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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 2-4, 9-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka (JP 2001-336841) in view of Thorp et al. (GB 2347541).
In regards to claim 2, Yutaka discloses an air mover system (system of indoor fan 13, wind direction control means 14 and outdoor fan 52; Figs. 1, 5, 9 and 15) for use in an indoor unit (11) of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, the air mover system comprising: a blower (indoor fan 13); a sensor (12) configured to detect presence of a refrigerant in air (detects refrigerant leakage) inside the indoor unit (11), (refer to pars. 51 and 65); and a controller (31) configured to: receive first feedback (detects) from the sensor (12); determine, based at least in part on the first feedback, that refrigerant present in the air inside the indoor unit (when the indoor refrigerant sensor detects refrigerant leakage in the indoor unit; pars. 34-35) meets a concentration threshold; cause the blower (13) to operate in a sensing mode to direct air toward the sensor in a first airflow direction (via controlling a wind direction) for detecting the refrigerant (note: that the concept of a sensor output reaching a defined detection threshold before triggering a control response is an inherent and routine feature of sensor-based detection systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art implementing Yutaka's system would necessarily program the sensor to trigger upon a concentration meeting some threshold, whether explicitly stated or not, this represents obvious implementation of a known detection architecture); and cause the blower (13) to direct the air out of the indoor unit (via a wind direction control means 14 and discharge mechanism 15; par. 46 and 51) to an exterior of the indoor unit (leaked refrigerant is discharged outside the room) or into a discharge pathway that prevents recirculation into an occupied space.
Yutaka fails to explicitly teaches discloses the blower comprising a motor.
Thorp teaches wherein the blower (a centrifugal Blower 24) comprising a motor (centrifugal Blowers are motor operated).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air mover system of Yutaka such that the blower comprising a motor as taught by Thorp in order to drive the blower fan (refer to page 4, lines 16-17 of Thorp).
In regards to claim 3, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the sensor (12) is further configured to detect presence of non-refrigerant elements in ambient air (refer to par. 31).
In regards to claim 4, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the controller (31) is further configured to: cause operation of a compressor (114) to cease (stopped) after determining that the refrigerant is present in the air inside the indoor unit (refer to par. 51 and 53; when the indoor refrigerant sensor 12 detects the leakage of the refrigerant, the normal cooling/heating operation is stopped that includes compressor).
In regards to claim 9, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the controller (31) is further configured to: wirelessly transmit an electronic notification (pars. 51 and 53).
In regards to claim 10, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: cause the blower to direct air toward the sensor in a first direction that is different than a second direction of air flow inside the indoor unit.
Thorp teaches wherein the controller (control element 40) is further configured to: cause the blower (24) to direct air toward the sensor (28) (refer to abstract) in a first direction (D1) that is different than a second direction (reverse direction; refer to page 7, lines 1-2) of air flow inside the indoor unit (corresponding to duct D).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air mover system of Yutaka such that the controller is further configured to: cause the blower to direct air toward the sensor in a first direction that is different than a second direction of air flow inside the indoor unit as taught by Thorp in order to ensure incoming airborne gases and particulate matter are unable to spread into the remainder of the infernal region of the housing until it has passed through the sensing region (refer to page 2, lines 9-14 of Thorp).
In regards to claim 11, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 10, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to: cause the blower to direct air toward the sensor based at least in part on a trigger event, wherein the trigger event comprises one or more of: powering on of the air mover system, a periodic time interval, or detection of refrigerant based at least in part on sensor feedback.
Thorp teaches wherein the controller (control element 40) is further configured to: cause the blower (24) to direct air toward the sensor (28) (refer to abstract) based at least in part on a trigger event, wherein the trigger event comprises one or more of: powering on of the air mover system, a periodic time interval, or detection of refrigerant based at least in part on sensor feedback (refer to page 7, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air mover system of Yutaka such the controller is further configured to: cause the blower to direct air toward the sensor based at least in part on a trigger event, wherein the trigger event comprises one or more of: powering on of the air mover system, a periodic time interval, or detection of refrigerant based at least in part on sensor feedback as taught by Thorp in order to ensure incoming airborne gases and particulate matter are unable to spread into the remainder of the infernal region of the housing until it has passed through the sensing region (refer to page 2, lines 9-14 of Thorp).
In regards to claim 12, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the controller (31) is further configured to: receive second feedback (detection from sensor) from the sensor (12); determine, based at least in part on the second feedback from the sensor (12), that refrigerant is not present in the air (if there is no refrigerant leakage) inside the indoor unit (11); and cause a refrigerant leak detection (detection from sensor) process to be reset (refer to par. 48).
In regards to claim 13, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 12. Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the controller (31) is further configured to: send the sensor (12) a request for the second feedback (detection from sensor) within a predetermined time interval of receiving the first feedback (i.e. col.4, lines 1-6 of Tanabe; control unit 60 develops a control signal having a predetermined time interval).
In regards to claim 14, Yutaka discloses a method for detecting a refrigerant leak (detects refrigerant leakage), the method comprising: causing, by a controller (31) of an HVAC system (system of indoor fan 13, wind direction control means 14 and outdoor fan 52; Figs. 1, 5, 9 and 15) to direct air toward a sensor disposed in an indoor unit of the HVAC system in a first airflow direction during a sensing mode for detecting refrigerant (via controlling a wind direction); receiving first feedback from a sensor (12); determining, based at least in part on the first feedback, that an amount of refrigerant present in the air (detects refrigerant leakage) inside the indoor unit (11), (refer to pars. 51 and 65) meets a concentration threshold (note: that the concept of a sensor output reaching a defined detection threshold before triggering a control response is an inherent and routine feature of sensor-based detection systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art implementing Yutaka's system would necessarily program the sensor to trigger upon a concentration meeting some threshold, whether explicitly stated or not, this represents obvious implementation of a known detection architecture); and causing the blower (13) to direct the air in a second airflow direction opposite the first airflow direction (wind direction is changed) and out of the indoor unit (via a wind direction control means 14 and discharge mechanism 15; par. 46 and 51) to an exterior of the indoor unit (leaked refrigerant is discharged outside the room).
Yutaka fails to explicitly teaches the method comprising: causing, by the controller of an HVAC system to direct air toward a sensor disposed in an indoor unit of the HVAC system.
Thorp teaches a method wherein the method comprising: causing, by the controller (control element 40) to direct air toward the sensor (28) (refer to abstract) disposed in an indoor unit of the HVAC system (corresponding to duct D).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air mover system of Yutaka such that the method comprising: causing, by the controller of an HVAC system to direct air toward a sensor disposed in an indoor unit of the HVAC system as taught by Thorp in order to ensure incoming airborne gases and particulate matter are unable to spread into the remainder of the infernal region of the housing until it has passed through the sensing region (refer to page 2, lines 9-14 of Thorp).
In regards to claim 15, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14. Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the sensor (12) is further configured to detect presence of non-refrigerant elements in ambient air (par. 31).
In regards to claim 16, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14. Further, Yutaka teaches wherein causing the blower to direct the air out of the indoor unit comprises: causing operation of a compressor (114) to cease (stopped) after determining that the refrigerant is present in the air inside the indoor unit (refer to par. 53; when the indoor refrigerant sensor 12 detects the leakage of the refrigerant, the normal cooling/heating operation is stopped that includes compressor).
In regards to claim 20, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14. Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the controller (31) further comprising: receiving second feedback (detection from sensor) from the sensor (12); determining, based at least in part on the second feedback from the sensor (12), that refrigerant is not present in the air (if there is no refrigerant leakage) inside the indoor unit (11); and causing a refrigerant leak detection (detection from sensor) process to be reset (refer to par. 48).
In regards to claim 21, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 20. Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the controller (31) is further comprising: sending the sensor (12) a request for the second feedback (detection from sensor) within a predetermined time interval of receiving the first feedback (i.e. col.4, lines 1-6 of Tanabe; control unit 60 develops a control signal having a predetermined time interval).
Claims 5-6, 8, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka (JP 2001-336841) in view of Thorp et al. (GB 2347541), further in view of Shira et al. (US 2021/0231329 A1).
In regards to claim 5, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to: cause presentation of an audible or visual notification.
Shira teaches an air-conditioning device (1; Fig. 1) wherein the controller (7) is further configured to: cause presentation of an audible or visual notification (via notification device 6b generates sound or visual; refer to pars. 31 and 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air mover system of Yutaka such that the controller is further configured to: cause presentation of an audible or visual notification as taught by Shira in order to prevent a fire source from being carried in the space in which the refrigerant leaks (refer to par. 30 of Shira).
In regards to claim 6, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2, Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the sensor (refrigerant leakage detecting sensor 12 of Yutaka) is a first sensor, but fails to explicitly teach, the air mover system further comprising: a second sensor disposed external to the indoor unit; wherein the controller is further configured to: receive second feedback from the second sensor; determine, based at least in part on the second feedback, that refrigerant is present in the air external to the indoor unit; and cause presentation of an audible or visual notification.
Shira teaches an air-conditioning device (1; Fig. 1) wherein the controller (7) is further configured to: cause presentation of an audible or visual notification (via notification device 6b generates sound or visual; refer to pars. 31 and 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air mover system of Yutaka such that the air mover system further comprising: a second sensor disposed external to the indoor unit; wherein the controller is further configured to: receive second feedback from the second sensor; determine, based at least in part on the second feedback, that refrigerant is present in the air external to the indoor unit; and cause presentation of an audible or visual notification as taught by Shira in order to prevent a fire source from being carried in the space in which the refrigerant leaks (refer to par. 30 of Shira).
In regards to claim 8, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, based at least in part on the first feedback, that an amount of refrigerant present satisfies the concentration threshold.
Shira teaches an air-conditioning device (1; Fig. 1) wherein the controller (7) is further configured to: determine, based at least in part on the first feedback (via detection device 5 and controller 7), that an amount of refrigerant present satisfies the concentration threshold (refer to pars. 34-35; thresholds of the refrigerant concentration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air mover system of Yutaka such that the controller is further configured to: determine, based at least in part on the first feedback, that an amount of refrigerant present satisfies the concentration threshold as taught by Shira in order to early detect inflow of the refrigerant from the refrigerant circuit to the heat medium circuit (refer to par. 7 of Shira).
In regards to claim 17, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14. Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the sensor (refrigerant leakage detecting sensor 12 of Yutaka) is a first sensor, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprising: receiving second feedback from a second sensor; determining, based at least in part on the second feedback, that refrigerant is present in the air external to the indoor unit; and causing presentation of an audible or visual notification.
Shira teaches a method (Fig. 1) further comprising: receiving second feedback from a second sensor; determining, based at least in part on the second feedback, that refrigerant is present in the air external to the indoor unit; and causing presentation of an audible or visual notification (via notification device 6b generates sound or visual; refer to pars. 31 and 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yutaka such that the method further comprising: receiving second feedback from a second sensor; determining, based at least in part on the second feedback, that refrigerant is present in the air external to the indoor unit; and causing presentation of an audible or visual notification as taught by Shira in order Shira in order to prevent a fire source from being carried in the space in which the refrigerant leaks (refer to par. 30 of Shira). .
In regards to claim 19, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14, but fails to explicitly teach further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the first feedback, that an amount of refrigerant present satisfies the concentration threshold.
Shira teaches a method (Fig. 1) wherein further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the first feedback (via detection device 5 and controller 7), that an amount of refrigerant present satisfies the concentration threshold (refer to pars. 34-35; thresholds of the refrigerant concentration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yutaka such that further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the first feedback, that an amount of refrigerant present satisfies the concentration threshold as taught by Shira in order to early detect inflow of the refrigerant from the refrigerant circuit to the heat medium circuit (refer to par. 7 of Shira).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yutaka (JP 2001-336841) in view of Thorp et al. (GB 2347541), further in view of GUPTA (WO 2018127932). In regards to claim 7, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the sensor (refrigerant leakage detecting sensor 12 of Yutaka) is a first sensor, but fails to explicitly teach the air mover system further comprising: a second sensor configured to determine an oxygen level of the air inside the indoor unit. GUPTA teaches the air mover system further comprising: a second sensor (corresponding to an oxygen level sensor 76 of GUPTA) configured to determine an oxygen level of the air inside the indoor unit (page 10, lines 27-32); and determine, based at least in part on the second feedback, that refrigerant is present in the air external to the indoor unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air mover system of Yutaka such that the air mover system further comprising: a second sensor configured to determine an oxygen level of the air inside the indoor unit as taught by GUPTA in order to regulate the flow and level of oxygen inside the room (refer to page 11, lines 2-3 of GUPTA). In regards to claim 18, Yutaka as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14, Further, Yutaka teaches wherein the sensor (refrigerant leakage detecting sensor 12 of Yutaka) is a first sensor, but fails to explicitly teach, the method further comprising: receiving second feedback from the second sensor indicative of an oxygen level; and determining, based at least in part on the second feedback, that refrigerant is present in the air external to the indoor unit. GUPTA teaches the method further comprising: receiving second feedback from a second sensor (corresponding to an oxygen level sensor 76 of GUPTA) indicative of an oxygen level (page 10, lines 27-32); and determining, based at least in part on the second feedback, that refrigerant is present in the air external to the indoor unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yutaka such that the method further comprising: receiving second feedback from the second sensor indicative of an oxygen level as taught by GUPTA in order to regulate the flow and level of oxygen inside the room (refer to page 11, lines 2-3 of GUPTA).
Response to Arguments
A provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection is maintained for the reason on the record.
Applicant argues that Yutaka fails to disclose a "sensing mode" in which airflow is intentionally directed toward the refrigerant sensor, and that Thorp is non-analogous art directed to duct-mounted smoke detection rather than HVAC refrigerant leak mitigation. These arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons.
The combination of Yutaka and Thorp is based on the well-established principle that it is obvious to apply a known technique to improve a similar system in an analogous way. Both references are directed to detecting hazardous airborne substances in enclosed or semi-enclosed environments using sensor-based systems and fan-driven airflow, a field of endeavor reasonably pertinent to the problem of reliably detecting leaked refrigerant in an indoor HVAC unit.
Applicant contends Thorp is directed to "fire detection" and is therefore non-analogous. However, the analogous art inquiry is not limited to the precise industry or hazard type. A person of ordinary skill in the art concerned with reliably detecting leaked gases using fan-driven airflow would reasonably have looked to Thorp's teachings about directing airflow toward a sensor to improve detection sensitivity. The field of sensor-enhanced detection using directed airflow is sufficiently related that Thorp constitutes analogous art.
Applicant argues that neither Yutaka nor Thorp teaches operating an HVAC blower in a "sensing mode" that intentionally directs airflow toward the refrigerant sensor. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yutaka teaches using an indoor fan in connection with refrigerant detection and subsequent discharge. Thorp explicitly teaches directing airflow toward a sensor to improve detection. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Thorp's principle of directed airflow into Yutaka's detection arrangement in order to improve the reliability and speed of refrigerant leak detection, a recognized need in the art. The motivation is provided by the common-sense benefit of exposing the sensor to a greater concentration of sampled air.
Applicant's argument that "the same blower" must perform both sensing-mode and exhaust-mode functions appears to import a structural limitation not clearly required by the claim language. The claimed method recites operating a blower in a first direction for sensing and a second direction for exhaust; it does not require that these functions be performed in a manner that excludes any supplemental or dedicated airflow structure. Moreover, even if the claims require a single blower performing both functions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Thorp's directed-airflow principle using the existing indoor unit blower, as Yutaka already contemplates blower operation in the context of detection and discharge.
Applicant argues that neither Yutaka nor Thorp discloses threshold-based refrigerant concentration determination. However, Yutaka discloses detection of a refrigerant leak followed by discharge control. The concept of a sensor output reaching a defined detection threshold before triggering a control response is an inherent and routine feature of sensor-based detection systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art implementing Yutaka's system would necessarily program the sensor to trigger upon a concentration meeting some threshold, whether explicitly stated or not, this represents obvious implementation of a known detection architecture. No references teach away from this, and it would have been well within the skill of the art (prior art references must be read for all they fairly teach).
Applicant's arguments regarding the dependent claims are not separately persuasive. As to claims 10 and 11, triggering a sensing mode based on defined events (such as a schedule, a start-up routine, or an anomalous sensor signal) represents obvious design choices within the skill of the art for sensor-based HVAC systems. As to claims 12 and 13, resetting a detection process upon sensor feedback confirming the absence of refrigerant is a straightforward control logic feature. Continuous monitoring and reset functions are routine in sensor-based safety systems and would have been obvious to implement. As to claims 6 and 7, multi-sensor coordination incorporating oxygen-level detection represents an obvious combination of known sensor modalities to improve detection reliability.
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 MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T/
Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights