DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the communication filed on 03/27/2026. The claim(s) 1- 20 is/are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 8, & 15 is/are in independent form.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
I) As to Double Patenting Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03-27-2026, with respect to double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejections set forth in pages 4- 6 of the last non-final office action mailed on 12-29-2025 have been withdrawn.
II) As to 102 and 103 Rejections:
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to independent claims applicant argues that Raman (US 20120296480 A1) does not teach “perform an integrated airside/waterside control process to determine control outputs for both the waterside HV AC equipment and the airside HV AC equipment simultaneously such that the control outputs for the airside HVAC equipment are based on the control outputs for the waterside HV AC equipment and vice versa” because Raman disclose step-by-step separate mathematical calculations.
In substance, applicant argues that Raman does not disclose or teach
such an interdependent relationship between the AHU set point schedule and the chiller set point schedule, nor does Raman require the AHU set point schedule and the chiller set point schedule to be derived simultaneously because they are not mutually interdependent. Applicant’s detailed arguments are set forth in Remarks, pages 10-11 and are not repeated herein.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments mainly because the arguments are directed to the features not required by the overly broad claim limitation. The disputed limitation recites:
“perform an integrated airside/waterside control process to determine control outputs for both the waterside HV AC equipment and the airside HV AC equipment simultaneously such that the control outputs for the airside HVAC equipment are based on the control outputs for the waterside HV AC equipment and vice versa”. See claim 1 lines 6- 9.
Here, “perform an integrated airside/waterside control process” under BRI (per MPEP 211.01) “determine control outputs for both the waterside HV AC equipment and the airside HV AC equipment simultaneously”. That is, integrated airside/waterside control process determines (not the calculation that occurs prior to determining) the control outputs for airside (like AHU) and waterside (like chiller) equipment simultaneously. The claim limitation does not require calculating of the “control outputs” simultaneously. Rather, the claim limitation merely requires the determining of the outputs simultaneously. The performing of the integrated control process can include multiple sequential (step-by-step) processes as long as the end result causes to determine control outputs simultaneously. Thus, the calculation (performing an optimization) can be performed “step-by-step” and still can meet the requirement of the claim limitation. However, applicant’s arguments look for even the calculation of the control outputs for both equipment should be done simultaneously- which is not required by the claim. Thus, the “y = f (x, z) and z = g(x, y) define an interdependent relationship” (as argued in page 11) type of the relationship is not called upon by the claim limitation.
The claim limitation also requires “the control outputs for the airside HVAC equipment are based on the control outputs for the waterside HV AC equipment and vice versa”. Please note that the phrase “based on” (claim 1 line 8) covers every possible based on including direct and indirect use/consideration of control outputs of one side (airside) to calculate control outputs of another side (waterside) and vice versa. The “based on” phrase does not require “control outputs for the airside HVAC equipment” as a direct function/input of “the control outputs for the waterside HV AC equipment” as argued.
In the Raman’s disclosure, the BMS 145 (Fig. 1) receives and therefore determines the transmitted “optimized energy schedule” (paras 049-050) that includes “an air handling unit set point temperature variation, a chilled water set point temperature variation” at the same time (simultaneously) since the steps 315 (Fig. 3A), 380 (Fig. 3B), and 432 (Fig. 4A) clearly show both optimized values are calculated by the Energy Optimized schedule generator 125 by considering “DR algorithms 130” (Fig. 1) and transmitted (published for the BMS) at the same time towards the BMS 145. The AHU setpoints and chiller setpoints are mapped to claimed airside and waterside control outputs respectively. Therefore, BMS 145 determines control outputs for both the waterside HV AC equipment and the airside HV AC equipment simultaneously after circuit items 125 and 130 of Raman performing of the integrated airside/waterside control process in order to “minimize energy consumption and energy costs” (para. 007).
Accordingly, applicant’s argument of “nor does Raman require the AHU set point schedule and the chiller set point schedule to be derived simultaneously” is not persuasive.
II) As to “such that the control outputs for the airside HVAC equipment are based on the control outputs for the waterside HV AC equipment and vice versa;” requirement of the claim limitation, Raman clearly teaches:
[017] During the peak demand period, the AHU set point temperature and chiller water set point temperature can be elevated by a delta temperature (delta temperature can be 1.degree. F.
[020] The load of the chiller can be predicted based on the AHU setpoint variation and the chilled water set point variation (L).
[035] states “6: Calculate the Chilled water flow rate at this time interval (t1 to t2) using the formula:
q -k (x 1 - x2) in cfm”
[049], At 310, an optimized energy schedule is generated as a function of the demand response schedule, the user preferences, and the predicted environmental variables. The optimized energy schedule includes one or more of a set point temperature variation in one or more zones, an air handling unit set point temperature variation, a chilled water setpoint temperature variation,
[051] At 370, the optimization of the load based chiller is a function of one or more of a prediction of a load of the chiller based on the air handling unit set point…At 380, the optimized energy schedule is transmitted to the building management server via an intranet, the Internet, or any known software messaging methods
[0055], At 482, the optimized AHU, chilled water, zone set point, carbon dioxide set point, and chiller schedules are determined based on the load.
Per. Para. 051, the load of the chiller is determined based on the AHU setpoint and hence the optimized setpoint of the chiller is based on the AHU setpoint as well. The equation of step 6 of para. 035 clearly shows chiller water flow rate is related to AHU setpoint of x1 , x2. Furthermore, the AHU setpoints and chiller setpoints will not be optimized type “as a function of the demand response schedule, the user preferences, and the predicted environmental variables” if they were independent of each other (not based on) in Raman’s system. Furthermore, if the provided AHU setpoint and chiller setpoints to the BMS 145 do not match or are not based on of each other, the HVAC system of Raman cannot meet the user desired temperature setpoint while minimizing “energy consumption”. The claim does not specify how airside control outputs (AHU setpoints) are used to generate waterside outputs (chiller setpoints) other than they are based on of each other.
Therefore, determined and transmitted/published AHU setpoints and chiller setpoints to BMS 145 in Raman are indirectly related to each other (hence are based on of each other). Otherwise, the transmitted schedules for AHU setpoints and chiller setpoints of Raman cannot operate properly let alone “minimize energy consumption and energy costs”.
Accordingly, Raman also teaches its provided optimized AHU and chiller setpoints are such that the control outputs for the airside HVAC equipment are based on the control outputs for the waterside HV AC equipment and vice versa. Again, please note that the claim does not require “control outputs for the airside HVAC equipment” being provided as input to determine “control outputs for the waterside HV AC equipment” and vice versa as argued.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “solving mutually interdependent equations simultaneously…such an interdependent relationship between the AHU set point schedule and the chiller set point”, Remarks, page 11; “the equations y = f (x, z) and z = g(x, y) define an interdependent relationship between the variables y and z because y is a function of z and vice versa.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus, applicant’s arguments of “Raman does not disclose or teach such an interdependent relationship between the AHU set point schedule and the chiller set point schedule” is not commensurate with the actual scope of the claim.
The outstanding 102/103 rejections are respectfully maintained as set forth below.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
In light of applicant’s providing of persuasive arguments (See Remarks, page 9), the outstanding non-statutory double patenting rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1- 3, 8- 10, & 15- 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Raman (US 20120296480 A1, Reference of record).
Regarding claim 1, Raman teaches a controller [computer (e.g., server 110+ schedule generator 125) that executes “energy optimization method or methods by analyzing the DR schedule, user preferences, and predicted environmental values like outdoor air temperature” for the system 100] for a building heating, ventilating, or air conditioning (HVAC) system [“an HVAC system” managed by the BMS 145] comprising waterside HVAC equipment [one or more of the “chiller” of “chiller consumes most of the energy in an HVAC system”] configured to generate a heated or chilled fluid and airside HVAC equipment [one or more of the AHU(s)] configured to use the heated or chilled fluid to heat or cool a supply airflow provided to a building, the controller comprising one or more processing circuits configured to: (fig. 1, [013, 020, 048]);
perform an integrated airside/waterside control process [actions performed at steps 300/400 per para. 048] to determine [the BMS 145 reading/receiving the transmitted optimized setpoints of steps 432/315/380] control outputs [“optimized values” for the AHU and chiller that are transmitted to the BMS 145 from generator 125 and generated using “DR algorithms 130” are mapped as control outputs. See “At 482, the optimized AHU, chilled water, zone set point, carbon dioxide set point, and chiller schedules are determined based on the load.” Here, the optimized set points of AHU and chiller include optimizing of the both the chiller and AHU. Once, set point/schedule for the AHU and chillers are determined , they are transmitted to the BMS 145 at the same time. Hence, the process of figs. 4A- 4C can be called integrated control process for the chiller and AHU] for both the waterside HVAC equipment [“chiller”] and the airside HVAC equipment [“AHU”] simultaneously [BMS 145 receives/determines optimized values at the same time] such that the control outputs [“The AHU set point schedule has been derived based on the power cost schedule obtained from the DR. While running on this schedule, when the set point is changed from T.sub.1 to T.sub.2, the chilled water valve position will be automatically adjusted by the control logic….Similar to the AHU set point schedule, the chiller set point is also predicted and optimized based on the power cost schedule from the DR.” Also see the algorithm of the par. 035, Hence, the schedule variation of the AHU and chiller are schedule variations of each other] for the airside HVAC equipment are based on the control outputs for the waterside HVAC equipment and vice versa ([1017, 025-027, 2035, 048-3049, 054-056]); and
operate [Fig. 3B, “At 380, the optimized energy schedule is transmitted to the building management server via an intranet, the Internet, or any known software messaging methods.” “based upon the optimized schedule, the BMS 145 schedules the sub systems 165 to achieve the energy savings.”] the waterside HVAC equipment and the airside HVAC equipment to provide heating or cooling to the building using the control outputs ([014, 4049, 051], Claim 13).
Regarding claim 2, Raman teaches the controller of Claim 1, wherein performing the integrated airside/waterside control process comprises simultaneously determining both a heating or cooling demand of the building and the control outputs [“optimized energy schedule is periodically generated”] that cause the HVAC system to satisfy [“At 335, the optimized energy schedule is altered as a function of one or more operator preferences based on an energy saving requirement and an occupant comfort requirement.”] the heating or cooling demand ([035, 049-050]).
Regarding claim 3, Raman teaches the controller of Claim 1, wherein performing the integrated airside/waterside control process comprises performing a single integrated airside/waterside optimization process subject to a set of constraints [“energy saving requirement and an occupant comfort requirement”]; wherein the control outputs [“optimized AHU set point schedule. {(ti, x1), (t2, x2), ... (t"' x" )} where tis the time duration and x is the AHU set point value. 2: Get the optimized Chiller set point schedule. { (ti, y 1), (t2, y2), ... (t", y,.)}”] for both the waterside HVAC equipment and the airside HVAC equipment and a heating or cooling demand of the building are decision variables in the single integrated airside/waterside optimization process and generated as results of the single integrated airside/waterside optimization process (Fig. 3A- 3B, [035, 049-050]).
Regarding claims 8- 10, Raman teaches inventions of these method claims for the similar reasons set forth above in system claims 1- 3 respectively.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Raman teaches a controller [computer processor that executes the method of Raman as part of “At 305, an energy demand response schedule, one or more user preferences, and one or more predicted environmental variables are received into a computer processor”] for a building heating, ventilating, or air conditioning (HVAC) [“chiller consumes most of the energy in an HVAC system”] system that uses both waterside HVAC equipment [“chiller”] and airside HVAC equipment [“all the AHUs installed in the site”] to heat or cool a supply airflow provided to a building, the controller comprising one or more processing circuits configured to: ([020, 049]);
perform an integrated airside/waterside control process to determine control outputs [“generate an optimized energy schedule…the optimized energy schedule comprising one or more of a set point temperature variation in one or more zones, an air handling unit set point temperature variation, a chilled water set point temperature variation”] for both the waterside HVAC equipment and the airside HVAC equipment simultaneously such that the control outputs for the airside HVAC equipment are based on the control outputs for the waterside HVAC equipment and vice versa ([025-027, 035, 049, 054-056], Claim 1); and
operate [energy schedule is transmitted to the building management server] the waterside HVAC equipment and the airside HVAC equipment to heat or cool the supply airflow using the control outputs ([014, 049, 051], claim 13).
Regarding claim 16, Raman teaches the controller of Claim 15, wherein performing the integrated airside/waterside control process comprises simultaneously determining both a heating or cooling demand of the building and the control outputs that cause the HVAC system to satisfy the heating or cooling demand ([035, 049- 050]).
Regarding claim 17, Raman teaches the controller of Claim 15, wherein performing the integrated airside/waterside control process comprises performing a single integrated airside/waterside optimization process subject to a set of constraints; wherein the control outputs [“optimized AHU set point schedule. {(ti, x1), (t2, x2), ... (t"' x" )} where tis the time duration and x is the AHU set point value. 2: Get the optimized Chiller set point schedule. { (ti, y 1), (t2, y2), ... (t", y,.)}”] for both the waterside HVAC equipment and the airside HVAC equipment and a heating or cooling demand of the building are decision variables in the single integrated airside/waterside optimization process and generated as results of the single integrated airside/waterside optimization process ([035, 049- 050], Figs. 3A- 3B).
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) 4- 7, 11- 14, & 18- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman (US 20120296480 A1) in view of Nikovski (US 20110238222 A1, Reference of record).
Regarding claim 4, Raman further teaches the controller of Claim 3, wherein: the set of constraints comprises ensure minimum occupant comfort to achieve better energy savings”. The comport is implemented by reaching desired indoor temperature] for the building;
Raman fails to teach the features (using of temperature evolution model) as shown above with strikethrough emphasis.
Nikovski relates to saving energy while operating a HVAC system while operating the HVAC system to heat or cool the environment to the desirable temperature ([001-003]). Specifically, Nikovski teaches a controller to perform optimization process subject to a set of constraints; wherein: the set of constraints comprises a temperature evolution model [“building thermal model 228”] for the building and temperature constraints for the building; performing the single integrated airside/waterside optimization process comprises using the temperature evolution model to predict [“The building thermal model tracks the state of the building continuously and for any amount of heat supplied by the HVAC system 150,and can predict the future evolution of the internal temperature of the building”] a temperature of the building as a function of one or more thermal energy resources [“any amount of heat supplied”] provided to the building ([022-023]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Nikovski and Raman because they both related to a HVAC controller optimizing operating of the HVAC system to minimize power usage and (2) modify the controller of the Raman to include missing limitations from Nikovski. Doing so would allow to accurately determine conditioning time that takes to reach a user desired temperature for the building of Raman to minimize energy consumption without impacting user’s comfort level (Nikovski [023, 029]).
Regarding claim 5, Raman further teaches the controller of Claim 1, wherein performing the integrated airside/waterside control process comprises:
simultaneously determining both an amount [“load of the chiller can be predicted based on the AHU set point variation and the chilled water set point variation (L). The flow rate of the chiller unit”] of the thermal energy resources required by the building to satisfy temperature constraints for the building and the control outputs [“At 482, the optimized AHU, chilled water, zone set point, carbon dioxide set point, and chiller schedules are determined based on the load”] for the waterside HVAC equipment that cause the waterside HVAC equipment to produce the amount of the thermal energy resources required by the building to satisfy the temperature constraints ([020, 055]).
However, Raman fails to teach using a temperature evolution model to predict a temperature of the building as a function of one or more thermal energy resources provided to the building but this feature.
Raman cures this deficiency. That is, Raman teaches performing the integrated airside/waterside control process comprises: using a temperature evolution model to predict a temperature of the building as a function of one or more thermal energy resources provided to the building ([022- 023]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Nikovski and Raman because they both related to a HVAC controller optimizing operating of the HVAC system to minimize power usage and (2) modify the controller of the Raman to include its missing limitations from Nikovski. Doing so would allow to accurately determine conditioning time that takes to reach a user desired temperature for the building of Raman to minimize energy consumption without impacting user’s comfort level (Nikovski [023, 029]).
Regarding claim 6, Raman teaches the controller of Claim 1, wherein performing the integrated airside/waterside control process comprises:
Raman fails to teach features shown with strikethrough emphasis but are cured by Nikovski in para. 022-023 as discussed above.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Nikovski and Raman because they both related to a HVAC controller optimizing operating of the HVAC system to minimize power usage and (2) modify the controller of the Raman to include its missing limitations from Nikovski. Doing so would allow to accurately determine conditioning time that takes to reach a user desired temperature for the building of Raman to minimize energy consumption without impacting user’s comfort level (Nikovski [023, 029]).
Regarding claim 7, Raman in view of Nikovski teaches the controller of Claim 6, wherein: performing the integrated airside/waterside control process comprises
using a performance curve [equation shown in para. 020 can be a curve if it is plotted] for the waterside HVAC equipment [“Chiller”] to determine the amount [“flow rate of the chiller”] of the one or more resources that must be obtained from the utility providers to allow the waterside HVAC equipment to produce the amount of the thermal energy resources required by the building to satisfy the temperature constraints; the performance curve defines a relationship between a thermal energy resource [the load of the chiller] produced by the waterside HVAC equipment and one or more resources that must be consumed by the waterside HVAC equipment to produce the thermal energy resource (Raman, [020, 0051, 054-055]).
Regarding claims 11- 14, Raman in view of Nikovski teaches the inventions of these claims for the similar reasons as set forth above in claims 4 – 7.
Regarding claims 18 - 20, Raman in view of Nikovski teaches the inventions of these claims for the similar reasons as set forth above in claims 4 – 6.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 “the air handling unit (AHU) temperature setpoint adjustment/elevation and the chilled water set point temperature adjustment/elevation is handled as follows”. Thus, the outputs for the AHU and chiller are generated simultaneously and the outputs are function of each other.
2 “Get the optimized AHU set point schedule. {(ti, x1), (t2, x2), ... (t"' x" )} where tis the
time duration and x is the AHU set point value.
2: Get the optimized Chiller set point schedule. { (ti, y 1), (t2, y2), ... (t", y,.)} where t is the
time and y is the Chiller set point value
….
14. Continue to repeat from Step 4 till the end of the AHU set point schedule and Chiller
Set Point schedule”
3 “At 310, an optimized energy schedule is generated as a function of the demand response schedule, the user preferences, and the predicted environmental variables. The optimized energy schedule includes one or more of a set point temperature variation in one or more zones, an air handling unit set point temperature variation, a chilled water set point temperature variation, a carbon dioxide level set point variation, a pre-cooling time shift, a pre-cooling duration variation, and a load based optimized chiller schedule”
4 “At 315, the optimized energy schedule is ready to be transmitted to a building management server.”
Prosecution Insights