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 .
1. Claims 1 and 4-20 are presented for examination and claims 1-2 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 and 8, should have a “:” after “comprising”, and
Claim 9, should have a “:” after “including”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not provide adequate written description to support each element of the claims. There is no description of an algorithm or programming sufficient to perform the lowering the power consumption, which would be required to support the claimed specialized functions.
It is unclear how the “relaxation amount of a setting temperature” and “the relaxation allowable amount…” is specify; for example, specification, par [0006], [0020], repeats the claimed language without explanation or silent as to how the inventor has chosen to perform to specify “a relaxation amount of a setting temperature” and “the relaxation allowable amount...”. The specification does not indicate that the inventors had possession of the details of particular software or instructions that would implement the lowering power consumption form the specify relaxation amount of setting temperature. The specification as filed must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
4. 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.
Claims 1 and 4-20 are 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.
The term “relaxation amount” in claims 1, 4, 6-9 and 11-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relaxation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As claims 5 and 10 are directly or indirectly dependent on claims 1, 8 and 9, those claims are also allowable at least by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recites a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites refer to the power fluctuation change in power consumption of temperature different between inside and outside, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The “refer to the power fluctuation…” is refereeing information is performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper therefore it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
In addition, claim 1, recites specify the relaxation amount of a setting temperature, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The specify (define or determine) the relaxation amount is performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper therefore it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Furthermore, claim 1, recites change the setting temperature and temporarily specifies the relaxation amount… under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The human mental processes to decide on a new setting and temporarily specifies (define or determine) the relaxation amount is performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper therefore it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Finaly, the claim recites specified the exceeds the relaxation allowable amount of excess and non-excess indoor unit, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The human mental processes to decide on a specifies (define or determine) the indoor unit the relaxation amount is performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper therefore it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
The claim recite change in a power conception relative to change in a temperature different between inside and outside of room, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed simple mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using “processor circuitry” to perform refer to the power fluctuation, specify the relaxation amount of a setting temperature, change the setting temperature and temporarily specifies the relaxation amount and specified the exceeds the relaxation allowable amount of excess and non-excess indoor unit, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, “adjusts the relaxation amount by setting the relaxation allowable amount to reduce the power consumption” adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); since the claim the broadly recited and no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor circuity to perform the above integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. In addition, the claim does not recite any improvement to the relevant technology. 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). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a method or system, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are rejected for the same rational that applied to claim 1. Thus, the independent of claims 1, 8 and 9 are not patentable eligible.
As the dependent claims 4-7 and 10-20 further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally or certain methods of human activity that were already rejected in claims 1, 8 and 9, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 5 and 10, recites displaying setting temperature is consider is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 11-13, recites airflow generation device to generate an airflow for the space is consider simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known and standard, widely used technology in the HVAC, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
Claims 4, recites specifies the relaxation amount is consider "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea. In addition, recites subtracting from the target power-saving amount is consider mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 7 and 14-20, recites decide…, set … and specifies …Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Independent claims 1 and4-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The allowability of the independent claim 1, 8 and 9, resides, at least in part, in that closest prior art of Ikumi (JP2017-135824A ) disclose, alone or in combination, a control device (page 9, par. 5, computer) to perform control of an air conditioning system including a plurality of indoor units (page 9, par. 5, a computer is connected to each of a plurality of load side devices (page 11, par. 4, the load side device 205 is an air conditioning facility, and includes an outdoor unit 206 and an indoor unit 207, plurality of air conditioner) in one or a plurality of power demand facilities and controlling the load side device or the load side device determined by the determination unit), the control device comprising:
processing circuitry to: (page 4, par. 3, the power consumption management apparatus 101 transmits control information based on the determined corresponding control pattern)
refer to power fluctuation information (Page 5, par. 1, page 9, par. 2, instruction information related to power consumption based on the power management information that the power consumption greatly varies) in which change in a power consumption relative to change in a temperature difference between an inside and an outside of a room is defined for each of the plurality of indoor units (page 4, par. 4, page 8, par. 2, which the power consumption greatly varies depending on the temperature difference between the outdoor temperature and the indoor temperature), and
UShirosako et al. (US 2017/0292728 A1) discloses to specify a relaxation amount of a setting temperature ([0191], the indoor temperature lower limit Tth(L) or the indoor temperature upper limit Tth(H)) at which a total power consumption ([0207], lower power consumption) related to the plurality of indoor units (indoor unit 100) is reduced by a target power-saving amount or more ([0003], [0207], in response to the temperature difference between the indoor temperature and the set temperature such operation can lower power consumption by the air conditioner), and to change the setting temperature ([0191], updating the set temperature Ts) of each of the plurality of indoor units (indoor unit 100) by the relaxation amount specified (0191], [0213], controller 240 appropriately causes the compressor 220 to stop after determination that the indoor temperature T2 is stable), and
wherein the processing circuitry ([0191],[0207], the controller of the air conditioner control system) temporarily specifies the relaxation amount ([0207], the controller 470 periodically sends to the outdoor unit 200 an optimal set temperature Ts2 on the basis of the indoor temperature difference ΔT2) regardless of a relaxation allowable amount (allowance range ΔT2) determined for each of the plurality of indoor units ([0191], configuration enables distinction between (in the case of the absolute value of the difference being smaller than the estimate allowance range ΔT2 of the air conditioner), and
NAOKI (JP 2011-89679 A) discloses -page 6, par. 3-5, page4, par. 1-7, page 6, par 7, plurality of air conditioners is provided in one room (air conditioning zone), an air conditioner to be operated with priority from the operation efficiency of each air conditioner is set. Gives an operation start instruction or an output increase instruction, and performs central control by a control computer for improving energy saving, durability and reliability. Distribute and operate the capacity sufficient for the required overall air conditioning load L to reduce power consumption to each air conditioner that is the target of cooperative control during operation. The air conditioner can be controlled by obtaining an operating condition that reduces power consumption as an air conditioning system. The coefficient data of a function representing a performance model that defines the relationship between air conditioning capacity and power consumption (hereinafter referred to as “performance model data”), and maximum air conditioning capacity (excess indoor unit)/ minimum air conditioning capacity (non-excess indoor unit), and some air conditioners have excessive air conditioning capacity.
However, the combination of Naoki. Ikumi and UShirosako fail to disclose the combination of wherein the processing circuitry temporarily specifies the relaxation amount regardless of a relaxation allowable amount determined for each of the plurality of indoor units, and when an excess indoor unit (page 4, maximum air conditioning capacity) being an indoor unit whereof the relaxation amount specified exceeds the relaxation allowable amount exists adjusts the relaxation amount by setting, with respect to the excess indoor unit, the relaxation allowable amount regarding the excess indoor unit as the relaxation amount, and by specifying again, with respect to a remaining non-excess indoor unit (minimum air conditioning capacity) other than the excess indoor unit, the relaxation amount at which the total power consumption related to the plurality of indoor units is reduced by the target power-saving amount or more in a case where the relaxation allowable amount is set as the relaxation amount with respect to the excess indoor unit.
As claims 4-7 and 10-20 are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1, those claims are also allowable at least by virtue of their dependency.
Citation Pertinent prior art
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moss (US20110112780A1) discloses an electrical power consumption measuring system that is capable of determining and presenting the power consumed by individual appliances at a home or premises.
Fried (US 4682648 B1) discloses a temperature offset control system having a central control station wherein temperature limits can be set for the desired amount of offset for both heating and air conditioning systems
Woof et al. (US 10323878 B1) discloses the energy cost model, and a maximum allowed temperature, and powering on the portion the refrigeration system based on the operational schedule, cooling, by the powered portion of the refrigeration system to a temperature below the maximum allowed temperature, reducing power usage of the powered portion of the refrigeration system based on the operational schedule, and permitting the facility to be warmed by ambient temperatures toward the maximum allowed temperature.
Sundararajan (US20180017277A1) discloses a system includes at least one of a cooling system and a heating system, an automation controller, a sensor, and a switch. The automation controller provides a first input indicating a first temperature set point. The sensor detects a temperature of a second space proximate the sensor and provides a second input indicating the temperature of the second space and a second temperature set point.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed Kidest Worku whose telephone number is 571-272-3737.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217- 9197.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights