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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on 09/09/2024 and 01/15/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arensmeier et al. (US 9551504 B2, hereinafter referred to as “Arensmeier”, cited in IDS dated 09/09/2024) in view of Budde (US 20150330924 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Budde”, cited in IDS dated 01/15/2026).
Regarding Claim 1, Arensmeier teaches a climate control system (Fig. 1, HVAC system), comprising:
a fluidic circuit (Fig. 1, a combination of 180, 182 and 192) comprising a compressor (Fig. 1, 180) fluidly coupled to a condenser (Fig. 1, 182) and an evaporator (Fig. 1, 192; The air handler unit 304 includes a blower, a burner, and an evaporator);
a sensor (Fig. 1, 192) configured to detect a plurality of temporally sequenced data points associated with the fluidic circuit (Col. 2 line 65 - Col. 3 line 27 teaches a sensor and monitoring module to generate measure sequenced data related to a heating, ventilation, or air conditioning (HVAC) system. Col. 15, lines 53-62 teaches generating a series of frames including a time stamp, conditions of status signals, status of liquid sensors; Col. 2 line 65 - Col. 3 line 27, “performed by multiple discrete sensors, measuring current individually to each component. For example, a sensor may sense the current drawn by a motor, another sensor measures resistance or current flow of an igniter, and yet another sensor monitors a state of a gas valve. …a heating, ventilation, or air conditioning (HVAC) system … an indoor unit monitor module electrically connected to a current sensor and first and second refrigerant temperature sensors. The current sensor generates a first current signal based on aggregate current consumed by components of an indoor unit of the HVAC system”); and
a controller (Fig. 1, 192; Fig. 11, processing module 1400) configured to:
store the plurality of temporally sequenced data points associated with the fluidic circuit and a time associated with each of the temporally sequenced data points (Col. 15, lines 53-62 and Col. 27, lines 55-56 teach a series of frames including a time stamp which are stored in Records and reference files 1422; Col. 27, lines 55-56, “Records and reference files 1422 may store frequency and time domain data establishing baselines for detection and prediction”);
…
determine a condition of the climate control system corresponding to the profile (Fig. 1, 102) (Col. 28, lines 31-33, 49-50, “(162) The processing module 1400 may check the status of discrete sensors to determine whether specifically-detected fault conditions are present”).
Arensmeier fails to explicitly disclose, but Budde teaches compare the plurality of temporally sequenced data points to a profile (predicted model data) (At least paragraphs 0056-0057 teach comparing the measured system data against the predicted model data for both the heat sink temperature and the exhaust heat temperature to calculate data (e.g., heat and sink temperature) by using a profile (i.e., predicted model data) and identify the presence and the type of fault that has occurred; “The occurrence and behavior of this deviation identifies the presence and the type of fault that has occurred. … a fault detection mechanism generally indicated at 40 that compares the measured system data against the predicted model data for both the heat sink temperature and the exhaust heat temperature)”.
Arensmeier and Budde are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of environmental comfort systems and identifying faults in air-cooled systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arensmeier to incorporate the teachings of Budde by providing operations for determining/identifying a presence of fault by comparing the measured system data against the profile (i.e., the predicted model data) as taught by Budde at least at paragraphs 0056-0057.
Regarding Claim 2, Arensmeier teaches wherein the controller is configured to:
detect a plurality of deviations between the temporally sequenced data points, each deviation comprising a magnitude and a temporal sequence (At least Col. 30 lines 5-10, Col. 33 lines 3-10, Col. 35 lines 3-8, Col. 36 line 65 - Col. 37 line 10, Col. 37 lines 36-53 teach a processing module to calculate deviations (i.e., difference), for example, differences in phase between voltage and current, differential pressure between supply and return air, a difference between liquid line temperature and outside air temperature. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “a magnitude” may be indicative of a value/amount of current, voltage temperature, and/or signal which is taught by Arensmeier);
compare each of the plurality of deviations to a predefined threshold (At least Col. 37 lines 7-10 and lines 36-53 teach “A difference between refrigerant temperature in the liquid line and outside temperature is low compared to a baseline when refrigerant is overcharged. … when a call for heat occurred and the supply/return air temperature split is below a threshold”); and
determine, based on the comparison of the deviations to the predefined threshold, the condition of the climate control system is indicative of a fault of the climate control system (Col. 37 lines 36-42, “a general failure to heat fault may be declared after 15 minutes from when a call for heat occurred and the supply/return air temperature split is below a threshold. Similarly, a more severe fault is declared if the supply/return air temperature split is below the same or different threshold after 30 minutes”).
Regarding Claim 3, Arensmeier fails to explicitly, but Budde teaches wherein, to determine the condition indicative of the climate control system corresponding to the profile, the controller is configured to:
determine a first deviation between a first data point of the temporally sequenced data points and a second data point of the temporally sequenced data points exceeds a first threshold (Para 0005, “identifying the fault may include calculating a difference between consecutive measured values in the first time series to produce a first series of consecutive difference values related to the first measured temperature. … In yet another aspect, identifying the fault may include calculating a difference between consecutive measured values in the time series of the measured air flow rate to produce a series of consecutive difference values related to the measured air flow rate”; Para 0013); and
determine a second deviation between the second data point and a third data point of the temporally sequenced data points exceeds a second threshold, the second threshold having a different direction and greater magnitude than the first threshold (Para 0005, “identifying the fault may include calculating a difference between consecutive measured values in the first time series to produce a first series of consecutive difference values related to the first measured temperature. In another aspect, identifying the fault may include calculating a difference between consecutive measured values in the second time series to produce a second series of consecutive difference values related to the second measured temperature. In yet another aspect, identifying the fault may include calculating a difference between consecutive measured values in the time series of the measured air flow rate to produce a series of consecutive difference values related to the measured air flow rate”; Para 0013).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation may be indicative of calculating first and second differences (deviations) between a series of measured data and identifying a fault based on a threshold, which is taught by Bodde at least at paragraphs 0005 and 0013. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arensmeier to incorporate the teachings of Bodde by providing operations for determining a first and second differences (deviations) to be compared to a threshold taught by Arensmeier and to identify a fault, taught by Bodde at least at paragraphs 0005 and 0013.
Regarding Claim 4, Arensmeier teaches wherein: the sensor is configured to detect a condition indicative of a temperature of a refrigerant of the fluid circuit proximal to the evaporator; and the fault is an obstructed airflow (at least Col. 28, lines 31-33, 49-50, Col. 14 lines 35-49 and Col. 32 lines 55-67 teach sensors for determining if fault conditions is present by measuring a temperature of a refrigerant, an evaporator of air handler unit; Col. 28, lines 31-33, 49-50, “(162) The processing module 1400 may check the status of discrete sensors to determine whether specifically-detected fault conditions are present”; Col. 14 lines 35-49 , “The temperature tracking module 548 may additionally or alternatively monitor one or more temperatures of an evaporator coil of the air handler unit 304. The temperatures may be measured along the refrigerant line at or near the beginning of the evaporator coil, at or near an end of the evaporator coil, or at one or more midpoints. In various implementations, the placement of the temperature sensor may be dictated by physical accessibility of the evaporator coil”; Col. 32 lines 55-67, “Pressures and temperatures of refrigerant in an air conditioning or heat pump refrigerant-cycle system may be measured. Pressure sensors may be expensive and therefore the faults listed below are detected using algorithms that do not require pressure data. Various temperatures of the refrigerant may be measured, and as shown, a liquid line temperature corresponds to temperature of the refrigerant traveling from the condenser to the evaporator but prior to the expansion valve. Suction line temperature is the temperature of refrigerant being sucked into the compressor from the output side of the evaporator. Temperature sensors (not shown) may also be located between the compressor and the condenser (compressor discharge temperature) and at various points along the condenser coil and the evaporator coil”).
Regarding Claim 5, Arensmeier teaches wherein the controller causes a reduction of power to the compressor, responsive to the determination of the condition indicative of the climate control system corresponding to the profile (Col. 38 lines 29-36, “A fault for compressor short cycling due to pressure limits being exceeded may be detected when a call for cool is present, supply/return air temperature split does not indicate cooling, and there is a rapid decrease in outdoor current and a short runtime. A compressor bearing fault may be declared when an FFT of outdoor current indicates changes in motor loading, support for this fault is provided by power factor measurement.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Arensmeier teaches wherein the controller conveys, via a user interface, an indication of the condition which is an airflow obstruction (Col. 9 lines 17-30 and Col. 10 lines 45-67 teach an interface with which data is transmitted and detected failures are provided).
Regarding Claim 7, Arensmeier teaches wherein, to determine the condition indicative of the climate control system corresponding to the profile, the controller is configured to: determine a presence of a first obstruction type; and determine a presence of a second obstruction type, different from the first obstruction type (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and second obstruction types may be indicative of various type of failures/faults. Under this interpretation, Col. 27 lines 36-67 teaches various type failures/faults such as sensor failures, gas valve failures, and/or single failure of an energy-consuming component which are determined/detected using sensor values or counts of anomaly detection).
Regarding Claim 8, it is a method type claim and has similar limitations as of a part of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 10, it is dependent on claim 8 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 11, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 12, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 13, it is dependent on claim 9 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 14, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media claim and has similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 16, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 17, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 18, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 19, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 20, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 7 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 7 above.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsao et al. (US 20220026105 A1) teaches drain pan system for receiving, routing, and draining condensate from a dehumidifying, heating, ventilating, or air conditioning system is disclosed. The system includes a drain pan body that contains one or more walls to mitigate air flow and enable smooth condensate flow into, through, and out of the drain pan system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights