)), which is reflective of a magnitude of the portion of the radiation, from the detector and configured for generation of a signal output via 7 binary output based on the signal and for issuance of the binary output to a fan/vent controller.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on Tu-Th; 9 – 6.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Specification paragraphs [0008, 0018, 0021, 0044], of US 2021/0108819
2 Specification paragraphs [0008, 0018, 0021, 0044], of US 2021/0108819
3 claim 6
Prosecution Insights