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 .
Contingent Limitations
Claim 13 comprises contingent limitations recited in phrases “when …”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The conditions followed the phrase “if” may not be met, hence the corresponding steps may not be required to be conducted. Therefore, these limitations have no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 (II) for details.
Applicant is deemed to intend to make the limitations to have patentable weight in the claims. So for continuing examination purpose, the corresponding limitations in the claim have been construed as “[[when]] in response to it is determined that issuance of the alarm continues after the ventilation completion time has elapsed” and “[[when]] in response to it is determined that issuance of the alarm does not continue after the ventilation completion time has elapsed”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 17-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites limitations “the step of …” which lack sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the limitations have been construed as “the
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 8, 10, 12-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowald (US 20200124306 A1, hereinafter as “Kowald”) in view of Kadowaki (US 20030154709 A1, hereinafter as “Kadowaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Kowald teaches:
A failure determination system comprising:
ventilation equipment (blower 116 in FIG. 1);
a gas concentration sensor (combination of gas sensor 118 and alarm 120 in FIG. 1) comprising a first processor ([0025]: “indoor unit 110 may include multiple controllers (e.g., a controller for alarm 120 …”. This teaches the combination of gas sensor 118 and alarm 120 comprises a processor to conduct their functions) configured to execute operations comprising:
outputting a detected value corresponding to a concentration of a gas in a space in which the ventilation equipment is provided ([0026]: “gas sensor 118 of indoor unit 110 detects a refrigerant leak in an indoor environment by detecting a gas concentration above a certain threshold”);
generating an alarm on the basis of the detected value ([0026]: “Gas sensor 118 sends a signal to alarm 120 of indoor unit 110 to activate alarm 120. Upon activation of alarm 120, alarm 120 sends a signal to controller 122 to alert controller 122 of the refrigerant leak”), and
transmitting alarm issuance information regarding the issuance of the alarm ([0026]: “Upon activation of alarm 120, alarm 120 sends a signal to controller 122 to alert controller 122 of the refrigerant leak”); and
a control device (controller 122 in FIG. 1) comprising a second processor configured to execute operations comprising:
receiving the alarm issuance information ([0026]: “In response to the activation of alarm 120, controller 122 initiates operation of blower 116 of indoor unit 110 to ventilate the refrigerant leak”),
causing the ventilation equipment to execute a ventilation operation on the basis of the alarm issuance information ([0026]: “In response to the activation of alarm 120, controller 122 initiates operation of blower 116 of indoor unit 110 to ventilate the refrigerant leak”).
Kowald teaches all the limitations except the control device further determines whether the gas concentration sensor fails on the basis of the alarm issuance information after a ventilation completion time has elapsed from the start of the causing the ventilation equipment to execute the ventilation operation.
However, Kadowaki teaches in an analogous art:
determining whether gas concentration sensor (gas sensor 320 in FIG. 16) fails on the basis of measured gas concentration value after a ventilation completion time has elapsed from the start of the causing ventilation equipment (air pump 322 in FIG. 16 and [0125]) to execute the ventilation operation (FIG. 16, steps 342-346 in FIG.18, and FIG. 19, and [0147-0149]: to determine the abnormality of gas sensor 320, the air pump 322 is turned on to pump outside air to the sensor and measure gas concentration value output by the sensor 320. If the measured gas concentration value can not decrease to reach a predetermined value V1 after a time TLd, the sensor 320 is determined to be abnormal).
Since Kowald teaches to activate/deactivate the alarm based on whether the detected gas concentration value is above a threshold value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowald based on the teaching of Kadowaki, to make the failure determination system wherein the control device further determines whether the gas concentration sensor fails on the basis of the alarm issuance information after a ventilation completion time has elapsed from the start of the causing the ventilation equipment to execute the ventilation operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “diagnosing presence or absence of an abnormality of the exhaust gas sensor”, as Kadowaki teaches in [0002].
Regarding claim 2, Kowald-Kadowaki teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Kadowaki further teaches:
determining a failure of the gas concentration sensor when it is determined that gas sensor output above threshold continues after the ventilation completion time has elapsed (step 346 in FIG. 18: if the measured gas concentration value continue to above the predetermined value V1 after a time TLd, the sensor 320 is determined to be abnormal), and
determining a non-failure of the gas concentration sensor when it is determined that gas sensor output above threshold does not continue after the ventilation completion time has elapsed (step 345 in FIG. 18: if the measured gas concentration value does not continue to above the predetermined value V1 after a time TLd, the sensor 320 is determined to be normal).
Since Kowald teaches to activate/deactivate the alarm based on whether the detected gas concentration value is above a threshold value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kowald based on the teaching of Kadowaki, to make the failure determination system wherein the determining further comprises determining a failure of the gas concentration sensor when it is determined that issuance of the alarm continues after the ventilation completion time has elapsed, and the determining further comprises determining a non-failure of the gas concentration sensor when it is determined that issuance of the alarm does not continue after the ventilation completion time has elapsed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “diagnosing presence or absence of an abnormality of the exhaust gas sensor”, as Kadowaki teaches in [0002].
Claim 4 recites a failure determination method comprising operational steps all conducted by the failure determination system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites a control device with all limitations covered by the failure determination system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Kowald-Kadowaki teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Kowald further teaches:
the gas represents a combustible gas ([0020]: “gas sensor 118 may be a flammable gas sensor that detects gas resulting from a refrigerant leak in system 100”), and the issuance of the alarm from the gas concentration sensor is according to the detected value being greater than a threshold value ([0026]: “gas sensor 118 of indoor unit 110 detects a refrigerant leak in an indoor environment by detecting a gas concentration above a certain threshold”).
Regarding claim 10, Kowald-Kadowaki teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Kadowaki further teaches:
the failure of the gas concentration sensor represents deterioration of the gas concentration sensor ([0149]: “when the lean response time period TL is longer than the lean response determinant TLd, the processing proceeds to step 346 to determine that the lean response of the downstream gas sensor 320 is abnormal (deteriorated)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kowald based on the teaching of Kadowaki, to make the failure determination system wherein the failure of the gas concentration sensor represents deterioration of the gas concentration sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “diagnosing presence or absence of an abnormality of the exhaust gas sensor”, as Kadowaki teaches in [0002].
Claims 12, 13 and 14 recite a failure determination method comprising operational steps conducted by the failure determination system of claims 8, 2 and 10 respectively with similar limitations. Therefore, claims 12, 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claims 8, 2 and 10, respectively.
Claims 16, 17 and 18 recite a control device similar to the failure determination system of claims 8, 2 and 10 respectively. Therefore, claims 16, 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claims 8, 2 and 10, respectively.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowald in view of Kadowaki, and in further view of Busujima (US 20100120139 A1, hereinafter as “Busujima”).
Regarding claim 3, Kowald-Kadowaki teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach a pipe which is disposed in the space and causes the gas introduced from the outside of the space to pass toward the gas concentration sensor.
However, Busujima teaches in an analogous art:
a pipe (pipe 54 in FIG. 2) which is disposed in a space and causes the gas introduced from the outside of the space to pass toward the gas concentration sensor ([0058]: “the gas concentration measurement unit 30 includes the electromagnetic valve EV2 and the outside air take-in pipe 54 for supplying outside air to the gas concentration sensor 42, and the controller 70 supplies the outside air to the gas concentration sensor 42 by the electromagnetic valves EV2 and the outside air take-in pipe 54, and on the basis of an output of the gas concentration sensor 42, performs zero-point calibration of the gas concentration sensor 42 stored in the controller 70”. This teaches a pipe 54 disposed in a space near gas sensor 42 causes air from outside to pass toward the gas sensor 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowald-Kadowaki based on the teaching of Busujima, to make the failure determination system to further comprise a pipe which is disposed in the space and causes the gas introduced from the outside of the space to pass toward the gas concentration sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help “enabling more accurate calibration”, as Busujima teaches in [0058].
Claim 9 recites additional limitations similar to claim 3. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 7, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowald in view of Kadowaki, and in further view of Whynall (US 20020101247 A1, hereinafter as “Whynall”).
Regarding claim 7, Kowald-Kadowaki teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach the gas represents oxygen, and the issuance of the alarm from the gas concentration sensor is according to the detected value being less than a threshold value.
However, Whynall teaches in an analogous art:
the gas represents oxygen, and the issuance of the alarm from the gas concentration sensor is according to the detected value being less than a threshold value ([0019]: “It is also an object of the invention to provide a monitoring system which provides a warning signal when the oxygen content in the vicinity of the monitoring system controls drops below a predetermined value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kowald-Kadowaki based on the teaching of Whynall, to make the failure determination wherein the gas represents oxygen, and the issuance of the alarm from the gas concentration sensor is according to the detected value being less than a threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help monitor oxygen level, as Whynall teaches in [0019].
Claims 11 and 15 recite additional limitations similar to claim 7. Therefore, claims 11 and 15 are rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. 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.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115