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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 line 8 of claim 8, a recitation has been added by amendment specifying “the management system including a computer”. This management system, taught in the specification only in ¶ 165, is not taught in the disclosure as originally filed to include a computer or any other specific structure beyond the teaching that it is “a management system such as a building energy management system (BEMS) that manages energy in a building”. Further, the only “computers” recited in the original disclosure are a “microcomputer” included in a remote control (C3) as taught in ¶ 63 and another microcomputer in the air conditioning controller (C4) as taught in ¶ 163, with neither of these devices taught to be or include the energy management system. For this reason, the recitation of the management system including a computer presented in claim 8 constitutes new matter and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant argues on pg. 11 of the reply filed with this amendment that “Wikipedia describes an energy management system as a computer system” and that “Accordingly the recited energy management system includes a computer.” Regarding this argument, refer to the Response to Arguments section at the end of this Office Action.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-14, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication No. 2021/002007 A1 to Mukai in view of US Publication No. 2013/0060496 A1 to Narita.
A copy and a translation of Mukai was provided by applicant with the Information Disclosure Statement of 22 November 2023. Citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Japanese-language original document.
PNG
media_image2.png
394
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Label
English Translation
Citation ¶
Label
English Translation
Citation ¶
1
Sensor system
12-13
24
Drive section/unit
28, 32
10
Management device
14
25
Control section/unit
28, 33
20
Equipment
12, 14, 17, 28
26
Wireless power supply section/unit
28, 34
21
Power supply section/unit
28-29
27
Communication section/ wireless communication unit
28, 35
22
Equipment communication section/unit
28, 30
30
Sensor device
13-15
23
Measurement section/unit
28, 31
90
Dedicated network
14, 17
Mukai teaches limitations from claim 1 in figs. 1 and 4, shown above. To promote clarity of the record, these figures are presented with a table of English translations of the Japanese labels for components present in the figures, as well as relevant citations to the translation regarding each. Mukai teaches an air conditioning unit comprising:
an indoor air conditioner (equipment 20, taught in ¶ 17 to be an air conditioner and in ¶ 14 to be installed in a building and is thus an “indoor air conditioner”) configured to condition air in a target space (in the building taught in ¶ 14);
a power supply line (the connection of the power supply unit 21 to “a commercial AC power supply” as taught in ¶ 29) configured to supply power to the indoor air conditioner; and
a wireless power feeder (wireless power supply unit 26) configured to feed power to a predetermined device (a sensor device 30, not shown in fig. 4 but taught in ¶ 34) disposed in the target space (as taught in ¶ 14),
the wireless power feeder being configured to acquire power from the power supply line (as taught in ¶ 15).
PNG
media_image3.png
536
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Mukai teaches a sensor system in which an air conditioner communicates wirelessly with and supplies power wirelessly to one or more sensor devices arranged in the same building as the air conditioner and further teaches the air conditioner having a controller (25, shown in fig. 4) which is taught to include a processor and memory and to control the entire air conditioner in ¶ 33-34, including controlling the wireless power supply section 26 of the air conditioner with both ON/OFF operation and stepped radio frequency output, constituting “three or more levels” (as “OFF”, and at least two steps of “ON”) as taught in claim 1. Mukai does not teach the system of his invention having levels. Mukai does not teach the stepping of power to be performed “in accordance with a number of persons present in the target space” as taught in claim 1, or the controller controlling the feeding of power “so that an index provided in consideration of influence of radio waves on a human body is less than or equal to a predetermined value” as taught in claim 4. Narita teaches in fig. 2, shown above, a “wireless electric power distributing system” for an indoor space (1) having a controller (5) monitoring the system and its operation, and particularly teaches the system having two levels of operation, described as a high-power setting value (HPW) and a low-power setting value (LPW) (equivalent to two steps of non-OFF setting levels in the system of Mukai), the LPW being used as taught in ¶¶ 45-47 when it is determined that a human is present in the space (1), LPW being set to be lower than “an electromagnetic wave level of a degree that does not have an effect on human body, as established in the Standards for Radiofrequency Protection”, the upper limit of which is labeled as PWsafe in fig. 2 so that “when the evaluation is that there is a human present in the indoor space 1, a low-power electromagnetic wave, which is smaller than the power level PWsafe, wherein there is no risk of affecting the human body, is sent into the indoor space 1 by the wireless electric energy supplying device 2 through the control of the electric power distribution level” as taught in claims 3 and 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Mukai with the human presence-based control and power-level maximum taught by Narita in order to ensure the safety of humans working in or occupying the space without requiring the full deactivation or interruption of the supply of power in order to ensure ongoing user safety and comfort within the space.
Mukai teaches limitations from claim 2 in figs. 1 and 4, shown above, the air conditioning unit of claim 1 further comprising:
a control board (control unit 25) configured to control the indoor air conditioner (20) and the wireless power feeder (26) (as taught in ¶¶ 32-33, the control unit 25 controls the drive unit 24 which is “an actuator, a motor, etc., and is controlled by the control unit 25 to operate the main function of the equipment 20”, as well as controlling the wireless power supply unit.)
Mukai teaches limitations from claim 6 in figs. 1 and 4, shown above, the air conditioning unit of claim 1 further comprising: a communicator (equipment communication unit 22 and/or wireless communication unit 27) configured to transmit and receive predetermined information to and from the predetermined device (30) (wireless communication unit 27 receives sensor information from the sensor device 30 as taught in ¶ 35).
Mukai teaches limitations from claim 7 in figs. 1 and 4, shown above, the air conditioning unit of claim 6, wherein the communicator (equipment communication unit 22 and/or wireless communication unit 27) is configured to transmit and receive the predetermined information to and from a second indoor air conditioner different from the indoor air conditioner (as taught in ¶ 30, the equipment communication unit 22 communicates with other equipment 20 as well as with the management device 10 over the dedicated network 90, including transmitting sensor information from the sensor device 30 and status information regarding the equipment 20 itself to the management device 10).
Mukai teaches limitations from claim 8 in figs. 1 and 4, shown above, the air conditioning unit of claim 6, wherein the communicator (equipment communication unit 22 and/or wireless communication unit 27) is configured to transmit and receive the predetermined information to and from (with options not taught by Mukai struck through and those taught by Mukai underlined for clarity)
or
a management system (management device 10) configured to manage energy in a construction with the air conditioning device (at least by the management device 10 instructing the equipment 20 to supply power to the sensor device 30 as taught in ¶¶ 16-17), the management system including a computer (“the management device 10 is, for example, a server, a personal computer, etc.” as taught in ¶ 16 of Mukai).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Mukai does not teach the air conditioner of his invention to, using the communication equipment thereof, in which information relating to whether or not power can be fed is received from the powered device as a second action in conjunction with the feeding of power or outputting of a signal as a first action as taught in claim 9, or the system comprising an electronic controller to order the execution of a mode in which these actions are performed as taught in claim 10. Narita teaches in ¶ 41 that the powered device 3 includes a controlling portion 3E which compares the forecasted total required electric energy to the energy which can be supply during the operation period, thus determining whether or not sufficient energy can be supplied, and providing a notification to the electric energy supplying device based on the result of this comparison and teaches in ¶ 64 that in some embodiments, this notification may constitute a request to increase the supply of electric power as taught in claims 9 and 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Mukai with the power comparison and notification taught by Narita in order to ensure that sufficient power is provided to the sensor devices of Mukai for operation and/or battery charging so that power is not wasted by an insufficient supply and so that effective and reliable operations may be maintained.
Mukai as modified by Narita teaches limitations of claim 11 in fig. 2 of Narita, shown above, the air conditioning unit of claim 10, wherein the first action is an action in which the air conditioning unit feeds power to the predetermined device (particularly the high-power setting value (HPW) operation taught in ¶ 49 of Narita and shown in fig. 2), and
the first electronic controller (particularly the system controlling portion 2B taught in ¶¶ 48-49) is configured to order an execution of the first mode during a predetermined time zone (when the schedule discussed in ¶¶ 44 and 48, during a time between 10 PM and 6 AM, when humans cannot be present, the HPW operation is performed as shown in fig. 2).
Mukai as modified by Narita teaches limitations of claim 12 in fig. 2 of Narita, shown above, the air conditioning unit of claim 10, wherein the first action is an action in which the air conditioning unit feeds power to the predetermined device (particularly the high-power setting value (HPW) operation taught in ¶ 49 of Narita and shown in fig. 2), and
the first electronic controller (particularly the system controlling portion 2B taught in ¶¶ 48-49) is configured to order an execution of the first mode when no person is present in the target space (“given the evaluation result that there is no human in the indoor space 1” as taught in ¶ 49).
Mukai as modified by Narita teaches limitations of claim 13 in fig. 2 of Narita, shown above, the air conditioning unit of claim 10, wherein the first action is an action in which the air conditioning unit feeds power to the predetermined device (particularly the high-power setting value (HPW) operation taught in ¶ 49 of Narita and shown in fig. 2), and
the first electronic controller (particularly the system controlling portion 2B taught in ¶¶ 48-49) is configured to order an execution of the first mode in accordance with a manual operation (as taught in ¶ 52, the system may break from the scheduled operations discussed above when a presence or absence of a human deviates from expectations operating differently than the automated schedule would otherwise instruct. Further, in this way a human entering the space may be taken as a “manual operation” instructing or causing a change in the operation of the system.)
Regarding claim 14, Mukai teaches the system of his invention including “a wireless power supply unit” but does not teach the physical structure of this unit, including the presence of an antenna to transmit power, and a transmission circuit connecting the power supply line to this antenna, the antenna and circuit being provided at different positions.
PNG
media_image4.png
462
706
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Narita teaches in fig. 1, shown above, the wireless electric energy supplying device (2) including both an antenna (ANT1) outside of the device and circuitry (such as the electric power distribution level controlling portion 2C and the transmitting receiving portion 2D inside the device and connecting the antenna to an external power supply 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Mukai with the structure and arrangement of the power supplying system of Narita in order to allow for the system to be oriented and arranged to fit and operate in a variety of installations and systems, increasing the range of installations in which the system may be of use and the convenience to users for such a system.
Mukai teaches limitations from claim 27 in figs. 1 and 4, shown above, an air conditioning unit comprising:
an indoor air conditioner (equipment 20, taught in ¶ 17 to be an air conditioner and in ¶ 14 to be installed in a building and is thus an “indoor air conditioner”) configured to condition air in a target space (in the building taught in ¶ 14);
a power supply line (the connection of the power supply unit 21 to “a commercial AC power supply” as taught in ¶ 29) configured to supply power to the indoor air conditioner; and
a wireless power feeder (wireless power supply unit 26) configured to feed power to a predetermined device (a sensor device 30, not shown in fig. 4 but taught in ¶ 34) disposed in the target space (as taught in ¶ 14), [and]
the wireless power feeder being configured to acquire power from the power supply line (as taught in ¶ 15).
Mukai does not teach the air conditioner of his invention to, using the communication equipment thereof, in which information relating to whether or not power can be fed is received from the powered device as a second action in conjunction with the feeding of power or outputting of a signal as a first action. Narita teaches in ¶ 41 that the powered device (3) includes a controlling portion (3E) which compares the forecasted total required electric energy to the energy which can be supply during the operation period, thus determining whether or not sufficient energy can be supplied, and providing a notification to the electric energy supplying device based on the result of this comparison and teaches in ¶ 64 that in some embodiments, this notification may constitute a request to increase the supply of electric power. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Mukai with the power comparison and notification taught by Narita in order to ensure that sufficient power is provided to the sensor devices of Mukai for operation and/or battery charging so that power is not wasted by an insufficient supply and so that effective and reliable operations may be maintained.
Further, Mukai as modified by Narita teaches:
a second electronic controller (management system 10) configured so that the plurality of air conditioning units (20) each perform the second action in conjunction with the first action for the predetermined device (as discussed in the above with regard to the teachings of Narita) such that the second electronic controller determines near which one of the air conditioning units the predetermined device is located (as taught in ¶ 22 of Mukai).
PNG
media_image5.png
370
492
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
334
253
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
272
271
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai and Narita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WIPO Publication No. 2019/030807 A1 to Shimomuki et al., a copy and a translation of which was provided by applicant with the Information Disclosure Statement of 5 November 2024. Citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Japanese-language original document.
Regarding claim 5, Mukai teaches a sensor system in which an air conditioner communicates wirelessly with and supplies power wirelessly to one or more sensor devices arranged in the same building as the air conditioner. Mukai teaches in fig. 1, shown above, the system including a plurality of the equipment (20) which are taught to be taught to be air conditioners in ¶ 17, but does not teach the device receiving power wirelessly from the air conditioner being another, different indoor air conditioner. Shimomuki teaches in figs. 1, 10, and 11, shown above, and in ¶¶ 10-13, 49, and 53, an installation of an air conditioning system (100) having an indoor unit (10) and a plurality of power transmitting devices (2) for transmitting power to a power receiving device (5) in a moving object (30) to power that object regardless of its placement in the conditioned space. The “movable object” is shown as a fan in fig. 1, but is also taught in ¶¶ 49 and 53 and figs. 10 and 11 to be provided as other air conditioning equipment in alternate embodiments, including the dehumidifier of fig. 10 and ¶ 49 and the humidifier of fig. 11 and ¶ 53. In light of the teachings of Shimomuki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify to transfer power wirelessly between different air conditioners in the space in order to allow for reduced need for electrical wiring while still allowing the installation of a plurality of air conditioning devices within a space, especially for device which might only be required temporarily, seasonally, or infrequently such as the dehumidifier and humidifier of Shimomuki discussed above or as floor- or window-mounted air conditioners.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai and Narita as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2014/0081467 A1 to Sato.
Regarding claim 8, and as discussed in the above rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 102, Mukai teaches the communication unit of the air conditioner (20) of his invention communicating with a management system (10) managing energy consumption and including a computer (¶ 16 of Mukai), but does not teach the communication unit transmitting and receiving information form an outdoor air conditioner or a controller which controls the outdoor and indoor air conditioners. Sato teaches in ¶¶ 31-35 and 44, an air conditioning management system (100) controlling the operation of both indoor units (30) and outdoor units (20) of a system in a centralized manner, the management system and each of the indoor and outdoor units being connected together by dedicated communication lines or by a local area network (LAN) for transmitting information, including operating status and sensor data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Mukai with the inclusion of one or more outdoor units in the system-wide control and data transmission as taught by Sato in order to allow for more consistent and reliable control of the system and its operations to allow for improved efficiency and performance of both indoor and outdoor units of the system.
Claims 15, 16, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai and Narita as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2013/0213614 A1 to Ikeda et al.
Regarding the structure of the indoor air conditioner as taught by claims 15, 16, and 19-26:
Mukai does not teach:
the indoor air conditioner including an inlet, and outlet and a casing forming an air passage for transporting air between the inlet and the outlet as taught in claim 15;
the air conditioner a bell mouth disposed in the air passage as taught in claim 16;
the air conditioner having a heat exchanger disposed in the air passage for exchanging heat between the air and a heating medium and a drain pan configured to collect water deposited on the heat exchanger as taught in claim 18;
the air conditioner having a support to support the casing on a structure of th building in which it is installed as taught in claim 19;
the casing being disposed at an opening of a ceiling and having a decorative panel on a lower surface thereof to cover the opening as taught in claim 20;
the panel having a surface facing a ceiling cavity and an outer peripheral portion as taught in claim 21;
the panel being rectangular with a plurality of corner portions on the outer periphery of the first surface as taught in claim 22;
the panel being rectangular with a straight portion on the outer periphery of the first surface as taught in claim 23;
a surface of the panel facing the target space being a second surface as taught in claim 24; or
the air conditioner comprising a duct disposed behind a ceiling as taught in claim 25.
PNG
media_image8.png
292
452
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
385
468
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
438
458
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Ikeda teaches limitations from claims 15, 16, and 19-26 in figs. 1-3, shown above, particularly:
An air conditioning apparatus in which an indoor unit (50) is installed having an air inlet (10c, disposed behind inlet grille 11a) and a plurality of outlets (30a) each forming an air passage (the dotted lines shown in fig. 3) through a casing of the indoor unit (50) as taught instant claim 15 in ¶ 33-34;
The indoor unit (50) having a bell mouth (14) guiding air in the air passage as taught in claim 16 in ¶ 45;
A heat exchanger (16) connected to refrigerant piping and provided with a drain receiver (10f) for receiving drain water from the heat exchanger as taught in claim 18 in ¶¶ 46-50;
A number of supports (joints 21) supporting the casing (of the unit 50) on a ceiling (20) of the space to be conditioned as taught in claim 19 and shown figs. 1 and 3;
The casing (50) being disposed at an opening (10c) in a ceiling (20) and having a decorative panel (11c) covering the opening (as shown in figs. 1 and 3) at a bottom of the casing as taught in claim 20;
An upper surface of the panel (11c) facing the a ceiling cavity (in which the unit 50 is installed) as taught in claim 21 and as shown in fig. 3;
The decorative panel (11c) being rectangular (as shown in fig. 1) with a plurality of corner portions along its outer peripheral portion, the corners connecting adjacent sides of the peripheral portion (as shown) as taught in claim 22;
The decorative panel (11c) being rectangular (as shown in fig. 1) with a plurality of straight side portions along its outer peripheral portion (as shown) as taught in claim 23;
The panel (11c) having a lower surface facing the space to be cooled (as shown in figs. 1 and 3) as taught in claim 24; and
The unit (50) having a duct (19) disposed behind the ceiling (20, in space 18) as taught in claim 25 and as shown in fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Mukai with the structure and installation of the indoor unit of Ikeda in order to provide an indoor unit which may be installed above a ceiling so that it is able to cool a room without taking up unnecessary space therein, muffling noise generated by the unit from the inside of the room and providing increased circulation by spacing the air inlets and outlets compared to a more compact (e.g. window mounted) air conditioning unit.
Mukai teaches the wireless power supply unit (26) being within the air conditioner equipment (20) of his invention, but none of Mukai, Narita, and Ikeda teaches the antenna of the wireless power supply unit being installed in the specific positions taught for it in claims 15, 16, and 19-26, particularly:
In the air passage as taught in claim 15;
On the bell mouth as taught in claim 16;
On the drain pan as taught in claim 18;
On the support as taught in claim 19;
On the decorative panel as taught in claim 20;
On an outer peripheral portion of the first/upper surface of the panel as taught in claim 21;
On one of the corner portions of the outer peripheral portion as taught in claim 22;
On one of the straight portions of the outer peripheral portion as taught in claim 23;
On the second/lower surface of the panel as taught in claim 24; or
Between the ceiling and the duct and closer to the ceiling back than the duct as taught in claim 25.
MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale states in subsection (VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts states that:
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Here, it is found that the placement of the antenna of the wireless power supply unit of Mukai would not substantially modify the operation of the system In support, examiner notes the number and breadth of positions taught by applicant as acceptable for the installation of this member (in the claims themselves as well as in ¶¶ 106-109, 128-130, and 151-155 of the instant specification which describe these positions). Because it is clear that no specific position is critical or required for the operation of the antenna or the system as a whole, it is found that thus this placement constitutes a matter of obvious design choice by one of ordinary skill in the art which has been held to carry unpatentable weight.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai, Narita, and Ikeda as applied to claims 1 and 14-16 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2022/0412591 A1 to Kokes et al. Although Kokes was published on 29 December 2022, after the priority dates (both Japanese and International) of the instant application, Kokes claims priority to a PCT fling dated 23 April 2021, prior to the earliest priority date of the instant application and thus qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
PNG
media_image11.png
288
490
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Mukai teaches a sensor system in which an air conditioner communicates wirelessly with and supplies power wirelessly to one or more sensor devices arranged in the same building as the air conditioner. Narita teaches a wireless energy transmission unit having an external antenna. Ikeda teaches a ceiling-mounted indoor unit of an air conditioner being configured with an air passage having therein a bell mouth. None of these references teaches the antenna being disposed on and conforming to the shape of a surface of the bell mouth. Kokes teaches in fig. 4, shown above, a ceiling mounted air conditioning unit having a bell mouth (6) with a curved surface on which is installed an electronic component (sensor 7) which is shaped such that it conforms to the surface of the bell mouth on which it is installed (¶¶ 28 and 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the installation of the antenna/energy transmission device in the system of Mukai to conform to the shape of the bell mouth discussed in the above rejection of claim 16 based on the teachings of Kokes in order to secure the element in its installation, reducing the danger of its detachment or damage during transportation and installation and to make efficient use of the space so that air flow is not impeded and other elements are not interfered with.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai and Narita as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2012/0217819 A1 to Yamakawa et al.
Regarding claim 26, Mukai teaches a sensor system in which an air conditioner communicates wirelessly with and supplies power wirelessly to one or more sensor devices arranged in the same building as the air conditioner. Narita teaches a wireless energy transmission unit having an external antenna. Neither Mukai nor Narita teaches the antenna including a body part disposed inside a cover part “that is hollow and made of resin”. Yamakawa teaches in ¶¶ 105-106 a coil unit (300) for a wireless electric power transmission system, the coil unit having a resin case (260) formed having a box shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Mukai with the antenna cover taught by Yamakawa in order to provide protection for the antenna from damage in transport, installation, and maintenance in order to ensure proper and reliable function of both the energy transmission unit and the equipment it powers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 9 and 10-11 that the amendments made to the title and to the claims overcome the objections thereto set forth in the Non-Final Rejection of 10 September 2025.
In response, examiner agrees and these objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pp. 9-10 that the amendments to the claims replacing “control unit” with “controller”, “communication unit” with “communicator”, and similar removes the claims from interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by removing the combination of functional language with generic placeholder terms such as “unit” and “device”, and in the case of the “management system” by the recitation that the management system includes a computer reciting a structure of the system sufficient to perform the function.
In response, examiner agrees and the claims as presented are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant argues on pp. 11-12 of the reply that the rejections of claims 6-13 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) based on invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) without corresponding teachings in the specification are overcome by the amendments to the claims which remove them from interpretation under this section as discussed above.
In response, examiner agrees and these rejections have been withdrawn. Attention is directed however to the new grounds of rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as presenting new matter as set forth above.
Applicant further argues on pp. 11-12 that “one skilled in the art would readily understand that a building energy management system (BEMS) includes a computer for automated control and monitoring of electromechanical facilities in a building” so that the original specification conveys the presence of this element and the amendment of claim 8 to include this element does not constitute new matter.
In response, examiner disagrees. MPEP 2163 Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, "Written Description" Requirement states in subsection (I)(B) regarding amended claims that:
While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where the ordinary artisan would not only recognize the existence of the error in the specification, but also recognize the appropriate correction. In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971).
Here, neither the term “management system” as used in the claim nor “building energy management system” is found to expressly, implicitly, or inherently include a computer. The recited functions of “building energy management” and especially “management” are sufficiently broad, especially in the absence of any disclosed structure performing the functions, that the teachings of the specification are not found to provide “express, implicit, or inherent” disclosure are required by the MPEP so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a computer would be included in such a “management system” and applicant’s reference to a definition taken from Wikipedia does not show that such understanding would rise to the level required by the MPEP, excluding any other systems which might perform the recited function using a different structure. By way of example, a conventional fuse box or circuit breaker box as is commonly known and understood in the art falls within the scope of a “management system” or “building energy management system” without the inclusion of a computer by selectively providing or interrupting (i.e. “managing”) the flow of electrical current (i.e. “energy”) to various areas and circuits of a building or construction.
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments regarding the amendment of claim 8 to recite “a computer” are not found to be persuasive and the claim is rejected as presenting new matter as set forth above.
Applicant argues on pp. 12-17 that claim 1 as amended with the subject matter previously presented in claim 3 overcomes the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Mukai set forth in the Non-Final Rejection and further overcomes the rejection previously applied to claim 3 as being obvious over the combination of Mukai and Narita under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With regard to the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 102, examiner agrees and this ground of rejection has been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103, examiner disagrees and attention is directed to the specific individual arguments as addressed below.
Applicant argues on pp. 14-15 that amended claim 1 teaches “controlling an intensity of radio waves sent from the wireless power feed at three or more levels” and that the off position of Mukai, in which now radio waves are sent, does not constitute such a level.
In response, examiner disagrees. The language presented in amended claim 1 particularly teaches:
“a first electronic controller configured to control an intensity of radio waves sent from the wireless power feeder to the predetermined device at three or more levels in accordance with a number of persons present in the target space”
Per MPEP 2111, claim 1 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claim recites the controller being configured to control the intensity of waves “at three or more levels” but does not teach that radio waves must be sent at all three of these levels. “Off” or “zero” (depending on how the level is described” falls within the scope of the claim as a level at which the claimed air conditioning unit is controlled in the broader operation of “sending radio waves”, even if no radio waves are sent during this specific period.
Should applicant intend the scope of the claim to be limited such that the three or more levels each represent a non-zero level of intensity, a recitation to this effect added to claim 1 might limit the claim to overcome the rejection based on Mukai and Narita, though attention is directed to the prior art made of record but not relied upon in the Conclusion of this Office Action which might be relied upon to reject such an amended claim.
Applicant further arguers on pg. 15 that the control of Narita, does not teach the multiple levels of intensity being selected “in accordance with a number of persons present in the target space” because Narita teaches the low-power setting value (LPW) of their invention (taught in ¶ 46 as “an electromagnetic wave level of a degree that does not have an effect on human body, as established in the Standards for Radiofrequency Protection”) based on a schedule so that the LPW value or a corresponding high-power setting value (HPW) is used to output energy during prescribed time bands rather than based on a number of persons present.
In response, examiner disagrees. Narita teaches in ¶ 45 that the power level setting for a given time band is selected based on the expected occupancy of the space during that time, teaching:
“…if the current time is in the time band from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM, evaluates the time band in the indoor space 1 to be a potentially present time band. That is, the probability that there is a human in the indoor space 1 is high, so the evaluation is that there is a human in the indoor space 1. Given this, the system controlling portion 2B sets the setting value for the level of the electromagnetic waves that are transmitted to the indoor space 1 (the electric power distribution level) to the low-power setting value LPW, because of the evaluation result that there is a human within the indoor space 1, and sends this low-power setting value LPW to the electric power distribution level controlling portion 2C.”
The instant claim refers broadly to “a number of persons present in the target space” and does not teach a specific structure or method used to obtain this number, for example, a device for detecting the entry and egress of persons from the space or the controller being configured to detect a number of persons in the space. For this reason, the determination of the number of people performed by Narita and its use in selecting a power level falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, because an number of persons present estimated based on a schedule is still a number of persons present as claimed.
For this reason, this argument is not found to be persuasive and claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mukai and Narita.
Applicant argues on pp. 15-17 that none of the prior art references relied upon in the Non-Final Rejection for the rejections of the various dependent claims teach the limitations alleged to be lacking in the combination of Mukai and Narita.
In response, examiner agrees but notes that these references have not been relied upon in the rejection of amended claim 1 and that the arguments alleging such deficiencies have not been found to be persuasive as set forth above.
Applicant argues on pg. 16 of the reply that “the current record lacks any apparent reason, suggestion, or expectation of success for modifying Mukai with Narita” or any of the other secondary references. This argument is repeated on pp. 18-19 regarding claim 27.
In response, examiner disagrees and directs applicant’s attention to the statement of the motivation for such modifications included in the rejections of the various claims in both the Non-Final Rejection and this Office Action, which applicant has not argued against or articulated any deficiencies in, and has merely alleged to be lacking. For this reason, this argument amounts only to an unsupported allegation of patentability and cannot be found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 17-18 of the response that the combination of Mukai and Narita does not teach the limitations of claim 27 regarding the second action and the determination “near which one of the air conditioning units the predetermined device is located” performed “in conjunction with the first action” “in which the air conditioning unit feeds power to the predetermined device or outputs a predetermined signal” becaue the power-transmission radio waves used in applicant’s application have stronger directivity than the information-communication radio waves used by Mukai so that applicant’s invention “achieves a technical effect in which accurate position information is obtained using power-transmission radio waves for position detection. This feature is not disclosed in either Mukai or Narita”.
In response, examiner disagrees. Claim 27 as presented teaches that the second action is performed “in conjunction with the first action” but does not require that the radio waves which are used in the position-detection function of the second action are the same power-transmission radio waves used in the first action, the feature with regard to which applicant argues. The phrase “in conjunction with” used here has the plain meaning of “in combination with” or “together with” and does not require that the same waves output in the first action to feed power to the device are those used in the position determination of the second action.
Further, the first action of claim 27 is defined as one “in which the air conditioning unit feeds power to the predetermined device or outputs a predetermined signal” (emphasis by examiner) with no other limitations or features recited for this “predetermined signal”. As such, even arguendo, the claim were interpreted so that the location-determination of the second action were required to include radio waves which are not power-transmission radio waves as set forth in applicant’s arguments, the claim includes no limitations preventing these location-determination radio waves from constituting the “predetermined signal” rather than the “power-transmission radio waves”.
For all of these reasons, applicant’s arguments with regard to claim 27 are not found to be persuasive and the rejection of the claim is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Publication No. 2005/0068019 to Nakamura teaches in ¶ 89 a wireless power supply system in which the level of transmitted power is selected from among “large, medium, and small levels”, constituting three levels of intensity in which a non-zero level of power is transmitted.
Similarly, US Publication No. 2017/0047786 A1 to Park teaches in ¶ 51 a wireless power transmitter and method of operating such a transmitter in which power transmission levels are classified as low-power, medium-power, and high-power, constituting three levels for which non-zero wattages of power are taught.
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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763