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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 7/8/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 14 pending claims.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12, 15, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/8/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in claim 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1, 12, and 15 have been amended and the amended claims limitations overcome the 112(b) rejections. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections in claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 12 have been amended and incorporated aspects of allowable claim 3, respectively, and independent claim 15 has been amended and incorporated aspects of allowable claim 17, and thus, overcome the 103 rejections. Therefore, the 103 claims rejections in claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/8/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 10 of the remark filed on 7/8/2026 that “… The claims therefore recite a specific technological implementation for determining filter blockage in an HVAC indoor unit using stored operational relationships and correction processing tied to operation of the indoor unit itself. The claims are not directed to merely performing mathematical calculations or mental processes in the abstract. Rather, the claims recite a specific technique for processing operational parameters of an air conditioner indoor unit to improve blockage determination.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “obtaining a first resistance difference value of the filter mesh at a preset air volume value”; “determining a first external static pressure value during operation of the indoor unit”, “determining a first correspondence relationship between a current value of the draught fan and an external static pressure value according to the preset air volume value”; “determining a second external static pressure value according to the operating current value and the first correspondence relationship”; and “obtaining a static pressure correction value, and calculating the first external static pressure value according to the second external static pressure value and the static pressure correction value” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. The step of “determining, based on a comparison between the first external static pressure value, a static pressure difference value obtained according to a preset external static pressure value, and the first resistance difference value, that the filter mesh is blocked by determining whether a ratio of the static pressure difference value to the first resistance difference value is greater than a preset value” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea. A mathematical concept is a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on page 11 of the remark filed that “… The specification explains that the disclosed techniques improve "an accuracy and an instantaneity of determination of the blockage of the filter mesh." See, for example, specification at [0056]. The claims recite specific implementation details for achieving that improvement, including correspondence relationships between draught fan current values and external static pressure values, static pressure correction processing, and resistance difference relationships associated with preset air volume values. See specification at [0107]-[0112], [0138]-[0150]. These features integrate any alleged mathematical operations into a practical application directed to operation of a specific HVAC system.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element “detecting an operating current value of the draught fan” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The alleged improvement of correspondence relationships between draught fan current values and external static pressure values, static pressure correction processing, and resistance difference relationships associated with preset air volume values relate to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 12 and 15 recite subject matter that are similar to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore, claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are also patent ineligible.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-20 are proper.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A method for detecting a blockage in a filter mesh of an indoor unit comprising a draught fan, the method comprising:
obtaining a first resistance difference value of the filter mesh at a preset air volume value;
determining a first external static pressure value during operation of the indoor unit, comprising:
detecting an operating current value of the draught fan;
determining a first correspondence relationship between a current value of the draught fan and an external static pressure value according to the preset air volume value;
determining a second external static pressure value according to the operating current value and the first correspondence relationship; and
obtaining a static pressure correction value, and calculating the first external static pressure value according to the second external static pressure value and the static pressure correction value; and
determining, based on a comparison between the first external static pressure value, a static pressure difference value obtained according to a preset external static pressure value, and the first resistance difference value, that the filter mesh is blocked by determining whether a ratio of the static pressure difference value to the first resistance difference value is greater than a preset value.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1, and apparatus for claims 12 and 15).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the steps of “obtaining a first resistance difference value of the filter mesh at a preset air volume value”;
“determining a first external static pressure value during operation of the indoor unit”,
“determining a first correspondence relationship between a current value of the draught fan and an external static pressure value according to the preset air volume value”;
“determining a second external static pressure value according to the operating current value and the first correspondence relationship”; and
“obtaining a static pressure correction value, and calculating the first external static pressure value according to the second external static pressure value and the static pressure correction value” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The step of “determining, based on a comparison between the first external static pressure value, a static pressure difference value obtained according to a preset external static pressure value, and the first resistance difference value, that the filter mesh is blocked by determining whether a ratio of the static pressure difference value to the first resistance difference value is greater than a preset value” is a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, it is considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional element:
detecting a blockage in a filter mesh of an indoor unit; detecting an operating current value of the draught fan.
The additional elements “detecting a blockage in a filter mesh of an indoor unit” and “detecting an operating current value of the draught fan” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, detecting a blockage in a filter mesh of an indoor unit is disclosed by “Qiu CN 112484236A”, Abstract, [0018], [0021], [0022], [0039], [0054]; and “Li CN 109142184A”, Abstract, [0009], [0013], [0015], [0019], [0020].
For example, detecting an operating current value of the draught fan is disclosed by “Qiu CN 112484236A”, [0053]; “Kim US 20210404689”, [0010], [0011], [0017], [0056].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 15 recite subject matter that are similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-20 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20, the most pertinent prior arts are “Qiu CN 112484236A”, “Li CN 109142184A”, “Shan DE 202021100346U1”, "Shan DE 202021100346U1", "Fujino JP 2009243848A", and “Kim US 20210404689”.
As to claims 1, 12, and 15, Qiu teaches a housing, wherein an air duct is formed in the housing (FIG. 3);
a filter mesh disposed in the air duct (Qiu, FIG. 3; [0003], [0076]);
a processor, and memory storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Qiu, [0097], [0099]) comprising:
determining a first external static pressure value during operation of the indoor unit (Qiu, [0051] and [0053] disclose detect the static pressure value in the return air duct, and use the static pressure value detected at this time as the initial static pressure value under the filter fan speed. When dust accumulates on the filter screen, the air duct resistance inevitably increase, and the static pressure also increase (i.e., the initial static pressure value under the filter fan speed can be considered as a first external static pressure value during operation of the indoor unit, and the external static press in HVAC measures the resistance the blower motor must overcome to move air through components like ducts, filters, and coils - emphasis added by Examiner));
wherein determining the first external static pressure value according to the preset air volume value and the operating current value (Qui, [0050], [0053], [0054], [0055]);
detecting an operating current value of the draught fan (Qiu, [0053] discloses detect the static pressure value in the return air duct, and use the static pressure value detected at this time as the initial static pressure value under the filter fan speed (i.e., operating current value of the draught fan - emphasis added by Examiner);
determining, based on a comparison between the first external static pressure value, a static pressure value obtained according to a preset external static pressure value that the filter mesh is blocked (Qiu, [0055]); and
determining that the filter mesh is blocked by determining whether a ratio of the static pressure difference value to the first resistance difference value is greater than a preset value ([0051] and [0055] disclose the magnitude of static pressure can be used to represent the resistance of this air duct, that is, the greater the air duct resistance, the greater the static pressure. When the difference or ratio between the current static pressure value and the initial static pressure value of the filter screen under the same windshield is detected to be greater than or equal to the preset value (i.e., the filter mesh is in a dirty blockage state if the ratio of current static pressure value that represent the resistance of this air duct is greater than the preset value - emphasis added by Examiner) within a continuous preset time period, it is determined that the filter screen needs to be cleaned or replaced).
Li teaches determining the blockage of the filter mesh according to a comparison between the static pressure difference value, a static pressure difference value obtained, and the first resistance difference value ([0031] and [0041] disclose as shown in Figure 3, when the filter's operating point is 1', the real-time resistance of the HEPA filter measured by the differential pressure sensor is P<sub>1</sub>. Calculated using the airflow-static pressure curve L<sub>Q-P</sub> fitting formula, the resistance of the HEPA filter when it reaches its lifespan when the airflow is Q<sub>1</sub> is Pr<sub>1</sub>; comparing P<sub>1</sub> and Pr<sub>1</sub>, if Pr<sub>1</sub>-P<sub>1</sub>＞0, then the filter has not reached its lifespan and can continue to be used. When the difference between the reference resistance and the real-time resistance is less than or equal to zero, Pr-P≤0, prompting the replacement of the high-efficiency filter (i.e., the blockage of the filter mesh can be determined according to a numerical relationship or by comparing between the first resistance difference value and the static pressure difference value as shown in FIG. 3 - emphasis added by Examiner)).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “determining a first correspondence relationship between a current value of the draught fan and an external static pressure value according to the preset air volume value”;
“determining a second external static pressure value according to the operating current value and the first correspondence relationship”; and
“obtaining a static pressure correction value, and calculating the first external static pressure value according to the second external static pressure value and the static pressure correction value” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 4-8, 11, 13-14, and 18-20 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 12, and 15.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights