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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/9/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/22/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the application. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
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 in part “... wherein the controller is configured to: receive, from the sensors in each of the plurality of equipment units, measurement information corresponding to each of the plurality of equipment units respectively;
calculate, for each of the plurality of equipment units, during operation, an amount of the refrigerant contained in the refrigerant circuit based on the measurement information, the preset equipment information and the preset equipment installation information associated with each respective one of each of the plurality of equipment units;
store, in the storage unit, the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units in association with a corresponding refrigerant type; and
determine, for each of the plurality of equipment units, whether the amount of the refrigerant is greater than a predetermined threshold value.”
The limitations wherein the controller receives measurement information from the sensors in each of the plurality of equipment units, wherein the controller calculates the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units, and wherein the controller stores the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units in a storage unit, and determines, for each of the plurality of equipment units, whether the amount of the refrigerant is greater than a predetermined threshold value, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a controller, storage unit and sensors. That is, other than disclosing a controller, storage unit and sensors, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the controller, storage unit and sensors, “receiving”, “calculating”, “storing” and “determining” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the received data to calculate a refrigerant amount, determine if this amount of refrigerant is above a predetermined threshold and at an intermediate step store the calculated amount of refrigerant in a storage unit. 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 equipment 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 2-13 are similarly drawn to the abstract idea and/or depend from the abstract idea and are therefore held to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(h)
Regarding Claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite in part “... a controller, the management method being performed by the controller and comprising:
acquiring, from the sensors in each of the plurality of equipment units, measurement information for each of the plurality of equipment units, respectively, indicating a result of measuring a temperature of the refrigerant, electrical characteristics, and environmental information;
calculating, for each of the plurality of equipment units, during operation, an amount of the refrigerant contained in the refrigerant circuit based on the measurement information, equipment information and equipment installation information respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of equipment units, the equipment information and the equipment installation information being preset;
storing the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units in association with a corresponding refrigerant type; and
determining, for each of the plurality of equipment units, whether the amount of the refrigerant is greater than a predetermined threshold value.”
The limitations of acquiring from each of the plurality of equipment units, measurement information indicating a result of measuring a temperature of the refrigerant in the equipment, electrical characteristics, and environmental information; calculating an amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units, based on the acquired measurement information, equipment information on each of the plurality of equipment units and equipment installation information on an installation environment of each of the plurality of equipment units;
and storing the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units in association with a refrigerant type and determining, for each of the plurality of equipment units, whether the amount of the refrigerant is greater than a predetermined threshold value, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a controller, storage unit and sensors. That is, other than disclosing a controller, storage unit and sensors, nothing in the disclosure precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the controller, storage unit and sensors, “receiving”, “calculating”, “storing” and “determining” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the received data to calculate a refrigerant amount and store the estimated information in an electronic database at an intermediate step and determine if the amount of refrigerant is above a predetermined threshold. 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 equipment 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 15-20 are similarly drawn to the abstract idea and/or depend from the abstract idea and are therefore held to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(h)
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.
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) 1-8 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20100081843A) in view of Ote et al. (JP2011058698A) and Hirao et al. (JPH0814717A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Choi teaches an equipment management system [fig 1] comprising:
a plurality of equipment units each having [fig 1]:
a refrigerant circuit that contains a refrigerant, the refrigerant circuit including a compressor and connection pipes through which the refrigerant flows [0004; 0005; fig 1]; and
sensors [at 150] configured to measure parameters of the refrigerant circuit to generate measured information including a refrigerant temperature, electrical characteristics, and environmental information [0007]; and
an equipment management device [see fig 2] communicatively coupled to each of the plurality of equipment units, the equipment management device including a storage unit [at 130] and a controller [110; 0006],
wherein the storage unit stores, for each of the plurality of equipment units, preset equipment information including refrigerant type, and preset equipment installation information including volume information of the connection pipes [0009-0011];
wherein the controller is configured to: receive, from the sensors in each of the plurality of equipment units, measurement information corresponding to each of the plurality of equipment units respectively [0009-0011]; calculate, for each of the plurality of equipment units, during operation, an amount of the refrigerant contained in the refrigerant circuit based on the measurement information, the preset equipment information and the preset equipment installation information associated with each respective one of each of the plurality of equipment units [0009-0011].
Choi does not teach wherein the storage unit stores, for each of the plurality of equipment units, preset equipment information including refrigerant type;
store, in the storage unit, the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units in association with a corresponding refrigerant type; and
determine, for each of the plurality of equipment units, whether the amount of the refrigerant is greater than a predetermined threshold value.
However, Ote teaches an air conditioner [0001] having a storage unit that stores, the air conditioner, preset equipment information including refrigerant type [0013-0015];
store, in the storage unit, the amount of the refrigerant in the air conditioner in association with a corresponding refrigerant type [0022-0027] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide structure and information whereby a user can easily recognize the influence degree of global warming of a refrigerant [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Choi to have wherein the storage unit stores, for each of the plurality of equipment units, preset equipment information including refrigerant type;
store, in the storage unit, the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units in association with a corresponding refrigerant type in view of the teachings of Ote where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide structure whereby a user can easily recognize the influence degree of global warming of a refrigerant.
Lastly, Hirao teaches a refrigerant quantity detection device for a refrigerant cycle [0001] that determines, for the refrigerant cycle, whether the amount of the refrigerant is greater than a predetermined threshold value [0035-0044] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a more appropriate refrigerant injection [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Choi to determine, for each of the plurality of equipment units, whether the amount of the refrigerant is greater than a predetermined threshold value in view of the teachings of Hirao where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a more appropriate refrigerant injection.
For clarity, in regard to Claim 14, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Choi, as modified, above.
Regarding Claim 13, Choi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Hirao teaches wherein the environmental information around the each of the plurality of equipment units includes at least information on an ambient temperature of each of the plurality of equipment units [0021-0030; where the amount of refrigerant is determined with respect to outdoor environment temperature and set values of at least a temperature or pressure].
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, Choi, as modified teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Ote teaches where the controller [20] is configured to multiply, for each of the plurality of equipment units installed in one space, the amount of the refrigerant and a global warming potential (GWP) determined by the refrigerant type used in each of the plurality of equipment units to calculate a GWP total amount value [0013], and
determine whether or not the GWP total amount value for the one space, which is a sum of the calculated GWP total amount value for each of the plurality of equipment units, is within a regulation value of an upper limit of the GWP total amount value for the one space [0015; 0017; 0021; where the system suggests recovery when the GWP total is above a threshold].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 15, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Choi, as modified, above.
Regarding Ote having a plurality of equipment units, a person skilled in the art would recognize the advantages of having another equipment unit to condition an additional space. Furthermore, it has been held that duplication of working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04 VIB).
Regarding Claims 3 and 16, Choi, as modified, teaches the invention above and Ote teaches wherein the controller [20] causes the storage unit to store determination information based on a result of determining whether or not the GWP total amount value for the one space is within the regulation value of the upper limit of the GWP total amount value for the one space [0015; 0017; 0021].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 16, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Choi, as modified, above.
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, Choi, as modified, teaches the invention above Ote teaches where the controller [20] is configured to determine whether or not the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units is to be recovered, based on the refrigerant type for each of the plurality of equipment units, and causes the storage unit to store determination information based on a result of the determination [0015; 0017; 0021; where the system suggests recovery when the GWP total is above a threshold].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 17, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Choi, as modified, above.
Regarding Ote having a plurality of equipment units, a person skilled in the art would recognize the advantages of having another equipment unit to condition an additional space. Furthermore, it has been held that duplication of working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04 VIB).
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, Choi, as modified, teaches the invention above and Ote teaches an output unit [21] configured to visually or audibly output via an external device, information on the amount of refrigerant and type of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units, stored in the storage unit [0015; 0017; 0021].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 18, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Choi, as modified, above.
Regarding Ote having a plurality of equipment units, a person skilled in the art would recognize the advantages of having another equipment unit to condition an additional space. Furthermore, it has been held that duplication of working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04 VIB).
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, Choi, as modified, teaches the invention above and Ote teaches an output unit [21] configured to visually or audibly output via an external device, the determination information stored in the storage unit [0015; 0017; 0021].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 19, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Choi, as modified, above.
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, Choi, as modified, teaches the invention above and Ote teaches wherein the controller is configured to acquire information on the refrigerant type and the amount of the refrigerant recovered from any of the plurality of equipment units, and cause the storage unit to store a total amount of the refrigerant in the plurality of equipment units for each refrigerant type which is calculated by the controller and a recovered amount of the refrigerant in each of the equipment units association with each refrigerant type [0015; 0017; 0021].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 20, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Choi, as modified, above.
Regarding Ote having a plurality of equipment units, a person skilled in the art would recognize the advantages of having another equipment unit to condition an additional space. Furthermore, it has been held that duplication of working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04 VIB).
Regarding Claim 8, Choi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 above and Ote teaches wherein the controller [20] is configured to acquire, for each refrigerant type, information on a recycled amount of the refrigerant shipped by recycling the refrigerant recovered from any of the plurality of equipment units, and cause the storage unit to further store the recycled amount of the refrigerant shipped in association with each refrigerant type [0015; 0017; 0021; where the recycled amount of refrigerant is equivalent to the amount of refrigerant determined to be present in the system].
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20100081843A), Ote et al. (JP2011058698A) and Hirao et al. (JPH0814717A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urata et al. (JPH1163745A) and Shiba et al. (JP2005147593A).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the equipment information includes at least information on a volume of a space in which the refrigerant can flow in each of the plurality of equipment units; and a type of the refrigerant that each of the plurality of equipment units has.
However, Urata teaches a device for calculating the amount of refrigerant for an equipment unit i.e. air conditioner [0001] having wherein the equipment information includes at least information on a volume of a space in which the refrigerant can flow in each of the plurality of equipment units [0020] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide for accurately and quickly calculating the amount of refrigerant within the system [0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Choi to have wherein the equipment information includes at least information on a volume of a space in which the refrigerant can flow in each of the plurality of equipment units in view of the teachings of Urata where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide for accurately and quickly calculating the amount of refrigerant within the system.
Lastly, Shiba teaches an air conditioner [0001] having where equipment information includes a type of the refrigerant that is associated with each of the plurality of equipment units [0016-0022] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide inputs whereby a proper amount of refrigerant can be added to the system and thereby improving the system by eliminating on-site refrigerant filling work [0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Choi to have where equipment information includes a type of the refrigerant that is associated with each of the plurality of equipment units in view of the teachings of Shiba where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide inputs whereby a proper amount of refrigerant can be added to the system and thereby improving the system by eliminating on-site refrigerant filling work.
Regarding Claim 10, Choi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 above and Shiba teaches wherein a controller [implicit at 0020] is configured to calculate the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units based on the volume of the space in which the refrigerant can flow in each of the plurality of equipment units, and a refrigerant density determined based on the temperature of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units and the refrigerant type [0016-0020].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20100081843A), Ote et al. (JP2011058698A) and Hirao et al. (JPH0814717A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiba et al. (JP2005147593A).
Regarding Claim 12, Choi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and teaches where each of the plurality of equipment units, includes an outdoor unit including a compressor, an outdoor heat exchanger, and an expansion valve, and an indoor unit including an indoor heat exchanger are connected by connection pipes through which the refrigerant flows [0004; 0005].
Choi does not explicitly teach where the equipment installation information includes at least information on a volume of the connection pipes.
However, Shiba teaches an air conditioner [0001] having where the equipment installation information includes at least information on a volume of the connection pipes [0016-0022] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide inputs whereby a proper amount of refrigerant can be added to the system and thereby improving the system by eliminating on-site refrigerant filling work [0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Choi to have where the equipment installation information includes at least information on a volume of the connection pipes in view of the teachings of Shiba where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide inputs whereby a proper amount of refrigerant can be added to the system and thereby improving the system by eliminating on-site refrigerant filling work.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20100081843A), Ote et al. (JP2011058698A), Hirao et al. (JPH0814717A), Urata et al. (JPH1163745A) and Shiba et al. (JP2005147593A) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kasahara et al. (US2009/0260376).
Regarding Claim 11, Choi, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 above but does not teach wherein the controller calculates the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units by adding an amount of the refrigerant dissolved in a refrigerating machine oil used in each of the plurality of equipment units and an amount of the refrigerant in a liquid retention portion to the calculated amount of the refrigerant.
However, Kasahara teaches an air conditioner [0001] having wherein the controller calculates the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units by adding an amount of the refrigerant dissolved in a refrigerating machine oil used in each of the plurality of equipment units and an amount of the refrigerant in a liquid retention portion to the calculated amount of the refrigerant [0007; 0125-0142] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide inputs whereby a proper amount of refrigerant can be calculated and thereby improve the system [0142].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Choi to have wherein the controller calculates the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units by adding an amount of the refrigerant dissolved in a refrigerating machine oil used in each of the plurality of equipment units and an amount of the refrigerant in a liquid retention portion to the calculated amount of the refrigerant in view of the teachings of Kasahara where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide inputs whereby a proper amount of refrigerant can be calculated and thereby improve the system.
Response to Arguments
On pages 11 and 12 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101 should be withdrawn in light of amendment filed.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the amendments filed did not cure the recited deficiencies. Pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(h) the claims recite a judicial exception. Controller generated data can be captured in a tangible form i.e. on paper as well as the determination extracted from said data. Lastly, the fact that the data is contained wholly in components of the controller speaks to the judicial exception not being integrated in a practical application that effects the claimed equipment. See the rejection above for detailed discussion.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights