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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullins (US 11754308 B1) in view of Vacek (US 20220170650 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sullins teaches an attic ventilation system (the system of FIG. 2), comprising: an exhaust unit (FIG. 2, the assembly surrounding exhaust fan 222) configured to mount proximate to an exhaust vent (FIG. 2, roof vent 226) of an attic (FIG. 2, attic 224) and including a fan (FIG. 2, the exhaust fan 222) configured to force air out of the attic through the exhaust vent; a sensor (FIG. 1, temperature and humidity sensor 112) configured to detect temperature and humidity within the attic; and a control unit (FIG. 1, integrated thermostat 100) controllably coupled to the exhaust unit and in data communication with the sensor.
Sullins fails to teach wherein: the sensor is configured to send the control unit current temperature data corresponding to the temperature detected in the attic by the sensor at a given time; the sensor is configured to send the control unit current humidity data corresponding to the humidity detected in the attic by the sensor at a given time; and the control unit is configured to control the fam to selectively force air out of the attic through the exhaust vent based on the current temperature data and the current humidity data.
However, Vacek teaches wherein: the sensor is configured to send the control unit current temperature data corresponding to the temperature detected in the attic by the sensor at a given time; the sensor is configured to send the control unit current humidity data corresponding to the humidity detected in the attic by the sensor at a given time; and the control unit is configured to control the fam to selectively force air out of the attic through the exhaust vent based on the current temperature data and the current humidity data (abstract, the controller receives temperature and humidity data that is used to determine when/how much air to exhaust from the attic).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Sullins by making it so exhaust processes take temperature and humidity into account, as taught by Vacek, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sullins with these aforementioned teachings of Vacek with the motivation of employing more data in HVAC system decisions to ensure proper actions are taken.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sullins and Vacek teaches that the exhaust unit includes a second fan coupled to the control unit; and the control unit jointly controls the fan and the second tan (Sullins, FIG. 2, there are two exhaust fans 222).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sullins and Vacek teaches that the control unit includes a user interface device (Sullins, FIG. 1, user interface 110) configured to enable a user to specify a threshold temperature parameter corresponding to a desired temperature upper limit within the attic (Sullins, “For example, the user may specify various temperature set points that are then stored into the set point data 134.”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sullins and Vacek teaches that the user interface device is further configured to enable a user to specify a threshold humidity parameter corresponding to a desired humidity upper limit within the attic (Sullins, “If the resident has specified a humidity set point, such embodiments of the integrated thermostat 100 may be configured to bring in fresh outside air if the humidity of that air is at the specified humidity set point.”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sullins and Vacek teaches that the control unit is configured to control the fan to force air through the exhaust vent when the current temperature data exceeds the threshold temperature parameter or the current humidity data exceeds the threshold humidity parameter (Sullins, “If the resident has specified a humidity set point, such embodiments of the integrated thermostat 100 may be configured to bring in fresh outside air if the humidity of that air is at the specified humidity set point.”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sullins and Vacek teaches that the exhaust unit includes a mounting plate configured to mount to the attic proximate the exhaust vent; and the fan is mounted to the mounting plate (Sullins, FIG. 2, the structure of the housing of the exhaust fan 222 is mounted to the attic near the exhaust ducts and vents, and is mounted to the fans).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sullins and Vacek teaches that the control unit operates the fan to force air through the exhaust vent at an exhaust rate selected to maintain a draw rate of air into the attic below a maximum flow rate capacity of eave vents defined in the attic to avoid drawing air through penetrations into the attic from living spaces adjacent to the attic (Sullins, FIG. 2, the fans 222 exhaust air at a rate below the maximum flow rating of the vents between the living space and the attic, and the assembly is designed so that there is no breach between the two spaces, ensuring air only flows through the vents).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sullins and Vacek fails to teach that the exhaust rate is between 100 and 200 cubic feet of air per minute.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the flow rate of air is between 100 and 200 cubic feet per minute, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Sullins teaches air exhausting from the attic at a certain flow rate), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that exhaust rate is a result effective variable because it determines how much the system can control temperature and humidity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the flow rate of air is between 100 and 200 cubic feet per minute, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 2-5 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullins and Vacek as applied to claims 1 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Lyons (CA 2918085 C).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sullins and Vacek fails to teach that the control unit includes a power supply operatively connected to the fan.
However, Lyons teaches that the control unit includes a power supply operatively connected to the fan (paragraph 47, the controller 300 (which may be a thermostat) includes a power supply).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Sullins by making it so the thermostat includes a power supply and a data bus, as taught by Lyons, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sullins with these aforementioned teachings of Lyons with the motivation of keeping several necessary components in an easily accessible thermostat casing to facilitate replacing damaged parts.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, and Lyons teaches that the control unit includes a bus electrically connecting the power supply to the Fan (Lyons, paragraph 49, the controller 300 includes a bus 190).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, and Lyons teaches that the control unit includes a housing; and the power supply and the bus are disposed inside the housing (Lyons, paragraphs 47 and 49, the bus and power supply are disposed within a casing of the thermostat).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, and Lyons teaches that the control unit includes a user interface device: the housing includes a front wall defining a front window: and the user interface device is mounted in the front window (Sullins, FIG. 4, the display 400 peeks through a front facing wall of the thermostat).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, and Lyons teaches that the control unit includes a processor configured to execute computer executable instructions, the processor being in data communication with the sensor and controllably coupled to the fan (Vacek, abstract, the controller).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, and Lyons teaches that the computer executable instructions include instructions to: receive a threshold temperature parameter corresponding to a desired temperature upper limit within the attic; compare the current temperature data to the threshold temperature parameter; and selectively connect the fan with power from the power supply when the current temperature data exceeds the threshold temperature parameter (Vacek, abstract, the controller modulates power to the fan to achieve a certain temperature or humidity value).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, and Lyons teaches that the control unit is configured to modify the voltage of the power supplied to the fan to control the speed of the fan based on a magnitude of a difference between the current temperature data and the threshold temperature parameter (Vacek, abstract, the controller modulates power to the fan based on a certain temperature or humidity value).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, and Lyons teaches that the computer executable instructions include instructions to: receive a threshold humidity parameter corresponding to a desired humidity upper limit within the attic; compare the data to the threshold parameter; and selectively connect the fan with power from the power supply when the current humidity data exceeds the threshold humidity parameter (Vacek, abstract, the controller modulates power to the fan to achieve a certain temperature or humidity value).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullins, Vacek, and Lyons as applied to claims 2-5 and 10-13 above, and further in view of Ribbich (US 20160327302 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, and Lyons teaches that the housing includes an enclosure defining an enclosure opening (Sullins, the open face of the thermostat when disassembled); and the power supply and the bus are mounted to the housing within the enclosure (Lyons, the bus and power supply are attached within the thermostat 300).
However, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, and Lyons fails to teach that the front wall is pivotally connected to the enclosure to define a door configured to pivot between a closed configuration where the front wall covers the enclosure opening and an open configuration where front wall is pivoted away from the enclosure opening to provide access inside the enclosure.
However, Ribbich teaches that the front wall is pivotally connected to the enclosure to define a door configured to pivot between a closed configuration where the front wall covers the enclosure opening and an open configuration where front wall is pivoted away from the enclosure opening to provide access inside the enclosure (FIG. 16, the thermostat assembly hingedly rotates to reveal an open space).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Sullins by making it so the thermostat includes a hinge to open up the front face of the thermostat, as taught by Ribbich, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sullins with these aforementioned teachings of Ribbich with the motivation of making the interior components of the thermostat easily accessible.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullins, Vacek, Lyons, and Ribbich as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Stefankiewicz (US 20190220071 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, Lyons, and Ribbich fails to teach that the power supply is configured to convert alternating current electricity into 24 volts of direct current electricity; and the fan is configured to operate with direct current electricity up to 24 volts.
However, Stefankiewicz teaches that the power supply is configured to convert alternating current electricity into 24 volts of direct current electricity (paragraph 220, the power supply converts AC electricity to DC for a fan motor).
Stefankiewicz fails to teach that the fan is configured to operate with direct current electricity up to 24 volts.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the power supply output 24 V, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Stefankiewicz, paragraph 220, the power supply outputs 170 V), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that output voltage is a result effective variable because it affects the operation of the fan the voltage is being supplied to. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the power supply output 24 V, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, Lyons, Ribbich, and Stefankiewicz teaches that the bus includes: an input terminal electrically connected to the power supply and configured to receive 24-volt direct current electricity; and an output terminal electrically connected to the fan and configured to output 24-volt direct current electricity to the fan (Vacek, the bus connects the power supply to the fan in the above combination).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sullins, Vacek, Lyons, Ribbich, and Stefankiewicz teaches that the control unit includes a processor executing computer executable instructions; and the processor is configured to selectively adjust the voltage of the direct current electricity output to the fanvia the output terminal between 0 and 24 volts to control the speed of the fan (Sullins, the fan 222 is controlled by modulating DC voltage).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762