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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 23, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
In the November 22, 2023 submission, claims 1-11 were presented for consideration and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps and relationships, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps and relationships used to calculate/determine external static pressure within an air duct and methods used to determine fault conditions. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Regarding claim 1, the submission focuses on a method for estimating external static pressure (ESP) in an air duct using the constant volumetric airflow rate and an input power of the PM motor. While the two variables corresponding to the airflow rate and PM motor power are determined to be integral to evaluating ESP, it is unclear how the variables are used in determining the ESP. Dependent claims 2-4 further attempt to resolve the relationship between the elements in disclosing equations which step through the determination process, defining stepwise variables and further denoting functional relationships between developed derivatives in processing the equations. However, as presented the claim provides an unclear relationship between the constant volumetric airflow rate and input power of the PM motor, and fails to denote how the variables are used to estimate ESP.
Regarding claim 10, the submission focuses on a method for determining a fault condition within an HVAC system according to data of the ESP. However, the steps used in determining a fault condition based on the ESP is unclear. While the claim denotes monitored elements of the system, the claim does not make clear how the relationships [presented] are employed in determining that a fault condition exist (e.g., analyzing flow rate combined with an increase in input power). Dependent claim 11 provides further detail to denoting the analytical process used in determining the fault condition, but is unclear on the use of “big data techniques” in evaluating conditions. As such, the presented claim language obscures the method used by the system in determining fault conditions.
Examiner notes that during the examination process, claim language is considered in broad terms, whereby careful consideration is taken to view claim language in light of the specification, and not read details of the specification into the submitted claim language (see MPEP 2111).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., US Patent No. 10,066,631 (patented September 2018, hereinafter ZHANG).
As per claim 5, ZHANG teaches of the a method for controlling a constant volumetric airflow rate of an air conditioning system, the air conditioning system comprising a system controller and a plurality of air ducts disposed at different locations (see fig. 1-2; and col. 2 and col. 7, lines 13-35: system supports the use of HVAC system and motor controllers for controlling the airflow in duct distribution system, wherein CFM is monitored and optimized for air flow);
the method comprising:
disposing a permanent magnetic (PM) motor and a fan in each air duct, and the fan being powered by the PM motor; applying a constant current to the PM motor so that the air duct outputs a constant volumetric airflow rate in a unit of cubic feet per minute (CFM) (see fig. 1; and col. 2, lines 19-40; col. 3, lines 55-62: system uses a PM motor connected to a fan assembly within the airduct for magnifying the flow of inlet air for output, wherein the CFM is monitored and maintained for distribution);
calculating an external static pressure (ESP) on the air duct using two variables:
the constant volumetric airflow rate (CFM) of the air duct and an input power (POWER) of the PM motor (see col. 2, lines 1-50: determining ESP by evaluating the CFM airflow volume and input power (Pi)); transmitting data of the external static pressure (ESP) to the system controller (see col. 2, lines 54-col. 3, line 55: captured data is analyzed and considered with respect to operational parameters for subsequent submission to a system controller); and
analyzing the data to maintain a constant volumetric airflow rate within the air conditioning system (see col. 3, lines line 55 to col. 4, line 22: controller analyzes airflow data along with input power to maintain constant volumetric airflow).
As per claim 6, ZHANG teaches of the method of claim 5, wherein the system controller is configured to receive the data of the external static pressure (ESP) measured by PM motors at different locations and provides appropriate instructions to the PM motors to maintain a constant volumetric airflow rate (CFM) within the plurality of air ducts (see fig. 1 and 2; and col. 5, lines 35-50: system supports the use of multiple pipelines, wherein airflow may differ in different pipeline systems).
As per claim 7, ZHANG teaches of a method for determining whether a filter of a conditioning system is clogged and requires replacement,
the air conditioning system comprising a system controller and a plurality of air ducts disposed at different locations, and each air duct comprising a filter (see fig. 1; and col. 5, lines 35-49 and col. 6, lines 19-22: system contains different pipelines within the system, wherein the increase in air pressure is indicative of filter replacement);
the method comprising: disposing a permanent magnetic (PM) motor and a fan in each air duct, and the fan being powered by the PM motor; applying a constant current to the PM motor so that the air duct outputs a constant volumetric airflow rate in a unit of cubic feet per minute (CFM) (see fig. 1 and 2; and col. 1, lines 13-18, col. 2, lines 19-50 and col. 5, lines 35-49: system focuses on maintaining CFM in pipeline [duct] systems which uses PM motors and fan assemblies to maintain airflow in the duct systems);
calculating an external static pressure (ESP) on the air duct using two variables:
the constant volumetric airflow rate (CFM) of the air duct and an input power (POWER) of the PM motor; transmitting data of the external static pressure (ESP) to the system controller (see col. 1, lines 53-61 and col. 8, lines 38-58: realizing a constant airflow rate based on power of the motor and speed); and
determining whether the filter of the conditioning system is clogged and requires replacement according to the data of the external static pressure (ESP) (see col. 6, lines 15-23: a decrease in static pressure in the filtered pipes are indicative of clogged filters which should be replaced).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 8 and 9 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While the cited art focus on various techniques used in evaluating airflow in HVAC systems and employing PM motors to facilitate continuous airflow in ducts consistent with several of the limitations presented in the instant application, the references either singularly or in combination, fail to explicitly teach or suggest of a system and method for monitoring, evaluating and establishing constraint parameters coinciding with the airflow and PM motor power attributes in a multi-duct HVAC system, wherein based on the relationship between ESP, CFM and input power, fault conditions are determined and alarms/notifications are issued as a result of error conditions.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The combination of Jeung et al., [US-2010-0256821], Nordby et al., [US-5,736,823] and Young [US-4,806,833] teaches of managing CFM in an HVAC duct system, while Wang et al., [US-9,732,976] focuses on managing constant airflow based on power, PM motor speed and static pressure within the system. The balance of the references cited in the attached PTO Form-892 focus on various systems and method of managing and controlling airflow within duct/pipeline systems employing the use of PM motors.
Conclusion
The applicant is strongly encouraged to contact the examiner if further clarifications are needed with respect to interpretation of currently presented claims and/or cited prior art.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN BOOKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7827. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571) 272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Kelvin Booker/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119