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 § 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 11 recites a “computer-readable storage medium”. Applicant's specification does not limit the interpretation of computer-readable storage medium to solely non-transitory mediums. Accordingly, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer-readable storage medium recited in the claims may be interpreted as including transitory signals. Transitory signals do not fall within any of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below is an analysis in accordance with the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Process found in MPEP 2106(III).
Claim 9: A refrigerant leakage detection device comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
acquire an exhaust temperature of an air conditioner at a plurality of moments during a preset time period, in response to the exhaust temperature of the air conditioner being greater than a preset exhaust temperature and a target operating exhaust parameter of the air conditioner exceeding a preset range of the exhaust parameter of refrigerant leakage;
determine an extreme value of the exhaust temperature and an exhaust moment corresponding to the extreme value of the exhaust temperature of the air conditioner based on the exhaust temperature at the plurality of moments;
acquire an exhaust period of the air conditioner based on the exhaust moment; and
determine whether there is the refrigerant leakage in the air conditioner based on the exhaust period.
Step 1: The claim recites a device. A device is an apparatus. Thus, the claim is to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Limitation (a) in claim 9 recites “acquire an exhaust temperature of an air conditioner at a plurality of moments during a preset time period, in response to the exhaust temperature of the air conditioner being greater than a preset exhaust temperature and a target operating exhaust parameter of the air conditioner exceeding a preset range of the exhaust parameter of refrigerant leakage”. Limitation (b) in claim 9 recites “determine an extreme value of the exhaust temperature and an exhaust moment corresponding to the extreme value of the exhaust temperature of the air conditioner based on the exhaust temperature at the plurality of moments”. Limitation (c) in claim 9 recites “acquire an exhaust period of the air conditioner based on the exhaust moment”. Limitation (d) in claim 9 recites “determine whether there is the refrigerant leakage in the air conditioner based on the exhaust period”. As is evident from applicant’s disclosure, the claimed steps (a)-(d) fall into the “Mental Processes” group of abstract ideas because the recited steps are observations (acquire an exhaust temperature of an air conditioner at a plurality of moments during a preset time period in step (a)), evaluations (in response to the exhaust temperature of the air conditioner being greater than a preset exhaust temperature and a target operating exhaust parameter of the air conditioner exceeding a preset range of the exhaust parameter of refrigerant leakage in step (a)), judgements (determine whether there is the refrigerant leakage in the air conditioner based on the exhaust period in step (d)) and calculations (determine an extreme value of the exhaust temperature and an exhaust moment corresponding to the extreme value of the exhaust temperature of the air conditioner based on the exhaust temperature at the plurality of moments in step (b) and acquire an exhaust period of the air conditioner based on the exhaust moment in step (c)) that are simple enough that they can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited calculation or observation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses general purpose computer as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional element “one or more processors”. The one or more processors are merely generic processors which are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, the processors are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. As explained previously, the one or more processors are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Examiner takes official notice that processors were well-known and conventionally used before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to analyze input data and generate output data based on the input data. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Claims 1-3 and 10-11 are merely just extensions or variations of the judicial exception, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 would be allowable upon resolution of the above 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Claims 4-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Gao et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/03168001 discloses detecting a refrigerant leak in an air conditioning system by monitoring a variety of parameters, including exhaust temperature, at different times to determine a steady state in which analysis is performed to more accurately detect the refrigerant leak.
Watanabe et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2021/0018200 discloses detecting a refrigerant leak and activating an alarm when a refrigerant concentration sensor output exceeds at least one threshold for a time period that exceeds at least one threshold.
Liu et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2016/0265826 discloses detecting an amount of refrigerant leakage based on sensed compressor exhaust temperatures.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest detecting a refrigerant leak by acquiring an exhaust temperature of an air conditioner at a plurality of moments during a preset time period when the exhaust temperature of the air conditioner is greater than a preset exhaust temperature and a target operating exhaust parameter of the air conditioner exceeds a preset range of the exhaust parameter of refrigerant leakage, determining an extreme value of the exhaust temperature and an exhaust moment corresponding to the extreme value of the exhaust temperature of the air conditioner based on the exhaust temperature at the plurality of moments, acquiring an exhaust period of the air conditioner based on the exhaust moment; and determining whether there is the refrigerant leakage in the air conditioner based on the exhaust period.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571) 272-3667. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 January 24, 2026
1 Gao was cited in the 1/25/24 IDS.