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: a first notification device and a second notification device.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namiki (JP 2017-053509, see attached English translation) in view of Park (KR 2009-0044785, see attached English translation) and Yajima (US 2018/0045424).
As to claim 1, Namiki teaches an air conditioning system comprising:
a first device 3a and a second device 3b that are communicably connected to teach other and through which a refrigerant flows;
a first refrigerant sensor 71A that is provided in the first device 3A and detects the refrigerant;
a first notification device 4a that is communicably connected to the first device 3a and makes a notification of a refrigerant leak on a basis of detection of the refrigerant by the first refrigerant sensor 71A (page 3, paragraph 1); and
a control device 8 that controls the first device and the second device (Fig. 6);
wherein the first notification device 4a has the authority to make a notification of a refrigerant leak on a basis of detection of the refrigerant received from other than the first refrigerant sensor 71a (see pages 5-6).
Namiki does not explicitly teach that the authority of the first notification device 4a is “settable”. However, it is well known in the art to provide programmable controllers which are “settable” to perform certain functions. For example, Park teaches that it is known to select a master controller (page 5, paragraph 3) and Yajima teaches that it is known to set a master device of a group of devices in an air conditioner (paragraph 153). In light of these teaches it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Namiki such that the authority is “settable” as claimed in order to allow the user to properly configure a mesh system in order to notify a user of a refrigerant leak.
As to claim 2, the devices of Namiki are operated while the refrigerant leakage is monitored, and thus the control device 8 permits operation of the devices in conjunction with setting of the authority.
As to claims 3-4, Namiki, as modified, includes a second sensor 71b and second notification device 4b configured to operate as claimed (see pages 5-6).
As to claim 5, Namiki teaches a third device 2a-b that is connected to the first device 3a and includes a compressor (see page 2) and the control device 8 (see page 5).
As to claim 6, Namiki teaches transmitting leak detection information and indicating which group of devices has experienced a leak (see page 6), and thus necessarily transmits identification information as claimed.
As to claim 8, Namiki teaches performing simultaneous communication between the devices (Figs. 1-2 and 6-7; pages 5-6).
As to claim 9, Namiki teaches that the first notification device 4a is a remote controller (Figs. 1 and 6).
As to claim 10, Namiki teaches the first and second devices as indoor units of an air conditioner (Figs. 1 and 6).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied above, and further in view of Kimura (US 10,197,317).
As to claim 7, Namiki does not explicitly teach transmitting a model name or a device number of the first device 3a. However, Kimura teaches that it is known to transmit model information of an indoor unit (col. 21, lines 10-15). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Namiki to include transmitting a model name as claimed in order to provide the user to relevant information for effective management of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights