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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Independent claim 1
Applicant asserts that “Claim 1 has been amended based on the Examiner comments during the March 4, 2026 telephone interview and based on, for example, paragraph 79 of Applicant's published Application to clarify that the actuator is configured to move an actuated part of the HVAC system based on a control signal”. Emphasis added by the examiner.
The examiner, however, disagrees.
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., “the actuator is configured to move an actuated part of the HVAC system based on a control signal”) 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).
Applicant further asserts that “An actuator on the other hand receives a control signal (e.g. from a controller) and actually moves something, which affects the operation of the HVAC system. The dampers 24 of Bisson, may be considered to correspond to the actuators of the present patent application, but not the controller 18. Applicant has amended claim 1 to clarify this distinction.
Bisson fails to teach or suggest the claimed actuator that moves and actuated part and comprises a close-range radio communication interface, as required by the amended claim”.
The examiner, however, disagrees.
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., “An actuator on the other hand receives a control signal (e.g. from a controller) and actually moves something, which affects the operation of the HVAC system”) 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).
In this instance, Bisson discloses A Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and Cooling (HVAC) system (see at least figures 2, and 4) comprising an actuator 18 (see paragraph [0023] which discloses “The one or more HVAC controller(s) 18 may actuate dampers 24 to an open position, a closed position, and/or a partially open position to modulate the flow of air from the one or more HVAC components to an appropriate room and/or zone in the building or other structure”). Therefore, Bisson discloses an actuator 18 as claimed under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Examiner’s Suggestions: in order to overcome the instant rejection under 103(a) as set forth below, claim 1 should be amended based on paragraph 52 of Applicant’s published Application to clarify that “the actuator includes an electric motor being configured to drive an actuated part in the HVAC system based on a control signal for controlling the flow of fluids in the HVAC system”.
Independent claims 10, 19, and 20
Regarding independent claims 10, 19, and 20, they are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
Remaining rejected claims
The remaining rejected claims are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims are proper.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
See claims 1-20, wherein the word “module” is recited.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisson (US 2014/0045482) in view of Cricco (EP 2355368A1, submitted by applicant).
As to claim 1, Bisson discloses A Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and Cooling (HVAC) system (see at least figures 2, and 4) comprising an antenna extension system 66 and an actuator (see paragraph [0023] which discloses “The one or more HVAC controller(s) 18 may actuate dampers 24 to an open position, a closed position, and/or a partially open position to modulate the flow of air from the one or more HVAC components to an appropriate room and/or zone in the building or other structure”), the actuator comprising a close-range radio communication interface (see wireless interface included in controller 18 for communicating with the antenna extension system 66 via a close-range radio network 54; see also paragraph [0030] which discloses that the network 54 may be a dedicated short range communication), and being configured to drive an actuated part 24 in the HVAC system for controlling the flow of fluids in the HVAC system (see paragraph [0022]), the antenna extension system 66 comprising: a first radio communication module (in this instance, the claimed “a first radio communication module” reads on wireless communication interface for providing close-range wireless communication with the actuator inside HVAC controller 18), configured for close range communication with the actuator 18 over a direct wireless communication link (see paragraph [0044]); a second radio communication module (in this instance, the claimed “a second radio communication module” reads on wireless communication interface providing wireless communication with a mobile device 62) having a greater communication range than the first radio communication module (see paragraph [0028] which discloses the network 58 may be a wide area network or global network such as Internet, which are clearly have a greater communication range then the network 54), and a gateway module 66 configured to interconnect the first radio communication module and the second radio communication module, to receive data from the actuator over the direct wireless communication link via the first radio communication module and transmit the data received from the actuator via the second radio communication module to a mobile communication device 62 (see paragraphs [0044], [0045]), and to receive data from the mobile communication device 62 via the second radio communication module and transmit the data received from the mobile communication device via the first radio communication module over the direct wireless communication link to the actuator (see paragraphs [0044], [0045]), wherein the gateway module 66 is configured to receive data from the close range radio communication interface of the HVAC actuator 18 via the first close range radio communication module and to transmit the received data by way of the second radio communication module over an extended wireless communication link to the mobile or fixed communication device 62 (see paragraphs [0044], [0045]); wherein the gateway module 66 is configured to receive operation-related actuator data from the actuator over the direct wireless communication link via the first radio communication module and transmit the operation-related actuator data received from the actuator via the second radio communication module over the extended wireless communication link to the mobile or fixed communication device 62 (see paragraphs [0044], [0045]; in this instance, the claimed “operation-related actuator data” reads on data that “The one or more HVAC controller(s) 18 may actuate dampers 24 to an open position, a closed position, and/or a partially open position to modulate the flow of air from the one or more HVAC components to an appropriate room and/or zone in the building or other structure” as disclosed in paragraph [0023]).
Bisson fails to disclose the first radio communication module configured for near field communication (NFC). Cricco discloses an antenna extension system for NFC system 104 (see at least figure 1), the antenna extension system comprising: a first radio communication module 126, configured for near field communication (NFC) with a NFC terminal 104 over a direct wireless communication link (150, 154); a second radio communication module 124, having a greater communication range than the first radio communication module 126. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Cricco to Bisson, such that the actuator 18 in Bisson is in NFC communication with antenna extension system 66, in order to provide convenience, security, and low power.
As to claims 2, 11, Bisson discloses that the second radio communication module comprises at least one of: a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) radio communication module (see paragraph [0028]), and a Bluetooth radio communication module (see paragraph [0044]).
As to claims 3, 12, Bisson fails to disclose that the gateway module 66 (see figure 4) comprises an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bisson, such that the gateway module 66 comprises an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), in order to yield predictable results such as reducing weight, size, and implementing cost of the gateway module 66.
As to claims 4, 13, the combination of Bisson and Cricco discloses that the first radio communication module 126 (see Cricco, figure 1) comprises an antenna (inherently included in order to provide NFC communication between first radio communication module 126 and NFC terminal 104) for electromagnetically coupling the antenna extension system to a close-range radio communication interface of the actuator.
As to claims 7, 16, Bisson discloses that the first radio communication module is configured to establish the direct wireless communication link with the actuator 18 as a one-to-one wireless communication link without any intermittent communication bus (there is no intermittent communication bus disclosed in Bisson; therefore, Bisson reads on the claimed limitations under a broadest reasonable interpretation).
As to claims 8, 17, Bisson discloses an antenna (inherently included in the antenna extension system 66 in figure 4, in order to provide wireless communication between second radio communication module and smart phone 62) connected to the second radio communication module and configured to establish an extended wireless communication link to the mobile communication device 62 located beyond the communication range of a close-range radio communication interface of the actuator 18.
As to claims 9, 18, Bisson discloses an antenna (inherently included in the antenna extension system 66 in figure 4, in order to provide wireless communication between second radio communication module and personal computer 62) connected to the second radio communication module and configured to establish an extended wireless communication link to a fixed communication device 62 located beyond the communication range of a close-range radio communication interface of the actuator 18. See Bisson, paragraph [0032] which discloses that wireless device 62 may be a personal computer which reads on a fixed communication device.
As to claim 10, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above. Bisson further discloses that the mobile device 62 (see at least figure 4) transmits operation-related actuator data to the actuator 18 (see paragraph [0045]).
Claims 5-6, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bisson (US 2014/0045482) in view of Cricco (EP 2355368A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2015/0038086).
As to claims 5, 14, the combination of Bisson and Cricco discloses that the antenna is fixed to a carrier 100 (see Cricco, figures 1, 3), which is attachable to any object (see Cricco, paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0037]), but fails to explicitly disclose that the antenna is attachable to the actuator. Kim discloses an antenna 30 (see at least figure 3B) is fixed to a carrier, which is attachable to an actuator 10 (see paragraph [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Kim to the combination of Bisson and Cricco, in order to yield predictable results such as improving signal quality between the first radio communication module and the actuator.
As to claims 6, 15, the combination of Bisson, Cricco, and Kim discloses that the carrier 100 (see Cricco, figure 1) comprises an adhesive 160 (see Cricco, figure 3) for attaching to the actuator (see Cricco, paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0037]; Kim, paragraph [0044]).
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 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 NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights