CTNF 18/689,634 CTNF 101693 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 (IDSes) submitted on 11/09/2024 and 03/06/2024 are being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 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: Claim 1 recites “selection unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “to select from among a plurality of indoor units …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed selection. The specification discloses that selection unit 103 performs these functions. Accordingly, “selection unit” is interpreted as selection unit 103 and equivalents. Claim 1 recites “setting unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “to set a target temperature of either an evaporating temperature or a condensing temperature …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed setting. The specification discloses that setting unit 105 performs these functions. Accordingly, “setting unit” is interpreted as calculation unit 105 and equivalents. Claim 1 recites “calculation unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “to calculate, for each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units other than the representative indoor unit, either a superheat degree or a supercooling degree …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed calculation. The specification discloses that calculation unit 106 performs these functions. Accordingly, “calculation unit” is interpreted as calculation unit 106 and equivalents. Claim 2 recites “estimation unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “to estimate the required air-conditioning capacity of each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed estimation. The specification discloses that estimation unit 102 performs these functions. Accordingly, “estimation unit” is interpreted as estimation unit 102 and equivalents. Claim 4 recites “collection unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “to collect a measured temperature which is measured in the air-conditioned space of each indoor unit …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed collection. The specification discloses that collection unit 101 performs these functions. Accordingly, “collection unit” is interpreted as collection unit 101 and equivalents. Claim 4 recites “estimation unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “to estimate the required air-conditioning capacity of each indoor unit, wherein the calculation unit calculates, for each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units other than the representative indoor unit …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed estimation. The specification discloses that estimation unit 102 performs these functions. Accordingly, “estimation unit” is interpreted as estimation unit 102 and equivalents. Claim 6 recites “control unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “to control the representative indoor unit …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed control. The specification discloses that control unit 107 performs these functions. Accordingly, “control unit” is interpreted as control unit 107 and equivalents. Claim 9 recites “control unit,” which is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “to control the representative indoor unit …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed control. The specification discloses that control unit 107 performs these functions. Accordingly, “control unit” is interpreted as control unit 107 and equivalents. 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 § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the following reasons: Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while independent claim 1 falls within a statutory class of a machine ( i.e ., claim 1 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 1 recites “a selection unit to select from among a plurality of indoor units … as a representative indoor unit[,] …. a setting unit to set a target temperature … [and] a calculation unit to calculate, for each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units other than the representative indoor unit, either a superheat degree or a supercooling degree ….” The claimed “selection” and/or the claimed “setting” and/or the claimed “calculation” are abstract ideas because they can be performed mentally and/or are mathematical concepts. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I, II. Here, the claimed “selection” and the claimed “setting” can be performed mentally by a human, for example, by gathering the claimed information and evaluating it and/or the claimed “calculation” can be performed mentally (e.g., with the aid of pen and paper) by a human and by using a mathematical relationship concerning the refrigerant cycle. Further, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea of “selection,” “setting,” and/or “calculating” into a practical application. For example, claim 1 does not positively recite that any air conditioner is selected, set, and/or controlled using the determined information. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In addition, the claim does not recite any improvement to the relevant technology. While the claim recites use of a learning model obtained by machine learning, such features were already known (as shown below in the 103 rejection). Thus, the claimed features do not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus it is still an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Finally, claim 1 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 1 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP § 2106.05. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while claim 2 falls within a statutory class of a machine ( i.e ., claim 2 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 2 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application ( i.e ., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 2 recites “an estimation unit to estimate the required air-conditioning capacity of each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units ….” The claimed “estimation” is an abstract idea because they can be performed mentally ( e.g ., with the aid of pen and paper). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I, II. Further, claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea of “estimating” into a practical application. For example, claim 2 does not positively recite that the “estimating” is used to control an air conditioner. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In addition, the claimed “estimation” does not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus it is still an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Finally, claim 2 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 2 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP § 2106.05. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while claim 2 falls within a statutory class of a machine ( i.e ., claim 2 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 2 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application ( i.e ., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 4 recites “an estimation unit to estimate the required air-conditioning capacity of each indoor unit ….” The claimed “estimation” is an abstract idea because they can be performed mentally ( e.g ., with the aid of pen and paper). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I, II. Further, claim 4 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea of “estimating” into a practical application. For example, claim 4 does not positively recite that the “estimating” is used to control an air conditioner. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In addition, the claimed “estimation” does not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus it is still an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Finally, claim 2 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 2 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP § 2106.05. Independent claim 11, which recites elements that are substantially that same as those recited in claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons given in claim 1. The additional recitation of a “computer” does not transform the abstract ideas into a practical application as it is a generic computer that executes instructions to apply the exceptions. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Claims 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected based on their dependencies. 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0378642 to Shimizu et al. (“Shimizu”) (submitted in Applicant’s IDS of 03/06/2024) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0316741 to Nishimura et al . (“Nishimura”) . . Claim 1: A control device [Shimizu discloses a control apparatus 30. See Fig. 2.) comprising : a selection unit to select from among a plurality of indoor units to each of which an air-conditioned space to be air-conditioned is assigned, an indoor unit to represent the plurality of indoor units, as a representative indoor unit, based on a required air-conditioning capacity being an air conditioning capacity required for each indoor unit (Shimizu discloses that setting unit 32 of control apparatus 30 sets “the target evaporation temperature Tem [] based on the largest required capacity among the required capacities of the plurality of indoor units 3 .” Shimizu at pars. [0012]-[0013], [0022]-[0023], [0059]-[0060], [0067]-[0077], and [0084]-[0092] and Figs. 2-5. That is, Shimizu discloses selecting an indoor unit from among a plurality of plurality of indoor units based on a required air-conditioning capacity. Thus, Shimizu discloses the claimed “ selection unit .”); a setting unit to set a target temperature of either an evaporating temperature or a condensing temperature which enables an air conditioning capacity of the representative indoor unit to conform to the required air-conditioning capacity of the representative indoor unit , using a learning model obtained by machine learning (Shimizu discloses that setting unit 32 (“ setting unit ”) of control apparatus 30 sets “the target evaporation temperature Tem [] based on the largest required capacity among the required capacities of the plurality of indoor units 3.” See Shimizu at pars. [0012]-[0013], [0022]-[0023], [0059]-[0060], [0067]-[0077], [0084]-[0092] and Figs. 2-5.), and a calculation unit to calculate, for each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units other than the representative indoor unit, either a superheat degree or a supercooling degree at which an air conditioning capacity of the each indoor unit conforms to the required air-conditioning capacity of the each indoor unit when either an evaporating temperature or a condensing temperature in the each indoor unit is made to conform to the target temperature ( Shimizu discloses that controller apparatus 30 with target refrigerant state setting unit 33 (“ calculation unit ”) performs the claimed “ calculation ” of superheat degree or supercooling degree. Shimizu discloses that the superheating set point SHm and the supercooling setpoint SCm are based on the indoor unit 3 with the largest required capacity, whose heat exchanger 16 serves as the evaporator for controlling the air blow-out temperature. Once SHm/SCm is set, the respective expansion valves 15 on the other indoor units 3 are used to control the superheating/supercooling for those indoor units 3. See Shimizu at pars. [0012]-[0013], [0022]-[0023], [0059]-[0060], [0067]-[0077], [0084]-[0092] and Figs. 2-5. ), a setting unit to set a target temperature of either an evaporating temperature or a condensing temperature which enables an air conditioning capacity of the representative indoor unit to conform to the required air-conditioning capacity of the representative indoor unit , using a learning model obtained by machine learning (Shimizu does not explicitly disclose that the setting unit uses a “learning model obtained by machine learning” to set the target temperature. However, in a same field of endeavor, control of an air-conditioner apparatus (and thus analogous art), Nishimura discloses an information processing apparatus that performs machine learning (“ learning model obtained by machine learning ”) by changing operation settings (e.g., evaporation temperature and/or condensation temperature) and recommending an operation setting that can include a condensation temperature and/or an evaporation temperature. See Nishimura at pars. [0009], [0013], [0048]-[0050, [0099]-[0100] and [0197]; see also pars. [0187]-[0202]. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the machine learning apparatus of Nishimura into the control system of Shimizu to set the operation setting (e.g., evaporation temperature and/or condensation temperature) in order to “conserve[] energy to a user A of the apparatus 20A.” See Nishimura at par. [0197].). Because both Shimizu and Nishimura relate to control of air-conditioners, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP §2143.I.G.). Claim 2 , which is dependent on claim 1: an estimation unit to estimate the required air-conditioning capacity of each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units, wherein the selection unit selects an indoor unit with a highest required air-conditioning capacity from among the plurality of indoor units, as the representative indoor unit ( Capacity acquisition unit 31 of Shimizu. See Shimizu at par. [0057]-[0059], [0075] and Figs. 3 and 5 (step S1).). Claim 3 , which is dependent on claim 2: wherein the setting unit sets the target temperature, using a learning model obtained in a learning phase by learning either an evaporating temperature or a condensing temperature which enables an air-conditioning capacity of an indoor unit-for-learning being an indoor unit with a highest required air-conditioning capacity among the plurality of indoor units to conform to the required air-conditioning capacity of the indoor unit-for-learning (As discussed above Shimizu sets the evaporation temperature or condensation temperature based on required capacity and Nishimura discloses machine learning based on changing operation settings. See Shimizu at pars. [0012]-[0013], [0022]-[0023], [0059]-[0060], [0067]-[0077], [0084]-[0092] and Figs. 2-5 ; and see, e.g ., Nishimura at pars. [0009], [0013], [0048]-[0050, [0099]-[0100] and [0197]; see also pars. [0187]-[0202]. Accordingly, because training is done using operational data, the system of Shimizu in view of Nishimura will include the claimed “ learning model .”). Claim 4 , which is dependent on claim 1: a collection unit to collect a measured temperature which is measured in the air-conditioned space of each indoor unit ( Control apparatus 30 and blow-out temperature sensor 26 of Shimizu collect the temperature at the respective indoor unit 3. Shimizu at pars. [0046] and [0075].), and an estimation unit to estimate the required air-conditioning capacity of each indoor unit, wherein the calculation unit calculates, for each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units other than the representative indoor unit, either a superheat degree or a supercooling degree in the each indoor unit, using the required air-conditioning capacity of the each indoor unit, the measured temperature in the air-conditioned space of the each indoor unit, and the target temperature ( See Fig. 5 and pars. [0073]-[0076] of Shimizu. Shimizu discloses that the required capacity acquisition unit 31 and the target refrigerant temperature setting unit 32 calculate the required air-conditioning capacity and the superheating or subcooling for each indoor unit 3. See also, Shimizu at pars. [0012]-[0013], [0022]-[0023], [0059]-[0060], [0067]-[0077], [0084]-[0092] and Figs. 2-5. ). Claim 5 , which is dependent on claim 1: wherein the setting unit sets the target temperature by applying to the learning model, a set temperature of an air-conditioned space of the representative indoor unit, a measured temperature which is measured in the air-conditioned space of the representative indoor unit, an operation state value which indicates an operation state of the representative indoor unit, either an evaporating temperature or a condensing temperature which is measured in the representative indoor unit, an outdoor air temperature, and either a superheat degree being a fixed value or a supercooling degree being a fixed value (As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the system of Shimizu in view of Nishimura will train the system by measuring the blow-out temperature and changing operation settings such as evaporation temperature and/or a condensation temperature for the air-conditioning unit with the largest required capacity. See Nishimura at pars. [0009], [0013], [0048]-[0050, [0099]-[0100] and [0197]; see also pars. [0187]-[0202]. In addition, Nishimura at par. [0011] discloses using information such as outdoor temperature as part of the training process. With respect to the claimed “superheat degree being a fixed value or a supercooling degree being a fixed value,” Shimizu discloses that the superheat is a predetermined value (“ superheat degree being a fixed value ”) based on the evaporation temperature and that the subcooling is a predetermined value (“ supercooling degree being a fixed value ”) based on the evaporation temperature. See Shimizu at pars. [0077]-[0082] and [0092]-[0094]. Claim 6 , which is dependent on claim 5: a control unit to control the representative indoor unit, using the target temperature and either the superheat degree being the fixed value or the supercooling degree being the fixed value, and to control, for each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units other than the representative indoor unit, the each indoor unit, using the target temperature and either a superheat degree or a supercooling degree calculated for the each indoor unit ( See Shimizu at pars. [0077] and [0092].). Claim 7 , which is dependent on claim 1: wherein the setting unit sets a target temperature of either an evaporating temperature or a condensing temperature which enables the air conditioning capacity of the representative indoor unit to conform to the required air-conditioning capacity of the representative indoor unit, and which enables an electric power consumption of the representative indoor unit to be minimized, using the learning model (The system of Shimizu in view of Nishimura will “ conserve[] energy to a user A of the apparatus 20A” (“ enable[] an electric power consumption of the representative indoor unit to be minimized ”). See Nishimura at par. [0197].). Claim 8 , which is dependent on claim 7: wherein the setting unit derives a combination of an evaporating temperature and a superheat degree, and a combination of a condensing temperature and a supercooling degree which enable the air conditioning capacity of the representative indoor unit to conform to the required air-conditioning capacity of the representative indoor unit, and which enable the electric power consumption of the representative indoor unit to be minimized, using a learning model obtained in a learning phase by learning either a combination of an evaporating temperature and a superheat degree or a combination of a condensing temperature and a supercooling degree which enables an air conditioning capacity of an indoor unit-for-learning being an indoor unit with a highest required air-conditioning capacity among the plurality of indoor units to conform to a required air-conditioning capacity of the indoor unit-for-learning, and which enables an electric power consumption of the indoor unit-for-learning to be minimized, and sets either the evaporating temperature or the condensing temperature derived, as the target temperature (Shimizu at pars. [0077]-[0082] discloses control of the indoor units 3 based on a combination of evaporation temperature and superheating, and Shimizu at pars. [0092]-[0094] discloses control of the indoor units 3 is based on a combination of condensation temperature and subcooling. Nishimura at pars. [0009] and [0013] discloses that training of the system can be performed using a combination of condensation temperature and evaporation temperature (which will include the predetermined superheating and subcooling taught in Shimizu). Nishimura also discloses at par. [0197] to “conserve[] energy to a user A of the apparatus 20A.” Thus, the system of Shimizu in view of Nishimura renders obvious a setting unit that derives an operation setting based on a combination of evaporating temperature and a superheat degree and a combination of a condensing temperature and a supercooling degree to minimize energy consumption, as claimed.) Claim 9 , which is dependent on claim 8: a control unit to control the representative indoor unit, using the target temperature, and either a superheat degree or a supercooling degree derived from the learning model, and to control for each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units other than the representative indoor unit, the each indoor unit, using the target temperature, and either a superheat degree or a supercooling degree calculated for the each indoor unit ( See Shimizu at pars. [0077] and [0092].). Claim 10 , which is dependent claim 1: wherein when the plurality of indoor units perform a cooling operation for air conditioning of each air-conditioned space, the setting unit sets a target temperature of an evaporating temperature which enables a cooling capacity of the representative indoor unit to conform to a cooling capacity required for the representative indoor unit, when the plurality of indoor units perform a heating operation for air conditioning of each air-conditioned space, the setting unit sets a target temperature of a condensing temperature which enables a heating capacity of the representative indoor unit to conform to a heating capacity required for the representative indoor unit, when the plurality of indoor units perform a cooling operation for air conditioning of each air-conditioned space, the calculation unit calculates a superheat degree at which a cooling capacity of each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units other than the representative indoor unit conforms to a cooling capacity required for the each indoor unit when an evaporating temperature in the each indoor unit is made to conform to the target temperature for the each indoor unit, and when the plurality of indoor units perform a heating operation for air conditioning of each air-conditioned space, the calculation unit calculates a supercooling degree at which a heating capacity of each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units other than the representative indoor unit conforms to a heating capacity required for the each indoor unit when a condensing temperature in the each indoor unit is made to conform to the target temperature for the each indoor unit (These elements are a combination of various features already analyzed above and are rendered obvious by Shimizu in view of Nishimura. See, e.g., Shimizu at pars. [0012]-[0013], [0022]-[0023], [0057]-[0060], [0067]-[0082], and [0084]-[0094] and Figs. 2-5.). Claim 11 : A control method comprising: by a computer, selecting, from among a plurality of indoor units to each of which an air-conditioned space to be air-conditioned is assigned, an indoor unit to represent the plurality of indoor units, as a representative indoor unit, based on a required air-conditioning capacity being an air conditioning capacity required for each indoor unit; by the computer, setting a target temperature of either an evaporating temperature or a condensing temperature which enables an air conditioning capacity of the representative indoor unit to conform to the required air-conditioning capacity of the representative indoor unit, using a learning model obtained by machine learning, and by the computer, calculating, for each indoor unit of the plurality of indoor units other than the representative indoor unit, either a superheat degree or a supercooling degree at which an air conditioning capacity of the each indoor unit conforms to the required air-conditioning capacity of the each indoor unit when either an evaporating temperature or a condensing temperature in the each indoor unit is made to conform to the target temperature (Shimizu discloses control apparatus 30 (“ computer ”). The claimed method steps are substantially similar to the features analyzed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, Shimizu in view of Nishimura renders obvious claim 11 for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.) Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0358431 discloses a learning device for an air conditioning system. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0099325 discloses an air-conditioning system that includes a learning apparatus. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0080742 discloses an air conditioning system. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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. /B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116 /KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 2 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 3 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 4 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 5 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 6 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 7 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 8 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 9 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 10 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 11 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 12 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 13 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 14 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 15 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 16 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 17 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 18 Art Unit: 2116 Application/Control Number: 18/689,634 Page 19 Art Unit: 2116
Prosecution Insights