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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 27 is 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 and US Publication No. 2015/0002080 A1 to Lang.
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_image1.png
394
564
media_image1.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
PNG
media_image2.png
384
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mukai teaches limitations from claim 27 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), [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).
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai, Narita, and US Publication No. 2015/0002080 A1 to Lang.
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 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.
Neither Mukai nor Narita teaches the indoor air conditioner being “configured to receive a signal indicative of a detected number of persons present in the target space” or the determination of the number of persons in the space for controlling the intensity of waves being made based on this detected number. Lang teaches in ¶¶ 14-15 a system for the wireless charging of sensors within a building in which some of these sensors (112a-112c) “include occupancy sensors configured to detect whether a person occupies the room in which the sensors 112a-112c are mounted and to generate a corresponding signal” and teaches in ¶ 23 that the power transmitters (108a-108c) use this occupancy signal to reduce or stop power transmission in rooms where the sensors (112a-112c) determine the room to be occupied. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the system of Mukai as modified by Narita and discussed above further with the occupancy sensors and their use in the control of power transmission taught by Lang in order to provide an additional layer of safety to the schedule-based occupancy determinations taught by Narita, ensuring safe operations even when user presence does not align with their expected schedule of presence.
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.
Narita teaches in fig. 1, shown below, 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.
PNG
media_image4.png
462
706
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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, Narita, and Lang 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, Narita, and Lang 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, Narita, and Lang 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, Lang, 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, Narita, and Lang 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 with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on pp. 8-10 of the reply that the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) should be withdrawn as the term “building energy management system” is a known term of art, referring to a computer system of “computer-based system” controlling and monitoring energy use of building systems.
In response and upon review of the argument and the citations presented therein, examiner agrees and the rejection of claim 8 as presenting new matter by the recitation that the building energy management system includes a computer has been withdrawn.
In order to promote clarity of the record, the websites included by applicant as citations in support of this argument are included in the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) provided with this Office Action and copies of these websites are hereby included in the Official Record.
Applicant argues on pp. 10-14 that the combination of Mukai and Narita does not teach the limitations of amended claim 1 regarding the air conditioner receiving a signal indicating a detected number of people in the target space or this detected number being the number of people in the space used in control of the intensity of radio waves.
In response, examiner agrees but directs attention to the new grounds of rejection of claim 1 set forth above in which Lang is relied upon in combination with Mukai and Narita as Lang teaches the presence of occupancy sensors used in determining occupancy as an input for the control of wireless power transmission withing a building.
Applicant particularly argues on pp. 13-14 that none of the secondary references applied in rejecting claims dependent upon claim 1 teaches the limitations added to claim 1 by amendment.
In response, although examiner agrees with this characterization of the secondary references, it is noted that none of the references is relied upon to teach these features so that this argument is moot with regard to the rejections set forth in this Office Action.
Applicant argues on pp. 14-17 of that the combination of Mukai and Narita does not teach or render obvious the limitations of independent claim 27, arguing particularly that neither Mukai (discussed on pg. 15) nor Narita (discussed on pp. 15-16) teaches the limitation of the air conditioner performing the second action in conjunction with the first action “such that the second electronic controller determines near which one of the air conditioning units the predetermined device is located” and arguing particularly in pp. 15-16 that “Narita is silent regarding each of the electrically-operated devices 3 performing the second action (i.e., forecasting) in conjunction with the first action (i.e., forecasted power notification) to determine which one of the electrically-operated devices 3 the wireless electric energy supplying device 2 is near, as recited in Applicant's independent claim 27”.
In response, examiner agrees with this characterization of the prior art but notes that independent claim 27 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and that, as presented, the claim recites only that the second action is performed in conjunction with the first “such that the second electronic controller determines near which one of the air conditioning units the predetermined device is located” but does not require any particular method or procedure for this determination or that the determination arises specifically from the second and first actions or the conjunction between them. In this teaching, the phrase “such that” may be interpreted as teaching that the actions include the determination of device locations rather than resulting in or providing the location as their result. Further, there is no teaching of the determined proximity being used in any specific manner as an output of the system (e.g. controlling the nearest air conditioning unit after this proximity is determined). For this reason, the teachings of Mukai regarding determining “relative positions of the equipment 20 and the sensor device 30” (¶ 22) in combination with the performance by Narita of determining whether power can be fed as a second action in combination with the outputting of a signal or feeding of power as a first action (¶ 64) discussed in the rejection of claim 27 (in this Office Action and the previous Final Rejection) teach the broadest reasonable scope of claim 27 and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues on pg. 16 that Narita does not teach the use of “information transmitted from the predetermined device” in the forecasting of available power because ¶ 59 of Narita teaches the use of data stored “stored in the work quantity summing portion 3-1”.
In response, examiner disagrees. Although Narita teaches that data pertaining to historical energy supply is stored by the “work quantity summing portion”, Narita only teaches this data to be stored (and presumably summed) by this element rather than generated by it and teaches that the data so retrieved represents “the total amount of work of the driving portion MD within the operating period for forecasting for the day based on the total amount of work for the driving portion MD during the operating periods up to the previous day” (emphasis added by examiner). This data pertaining to operations from previous days must be received before it can be stored. Narita’s ¶ 58 teaches this summing portion receiving inputs pertaining to the previous work (such as from torque and angular velocity sensors) to determine the work amount for previous days, this receiving representing the receipt of data recited in claim 27. Claim 27 does not include any teaching regarding the timing of the receiving of information but teaches only that this information is “received” having been “transmitted from the predetermined device” and the teachings of Narita are thus found to fall within the scope of the claim.
Applicant argues on pp. 17-18 that neither of the Nakamura and Park references made of record in the Final Rejection renders obvious the claimed invention.
In response, examiner agrees and notes that these references were “made of record and not relied upon” in the prior action for this reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights