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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 8/6/2026.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are canceled.
Claims 15-20 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4, 6-14 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding rejections under §112(b)
Applicant Argues
Claims 4, 6-9 and 12-13 have been amended in a manner that obviates the Office’s rejection and has cancelled claim 5.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. However, claims 4, 6 and 12 still recite unclear and indefinite claim language and the rejections are maintained to the extent outlined below.
Regarding prior art rejections
Applicant Argues
“Brown does not disclose each and every element recited in claims 1 and 11”;
“Brown fails to disclose determining an insulation rating as one of a plurality of predetermined insulation ratings”;
“Brown further fails to disclose receiving and storing indoor-temperature data when the heater is turned off after operation for a first time period, storing information about a time taken for indoor temperature to decrease by a reference temperature from a highest indoor temperature among the stored temperature data, and determining the insulation rating based on that decrease time.”
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Regarding (1) and (2), the examiner agrees that Brown fails to disclose determining an insulation rating as one of a plurality of predetermined insulation ratings, however the Applicant is arguing amended features and thus the argument is moot. Regarding (3), Brown was not relied on in the prior Office action to teach receiving and storing indoor-temperature data […] and determining the insulation rating based on that decrease time. However, upon further consideration of BROWN necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, BROWN describes determining a rate of change of an interior temperature when an HVAC unit is not running to determine the thermal efficiency of a building [0029], which corresponds to the limitation in question. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, the mapping of which is provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6 and 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites to “determine an insulation rating of a building in which a corresponding heater of the plurality of heaters is installed, based on a classified decreasing time of an indoor temperature for each of the plurality of heaters” however this is unclear. The limitation recites “a building” and “an indoor temperature”, however this is unclear as claim 4 depends on claim 1 which has already introduced “a building in which a heater is installed” and “an indoor temperature”, is the building of claim 4 the same building or a different building of claim 1? Applicant’s specification Table 2 implies a single building with at least two (i.e., a plurality) heaters, however the claim implies multiple buildings with a single heater (e.g., “based on a classified decreasing time of an indoor temperature for each of the plurality if heaters”, claim 1 requires the time to be measured when the heater is an off, thus it is unclear how the heat-transfer characteristics of the building is associated with a particular heater). In view of the indefiniteness issues outlined above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty. Refer to the prior art mapping below for the examiner’s interpretation.
Dependent claim 6 is likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites to “an insulation rating determined for a heater”, however this is unclear as “a heater” and “an insulation rating” have already been introduced in the claims which claim 6 depends on. Additionally, claims 1 and 4 determine insulation ratings for a building (or a plurality of buildings), and not insulation ratings for a heater. MPEP 2173.06(II) recites “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” In view of the issues outlined above regarding the claim’s clarity and uncertainty, considerable assumptions must be made as to the scope of the claim, and thus the claim will not be rejected on the basis of prior art.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same material as claim 4, to include the issues related to clarity and indefiniteness outlined above for claim 4. Accordingly, the claim is rejected as per claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4, 7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROWN1 in view of ADAMS (US8155900B1) (hereinafter – “BROWN-ADAMS”).
Regarding claim 1, BROWN teaches a heating a system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
382
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
BROWN, FIG. 1, 106/108 heating/cooling/HVAC to alter environmental conditions of building 102, 104 temperature controller (114 indicates temperature controller is configure to communicate with cloud server)
a heater configured to heat an entire or specified indoor space [Fig. 1 #106/108, [0022] building environment includes building and a heating/cooling system such as HVAC unit, [0020]” air conditioning can be considered to encompass both heating and cooling”];
an indoor temperature controller configured to control a heating operation of the heater [Fig. 1 #104, [0022] climate control device/thermostat communicatively coupled with heating system];
a server [[0026] energy advisor system implemented as cloud platform via server] configured to determine an insulation rating of a building in which the heater is installed, based on indoor temperature data received from the indoor temperature controller or the heater [Fig. 1 #114 wireless network connection [0031] based on “measured internal temperatures of the building over time […] the energy advisor system 215 can generate a thermodynamic model or profile of the building that specifies the building's thermal efficiency” [0032] thermostat reports in real time temperatures with HVAC on or off [0029] diagnostic tool/procedure used by energy advisor system “to determine the thermal efficiency of a building […] at what rate(s) does the interior temperature of the building change when the air conditioning is not running (both in response to outside conditions)” i.e., the server is configured to determine the thermal efficiency/insulation rating2 of the building based on how quickly/slowly the interior temperature changes in response to the exterior temperature, see also [0041-0045]];
receive and store the indoor temperature data every specified time period when the heater is turned off after being operated for a first time period [[0029]-[0031] the system is configured to determine the rate of temperature change inside of the building when the HVAC unit is off, e.g., the HVAC unit runs for a first time period to heat/cool the building to a thermostat set point, based on the internal temperatures of the building which are measured over time and the measured external conditions the system is configured to determine the rate at which the internal temperature increases/decreases to the external temperature while the HVAC system is off such that “the energy advisor system 215 can generate a thermal efficiency score for the building”, [0041] temperature readings recorded at predetermined intervals [0045]];
store information about a time taken for an indoor temperature to decrease increase by a reference temperature from a highest lowest indoor temperature among the stored indoor temperature data when the stored indoor temperature data reaches a specified number [[[0049] “the temperature-recording period extends from the first initial interior temperature setting at the lowest temperature of the occupant comfort temperature zone until the highest temperature of the occupant comfort temperature zone is achieved” teaches storing information regarding the time required for the indoor temperature to traverse the temperature difference between the lowest and highest temperatures, which corresponds to the claimed reference temperature; the claim does not require a particular value for “a specific number”, thus the finite number of indoor temperature data points stored during the temperature-recording period corresponds to the stored indoor temperature data reaching the specific number]; and
determine the insulation rating [0031] based on “measured internal temperatures of the building over time […] the energy advisor system 215 can generate a thermodynamic model or profile of the building that specifies the building's thermal efficiency”], as one of a plurality of predetermined insulation ratings, to be a higher rating as the time taken for the indoor temperature to decrease by the reference temperature from the highest indoor temperature becomes longer.
In summary, BROWN teaches to cool an indoor space and determine how quickly the temperature of the indoor space increases by a reference temperature (the reference temperature being the difference between the highest and lowest temperatures of the indoor space) which generates a thermodynamic profile of the building from which the building’s insulation rating can be determined. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the opposite, namely, to measure the time for the indoor temperature to decrease from the highest recorded indoor temperature by a reference temperature with a reasonable expectation of success in determining the insulation rating of the building as both describe the same heat transfer rate through the envelope of the building, and because measuring a decrease in temperature over time is a predictable option for determining the building’s heat transfer characteristics as it is the logical counterpart to measuring an increase in temperature over time.
BROWN is not relied on for teaching predetermined insulating ratings, where a higher rating corresponds to a better insulation rating (i.e., a slower heat-transfer rate). However, ADAMS in an analogous teaches predetermined home efficiency rating scores wherein a higher rating score corresponds to a more efficient home [Fig. 2, #214A, Col. 9, ll. 31-37]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of ADAMS to the teachings of BROWN such that BROWN’s system would determine the efficiency/insulation rating scores taught by ADAM’s for the purpose of determining a relationship between various thermostat configurations and the associated cost [BROWN, [0078]].
Regarding claim 4, BROWN-ADAMS teaches the system of claim 1 as outlined above. BROWN also at least suggests wherein the server is configured to classify, for each of a plurality of heaters including the heater, information about a time taken for a same indoor temperature to decrease by the reference temperature based on a same outdoor temperature, and determine an insulation rating of a building in which a corresponding heater of the plurality of heaters is installed, based on a classified decreasing time of an indoor temperature for each of a plurality of the heaters [[0029] “every building has a unique set of characteristics that effect interior temperature reactive behavior(e.g., rates of interior temperature change, etc.) in response to a building's air conditioning system and/or to outside conditions” teaches that the thermal insulation rating for one building is not the same for all buildings [0037] “diagnostic tool can be “cloud” based with processing, command, and data storage occurring remotely from the building. Communication between the controlling remote servers and the various buildings and their appliances, including the air-conditioning units, can occur at least partially over the Internet”, teaches that the server which performs the heat transfer analysis is configured to communicate with thermostats & HVAC units of a plurality of buildings, and thus suggests the server is configured to determine an insulation rating for a plurality of buildings, in which each building corresponds to its own installed heater].
Regarding claim 7, BROWN-ADAMS teaches the system of claim 1 as outlined above. BROWN also at least suggests wherein the heater is configured to enter an auxiliary insulation rating determination mode when there is no change in an indoor set temperature during a predetermined reference time in an indoor temperature mode [[0035] “certain periods of time can be prescribed for building occupation when the air conditioning of the building are controlled for occupant comfort. This is important because when it is determined that the building is vacant, wider ranges of diagnostic temperature control can be implemented” [0034] “if the building is occupied while the diagnostic procedures are being implemented, occupant comfort can be taken into consideration. To that end, the temperature will have to be maintained within an acceptable tolerance of the preferred temperature of the occupants”].
Regarding claim 10, BROWN-ADAMS teaches the system of claim 1 as outlined above. ADAMS teaches wherein the server is configured to store information on the insulation rating determined for the building where the heater is installed and provide the information on the insulation rating for the building when requested [Fig. 2 #214A].
Regarding claim 11, BROWN teaches implementing the system as a computer-implemented method [[0137], see also claim 1]. The remaining limitations of claim 11 are substantially the same as claim 1 and are rejected as per claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, BROWN-ADAMS teaches the method of claim 11 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 12 are substantially the same as claim 4 and are rejected as per claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, BROWN-ADAMS teaches the method of claim 11 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 13 are substantially the same as claim 7 and are rejected as per claim 7.
Claims 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROWN-ADAMS in view of ZEIFMAN3 (hereinafter – “BROWN-ADAMS-ZEIFMAN”).
Regarding claim 8, BROWN-ADAMS teaches the system of claim 8 as outlined above. The BROWN-ADAMS combination is not relied on for the remaining limitations of the claim.
However, ZEFIMAN in an analogous art teaches to count a number of times the heater turned on/off during a second time period when the heater enters the auxiliary insulation rating determination mode [[0128]: “Computing device 102 may receive data from thermostat 114, such as indoor temperature, set point, and HVAC runtime data (e.g., on/off cycles for HVAC 112)”], and determine the thermal characteristics of the building in which the heater is installed based on the number of times the heater is turned on/off during the second time period [[0128]: “information on the usage of the HVAC equipment, whether obtained via thermostat 114 or electric/gas meter 116, may be used to determine one or more thermal characteristics of the building”, implicit to ZEIFMAN’s disclosure is counting the cycles over a time period, as a determination that an HVAC unit cycles on/off N number of times without a corresponding period over which the cycles were counted would not provide meaningful information regarding a rate of heat transfer, e.g., a building with an HVAC unit that cycles on/off 5 times in an hour would indicate that the building is more well insulated than a building with an HVAC unit that cycles on/off 10 times in an hour given the same conditions].
ZEIFMAN is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of determining thermal characteristics of a building. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of ZEIFMAN to the teachings of BROWN-ADAMS such that ZEIFMAN’s thermal characteristics determination could have been used with BROWN’s server configured to make an insulation rating determination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by recognizing that within a given time period pertaining to environmental conditions within a building, the number of times the heater/HVAC unit cycles is directly correlated with heat dissipation from the building and therefore the insulation rating (e.g., assume the interior of a building is heated up to 70°F, if the building were perfectly insulated then no heat would escape and there would be no need to turn the heater back on; however, a poorly insulated building would let a lot of heat escape/transfer to the outside such that the heater would need to cycle on in order to replace the heat lost; a building with an insulating rating between poor and perfect would let heat transfer/escape at a rate slower than the poorly insulated building therefore the unit would not have to cycle as often to replace the heat lost).
Regarding claim 9, BROWN-ADAMS-ZEIFMAN teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above. ADAMS teaches to determine the insulation rating of the building in which the heater is installed to be a higher rating, among the plurality of predetermined insulation ratings, as the number of times the heater is turned on/off counted during the second time period decrease [ADAMS Fig. 2, #214A, Col. 9, ll. 31-37; a poorly insulated building would let a lot of heat escape/transfer to the outside such that the heater would need to cycle on in order to replace the heat lost].
Regarding claim 14, BROWN-ADAMS teaches the method of claim 13 as outlined above. The remaining limitations of claim 14 are substantially the same as claim 8 and are rejected as per claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 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 at (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 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 BROWN is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
2 BROWN’s thermal efficiency of a building reflects the rate of heat loss/thermal transmittance of a building, faster heat loss implies a higher value of thermal transmittance, i.e., a lower insulation rating or value.
3 ZEIFMAN is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
