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 .
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 10/25/2023. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2023, 11/30/203, 7/30/2024 and 2/20/2025 were filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because at least fig. 5 and fig. 11 are blurred and/or not clear and readable. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract speaks to merits of the invention. For example, the recitation of “…Maintenance personnel are not required to manually maintain a relative position relation of indoor units. Therefore, the maintenance difficulty of the relative position relation of indoor units is reduced, and a time cost and a labor cost required for maintenance are reduced accordingly,” speaks to the merits. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The MPEP states in part that (a) Papers that are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application, or a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding.
(1) All papers, other than drawings, that are submitted on paper or by facsimile transmission, and are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, must be on sheets of paper that are the same size, not permanently bound together, and:
(i) Flexible, strong, smooth, non-shiny, durable, and white;
(ii) Either 21.0 cm by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4) or 21.6 cm by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 by 11 inches), with each sheet including a top margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm (1 inch), a right-side margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch). MPEP 608.01
The application papers are objected to because the specifications have line numbers in the left margin.
The application papers are objected to because the claims have track changes “a vertical line” in the left margin.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “…generating relative position information in each classified group based on the first correlation coefficient by using any one of the air conditioning indoor units as a locating point.”
The limitation of generating relative position information in each classified group based on the first correlation coefficient by using any one of the air conditioning indoor units as a locating point is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a processor and temperature sensors. That is, other than disclosing a processor and temperature sensors, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the processor and sensors, “determining”, “classifying” and “generating” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the stored and received data to determine and generate relative position information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the clams recite the additional element of a plurality of indoor units. These elements are all claimed at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic structures. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 9-11 are similarly drawn to the abstract idea and are therefore held to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “…a generation device configured to generate relative position information in each classified group based on the first correlation coefficient by taking any one of the indoor units as a locating point.”
The limitation of generating relative position information in each classified group based on the first correlation coefficient by taking any one of the indoor units as a locating point is a method step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a generation device, determination device, and classification device, all broadly disclosed as discrete part of a processor. That is, other than disclosing a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the processor components, “determining”, “classifying” and “generating” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the stored and received data to determine and generate relative position information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic processor components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the clams recite the additional element of a plurality of processor components. These elements are all claimed at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic structures. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a controller that “…generates relative position information in each classified group based on the first correlation coefficient by using any one of the air conditioning indoor units as a locating point.”
The limitation of generating relative position information in each classified group based on the first correlation coefficient by using any one of the air conditioning indoor units as a locating point is a method step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a controller. That is, other than disclosing a controller, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the controller, “determining”, “classifying” and “generating” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the stored and received data to determine and generate relative position information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic controller, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the clams recite the additional elements of an air conditioning system, plurality of indoor units and a controller. These elements are all claimed at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic structures. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using a controller cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 are similarly drawn to the abstract idea and are therefore held to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, 14, 15 and 18, the absence of an art‐based rejection for the claims is not an indication of allowable subject matter, but rather, is an indicium of the fact that the claims are dependent upon independent claims that directed towards an abstract idea. Without clarity as to how Applicant will address the § 101 rejections above, the examiner cannot apply prior art to the claims without undue speculation. These claims will be held rejected pending resolution of the above § 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hamada et al. (US2021/0003304), which teaches an air conditioning control apparatus that determines a degree of influence between at least two air conditioning units.
Tanaka (US2022/0026867), which a position determination unit and determines an influence degree exerted by an indoor unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763