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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the details of Fig.3 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 communication unit and a control unit in claims 1-14, and a control module in claim 15.
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. A communication unit is interpreted to be a long-range communication module implemented in a wired or wireless manner as described in Paragraph 0048. A control unit is interpreted as a memory and a processor as described in Paragraph 0050. A control module is interpreted to be a device that transmits a drive control signal as described in Paragraph 0038.
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 § 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 1-16 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 “comfortable” in claims 1, 15, and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “comfortable” 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.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving an indoor temperature and weather information, set a comfortable temperature and generate a drive control signal of the air conditioner.
The limitations of “set a comfortable temperature and generate a drive control signal of the air conditioner” as drafted, is a process that, 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 “a control unit, a management server, a gateway, and a control module”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a control unit, a management server, a gateway, and a control module” language, setting and generating in the context of the claim encompass the user mentally calculating a temperature based on received data and manually adjusting a temperature setting. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of “a control unit, a management server, and a control module” to perform the recited steps. Said “a control unit, a management server, a gateway, and a control module” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitations of receiving indoor temperature and weather information, a temperature senor, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. The receiving step and the temperature sensor are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the setting and generating steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/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(s) does/do 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 control unit, a management server, a gateway, and a control module” to perform both the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving indoor temperature and weather information, and a temperature senor are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-14 recite additional steps that fall under the mental process and do not contain any additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue JP 2003083586 A (the examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Inoue) in view of Lewis US 2018/0058710 A1 (hence Lewis).
In re claims 1, 15, and 16, Inoue discloses a controller for an air conditioner which can control an operation of the air conditioner so as to enhance an energy saving effect while keeping comfortableness and good health according to a change of an effective temperature influenced by a change of a season and outdoor circumstances (Paragraph 0040) and teaches the following:
a communication unit that receives an indoor temperature of the zone measured by a temperature sensor (Fig.1, #4, and Paragraph 0080 “4 indoor temperature detecting means for detecting indoor temperature”) and weather information of the zone (Fig.1, #1, #2, #3, and Paragraph 0080 “1 is an outside air temperature detecting means for detecting the outside air temperature, 2 is an outside air humidity detecting means for detecting the outside air humidity, and 3 is Calendar means for outputting calendar information such as month, day, hour and minute”)
and a control unit that sets a comfortable temperature of the zone based on the weather information and generates a drive control signal of the air conditioner based on the indoor temperature and the comfortable temperature, wherein the comfortable temperature includes an off comfortable temperature, which is a perceived comfortable temperature of a user located in the zone when the air conditioner is turned off, and an on comfortable temperature, which is the perceived comfortable temperature of the user when the air conditioner is turned on (Paragraph 0085 “In the combination of the indoor temperature and the outside air temperature, the air conditioner operation control unit 12 instructs the cooling and heating air conditioner 13 to stop in the Eoff area (hatched area)”, Paragraph 0091 “a comfortable cooling / heating environment can be created with minimum energy consumption according to the seasonal change”, and Fig.3, and Paragraphs 0095-0096)
However, Inoue doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
provided by a weather server
Nevertheless, Lewis discloses automatically obtaining current and forecasted weather data from one or more internet based meteorological HTTP web servers, automatically controlling operation of the heating and air conditioning system based on the current and forecasted weather data and a current indoor temperature of an indoor environment relative to a desired set point temperature for said indoor environment (Abstract) and teaches the following:
weather information of the zone provided by a weather server (Paragraphs 0040-0041 “The Status Interface Alarm Control Update Servers 139 may select the most accurate weather data to be used by the Weather Anticipating Programmable Thermostat 101”, and Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Inoue reference to include weather data provided by a server, as taught by Lewis, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide current and forecasted weather data (Lewis, Paragraph 0009).
In re claim 2, Inoue teaches the following:
wherein the off comfortable temperature is used when changing a state of the air conditioner, and the change in the state of the air conditioner includes a first state change that changes the state of the air conditioner from turn-off to turn-on and a second state change that changes the state of the air conditioner from turn-on to turn-off (Fig.2 and Paragraph 0087)
In re claim 3, Lewis teaches the following:
wherein the on comfortable temperature is used when determining a set temperature of the air conditioner (Paragraph 0087)
In re claim 4, Lewis teaches the following:
wherein, in a cooling mode of the air conditioner, the on comfortable temperature is set higher than the off comfortable temperature by a predefined critical temperature due to the drive of the air conditioner, and in a heating mode of the air conditioner, the on comfortable temperature is set lower than the off comfortable temperature by the predefined critical temperature due to the drive of the air conditioner (Paragraph 0087, Ec is set to be higher than the off comfort temperature Eoff in air cooling mode and the on comfort temperature Eh is set to be lower than the off comfort temperature Eoff in the heating mode)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis US 2018/0058710 A1 discloses automatically obtaining current and forecasted weather data from one or more internet based meteorological HTTP web servers, automatically controlling operation of the heating and air conditioning system based on the current and forecasted weather data and a current indoor temperature of an indoor environment relative to a desired set point temperature for said indoor environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights