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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an expansion device” in claim 1, line 7, interpreted according to the teachings of ¶ 48 of the instant specification as an expansion valve, capillary tube, or an equivalent thereof`,
“a control module” in claim 4, line 1 and claim 17, line 1, interpreted according to ¶ 76 which teaches that the term “may refer to, be part of, or include: an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC); a digital, analog, or mixed analog/digital discrete circuit; a digital, analog, or mixed analog/digital integrated circuit; a combinational logic circuit; a field programmable gate array (FPGA); a processor circuit (shared, dedicated, or group) that executes code; a memory circuit (shared, dedicated, or group) that stores code executed by the processor circuit; other suitable hardware components that provide the described functionality; or a combination of some or all of the above, such as in a system-on-chip.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 5, 7-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2009/0166442 A1 to Stark in view of US Publication No. 2020/0200413 A1 to Horie et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
470
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stark teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 2, shown above, a climate-control system comprising:
an indoor heat exchanger (shown but not numbered in fig. 2 in the “central air handler for cooling and/or heating” 2); and
an air handler assembly (2) configured to force air across the conduit of the indoor heat exchanger (as shown), the air handler assembly including:
an airflow device including a valve (bypass damper 6) and an air-to-air heat exchanger (7), wherein the air-to-air heat exchanger (7) includes a first heat-exchanger duct (depicted horizontally and connected to airstream 11 in fig. 2) and a second heat-exchanger duct (depicted vertically and connected to the duct 12 in fig. 2), wherein air flowing through the first heat-exchanger duct is in a heat-transfer relationship with air flowing through the second heat-exchanger duct (as shown in fig. 2), wherein the airflow device defines a first airflow path (11) and a second airflow path (18), wherein the first airflow path includes the first heat-exchanger duct (shown as airstream 11 in fig. 2), wherein the second airflow path bypasses the first heat-exchanger duct (shown as bypass air 18 in fig. 2) (as taught in ¶ 21).
PNG
media_image2.png
408
426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
458
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Although Stark teaches the air handler (2) controlling the temperature of air passing therethrough to heat or cool it (fig. 2), Stark does not teach the system including a vapor compression circuit which includes a compressor, outdoor heat exchanger, and expansion device in fluid communication with a heat exchanger in the air handler. Horie teaches in figs. 2 and 3, shown above, and in ¶¶ 23-27, an air conditioning apparatus in which an air processing unit (20) is provided which receives both return air (at port 55) and outdoor air (at port 53) for heat exchange at an air-to-air heat exchanger (57) so that supply air (at port 54) may be provided to an indoor space. Horie further teaches this unit including an indoor or load-side heat exchanger (45) for heating or cooling air flowing to the supply air port (54) and teaches particularly in fig. 2 and ¶ 18 that this heat exchanger (45) is connected to an outdoor unit (21) which includes a compressor, an outdoor heat or heat-source-side heat exchanger (43) and an expansion valve (43) in fluid communication with the load-side heat exchanger (45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Stark with the refrigeration cycle heat pump for the heating and cooling of air taught by Horie as such systems are well-known in the art as efficient, effective, and reliable means of providing temperature control to air for the conditioning of a space.
Further regarding claims 1 and 5, Stark does not teach the system including a control module which controls the movement of the damper (equivalent to the valve of the instant claims) based on humidity data received from a humidistat as taught in claim 1 (and previously presented in cancelled claim 4), or the humidistat measuring the humidity of air upstream of the airflow device as taught in claim 5. Horie teaches in fig. 3, shown above, and ¶¶ 35 and 39-41 the air processing unit including a temperature and humidity sensor (62) for measuring the humidity of air at the return air inlet port (55), at a position upstream of both the heat exchanger (57) and a bypass damper (61) as taught in claim 5, this humidity being communicated to a controller (31) for controlling the system according to the flowchart of fig. 4, shown below, in which the indoor humidity measured by the sensor is compared to a threshold humidity value (in step S3) and the bypass damper (61) is set to open or close (in steps S4 or S5) based on this comparison as taught in claim 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Stark with the humidity-responsive control of Horie in order to ensure that humid conditions in the space to be conditioned are monitored and accounted for in control of the air handling system, allowing excessing humidity to be prevented from increasing further or to be removed by the evaporator to better ensure user comfort.
Stark teaches limitations from claim 2 in fig. 2, shown above, the climate-control system of claim 1, wherein:
the valve (bypass damper 6) is movable between a first position and a second position (taught in ¶ 10), in the first position (in which the damper 6 is closed while the face valve 8 is open), the valve allows air to flow through the first airflow path (11) and prevents air from flowing through the second airflow path (18), and in the second position (when the valve 6 is open while the valve 8 is closed), the valve allows air to flow through the second airflow path (18) and prevents air from flowing through the first airflow path (as taught in ¶ 10, the bypass relief damper is opened as the face damper (8) of the heat exchanger closes, causing a substantially equal total volume of air to flow out of the room along).
Stark teaches limitations from claim 3 in fig. 2, shown above, the climate-control system of claim 2, wherein the valve (6) is movable to a third position (any intermediate position between a fully-closed and a fully-open position) in which the valve allows a first portion of air entering the airflow device to flow through the first airflow path and allows a second portion of air entering the airflow device to flow through the second airflow path.
PNG
media_image4.png
592
444
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Stark teaches limitations from claim 7 in fig. 2, shown above, the climate-control system of claim 3, wherein the first and second airflow paths (11 and 18, respectively) are fluidly connected to an evaporator duct (as return duct 17, as shown in fig. 2) that provides air from the airflow device to the indoor heat exchanger (at the air handler 2).
Stark teaches limitations from claim 8 in fig. 2, shown above, the climate-control system of claim 7, wherein the evaporator duct (return 17) provides air to the second heat-exchanger duct (as supply duct 3) downstream of the indoor heat exchanger (downstream of the air handler 2 as shown in fig. 2).
Stark teaches limitations from claim 9 in fig. 2, shown above, the climate-control system of claim 8, wherein the first and second airflow paths (11 and 18, respectively) diverge from each other [at a point immediately upstream of the heat exchanger 7) and converge with each other downstream of the first heat-exchanger duct (at the outlet of the valve 6 and 8, as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Stark does not teach the airflow device including a housing in which the valve is disposed such that the first and second airflow paths diverge downstream of a first air inlet of the housing and upstream of a first air outlet of the housing as taught in claim 9, or the air-to-air heat exchanger being disposed in this housing as taught in claim 10. Horie teaches in fig. 3, shown above, the air processing unit (20) of his invention having a housing (50) in which are disposed both the air-to-air heat exchanger (57) and the bypass damper (60) such that the bypass damper diverges the airflow at a point downstream of an air inlet (port 55) of the casing, immediately upstream of the inlet of the heat exchanger (57) with the outlet side of the heat exchanger (at which the bypass path 18 of Stark converges) disposed at a passage (52) upstream of an air outlet of the housing (56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Stark with the housing of the heat exchanger and bypass damper taught by Stark in order to allow these elements to be installed as a modular unit simplifying the installation and maintenance of the system of Stark.
It is noted that Horie is relied upon here to teach the housing containing elements already taught by Stark, not to teach or modify the connections of those elements (e.g. replacing the bypass 18 of Stark with the bypass 60 of Horie which connects not to an outlet of the same air passage of the heat exchanger but to the outlet of the opposite passage and thus equivalent to the passage 18 of Starke’s fig. 2 joining with the air output 10 rather than the airstream 11 as such modification, rather than simply providing a modular installation for the system of Stark would change the principle of operation of Stark’s constant volume system).
Stark as modified by Horie (as discussed in the above rejection of claim 9) teaches limitations from claim 11 in fig. 2 of Stark and fig. 3 of Horie, shown above, the climate-control system of claim 9, wherein the first air inlet (55 of Horie) of the housing (50 of Horie) is coupled with a return-air duct (entering from inlet 9 as shown in fig. 1 of Stark) and receives air from the return-air duct (shown as return air RA in fig. 3 of Horie).
Stark teaches limitations from claim 12 in fig. 2 of Stark, shown above, the climate-control system of claim 11, wherein the second heat-exchanger duct (of the heat exchanger 7 of Stark, connecting from the supply air duct 3 to the air output 10) defines a second air inlet of the airflow device (as the inlet of the heat exchanger 7 into which air from the duct 3 flows) and a second air outlet (proving air to the output 10) of the airflow device.
Stark teaches limitations from claim 13 in fig. 2, shown above, the climate-control system of claim 12, wherein the second air outlet (connecting the heat exchanger 7 to the air output 10) is coupled with a supply-air duct and provides air to the supply-air duct (as shown in fig. 2, the air passage from the heat exchanger 7 and the outlet thereof to the output 10).
Stark teaches limitations from claim 14 in fig. 2, shown above, The climate-control system of claim 13, wherein the second heat-exchanger duct (the vertical passage through the heat exchanger 7 shown in fig. 2) defines a third airflow path through the airflow device (along the duct 12).
Stark teaches limitations from claim 15 in fig. 2, shown above, an air handler assembly for a climate-control system, the air handler assembly comprising:
a return-air duct (extending from the conditioned zone to the corresponding heat exchanger 7, through the air input 9 of the space);
[the system including] a first airflow path (11), and a second airflow path (18);
a valve (the damper 6) movable between a first position (in which the damper 6 is closed while the face valve 8 is open) allowing airflow through the first airflow path (11) and preventing airflow through the second airflow path (18) and a second position (when the valve 6 is open while the valve 8 is closed) allowing airflow through the second airflow path (18) and preventing airflow through the first airflow path (11) (as taught in ¶ 10, the bypass relief damper is opened as the face damper (8) of the heat exchanger closes, causing a substantially equal total volume of air to flow out of the room along);
an air-to-air heat exchanger (7) including a first heat-exchanger duct (depicted horizontally and connected to airstream 11 in fig. 2) and a second heat-exchanger duct (depicted vertically and connected to the duct 12 in fig. 2), wherein air flowing through the first heat-exchanger duct is in a heat-transfer relationship with air flowing through the second heat-exchanger duct (as shown in fig. 2), wherein air flows through the first heat-exchanger duct (horizontally) when the valve is not in the second position (when the valve 8 is open, this valve being closed when the valve 6 is in its open position), and wherein air flows through the second heat-exchanger duct when the valve is in the first position and when the valve is in the second position (as valve 6 does not block the vertical flow through the heat exchanger 7 from the path 12 in any position);
an evaporator duct ( coupled with the first air outlet and the second heat-exchanger duct, wherein the evaporator duct receives air from the first air outlet and provides air to the second heat-exchanger duct;
an evaporator (the heat exchanger of the air handler 2) disposed within the evaporator duct (return duct 17, as shown in fig. 2); and
a supply-air duct (extending down from the heat exchanger 7 to the air output 10) coupled with the second heat-exchanger duct (the vertical passage of the heat exchanger 7) and receiving air from the second heat-exchanger duct (as shown in fig. 2, from the vertical air passage from the heat exchanger 7 to the outlet thereof to the output 10).
Although Stark teaches the air handler (2) controlling the temperature of air passing therethrough to heat or cool it (fig. 2), Stark does not explicitly teach the heat exchanger of this device including a conduit for exchanging heat with air passing therethrough, or the system including a housing in which the valve and heat exchanger are disposed and having a first air inlet and a first air outlet, the first air inlet receiving air from the return air duct. Horie teaches in figs. 2 and 3, shown above, and in ¶¶ 23-27, an air conditioning apparatus in which an air processing unit (20) is provided with a housing (50) which contains both an air-to-air heat exchanger (57) and a damper (60) for causing airflow to bypass this heat exchanger. Horie further teaches this housing to include an inlet for receiving return air (at port 55) and an outlet port outdoor air for discharging air from the heat exchanger (57 at port 56). Horie further teaches this unit including an indoor or load-side heat exchanger (45) for heating or cooling air flowing to the supply air port (54) and teaches in fig. 2 and ¶ 18 that this heat exchanger (45) has a conduit connecting to an outdoor unit (21) for receiving refrigerant to exchange heat with air flowing through the load-side heat exchanger (45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Stark with the housing of the heat exchanger and bypass damper taught by Stark in order to allow these elements to be installed as a modular unit simplifying the installation and maintenance of the system of Stark and with the refrigeration cycle heat pump for the heating and cooling of air taught by Horie as such systems are well-known in the art as efficient, effective, and reliable means of providing temperature control to air for the conditioning of a space.
Further, Stark does not teach the system including a control module which controls the movement of the damper (equivalent to the valve of the instant claims) based on humidity data received from a humidistat as taught in claim 15 (and previously presented in cancelled claim 17). Horie teaches in fig. 3, shown above, and ¶¶ 35 and 39-41 the air processing unit including a temperature and humidity sensor (62) for measuring the humidity of air at the return air inlet port (55), this humidity being communicated to a controller (31) for controlling the system according to the flowchart of fig. 4, shown below, in which the indoor humidity measured by the sensor is compared to a threshold humidity value (in step S3) and the bypass damper (61) is set to open or close (in steps S4 or S5) based on this comparison as taught in claim 15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Stark with the humidity-responsive control of Horie in order to ensure that humid conditions in the space to be conditioned are monitored and accounted for in control of the air handling system, allowing excessing humidity to be prevented from increasing further or to be removed by the evaporator to better ensure user comfort.
Regarding the limitations from claim 16, refer to the above rejection of claim 3 regarding the third position of the valve.
Regarding the limitations of claim 18, refer to the above rejection of claim 4 regarding the placement of the humidistat.
Claims 6, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark and Horie as applied to claims 1, 15, and 16 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2018/0142909 A1 to Kraft et al.
Regarding claim 6, Stark teaches a temperature and humidity control system in which a plurality of zones are each provided with a respective air outlet connecting to one inlet of one passage of an air-to-air heat exchanger and to a damper for causing some or all of the air drawn from the room to bypass this heat exchanger such that both air which passes through the heat exchanger and air which bypasses the heat exchanger are mixed and flow to an air handler to be cooled and dehumidified before passing through the other passage of the heat exchanger before being supplied to the room. Horie teaches the use of a humidity sensor disposed in the return air passage of such a system in the control of a bypass damper for an air-to-air heat exchanger. Neither Stark nor Horie teaches the measured humidity from such a sensor being compared to both a predetermined limit value and a humidity setpoint, the limit being higher than the setpoint. Kraft teaches in figs 3 and 4, shown below, a control method for a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system in which a dehumidification operation (particularly taught as an “electric reheat dehumidification (ERD)” operation) is controlled based on a humidity setpoint (ERD Set Point 304) as well as a higher humidity upper limit (ERD Upper Limit 302) and a lower humidity lower limit (ERD Lower Limit 306), the limits separated from the setpoint by an ERD interval. Kraft teaches in ¶ 41-42 the dehumidification to be activated when the measured humidity is determined to be greater than the ERD setpoint 304 or more specifically greater than the ERD upper limit as activation point 404, and to continue until the humidity has meets or drops below the lower limit as deactivation point 406. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Stark and Horie with the humidity control band, including comparison to both upper and lower values, taught by Kraft in order to ensure that the humidity control operation is deactivated once the sensed value is sufficiently below its desired level and only reactivated when it is sufficiently above this level to prevent short cycling of the system and thus reduce energy and wear and tear on components associated with frequent restarts of the system.
PNG
media_image5.png
159
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
159
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitations of claim 19, refer to the above rejection of claim 6 regarding the humidity limit and setpoint.
Stark as modified by Horie (as discussed in the above rejection of claim 15) teaches limitations from claim 20 in fig. 2 of Stark and fig. 3 of Horie, shown above, the climate-control system of claim 19, wherein the second heat-exchanger duct (the vertical passage through the heat exchanger 7 shown in fig. 2 of Stark) defines a third airflow path through the housing (50 of Horie, shown in fig. 3 and equivalent to the passage formed by passages 51a and 51b taught by Horie, or duct 12 of Stark.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pp. 6-7 of the reply that that:
On Page 10 of the Office Action, the Examiner acknowledges that replacing the bypass of Stark with the bypass of Horie et al. and connecting passages "would change the principle of operation" of Stark's system. Because the principles of operation of Stark and Horie et al. are different, a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to use Horie's means for valve control in the system of Stark. Without motivation or suggestion, a person skilled in the art would not control the bypass dampers of Stark in the manner that Horie et al. controls its bypass damper. (emphasis by examiner)
In response, examiner disagrees. The cited passage (appearing on pg. 10 of both the Non-Final Rejection and this Office Action) states that replacing the bypass passage of Stark (communicating a return air stream at an inlet of an air-to-air heat exchanger to a position in the same air path at this heat exchanger’s outlet as shown in Stark’s fig. 2) with the bypass passage of Horie (communicating a return air stream at an inlet of an air-to-air heat exchanger to position at an outlet of the same heat exchanger but in a different air path as shown in Horie’s fig. 3) would change the principle of operation, but that this is not the modification upon which the rejection of the instant claims relies, instead modifying the bypass of Stark with the dependency upon a sensed humidity which is taught for the bypass of Horie. This statement is included in the Action specifically to identify that the modification of Stark which is relied upon is not a modification which would change the principle of operation of Stark and does not state or support the position applicant appears to take that any modification of Stark with teachings from Horie would “change the principle of operation” of Stark and thus be improper. Applicant presents no explanation or rationale in support of the assertion that modification of Stark with teachings from Horie regarding the use of humidity as a control input would change the principle of operation of Stark and relies entirely on examiner’s statement, but because this statement was made regarding a different modification to the system of Stark, it is not sufficient or persuasive in establishing that the modification discussed in rejecting the claim would be improper. For this reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 7 that Kraft “fails to cure the deficiencies” of the rejection of claim 1.
In response and as discussed above, examiner notes that applicant has not identified any deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 (or of cancelled claim 4 from which the limitations added to claim 1 by amendment were taken) so that there is no requirement that Kraft or any other reference “remedy” such deficiencies.
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 DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. 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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights