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.
For the record, “control device” has NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since independent claims 1 and 9 recited the corresponding structure of a controller within the claim. The limitation “server device” has also NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since the term “server” is deemed to impart particular structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "set temperature" in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation should be amended to “a set temperature.” Claims 2-8 and 18 are also rejected since they depend from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the number of times… is reduced by…” in lines 2-3 of the claim. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what baseline the reduction is compared to.
Similarly, claim 9 recites the limitation "set temperature" in line 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation should be amended to “a set temperature.” Claims 10-16 and 19 are also rejected since they depend from claim 9.
Similarly, claim 10 recites the limitation “the number of times… is reduced by…” in lines 2-3 of the claim. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what baseline the reduction is compared to.
Similarly, claim 17 recites the limitation "set temperature" in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation should be amended to “a set temperature.”
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al. (US 2021/0254851 A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2018/0195752 A1).
As per claim 1, Taguchi et al. disclose n air conditioning system 1 comprising: an outdoor unit 5 that includes a compressor; a plurality of indoor units 6 that are connected to the outdoor unit through a refrigerant pipe (Fig. 1; etc.); a control device 2 that controls the outdoor unit and the indoor units; and; and a second predictor (machine learning model) that predicts a point of time when each indoor unit out of the indoor units is switched to thermo-ON and a point of time when it is switched to thermo-OFF by using the room temperature (paras. 0073, 0076; etc.) and the control device includes a controller that controls driving of the AC unit (and implicitly a compressor thereof) according to the point of time when each of the indoor unit is switched to the thermo-ON or the thermo-OFF by using the results of the prediction and a set target temperature of the air conditioning operation (Figs. 5-7, 9; etc.). Taguchi et al. do not teach a server device that is capable of communicating with the control device, wherein the server device includes a previous predictor that predicts room temperature of an air-conditioned space in which the indoor units are installed, by using a plurality of operation state amounts relating to air conditioning operation, or the room temperature values of the predictor being predicted by the previous predictor. Sasaki t al. teach a room temperature predictor wherein a server device 20 that is capable of communicating with the control device 13 and includes a predictor that predicts room temperature of an air-conditioned space in which the indoor units are installed (paras. 0038-0044, 0063-0064; etc.), by using a plurality of operation state amounts relating to air conditioning operation (database of operation history, including room temperatures, etc. paras. 00623-0064; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the predicted room temperatures of Sasaki et al. as the room temperature inputs of the Taguchi et al. for the purpose of further optimizing the system to further improve both environmental comfort and overall power efficiency (Sasaki et al., para.0007; etc.).
As per claim 2, see rejection above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Taguchi et al. do not specifically teach whereby the number of times of starting and stopping of the compressor is reduced, however such is a natural effect of more efficient operation. Since the combined effects taught by Taguchi et al. in view of Sasaki et al. are directed to more effective and efficient operation, a reduction of starting and starting of the compressor is considered a natural result that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application in achieving such improved operation.
As per claim 6, Taguchi et al. do not teach wherein the first predictor predicts the room temperature by selecting an operation state amount to be used for prediction from among the operation state amounts, and performing regression analysis. Sasaki et al. teach wherein the first predictor predicts the room temperature by selecting an operation state amount to be used for prediction from among the operation state amounts, and performing regression analysis (paras. 0135-0137; Figs. 11-12; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply such regression analysis as part of the modeling technique to predict room temperatures in order to provide effective and power efficient operation of the air conditioning system as already discussed above.
As per claim 7, Taguchi et al. do not teach wherein the operation state amount used for the prediction includes at least the set temperature, the room temperature, and outdoor air temperature. Sasaki et al. teach wherein the operation state amount used for the prediction includes at least the set temperature, the room temperature, and outdoor air temperature (paras. 0135-0137; Figs. 11-12; etc.). Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to apply such parameters as part of the modeling technique to predict room temperatures in order to provide effective and power efficient operation of the air conditioning system as already discussed above.
As per claim 9, Taguchi et al. disclose n air conditioning system 1 comprising: an outdoor unit 5 that includes a compressor; a plurality of indoor units 6 that are connected to the outdoor unit through a refrigerant pipe (Fig. 1; etc.); a control device 2 that controls the outdoor unit and the indoor units; and; and a second predictor (machine learning model) that predicts a point of time when each indoor unit out of the indoor units is switched to thermo-ON and a point of time when it is switched to thermo-OFF by using the room temperature (paras. 0073, 0076; etc.) and the control device includes a controller that controls driving of the AC unit (and implicitly a compressor thereof) according to the point of time when each of the indoor unit is switched to the thermo-ON or the thermo-OFF by using the results of the prediction and a set target temperature of the air conditioning operation (Figs. 5-7, 9; etc.). Taguchi et al. do not teach wherein the control device includes a previous predictor that predicts room temperature of an air-conditioned space in which the indoor units are installed, by using a plurality of operation state amounts relating to air conditioning operation, or the room temperature values of the predictor being predicted by the previous predictor. Sasaki t al. teach a room temperature predictor wherein a control device includes a predictor that predicts room temperature of an air-conditioned space in which the indoor units are installed (paras. 0038-0044, 0063-0064; etc.), by using a plurality of operation state amounts relating to air conditioning operation (database of operation history, including room temperatures, etc. paras. 00623-0064; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the predicted room temperatures of Sasaki et al. as the room temperature inputs of the Taguchi et al. for the purpose of further optimizing the system to further improve both environmental comfort and overall power efficiency (Sasaki et al., para.0007; etc.).
As per claims 10 and 14-15, see similar claims 2 and 6-7 above, respectively.
As per claim 17, Taguchi et al. disclose a method of an air conditioning apparatus 1 comprising: an outdoor unit 5 that includes a compressor; a plurality of indoor units 6 that are connected to the outdoor unit through a refrigerant pipe (Fig. 1; etc.); a control device 2 that controls the outdoor unit and the indoor units; and; and a second predictor (machine learning model) that predicts a point of time when each indoor unit out of the indoor units is switched to thermo-ON and a point of time when it is switched to thermo-OFF by using the room temperature (paras. 0073, 0076; etc.) and the control device includes a controller that controls driving of the AC unit (and implicitly a compressor thereof) according to the point of time when each of the indoor unit is switched to the thermo-ON or the thermo-OFF by using the results of the prediction and a set target temperature of the air conditioning operation (Figs. 5-7, 9; etc.). Taguchi et al. do not teach wherein the control device includes a previous predictor that predicts room temperature of an air-conditioned space in which the indoor units are installed, by using a plurality of operation state amounts relating to air conditioning operation, or the room temperature values of the predictor being predicted by the previous predictor. Sasaki et al. teach a method comprising a room temperature predictor wherein a control device includes a predictor that predicts room temperature of an air-conditioned space in which the indoor units are installed (paras. 0038-0044, 0063-0064; etc.), by using a plurality of operation state amounts relating to air conditioning operation (database of operation history, including room temperatures, etc. paras. 00623-0064; etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the predicted room temperatures of Sasaki et al. as the room temperature inputs of the Taguchi et al. for the purpose of further optimizing the system to further improve both environmental comfort and overall power efficiency (Sasaki et al., para.0007; etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8, 11-13, 16, and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 3 (and claim 8 which depends therefrom) and 11 (and claim 16 which depends therefrom), there is not teaching or motivation in the prior art to further modify the system of Taguchi et al. wherein the controller changes set temperature of each of the indoor units such that the periods of time when at least two of the indoor units out of the indoor units are switched to the thermo-ON overlap with each other by using the prediction result of the second predictor.
As per claims 4 (and claims 5 and 18 which depend therefrom) and 12 (and claims 13 and 19 which depend therefrom), there is not teaching or motivation in the prior art to further modify the system of Taguchi et al. wherein the controller predicts the number of times of stopping and restarting of driving of the compressor within a predetermined period by using the prediction result of the second predictor, identifies the indoor unit that is predicted to be a last one to be switched to the thermo-OFF within the predetermined period as a reference indoor unit, and changes the set temperature of the indoor unit other than the reference indoor unit such that a period of time when the other indoor unit is in the thermo- ON overlaps with a period of time when the reference indoor unit is in the thermo- ON.
Cited Prior Art
The following references not applied in the rejections above are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Suzumura (US 2023/0089866 A1), Yang et al. (US 2020/0393181 A1), Kim et al. (US 2019/0212026 A12), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2016/0018124 A1) teach various prediction control arrangements for air conditioning systems utilizing plural indoor units.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC E NORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4812. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/MARC E NORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763