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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/4/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-8 remain pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection, 112 rejection, and the 101 rejection set forth previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitayama (JP2019-132457A) in view of Venne (US PGPUB 20210003308).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8; Kitayama teaches; An air conditioning control device comprising processing circuitry (Kitayama; at least page 2, paragraph 3; disclose air conditioner (23) and model base control unit (5))
acquire, from outside the air conditioning control device, a plurality of operation patterns each indicating at least one operation target air conditioner among a plurality of air conditioners installed in a room, (Kitayama; at least pages 3 and 6-7, Appendix 5; page 4, Appendix 6; disclose acquiring and storing a plurality of change patterns for a plurality of air conditioners configured to perform air conditioning in a set space)
acquire temperature data indicating a measurement temperature of a temperature sensor installed in the room when the at least one operation target air conditioner indicated by each of the plurality of operation patterns acquired in the plurality of operation patterns acquiring step is in operation, (Kitayama; at least page 3, Appendix 5; page 4, Appendix 6; disclose using a temperature sensor to monitor the temperature change that occurs during each pattern with each air conditioner, and associating the measured temperature with each pattern)
generate, using a control amount of the at least one operation target air conditioner indicated by each of the plurality of operation patterns and the temperature data when the at least one operation target air conditioner is in operation as training data, a room-temperature prediction model, which corresponds to each of the plurality of operation patterns, for predicting a temperature measured by the temperature sensor when the at least one operation target air conditioner indicated by each of the plurality of operation patterns is in operation, and acquire a prediction temperature from the room-temperature prediction model by providing the control amount of the at least one operation target air conditioner indicated by each of the plurality of operation patterns to the room- temperature prediction model, and (Kitayama; at least page 3 and 14-15; disclose a creation unit (53) for generating and updating an air conditioner influence degree model (i.e. room temperature prediction model) which includes generating temperature predictions for a plurality of different patterns of air conditioners given various parameters and wherein the system can choose the optimal pattern to execute based on received parameters and given temperature input)
selects one operation pattern from the plurality of operation patterns on a basis of the prediction temperature, (Kitayama; at least page 4, Appendix 6 and 11; disclose selecting a pattern based upon satisfying a condition (i.e. temperature prediction))
wherein the processing circuitry further performs to operate the at least one operation target air conditioner indicated by the operation pattern selected. (Kitayama; page 4, appendix 6).
Kitayama appears to be silent on; acquire, from outside the air conditioning control device, a plurality of operation patterns each indicating at least one operation target air conditioner among a plurality of air conditioners installed in a room,
However, Venne teaches; acquire, from outside the air conditioning control device, a plurality of operation patterns each indicating at least one operation target air conditioner among a plurality of air conditioners installed in a room, (Venne; at least paragraphs [0068]-[0070]; disclose an air-conditioning control system including an onsite edge controller (i.e. model base control unit as taught by Kiayama) in communication with a remote/cloud server, wherein the edge computing device receives various control information (i.e. patterns of Kitayama) from the remote/cloud server to supplement control of the onsite air-conditioning components).
Kitayama and Venne are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, air-conditioning control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to combine the known method of sending information remote from a server to an onsite controller as taught by Venne with the known system of a pattern based air-conditioning control system as taught by Kitayama in order to provide a system that can utilize a remote computing device to perform advanced computations and pattern determinations while allowing the local onsite controller to manage micro controls thus expanding a local controllers functionality as taught by Venne (paragraphs [0068]-[0070]).
Regarding Claim 3; the combination of Kitayama and Venne teach; The air conditioning control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry further selects, with respect to each of the plurality of operation patterns, at least one operation pattern in which the prediction temperature obtained from the room-temperature prediction model corresponding to said each of the plurality of operation patterns is equal to or lower than a temperature upper limit value and prediction accuracy of the room-temperature prediction model corresponding to said each of the plurality of operation patterns is within a threshold, and selects, from the at least one operation pattern selected, the one operation pattern in which the number of the at least one operation target air conditioner is smallest. (Kitayama; pages 12 and 13).
Regarding Claim 4; the combination of Kitayama and Venne teach; The air conditioning control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry further changes the control amount of the at least one operation target air conditioner indicated by the one operation pattern selected, and trains the room-temperature prediction model to learn the temperature measured by the temperature sensor when the at least one operation target air conditioner is in operation by providing, as training data, the control amount that has been changed and the temperature data when the at least one operation target air conditioner indicated by the one operation pattern selected is in operation to the room- temperature prediction model corresponding to the one operation pattern. (Kitayama; pages 14 and 15).
Regarding Claim 5; the combination of Kitayama and Venne teach; The air conditioning control device according to claim 4, wherein the control amount of the at least one operation target air conditioner is a set temperature of the at least one operation target air conditioner, and the processing circuitry further calculates temperature differences between a plurality of temperatures included in a settable temperature range of the at least one operation target air conditioner and a current set temperature that is currently set, and determines an order of setting the plurality of temperatures to the set temperature on a basis of the temperature differences that have been calculated, and provides the plurality of temperatures to the room-temperature prediction model corresponding to the one operation pattern selected in time order from an earlier time to a later time and train the room-temperature prediction model to learn the temperature measured by the temperature sensor when the at least one operation target air conditioner is in operation. (Kitayama; at least pages 4 and 9-10).
Regarding Claim 6; the combination of Kitayama and Venne teach; The air conditioning control device according to claim 4, wherein the control amount of the at least one operation target air conditioner is a set temperature of the at least one operation target air conditioner, and the processing circuitry further acquires a prediction temperature from the room-temperature prediction model that has been trained by providing, to the room-temperature prediction model that has been trained, one of a plurality of temperatures included in a settable temperature range of the at least one operation target air conditioner as a tentatively set temperature of the at least one operation target air conditioner, and determines the set temperature of the at least one operation target air conditioner on a basis of the prediction temperature and a temperature upper limit value. (Kitayama; at least pages 13-15).
Regarding Claim 7; the combination of Kitayama and Venne teach; The air conditioning control device according to claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry further operates the at least one operation target air conditioner indicated by the operation pattern selected at the set temperature. (Kitayama; at least page 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 5/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kitayama (JP2019-132457A) in view of Venne (US PGPUB 20210003308).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carrieri (US PGPUB 20220010996): disclose a local HVAC controller that is in communication with a remote cloud-based HVAC controller, wherein the cloud based controller can provide control instruction to the local controller to effect HVAC system control.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights