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.
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:
the limitation “a control unit” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with function “control” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a control unit” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a microcomputer” [0031]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a notification unit” in claim 1 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with function “notification” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a notification unit” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a remote controller” [0037]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN108518793A) in view of Park (KR20080105628A).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a ventilation system (see figure 2) comprising:
a refrigerant circuit having a compressor (12), a first heat exchanger (an evaporator 17), and a second heat exchanger (a condenser 3) connected by a refrigerant pipe with a refrigerant flowing therein (see figure 2);
a supply fan (an indoor fan 15) arranged to supply air from an outdoor space to an indoor space through the first heat exchanger (17; see figure 2);
an exhaust fan (an outdoor fan 1) arranged to exhaust air in the indoor space to the outdoor space through the second heat exchanger (1; see figure 2); and
a control unit (see figure 1), the control unit being configured to
determine whether the supply fan (15) and the exhaust fan (1) are normal (the last 15 lines of paragraph 2 of page 6).
However, Wang fails to disclose upon determining that one of the supply fan or the exhaust fan is abnormal, stop the one of the supply fan or the exhaust fan determined to be abnormal, and continue an operation of an other one of the supply fan or the exhaust fan determined to be normal.
Park teaches an air conditioning system comprising a control unit (see figure 5), the control unit being configured to determine whether the supply fan (116) and the exhaust fan (122) are normal (the last paragraph of page 3 and paragraph 1 of page 4), upon determining that one of the supply fan (116) or the exhaust fan (122) is abnormal, stop the one of the supply fan (116) or the exhaust fan (122) determined to be abnormal, and continue an operation of an other one of the supply fan or the exhaust fan determined to be normal (the last two paragraphs of page 6 to paragraph 3 of page 7; see figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the ventilation system of Wang to incorporate the claimed control of the supply and exhaust fans during occurrence of abnormality as taught by Park in order to stably maintain the cooling or heating state of the space by continuing the operation of the remaining fan (paragraph 3 of page 7, Park).
Regarding claim 7, Wang as modified discloses
the supply fan (15) includes a first supply fan and a second supply fan (see figure 2),
the exhaust fan (1) includes a first exhaust fan and a second exhaust fan (see figure 2),
the control unit (see figure 1) is configured to
determine whether the first supply fan, the second supply fan, the first exhaust fan, and the second exhaust fan are normal (the last 15 lines of paragraph 2 of page 6, Wang), and
upon determining that any one of the supply fan (15) or the exhaust fan (1) is abnormal, continue an operation of a remaining one of the supply fan (15) or the exhaust fan (1) determined to be normal (see the last two paragraphs of page 6 to paragraph 3 of page 7, Park; see figure 5 of Park).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wu et al. (CN105757799A).
Regarding claim 2, Wang as modified fails to disclose the control unit is further configured to acquire a state value of the refrigerant circuit, and upon determining that the state value exceeds an allowable range, stop the compressor.
Wu teaches an air conditioner comprising a control unit configured to acquire a state value (pressure value) of the refrigerant circuit, and upon determining that the state value (the pressure value) exceeds an allowable range (a preset pressure range), stop the compressor (paragraph 2 of page 11; see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the ventilation system of Wang to incorporate the claimed control of the compressor as taught by Wu in order to prevent compressor damage.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yang et al. (CN110513826A).
Regarding claim 3, Wang as modified fails to disclose upon determining that the supply fan or the exhaust fan is abnormal, a control unit is configured to stop the compressor.
Yang teaches an air conditioner comprising upon determining that the supply fan (an inner fan) or the exhaust fan is abnormal, a control unit is configured to stop the compressor (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the ventilation system of Wang to incorporate the claimed control of the compressor upon the abnormal detection of the supply or exhaust fans as taught by Yang in order to prevent compressor liquid hammer and compressor exhaust pressure from increasing continuously, avoiding damage to the compressor (abstract).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Matsuki et al. (JP2020008224A).
Regarding claim 4, Wang as modified fails to disclose the ventilation system further comprising: a notification unit configured to notify of an abnormality of the supply fan or the exhaust fan, upon determining that the supply fan or the exhaust fan is abnormal, the control unit being configured to activate the notification unit.
Matsuki teaches a ventilation device comprising a notification unit (4) configured to notify (display of the controller 4) of an abnormality of the supply fan (11) or the exhaust fan (31), upon determining that the supply fan or the exhaust fan is abnormal, the control unit (60) being configured to activate the notification unit (4; abstract; paragraphs 2-3 of page 3 and paragraph 4 of page 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the ventilation system of Wang to incorporate the claimed notification feature as taught by Matsuki in order to notify the user about the abnormal operation of the fans.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kato et al. (JP2017054604A).
Regarding claim 5, Wang as modified fails to disclose the control unit is configured to determine whether the supply fan is normal based on a correlation between a number of fan rotations and an operation current value of the supply fan, and determine whether the exhaust fan is normal based on a correlation between a number of fan rotations and an operation current value of the exhaust fan.
Kato teaches a control unit (a control device) is configured to determine whether a first air blower (140A) is normal based on a correlation between a number of fan rotations (fan speed) and an operation current value (current) of the supply fan (paragraph 5 of page 23, the last paragraph of page 29 to paragraph 1 of page 30 and the last two paragraphs of page 30), and determine whether a second air blower (140B) is normal based on a correlation between a number of fan rotations (fan speed) and an operation current value (current) of the exhaust fan (140B; paragraph 5 of page 23, the last paragraph of page 29 to paragraph 1 of page 30 and the last two paragraphs of page 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the ventilation system of Wang to incorporate the claimed fan normality control based on correlation between rotation and current of the fan as taught by Kato in order to improve determination of fan operation condition based on more parameters.
Regarding claim 6, Wang as modified fails to disclose upon determining that one of the supply fan or the exhaust fan is abnormal, the control unit being configured to increase a number of fan rotations of an other one of the supply fan or the exhaust fan determined to be normal (paragraph 1 of page 30 and the last paragraph of page 30, Kato).
Kato teaches a control device which performs control operation that upon determining that one of a first air blower (140A) or a second air blower (140B) is abnormal, the control device being configured to increase a number of fan rotations of an other one of the first air blower (140A) or the second air blower (140B) determined to be normal (paragraph 1 of page 30 and the last paragraph of page 30, Kato).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the ventilation system of Wang to incorporate the claimed fan control feature as taught by Kato in order to improve maintain the cooling or heating state of space by increasing speed of fan which is under normal operation.
Regarding claim 8, Wang as modified discloses the controlling unit determines that any one of the first supply fan, the second supply fan (15; see figure 2 of Wang), the first exhaust fan, or the second exhaust fan (1; see figure 2 of Wang) is abnormal (the last 15 lines of paragraph 2 of page 6, Wang).
However, Wang fails to disclose upon determining that any one of the first supply fan, the second supply fan, the first exhaust fan, or the second exhaust fan is abnormal, the control unit is configured to increase a number of fan rotations of the supply fan or the exhaust fan determined to be normal.
Kato teaches a control device which performs control operation that upon determining that one of a first air blower (140A) or a second air blower (140B) is abnormal, the control device being configured to increase a number of fan rotations of an other one of the first air blower (140A) or the second air blower (140B) determined to be normal (paragraph 1 of page 30 and the last paragraph of page 30, Kato).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the ventilation system of Wang to incorporate the claimed fan control feature as taught by Kato in order to improve maintain the cooling or heating state of space by increasing speed of fan which is under normal operation.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fasullo et al. (2005/0165577).
Regarding claim 9, Wang as modified discloses the control unit is further configured to predict an abnormality of the supply fan based on operation data of the supply fan, and predict an abnormality of the exhaust fan based on operation data of the exhaust fan.
Fasullo teaches a method and apparatus for predicting fan failure comprising monitoring and adjusting angular speed or rotational frequency of a fan as well as wear. As a result of being able to monitor the angular speed or rotational frequency of a fan, a prediction of both wear and failure can be made. Due largely to increasing internal friction related to the amount of wear, the energy required to operate a fan at a given angular speed or rotational frequency varies. Hence, an algorithm and certain devices can be employed to make wear and failure predictions of either a mechanical or electrical fan based on energy consumption relative to an angular speed or rotational frequency (abstract; see figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the ventilation system of Wang to incorporate the claimed fan abnormality prediction as taught by Fasullo in order to predict abnormality of both fans such that users can prepare for the failure of the fan in advance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR 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 PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763