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 in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 2/27/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The objections to the abstract have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed.
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 “... wherein the controller receives measurement information from the sensors in each of the plurality of equipment units indicating the refrigerant temperature, the electrical characteristics, and the environmental information for each of the plurality of equipment units;
estimates the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality equipment units, based on the measurement information received from each of the plurality of equipment units, preset equipment information on each of the plurality of equipment units and preset equipment installation information on an installation environment of each of the plurality of equipment units; and
stores an estimated amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units in a storage unit in association with a refrigerant type.”
The limitations wherein the controller receives measurement information from the sensors in each of the plurality of equipment units, wherein the controller estimates the amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality equipment units, and wherein the controller stores an estimated amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units in a storage unit, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a controller and sensors. That is, other than disclosing a controller 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 and sensors, “receiving”, “estimating” and “storing” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the received data to estimate a refrigerant amount and store the estimated information in an electronic database. 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.
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 “... 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;
estimating 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, the equipment information and the equipment installation information being preset; and
storing the estimated amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units in association with a refrigerant type.”
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; estimating 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 estimated amount of the refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units in association with a refrigerant type; under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a controller and sensors. That is, other than disclosing a controller 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 and sensors, “receiving”, “estimating” and “storing” in the context of the claims encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the received data to estimate a refrigerant amount and store the estimated information in an electronic database. 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.
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, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirao et al. (JPH0814717A) in view of Urata et al. (JPH1163745A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Hirao teaches an equipment management system [0001] comprising: an equipment unit having a refrigerant and sensors for measuring refrigerant temperature, electrical characteristics, and environmental information [0021-0025; 0030; where at least sensors 21—24; and inverter 10];
a controller [30] that estimates an amount of refrigerant in each of the plurality of equipment units [0021-0025; 0030];
wherein the controller receives measurement information from the sensors in the equipment unit indicating the refrigerant temperature, the electrical characteristics, and the environmental information for each of the plurality of equipment units [0021-0030];
estimates the amount of the refrigerant in the equipment unit, based on the measurement information received from the equipment unit, preset equipment information on the equipment unit and preset equipment installation information on an installation environment of each of the equipment unit [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];
stores an estimated amount of the refrigerant in the equipment unit in a storage unit in association with a refrigerant type [implicitly at 0022; 0026-0034; where one skilled in the art would recognize a memory that stores the program of fig. 2 and would recognize that the estimated amount of refrigerant is stored].
Hirao does not explicitly teach where the equipment unit is a plurality of equipment units.
However, Urata teaches a device for calculating the amount of refrigerant for an equipment unit i.e. air conditioner [0001] having where the equipment is a plurality of equipment units [0014; fig 1; where units 2a, 2b, 2c are disclosed; see also 0019; where refrigerant amount information is stored in a memory unit] 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 structure that can condition multiple spaces.
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 Hirao to have where the equipment unit is a 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 a structure that can condition multiple spaces.
For clarity, in regard to Claim 14, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Hirao, as modified, above.
Regarding Claim 13, Hirao, 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].
Claim(s) 2-8 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirao et al. (JPH0814717A) and Urata et al. (JPH1163745A) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Ote et al. (JP2011058698A).
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, Hirao, as modified teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not teach wherein the controller for each of the plurality of equipment units installed in one space, multiplies the estimated 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, and determines 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, wherein the refrigerant type used in each of the plurality of equipment units includes different refrigerant types.
However, Ote teaches an air conditioner [0001] having a controller [20] for an equipment unit [100] installed in one space, multiplies the estimated 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
determines 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], wherein the refrigerant type used in each of the plurality of equipment units includes different refrigerant types [0017; where a CFC refrigerant includes different types of refrigerants] 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 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 Hirao to have wherein the controller for each of the plurality of equipment units installed in one space, multiplies the estimated 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, and determines 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, wherein the refrigerant type used in each of the plurality of equipment units includes different refrigerant types in view of the teachings of Otes 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.
For clarity, in regard to Claim 15, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Hirao, as modified, above.
Regarding Otes 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, Hirao, as modified, teaches the invention above and Otes 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 Hirao, as modified, above.
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, Hirao, as modified, teaches the invention above but does not teach wherein the controller determines 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.
However, Ote teaches an air conditioner [0001] having a controller [20] that determines 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] 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 whereby a user can easily recognize the influence degree of global warming of a refrigerant and thereby enhance awareness of refrigerant recovery [0002; 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 Hirao to have wherein the controller determines 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 in view of the teachings of Otes 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 and thereby enhance awareness of refrigerant recovery.
For clarity, in regard to Claim 17, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Hirao, as modified, above.
Regarding Otes 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, Hirao, as modified, teaches the invention above and Otes 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 Hirao, as modified, above.
Regarding Otes 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, Hirao, as modified, teaches the invention above and Otes 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 Hirao, as modified, above.
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, Hirao, as modified, teaches the invention above and Otes teaches wherein the controller acquires information on the refrigerant type and the amount of the refrigerant recovered from any of the plurality of equipment units, and causes the storage unit to store a total amount of the refrigerant in the plurality of equipment units for each refrigerant type which is estimated by the by the controller and a recovered amount of the refrigerant in association with each other for 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 Hirao, as modified, above.
Regarding Otes 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, Hirao, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 above and Otes teaches wherein the controller [20] acquires, 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 causes 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, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirao et al. (JPH0814717A) and Urata et al. (JPH1163745A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiba et al. (JP2005147593A).
Regarding Claim 9, Hirao, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Urata teaches 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]. Hirao does not teach where equipment information includes a type of the refrigerant that each of the plurality of equipment units has.
However, Shiba teaches an air conditioner [0001] having where equipment information includes a type of the refrigerant that each of the plurality of equipment units has [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 Hirao to have where equipment information includes a type of the refrigerant that each of the plurality of equipment units has 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, Hirao, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 above and Shiba teaches wherein a controller [implicit at 0020] calculates 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].
Regarding Claim 12, Hirao, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Urata teaches where in each of the plurality of equipment units, an outdoor unit including a compressor [10], an outdoor heat exchanger [15], and an expansion valve [7], and an indoor unit including an indoor heat exchanger [2] are connected by a connection pipe [4, 9] through which the refrigerant flows [0016; 0017].
Hirao does not explicitly teach where the equipment installation information includes at least information on a volume of the connection pipe.
However, Shiba teaches an air conditioner [0001] having where the equipment installation information includes at least information on a volume of the connection pipe [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 Hirao to have where the equipment installation information includes at least information on a volume of the connection pipe 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 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, Hirao, 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 Hirao 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.
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 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