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 3/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth previously.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 includes the new limitation of, “the portable terminal processes the operational request when the estimated time computed by the estimated arrival time computing circuitry is earlier than time when the exclusive time expires”, this appears to be a minor grammatical error and should be corrected to recite, “…is earlier than the time when the exclusive time expires”. 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 3 recites, “a moving speed computing circuitry to compute a moving speed of the portable terminal on a basis of the location information of the portable terminal and time information when the portable terminal is outside the control area” and “an estimated arrival time computing circuitry to compute estimated arrival time on a basis of the moving speed computed by the moving speed computing circuitry, the estimated arrival time being time when the portable terminal arrives at the air conditioner,”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of performing mathematical calculations which fall within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 3 includes the additional limitation of, “the portable terminal processes the operational request when the estimated time computed by the estimated arrival time computing circuitry is earlier than time when the exclusive time expires”, and “the display displays unavailability of operation when the estimated arrival time is earlier than time when the exclusive time expires.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, simply provides a display to a user notifying them that an action cannot take place based on their arrival time and further just generally states an operational request is processed without disclosing what processing the request entails which simply applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the limitations of, “portable terminal”, “moving speed computing circuitry”, and “estimated arrival time computing circuitry”, as generally recited represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering operation unavailability data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation merely amounts to transmitting data over a network after a predetermined time, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, simply adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). s
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yabe (WO2015020202A1).
Regarding Claim 7; Yabe teaches; An air conditioner operation control apparatus comprising: (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0007] and [0015]; disclose an air conditioner operation control apparatus)
a request receiving circuitry to receive an operational request intended for an air conditioner from a portable terminal; (Yabe; at least paragraph [0030]; disclose a receiving unit (220) for receiving operation requests from a plurality of portable terminals (51, 52))
an exclusive time setting circuitry to set a certain period between a point in time when the request receiving circuitry receives the operational request and a point in time when the certain period that is predetermined expires as an exclusive time; (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0057]-[0062]; disclose an exclusion module (i.e. exclusive time setting circuitry) which establishes a time limit during a period of time when it receives an operation request from a portable terminal that must expire before receiving another operation request from another portable terminal)
an operational request retention memory to retain a different operational request that the request receiving circuitry has received from a portable terminal different from the portable terminal before the exclusive time set by the exclusive time setting circuitry expires; and (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0063]-[0075]; disclose an auxiliary storage unit (23) in which a plurality of operation requests can be received from a plurality of portable terminals and wherein the exclusion module further provides time limit information with each request such that subsequent requests cannot be received until expiration of the time limit from a previous request)
an operational request transmitting circuitry to transmit to the air conditioner the different operational request retained by the operational request retention memory after the exclusive time set by the exclusive time setting circuitry expires. (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0063]-[0075]; disclose a transmitter (270) for transmitting the plurality of operation requests from the plurality of terminals only after an upper time limit is exceeded from a time limit provided by the exclusion module).
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 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe (WO2015020202A1) in view of Murakami (US PGPUB 20210318016) in view of Lagerstedt et al. (US PGPUB 20160077532).
Regarding Claim 1; Yabe teaches; An air conditioner operation control system comprising: (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0007] and [0015]; disclose an air conditioner operation control system)
an air conditioner to perform operational request-based operation relating to air conditioning; (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0007] and [0015]; disclose an air-conditioner configured to perform request based operations from a plurality of terminals)
a portable terminal; and (Yabe; at least Fig. 1; paragraphs [0011] and [0037]; disclose portable terminals (51, 52))
a server including a relaying circuitry to receive an operational request from the portable terminal and relay the operational request received to the air conditioner and (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0021], [0028], and [0030]; disclose a controller (20) embodied as a server which includes a receiving unit (220) (i.e. relaying circuitry) which receives operational requests from operation terminals and relays the requests to an air conditioner)
an exclusive time setting circuitry to set a certain period between a point in time when the relaying circuitry receives the operational request and a point in time when the certain period that is predetermined expires as an exclusive time, (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0057]-[0061]; disclose an exclusion module (231) (i.e. exclusive time setting circuitry) which includes establishing a time limit (i.e. exclusive time) in which a controller receives a request from one portable terminal and prevents receiving a request from another terminal during this time limit)
wherein the portable terminal includes
an exclusive time acquiring circuitry to obtain the exclusive time set by the server when the location information obtained by the location information acquiring circuitry arrives in the control area from outside the control area, (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0057]-[0061]; disclose wherein the system includes notification circuitry for providing notifications to the portable terminals when the exclusion time limit has expired and is capable of receiving operation requests)
a transmitting circuitry to transmit the operational request from a user to the server after a lapse of the exclusive time, and (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0067]-[0076]; disclose transmission circuitry that will transmit the operational request from a user only after it determines that the upper limit of an exclusion time period has expired and is thus capable of receiving/processing a new operation request from the user’s portable terminal)
Yabe; appears to be silent on; a location information acquiring circuitry to obtain location information indicating where the portable terminal is,
a memory to store a range covering a predetermined distance from the air conditioner as a control area,
an inputting circuitry for a user to input location information of the air conditioner and the control area.
However, Murakami teaches; a location information acquiring circuitry to obtain location information indicating where the portable terminal is, (Murakami; at least Fig. 2; paragraph [0028]; disclose wherein each remote terminal has a position detection unit (53) for obtaining location information of each terminal)
an inputting circuitry for a user to input location information of the air conditioner and the control area. (Murakami; at least paragraphs [0029]-[0030]; disclose reception unit (56) for receiving user input regarding location information regarding the position of the house where the air conditioner is installed within the control area).
Yabe and Murakami are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, air conditioner 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 have incorporated the known method of tracking location information of a user a location of an air conditioner as taught by Murakami with the known system of a remote terminal air conditioner control system as taught by Yabe in order to provide energy-saving air condition control based upon the user’s location (Murakami; paragraph [0051]).
The combination of Yabe and Murakami appear to be silent on; a memory to store a range covering a predetermined distance from the air conditioner as a control area,
However, Lagerstedt teaches; ; a memory to store a range covering a predetermined distance from the air conditioner as a control area, (Lagerstedt; at least paragraphs [0027], [0041], and [0053]; disclose a system and method including a memory configured to store instructions for performing control of an air conditioning system wherein the method further includes storing a plurality of zones based on distances from a room, wherein control instructions can be initiated based upon which zone a user enters/leaves).
Yabe, Murakami, and Lagerstedt are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, air conditioner 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 have incorporated the known method of storing zone locations which can be used to determine a user’s distance from an air conditioner and initiate controls as taught by Lagerstedt with the known system of a remote terminal air conditioner control system as taught by Yabe and Murakami in order to provide a system and method for save on wasted energy when a user is away from a location (Lagerstedt; paragraph [0007]).
Regarding Claim 2; the combination of Yabe, Murakami, and Lagerstedt teach; The air conditioner operation control system according to The air conditioner operation control system according to wherein the portable terminal further includes a display to display unavailability of operation when the location information of the portable terminal arrives at the air conditioner before the exclusive time expires. (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0057]-[0062]; Murakami; at least paragraphs [0060]-[0063]).
Regarding Claim 5; the combination of Yabe, Murakami, and Lagerstedt teach; The air conditioner operation control system according to claim 1, wherein the transmitting circuitry transmits the operational request to the server when the location information of the portable terminal moves out of the control area, and the air conditioner includes a person detection sensor to detect presence or absence of a person in a space where the air conditioner performs air conditioning and a controlling circuitry to ignore the operational request when the person detection sensor detects a person. (Lagerstedt; at least Figs. 2-5; claims 37-45).
Regarding Claim 6; the combination of Yabe, Murakami, and Lagerstedt teach; The air conditioner operation control system according to claim 1, wherein the exclusive time setting circuitry sets a predetermined period as the exclusive time for a portable terminal that has the operational request first received and confirmed by the server. (Yabe; at least paragraphs [0063]-[0075]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The office would first like to state that claim 3 presently has an outstanding 101 rejection that must be resolved prior to consideration of allowance.
Claims 3-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 recites: “The air conditioner operation control system according to claim 2 wherein the portable terminal further includes
a moving speed computing circuitry to compute a moving speed of the portable terminal on a basis of the location information of the portable terminal and time information when the portable terminal is outside the control area and
an estimated arrival time computing circuitry to compute estimated arrival time on a basis of the moving speed computed by the moving speed computing circuitry, the estimated arrival time being time when the portable terminal arrives at the air conditioner,
the portable terminal processes the operational request when the estimated time computed by the estimated arrival time computing circuitry is earlier than time when the exclusive time expires, and
the display displays unavailability of operation when the estimated arrival time is earlier than time when the exclusive time expires.”
The closest prior art of record is Yabe (WO2015020202A1) in view of Murakami (US PGPUB 20210318016) in view of Lagerstedt et al. (US PGPUB 20160077532). Yabe discloses an air conditioner control system and method which allows for multiple portable terminals to initiate operational commands for the air conditioner, setting time limits that prevents the system from processing each request until the time limits expire, and systematically granting each operation request subsequent expiration of the established time limits. Murakami discloses an air conditioner control system that includes detecting position of a user located away from a location containing an air conditioner that is controlled by a portable terminal of the user, wherein the system includes determining a travel speed of the user towards the location, and controlling the air conditioner such that the temperature of a location that the user is traveling towards is at a level desired by the user prior to the user getting to the location. Lagerstedt similarly discloses a zoned based control system in which a location containing an air conditioner monitors a user based on their location relative to pre-established zones and performing control of the air conditioner based on whether the user is coming/leaving the location. However, none of the references alone or in combination disclose, “the display displays unavailability of operation when the estimated arrival time computed by the estimated arrival time computing circuitry is earlier than time when the exclusive time expires.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following:
In light of the new amendments to claim 3, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been overcome.
Yabe does not include location-based information indicating entry into a control area as required by claim 7.
Yabe does not include a request retention memory that retains different operation requests from respective terminals.
None of the disclosed prior art teaches an air conditioner control system including a portable terminal and a server where the server receives an operation request from the portable terminal and determines whether the request can be processed based on existing exclusive times of operation of the air conditioner determined by the server to manage access to control the air conditioner, as defined in the claimed invention.
None of the prior art references even recognizes the problem solved by the claimed invention which is to prevent conflicting air conditioner operation by multiple users.
The office respectfully disagrees.
With respect to the first argument, the applicant has amended claim 3 to include the limitation of, “the portable terminal processes the operational request when the estimated time computed by the estimated arrival time computing circuitry is earlier than time when the exclusive time expires,”, however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “processing the operational request” in the context of the claim. Review of the filed specification did not appear to provide any clarification as to what this involves. Simply stating processing of data or adjusting data without positive actuation of devices, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In order to overcome this rejection, the office recommends amending claims to show actuation of the air conditioner system. For example, upon a user entering a control area and providing a control operation to the air conditioner, operating/controlling the air conditioner based upon the request, or preventing operation of the air conditioner if the user is not within a designated control area. This shows the novelty of handling multiple requests based on arrival times and providing operation of the air conditioning system.
With respect to the second argument, claim 7 makes no reference to any limitation requiring any form of location-based information for determining entry into a control area and therefore this argument is moot.
With respect to the third argument, the reference of Yabe does explicitly teach receiving a plurality of request from user’s U1 and U2 (paragraphs [0052]-[0054]) and an auxiliary storage for receiving requests from a plurality of users and storing them in order (at least paragraphs [0052]-[0053] and [0064]). Each request includes an execution time limit that must be completed prior to completing subsequent requests (see paragraphs [0063]-[0071]).
With respect to the fourth argument, Yabe does in fact disclose a portable terminal and a server where the server receives an operation request from the portable terminal (paragraphs [0021], [0028], and [0030]) and further discloses determines whether the request can be processed based on existing exclusive times of operation of the air conditioner determined by the server to manage access to control the air conditioner (paragraphs [0057]-[0061]). In short, based on the disclosed language being argued, a server/controller receives requests from a plurality of portable terminals (i.e. paragraphs [0053] for additional support), each an operational request, and further the system of Yabe imposes a time limit (i.e. exclusive times of operation; at least paragraph [0058]) that prevents processing of operation requests from being processed until an operation is complete. This sufficiently reads upon the claims as currently recited.
With respect to the fifth argument, Yabe explicitly states in paragraphs [0051]-[0053] that the purpose of the prior art is to prevent conflicting operational commands sent by a plurality of users, thus the motivation and intended problem being solved is the same as the present application.
In order to further prosecution, the office recommends amending the independent claims to incorporate the identified allowable subject matter in order to expedite prosecution, as the identified claim embody the novelty of the present invention over the prior art as explained in the allowability section above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boyd et al. (US PGPUB 20200133218): disclose an HVAC zone control system and method which receives a plurality of requests for operating the HVAC, however, the system determines the priority level of requests and only operates the HVAC according to the individual with the highest priority.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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