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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “a temperature factor” and “an air quality factor”. However claim 1 recites the same limitations. It is unclear as to if the factors recited in claim 13 are the same as the factors recited in claim 1. Examiner recommend applicant to amend the limitations in claim 13 to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the temperature factor” and “the air quality factor”.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta (US 20220221184).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta teaches a method for controlling a fresh air intake of an Air Handling Unit (AHU) of an HVAC (Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning) system servicing a building space of a building, the AHU including a fresh air intake damper for admitting a fresh air ventilation air flow, a return air duct for receiving return air from the building space, a mixed air duct for mixing the fresh air ventilation air flow from the fresh air intake damper and return air from the return air duct and providing a mixed air flow to a heating and/or cooling unit of the AHU which supplies a supply air flow to the building space, the AHU including a fan for providing a motive force to move the return air, the fresh air ventilation air flow, the mixed air flow and the supply air flow through the AHU, the AHU having a load capacity, the method comprising:
determining a current load ([0042] line 27, “a current load”. [0043] “a current heating capacity…a current cooling capacity…a load”) on the AHU ([0072] “AHU (air handling unit)”) that is used to maintain one or more comfort conditions in the building space;
determining a remaining load capacity ([0053] “current unused heating and/or cooling capacity of the HVAC system”) of the AHU, wherein the remaining load capacity is the load capacity that is currently not being used to maintain the one or more comfort conditions in the building space;
determining a maximum additional fresh air ventilation air flow that could be admitted and conditioned using the remaining load capacity of the AHU such that the AHU could still maintain the one or more comfort conditions in the building space ([0053] “a maximum ventilation parameter is determined that is representative of a rate of outside air having the one or more exterior environmental conditions that can be conditioned by the measure of current unused heating and/or cooling capacity of the HVAC system”);
determining a fresh air intake damper position ([0052] “The outdoor air ventilation damper of the HVAC system is then controlled”) for the fresh air intake damper that increases the fresh air ventilation air flow through the fresh air intake damper by a fraction of the maximum additional fresh air ventilation air flow ([0042] last 4 lines, “The outdoor air ventilation damper 18 of the HVAC system 16 is then controlled to provide ventilation up to and/or at the current maximum allowed ventilation”. The term “up to” implies that a fraction is used), wherein the fraction is based at least in part on one or more of a temperature factor and an air quality factor ([0041] “indoor air temperature…particular matter….CO2…outdoor air temperature, outdoor humidity, outdoor pollutants”); and
setting the fresh air intake damper ([0042] last 4 lines, “The outdoor air ventilation damper 18 of the HVAC system 16 is then controlled”) to the determined fresh air intake damper position.
Regarding claim 6, Gupta teaches the fraction is based at least in part on an air quality factor, wherein the air quality factor is dependent on an air quality parameter that is representative of a measure of air quality in the building space ([0042] “The one or more interior environmental conditions may include concentrations of one or more indoor pollutants such as but not limited to CO.sub.2, particular matter (PM 2.5 and PM 10) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)”).
Regarding claim 13, Gupta teaches the fraction is based at least in part on two or more of a temperature factor, an air quality factor and a humidity factor ([0041] “indoor air temperature…particular matter….CO2…outdoor air temperature, outdoor humidity, outdoor pollutants”).
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 2, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 20220221184) in view of Cislo (US 20100078492).
Regarding claim 2, Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and the fraction is based at least in part on the temperature factor.
Gupta fails to teach the temperature factor (which is used by the controller) is dependent on a temperature difference between an outside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the fresh air ventilation air flow, and an inside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the return air.
Cislo teaches temperature factor that is by a controller is a temperature difference (See block 300 in fig 3, is To greater than Ti. A temperature difference is inherently determined by comparing two temperatures) between an outside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the fresh air ventilation air flow, and an inside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the return air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gupta as taught by Cislo by using a controller that compares outside air temperature and inside air temperature to operate the HVAC system in order to allow the system to operate in ventilation only mode without using cooling or heating if outside air temperature is within a tolerance so that HVAC system load can be minimized and save energy cost.
Regarding claim 9, Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and the fraction is based at least in part on the temperature factor; the air quality factor is dependent on an air quality parameter that is representative of a measure of air quality in the building space ([0042] “The one or more interior environmental conditions may include concentrations of one or more indoor pollutants such as but not limited to CO.sub.2, particular matter (PM 2.5 and PM 10) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)”).
Gupta fails to teach the temperature factor (which is used by the controller) is dependent on a temperature difference between an outside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the fresh air ventilation air flow, and an inside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the return air.
Cislo teaches temperature factor that is by a controller is a temperature difference (See block 300 in fig 3, is To greater than Ti. A temperature difference is inherently determined by comparing two temperatures) between an outside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the fresh air ventilation air flow, and an inside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the return air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gupta as taught by Cislo by using a controller that compares outside air temperature and inside air temperature to operate the HVAC system in order to allow the system to operate in ventilation only mode without using cooling or heating if outside air temperature is within a tolerance so that HVAC system load can be minimized and save energy cost.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 6318096) in view of Gupta (US 20220221184).
Regarding claim 14, Gross teaches an Air Handling Unit (AHU) for servicing a building space of a building, the AHU comprising: a heating and/or cooling unit (coil 30, fig 1); a fresh air intake damper (42, fig 1) for admitting a fresh air ventilation air flow; a return air duct (18, fig 1) for receiving return air from the building space; a mixed air duct (14, fig 1) for mixing the fresh air ventilation air flow from the fresh air intake damper and return air from the return air duct and providing a mixed air flow to the heating and/or cooling unit which supplies a supply air flow to the building space; a fan (32, fig 1) for providing a motive force to move the return air, the fresh air ventilation air flow, the mixed air flow and the supply air flow through the AHU; the AHU having a load capacity (AHU inherently has its own load capacity); a controller (50, fig 1).
Gross fails to teach the control is configured to: determine a current load on the AHU that is used to maintain one or more comfort conditions in the building space; determine a remaining load capacity of the AHU, wherein the remaining load capacity is the load capacity that is currently not being used to maintain the one or more comfort conditions in the building space; determine a maximum additional fresh air ventilation air flow that could be admitted and conditioned using the remaining load capacity of the AHU such that the AHU could still maintain the one or more comfort conditions in the building space; determine a fresh air intake damper position for the fresh air intake damper that increases the fresh air ventilation air flow through the fresh air intake damper by a fraction of the maximum additional fresh air ventilation air flow, wherein the fraction is based at least in part on one or more of a temperature factor and an air quality factor; and setting the fresh air intake damper to the determined fresh air intake damper position.
Gupta teaches a controller (14, fig 1) configured to:
determining a current load ([0042] line 27, “a current load”. [0043] “a current heating capacity…a current cooling capacity…a load”) on the AHU ([0072] “AHU (air handling unit)”) that is used to maintain one or more comfort conditions in the building space;
determining a remaining load capacity ([0053] “current unused heating and/or cooling capacity of the HVAC system”) of the AHU, wherein the remaining load capacity is the load capacity that is currently not being used to maintain the one or more comfort conditions in the building space;
determining a maximum additional fresh air ventilation air flow that could be admitted and conditioned using the remaining load capacity of the AHU such that the AHU could still maintain the one or more comfort conditions in the building space ([0053] “a maximum ventilation parameter is determined that is representative of a rate of outside air having the one or more exterior environmental conditions that can be conditioned by the measure of current unused heating and/or cooling capacity of the HVAC system”);
determining a fresh air intake damper position ([0052] “The outdoor air ventilation damper of the HVAC system is then controlled”) for the fresh air intake damper that increases the fresh air ventilation air flow through the fresh air intake damper by a fraction of the maximum additional fresh air ventilation air flow ([0042] last 4 lines, “The outdoor air ventilation damper 18 of the HVAC system 16 is then controlled to provide ventilation up to and/or at the current maximum allowed ventilation”. The term “up to” implies that a fraction is used), wherein the fraction is based at least in part on one or more of a temperature factor and an air quality factor ([0041] “indoor air temperature…particular matter….CO2…outdoor air temperature, outdoor humidity, outdoor pollutants”); and
setting the fresh air intake damper ([0042] last 4 lines, “The outdoor air ventilation damper 18 of the HVAC system 16 is then controlled”) to the determined fresh air intake damper position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gross as taught by Gupta by incorporating the control algorithm/functions of the controller to the system in order to prevent overload the capacity of AHU that could lead to the HVAC system breakdown.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (US 6318096) in view of Gupta (US 20220221184), and further in view of Cislo (US 20100078492).
Regarding claim 15, Gross in view of Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 14, and the fraction is based at least in part on the temperature factor; the air quality factor is dependent on an air quality parameter that is representative of a measure of air quality in the building space (Gupta [0042] “The one or more interior environmental conditions may include concentrations of one or more indoor pollutants such as but not limited to CO.sub.2, particular matter (PM 2.5 and PM 10) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)”).
Gross in view of Gupta fails to teach the temperature factor (which is used by the controller) is dependent on a temperature difference between an outside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the fresh air ventilation air flow, and an inside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the return air.
Cislo teaches temperature factor that is by a controller is a temperature difference (See block 300 in fig 3, is To greater than Ti. A temperature difference is inherently determined by comparing two temperatures) between an outside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the fresh air ventilation air flow, and an inside air temperature, representative of a temperature of the return air.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Gross in view of Gupta as taught by Cislo by using a controller that compares outside air temperature and inside air temperature to operate the HVAC system in order to allow the system to operate in ventilation only mode without using cooling or heating if outside air temperature is within a tolerance so that HVAC system load can be minimized and save energy cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 10-12 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitations of those claims cannot be met without impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571)272-9059. 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.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights