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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 8/8/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, last limitation recites “cause to control, using a controller, a setting …”; claims 12 and 20, last limitation recites “causing to control, using a controller, a setting …”. However, “cause to control, using a controller” introduces ambiguity as the limitation does not recite an explicit subject.
Amending the claim 1 to recite “control, using a controller, a setting …” and amending claims 12 and 20 to recite “controlling, using a controller, a setting …” will overcome these objections.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOENIG (US20230358245A1) in view of MEYER (US20150338314A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20
KOENIG teaches an apparatus for controlling an orifice of a testing device for performing a leakage test ([0002]: “blower door test is conducted to measure the airtightness of a building. A duct leakage test is conducted to measure the airtightness of forced air heating, ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) ductwork. In both blower door tests and duct leakage tests, one or more fans are used during the test to generate a flow of air” [0037, 0067, 0070]: testing device/fan is used to conduct leakage tests of enclosures [0005, 0036, 0049]: fan includes apparatus/data processor to control operation of controller to process data, execute computer instructions and control operations of controller and fan [0053-0058]: variable sized flow restrictor element may be controlled by fan controller), comprising:
a memory configured to store computer executable instructions ([0048, 0049]); and
one or more processors configured to execute instructions to ([0049]: data processor 44 processes data, executes instructions, and controls operations of the controller 14 including communications with fan 12):
obtain test data associated with an enclosure, wherein the test data comprises one or more observation values associated with one or more predefined orifice settings of the testing device, and a predefined target pressure for preforming the leakage test ([0080]: “the fan described herein can be configured to implement a self-test mode that determines whether or not the fan is outputting an expected airflow. In the self-test mode, the fan is adjusted to a pre-assigned speed with a pre-assigned flow restriction, and the resulting differential pressure is then measured. It is then determined whether the measured differential pressure is within or outside of an expected range of differential pressures, and the fan is considered to pass or fail the test depending upon whether or not the measured pressure is within the expected range” [0081]: self-test mode can be initiated before every use of the fan for performing leakage tests [0084]: “with the fan operating at the pre-assigned speed and with the pre-assigned flow restriction, the pressure is measured […] Under ideal conditions with the fan operating at the pre-assigned speed and with the pre-assigned flow restriction, a resulting pressure would be expected”)
identify an orifice setting for the one or more predefined orifice settings for performing the leakage test [0083]: “If the measured pressure is within the range, the fan is considered to pass the test at 210, and the fan can be used for its intended purpose such as conducting a blower door test or conducting duct leakage test”);
and at least suggests to control, using a controller, a setting of the orifice of the testing device based on the identified orifice setting for performing the leakage test ([0057] “the variable flow control valve may be operated manually or by the addition of a motor driven adjustment mechanism with an adjustment motor such that the valve can be adjusted automatically to achieve the desired combination of air flow, back pressure, and sensor signal. In one embodiment, the variable flow control valve can be adjusted automatically based on a timed control scheme where adjustments occur at set times during a test routine. Adjustments may be controlled by a software algorithm running remotely” i.e., the flow restricting element/orifice of the fan used for the testing device is controllable such that the orifice can be adjusted to change the orifice setting to impart an desired effect on the air flow through the orifice/flow restricting element; [0083]: ““If the measured pressure is within the range, the fan is considered to pass the test at 210, and the fan can be used for its intended purpose such as conducting a blower door test or conducting duct leakage test”, if the fan is considered to past the test, the controller controls the setting of the orifice by not changing the orifice setting such that the fan can be used for its intended purpose of conducting a leakage test of an enclosure).
In summary, KOENIG teaches to use a smart fan for performing a leakage test of an enclosure, wherein the fan includes a flow restricting element that has predetermined settings and the fan is configured to detect the setting of the flow restricting elements, pressure sensing and computation of flow through the flow restricting element, and storing test set-up data for an expected pressure. KOENIG suggests that the flow range data can be calculated orifice settings based on the one or more observation values ([0057-0058] teaches identifying an orifice setting for performing the leakage test based on air flow and back pressure). KOENIG also suggests that the smart fan has a device flow data comprising a minimum device flow ([0046] teaches a sensor configured to measure speed and torque of the motor and can be used with the pressure sensor “to help detect fan stall or excessive back pressure of the fan”, i.e., the fan will stall due to excessive back pressure if the fan is not operated above a minimum). KOENIG also teaches that test set-up data for conducting a leakage test can be stored in a controller, and that the set-up data includes type and position of flow restrictor to be used during a test, a type of flow condition, and a desired fan speed ([0077]).
MEYER in an analogous art teaches to calculate flow range data for orifice settings based on observed values such as pressure and airflow ([0125]: “For example, if an orifice in the air handler's plenum is adjusted to maintain 0.5 inches of water gauge (In. w.g. or IWC, inches of water column), the total airflow is about 700 CFM for the air handler at its 800 CFM setting or 1700 CFM at the 2000 CFM setting”), to determine device flow data for the orifice settings, wherein the device flow data comprises a minimum device flow and a maximum device flow for the orifice settings ([0125] & Fig. 9 shows maximum and minimum airflow for a blower with a predefined orifice setting of 0.5 inches at different CFM settings, i.e., the maximum and minimum air flow the fan can produce is in-part dependent on the orifice setting), and suggests that determining a target flow data for testing an enclosure is well-known in the art ([0012]: “The most common current method of testing ducts involves blocking all outlets and pressurizing the entire system to 25 pascals using a calibrated external forced air blower”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MEYER to the teachings of KOENIG such that KOENIG’s smart fan, which already stored test-set up data and uses predefined flow-restrictor configurations with pressure sensing and onboard processing for enclosure leakage tests, would be further calibrated as in MEYER to derive explicit flow-range and device-flow data for each orifice setting at standardized test pressures. In particular, MEYER teaches using blower curves and orifice equations to determine airflow at given static pressures for adjustable orifices, and to conduct duct infiltration tests at predefined target pressures would have provided the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to store for KOENIG’s predefined orifice settings, the associated minimum and maximum device flows and to use the data together with a stored target pressure to compute target flow data and select an appropriate orifice setting for the leakage test, as a predictable use of known fan and orifice calibration techniques with KOENIG’s smart fan.
Claims 12 and 20 recite substantially the same material as claim 1 and are rejected as per such.
Regarding claims 3 and 14
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. MEYER also teaches to determine one or more leakage parameters associated with the enclosure based on the test data ([0084]: “test configurations can measure supply duct leakage, return duct leakage, total duct leakage, predominant leakage, envelope infiltration and envelope exfiltration”), and suggests to determine the device flow data based on one or more leakage parameters ([0094-0095]: “accurate air flow measurement requires that pressure be maintained within a specific range”).
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. Claim 14 recites substantially the same material as claim 3 and is rejected as per such.
Regarding claims 4 and 15
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. KOENIG also teaches wherein the testing device is a fan operable to supply air through the orifice to the enclosure for performing the leakage test ([0067, 0070]: fan used to conduct airtightness tests of building or duct system).
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. Claim 15 recites substantially the same material as claim 4 and is rejected as per such.
Regarding claims 5 and 16
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. KOENIG also teaches wherein the test data comprises at least pressure differential data associated with the enclosure ([0080]: “self-test mode, the fan is adjusted to a pre-assigned speed with a pre-assigned flow restriction, and the resulting differential pressure is then measured”).
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. Claim 16 recites substantially the same material as claim 5 and is rejected as per such.
Regarding claims 6 and 17
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. MEYER also teaches wherein the flow range data comprises a calibrated flow range data for each of the one or more predefined orifice settings ([0125] & Fig. 9 shows calibrated flow range data for a predefined orifice setting).
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. Claim 17 recites substantially the same material as claim 6 and is rejected as per such.
Regarding claims 7 and 18
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. KOENIG also teaches to generate a recommendation for the leakage test based on the identified orifice setting ([0083]: “in the event of a failed test, a suggestion can be provided to the user to re-do the test, with the same speed and/or the same flow restriction, or with a different speed and/or different flow restriction”).
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. Claim 18 recites substantially the same material as claim 7 and is rejected as per such.
Regarding claim 8
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 7 as outlined above. KOENIG also teaches a user interface ([0040-0041]: touchscreen style display to display instructions to a user, [0049]) configured to display generated recommendations ([0049, 0083]: “a suggestion can also be provided to the user that the fan needs maintenance. Alternatively, in the event of a failed test, a suggestion can be provided to the user to re-do the test, with the same speed and/or the same flow restriction, or with a different speed and/or different flow restriction”).
Regarding claim 9
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above. KOENIG also teaches to receive a user input via a user interface, wherein the user input is associated with performing the leakage test ([0049]: “display screen 42 can display data regarding the fan 12 and its operation, display instructions to a user of the fan 12, and display other information” [0070]: the fan is used to perform leakage test). KOENIG also teaches to store test set-up data “for example set-up data for conducting a blower door test or a duct leakage test, can be stored on the fan 12 and/or on the controller 14. The set-up data can include information on the type and/or position of flow restrictor to be used during a test” [0077]. KOENIG also teaches that the flow restricting element/orifice setting can be adjusted by the controller of the fan “Adjustments may be controlled by a software algorithm running remotely, for example on the controller 14” [0057]. KOENIG also teaches that a smartphone or a similar device can be used as the controller for the fan “controller 14 can be a mobile phone” [0049]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify KOENIG-MEYER’s device, already configured to receive user input via a smartphone and already configured to implement orifice setting adjustments via software algorithms running remotely on a controller to perform a leakage test, such that the computer implemented orifice setting would be based on a user input via the smartphone already configured to be the controller of the fan. Because KOENIG already provides a user-facing controller that displays test information, stores set-up data, and provides computer-implemented adjustment of the flow restrictor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that that allowing operator override of the automatically selected orifice setting via that same interface would be a desirable way to provide operator control of the orifice setting when needed without requiring more than routine modification of the disclosed system.
Regarding claim 10
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. REF1 also teaches to obtain environmental data associated with the enclosure; and at least suggests to determine the device flow data for each of the one or more predefined orifice settings based on the environmental data ([0084]: “environmental variables that could impact the measured pressure can be factored in during the self-test”).
Regarding claims 11 and 19
REF1-REF2 teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. REF2 also teaches wherein the one or more observation values comprises at an orifice flow coefficient ([0136-0145]: “the airflow through the orifice is predicted by this well-known “flat plate orifice” equation”, C= discharge coefficient), and at least suggests the observation values comprise a fan curve (Fig. 9).
KOENIG-MEYER teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. Claim 19 recites substantially the same material as claim 11 and is rejected as per such.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either individually or in combination, to:
generate simulation data for each of the one or more predefined orifice settings based on the flow range data, the device flow data and the target flow data;
predict, using a first model, a flow range for each of the one or more predefined orifice settings based on the corresponding simulation data;
iteratively compare the flow range for each of the one or more predefined orifice settings with target flow data to determine an intersection; and
identify the orifice setting from the one or more predefined orifice settings for performing the leakage test based on the intersection.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
BENSON (US20220128436A1) teaches using an air handler together with an adjustable orifice with predefined settings and pressure-based calculations to test duct leakage.
Aydin, C., et al., (“Air leakage measurement and analysis in duct systems”, published 03/2006, retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778805000915, retrieved on 7/22/2026) discloses computation methods and modeling of duct systems to model how flow varies with pressure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights