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 statements (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2023 and 3/27/2024 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. (Currently Amended) An air-conditioning controller configured to control an air- conditioning apparatus, the air-conditioning controller comprising a processor and a memory, the processor being configured to:
acquire a quantity of environmental state that indicates a state of an air-conditioning target space;
acquire occupant information that specifies a plurality of occupants present in the air-conditioning target space; and
acquire comfort information that is input by the plurality of occupants and indicates a warm-cold sense of each of the plurality of occupants to the air-conditioning target space;
the memory being configured to store the quantity of environmental state at a point in time when the comfort information is acquired, the occupant information, and the comfort information such that the quantity of environmental state at the point in time, the occupant information, and the comfort information are associated with each other;
the processor being configured to
calculate a comfort range for each of the plurality of occupants based on the quantity of environmental state at the point in time, the occupant information, and the comfort information that are associated with each other and stored in the memory; and
calculate a set value to the air-conditioning apparatus based on the calculated comfort range such that a maximum in number of occupants of the plurality of occupants are satisfied with the state of the air-conditioning target space.
Step 1: The claim recites an air-conditioning controller, which is a mechanical and/or electrical device such as a general-purpose computer. Thus, the claim is to a manufacture or a machine, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitation “calculate a comfort range for each of the plurality of occupants based on the quantity of environmental state at the point in time, the occupant information, and the comfort information that are associated with each other and stored in the memory” falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas because the recited calculation could practically be performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. Nor does the recitation of a processor in this claim negate the mental nature of this limitation because the claim here merely uses the processor to perform the otherwise mental process. Further, the limitation “calculate a set value to the air-conditioning apparatus based on the calculated comfort range such that a maximum in number of occupants of the plurality of occupants are satisfied with the state of the air-conditioning target space” also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas because the recited calculation could practically be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional elements of the processor being configured to acquire information (environmental state, occupant information, and comfort information). These additional elements represent mere data gathering and is recited at a high level of generality. The limitations are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor is also an additional element which is configured to carry out the limitations. But the processor is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. As such, it is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a processor. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. As explained previously, the processor is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The recitation of the processor being configured to acquire information is mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. These limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims is not eligible.
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) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. [Lin] (US PGPub 2021/0325072) in view of Cui et al. [Cui] (US PGPub 2019/0158305).
As to claim 1
Lin discloses an air-conditioning controller (HVAC controller 106, see Fig. 1) configured to control an air- conditioning apparatus (HVAC 104, see Fig. 1), the air-conditioning controller comprising a processor (processor 1104, see Fig. 11) and a memory (memory 1102, see Fig. 11), the processor being configured to:
acquire a quantity of environmental state (building thermal state) that indicates a state of an air-conditioning target space (building) (see paragraph 0060, lines 7-12);
acquire occupant information (occupancy count) that specifies a plurality of occupants present in the air-conditioning target space (see paragraph 0020, lines 11-14); and
the memory being configured to store the quantity of environmental state at a point in time when the comfort information is acquired and the occupant information such that the quantity of environmental state at the point in time and the occupant information are associated with each other (see paragraph 0083, lines 16-23);
the processor being configured to
calculate a comfort range (range of PMV; see paragraph 0049, line 1) for each of the plurality of occupants based on the quantity of environmental state at the point in time, the occupant information, and the comfort information that are associated with each other and stored in the memory (see paragraphs 0041-0049).
However, Lin fails to specifically disclose the air-conditioning controller comprising the processor further configured to:
acquire comfort information that is input by the plurality of occupants and indicates a warm-cold sense of each of the plurality of occupants to the air-conditioning target space; and
calculate a set value to the air-conditioning apparatus based on the calculated comfort range such that a maximum in number of occupants of the plurality of occupants are satisfied with the state of the air-conditioning target space.
Cui discloses an air-conditioning controller (building automation application server 102, see Fig. 1) comprising a processor (processor 120, see Fig. 1) configured to:
acquire comfort information (user input data; see paragraph 0039, line 12) that is input by the plurality of occupants (users/occupants) and indicates a warm-cold sense (cold or hot) of each of the plurality of occupants to the air-conditioning target space (building) (Step 310, see Fig. 3; also see paragraph 0039, lines 9-13); and
calculate a set value (comfort value) to the air-conditioning apparatus based on a calculated comfort range (comfort model) such that a maximum in number of occupants of the plurality of occupants are satisfied with the state of the air-conditioning target space (see paragraph 0061, lines 3-9 and paragraph 0079, lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s invention with Cui’s in order to gather information specific to each occupant’s preferences, since doing so would optimize comfort setpoints based on preferences of the users (see Cui paragraph 0042, lines 14-18).
As to claim 2
Lin discloses the air-conditioning controller of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to
define, as the comfort range, a range of a quantity of environmental state between a maximum value of the quantity of environmental state when the occupant feels cold and a minimum value of the quantity of environmental state when the occupant feels hot (see paragraph 0049, lines 1-3).
As to claim 3
Cui discloses the air-conditioning controller of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to
set, as an optimum set value, the set value that causes a number of the comfort ranges for the plurality of occupants within which the set value falls to be maximized (see paragraph 0068, lines 1-13).
As to claim 4
Lin discloses the air-conditioning controller of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to,
when there are a plurality of the optimum set values, define one of the optimum set values, at which the air-conditioning apparatus achieves lowest power consumption, as the optimum set value (see paragraph 0074, lines 1-3 and paragraph 0079, lines 1-8).
As to claim 7
Cui discloses an air-conditioning apparatus (occupancy-aware HVAC control system 100, see Fig. 1) comprising the air-conditioning controller of claim 1 (see Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. [Lin] (US PGPub 2021/0325072), in view of Cui et al. [Cui] (US PGPub 2019/0158305), and further in view of Shrivastava et al. [Shrivastava] (US PGPub 2017/0212400).
As to claim 5
Lin and Cui disclose the air-conditioning controller of claim 1, wherein
the air-conditioning target space is divided into a plurality of zones, and one or a plurality of the air-conditioning apparatuses are located to condition air in each of the divided zones (see Lin paragraph 0021, lines 7-8).
However, Lin and Cui fail to specifically disclose the air-conditioning controller
wherein the processor is further configured to:
calculate a destination to which the occupant moves from the zone where the occupant is present based on the comfort information and the set value to each of the zones; and
instruct the occupant to move from the zone based on a result of calculating destination.
Shrivastava discloses an air-conditioning controller (Building Management System (BMS); see paragraph 0026, lines 11-12)
wherein a processor (microprocessor 410, see Fig. 4) is further configured to:
calculate a destination to which the occupant moves from the zone where the occupant is present based on comfort information (comfort for occupants; see paragraph 0026, lines 3-4) and a set value to each of the zones (see paragraph 0026, lines 2-5 and lines 12-24); and
instruct the occupant to move from the zone based on a result of calculating destination (see paragraph 0026, lines 24-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s and Cui’s inventions with Shrivastava’s in order to guide occupants to areas/floors of the building to conserve energy, since doing so would also maximize occupant comfort (see Shrivastava paragraph 0026, lines 21-27).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. [Lin] (US PGPub 2021/0325072), in view of Cui et al. [Cui] (US PGPub 2019/0158305), in view of Shrivastava et al. [Shrivastava] (US PGPub 2017/0212400), and further in view of Ohta et al. [Ohta] (US PGPub 2020/0134891).
As to claim 6
Lin, Cui, Shrivastava disclose the air-conditioning controller as cited in claim 5; however, Lin, Cui, Shrivastava fail to specifically disclose the air-conditioning controller wherein
the processor is configured to
set, as an optimum set value, the set value that causes a number of the comfort ranges for the plurality of occupants within which the set value falls to be maximized,
specify the occupant for which the optimum set value to the current zone does not fall within the comfort range as an occupant having a low degree of satisfaction with a heat environment of the current zone,
search for a zone where the optimum set value falls within the comfort range for the specified occupant, and
determine the zone that is searched out as a destination zone.
Ohta discloses an air-conditioning controller (air-conditioning manager; see paragraph 0177, lines 1-2) wherein
a processor (CPU 21, see Fig. 2) is configured to
set, as an optimum set value (comfort level value), the set value that causes a number of the comfort ranges (predetermined range; see paragraph 0258, line 3) for the plurality of occupants within which the set value falls to be maximized,
specify the occupant for which the optimum set value to the current zone does not fall within the comfort range as an occupant having a low degree of satisfaction with a heat environment of the current zone (see paragraph 0270, lines 1-16),
search for a zone where the optimum set value falls within the comfort range for the specified occupant (see S603, Fig. 26 and paragraph 0258, lines 6-8), and
determine the zone that is searched out as a destination zone (see paragraph 0264, lines 1-4 and paragraph 0266, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s, Cui’s, Shrivastava’s inventions with Ohta’s in order to guide occupants to areas/floors of the building that will be most comfortable for the occupant, since doing so would also maximize occupant comfort.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571)272-3667. 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.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/THOMAS C LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115