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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is noted that line numbers within individual claims in this Office Action are counted from the line on which the preamble begins as “line 1” rather than counting from the previous line which contains only the line number and status tag (e.g. “(Currently Amended)” or “(New)”).
In line 4 of claim 1 the word “signal” should be pluralized as “signals” in the phrase “high-frequency signal”.
In line 4 of claim 5 the word “signal” should be pluralized as “signals” in the phrase “high-frequency signal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses the word “means,” but has not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specifically, in line 5 of claim 2, the teaching of “the notification means” has not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because all other instances of this phrase were deleted from the claim and replaced with “notifier” in a preliminary amendment so that its use in claim 2 appears to represent an error. See the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth below regarding the interpretation of this recitation.
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 1-10 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.
In lines 2-4 of independent claim 1, it is taught that “communication [is] performed with high-frequency signal[s]”. The term “high-frequency” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined in the claim. The specification in ¶ 37 refers to “high-frequency signals of several MHz to several tens of MHz”, it is not clear if this range is presented as a non-limiting range which defines “high-frequency signals” or merely to a subset of “high-frequency signals” signals to which this recitation specifically pertains. As there is no basis provided for establishing what signals are or are not “high-frequency” and thus do or do not fall within the scope of the claim, the scope cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Line 6 of claim 1 refers to “each of air conditioners included in the air conditioning system”. Lines 1-2 of the same claim refer to “an air conditioning system including two or more refrigerant systems connected to a plurality of air conditioners via a refrigerant pipe and a communication line”. This recitation appears to recite the air conditions as being “connected to” the refrigerant systems of the air conditioning system rather than as components of the air conditioning itself. Together with the lack of article in the teaching of line 6 (i.e. “each of air conditioners”, as opposed to “each of the air conditioners” or “each of said air conditioners”) it is not clear whether the air conditioners are recited positively as elements of the air conditioning system or are recited only as components with which the air conditioning system is connected and/or usable. For this reason the scope of claim 1 cannot be positively ascertained with regard to the relationship between the air conditioning system and the plurality of air conditioners and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In line 5 of claim 2, the teaching of “notification means” lacks antecedent basis. In line 5 of claim 1 and elsewhere in the claims, the term “notification means” have been cancelled and replaced with “notifier” but the continued use of “notification means” in claim 2 makes it unclear whether the means of this claim are intended to refer to the “notifier” (and have not been amended due to some error) or are intended to refer to some additional or alternate element of the system. For this reason the scope of claim 2 cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 2 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and has been interpreted as referring to the notifier of claim 1, line 5.
In line 4 of claim 4, it is taught that “a system information receiver” may receive information including “a type of the communication line”. The word “type” is very broad in scope and could be interpreted as referring to any quality, property, or feature of the communication line to the point that, in the absence of any specific definition, any information regarding the communication line could fall within the scope of “a type” of the line. For this reason, the limitation to the scope of the claim imposed by this teaching and what information would or would not fall within the scope of the recitation as “a type” of the line cannot be positively ascertained and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Independent claim 5 includes recitations equivalent to claim 1 with regard to both the “high-frequency signal” and “each of air conditioners” and is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
In lines 3-4 of claim 6, it is taught that the notifier identifies “an air conditioner of which the communication group information is highly likely incorrectly set”. The phrase “highly likely” represents a term of relative degree and neither the claim nor the specification provides any basis for determining the likelihood of error would or would not fall within the scope of the recitation as being “highly likely”. For this reason, the scope of claim 6 with regard to this teaching and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 3 and 7-10 are each rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication No. 96/12917 A1 to Okano in view of US Publication No. 2012/0101778 A1 to Gyota et al. and US Publication No. 2005/0209739 A1 to Kwon et al.
An English translation of Okano has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Japanese-language original document.
Okano teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig. 3, shown above, an air conditioning system (1) including two or more refrigerant systems (“a plurality of refrigerant circulation groups 2A-2D” as taught in ¶ 53) connected to a plurality of air conditioners (not individually numbered but each having an outdoor unit 3 and a corresponding plurality of indoor units (4) coupled by one refrigerant circulation group 2 as shown in fig. 3 and taught in ¶ 53) via a refrigerant pipe (of the circulation group 2) and a communication line (system communication paths 7 as well as the centralized communication path 10 which communicates between the air conditioners as shown in fig. 1 and taught in ¶¶ 54-55), communication between the plurality of air conditioners via the communication line being performed with signal (as taught in ¶¶ 54-55), the air conditioning system comprising:
a notifier (the remote controls 11 taught in ¶ 57 to be associated with each indoor unit 4), wherein
each of air conditioners (corresponding to the circulation groups 2A-2D) included in the air conditioning system (1) includes
circuitry (the respective control units 5a… of the air conditioners, and particularly the “incorrect wiring recognition means (31a… taught in ¶ 99) to
determine necessity of notification relating to incorrect setting of communication group information to the notifier (11), based on communication group information set to the another air conditioner, and communication group information set to the air conditioner itself (the determination of a miswiring state and the incorrect addressing of an indoor unit 4 by a miswiring recognition means is described in ¶¶ 99-100 and is communicated by the communication paths 7 and 10 and an “incorrectly wired code” is generated, transmitted, and displayed on the remote control 11 of the relevant indoor units 4 as taught in ¶ 101);
generate, when notification to the notifier is determined to be necessary, notification information including information relating to the another air conditioner, information relating to the air conditioner itself, and information relating to the signal level, and transmit the generated notification information to the notifier (to the remote control 11 of the relevant indoor units 4 as taught in ¶ 101), and
when receiving the notification information from any of the air conditioners included in the air conditioning system, the notifier performs notification to a user based on the notification information (the display of the code on the remote control is taught in ¶ 101).
Okano does not teach the air conditioners to include “a signal level determiner” to determine a signal level of a communication received by the air conditioner or this determination being used in the determination of an incorrect communication wiring and generating a relevant notification. Gyota teaches in ¶¶ 27-29, 116-117, and 122 an air conditioning system in which a plurality of air conditioners (10) are arranged with individual outdoor units (10a) and indoor units (10b) and with a shared communication network (20) and air conditioning system diagnosis apparatus (100) which includes “communication waveform analyzing means 133” within a ”system diagnosis means” which analyzes the waveforms of communication signals sent via the network (20) for faults such as differences from expected signal widths, amplitudes, and similar thresholds which may identify the signal as “abnormal” with such an diagnosis result output via a display (180) by a diagram generating means (170) of the air conditioning system diagnosis apparatus (100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Okano with the signal analysis, including amplitude and signal widths as taught by Gyota in order to ensure that signals transmitted within the system fall exhibit characteristics to be recognized and implemented by other system components and that failures in this regard may be recognized and remedied in order to ensure effective and reliable air conditioning operations.
PNG
media_image2.png
532
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Neither Okano nor Gyota particularly teaches the signals transmitted by and within the air conditioning systems of their inventions to be “high frequency signals”. Kwon teaches in ¶ 47 that known communications networks for use with components of an air conditioning system operate using “high-frequency signals from several hundreds of kilohertz (kHz) to several tens of megahertz (MHz)” for the transmission of data via power connections, with applicant teaching in ¶ 37 “high-frequency signals of several MHz to several tens of MHz” as either a definition or example of “high-frequency signals” within the present disclosure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Okano to use “high-frequency signals”, including signals having a frequency within the recited range taught in ¶ 37, as such signals are known in the art to be effective for communication over power-line communication arrangements, which in turn offer benefits regarding the reduction in wiring and simplicity of installation and layout for an air conditioning system using such communication.
Okano as modified by Gyota as discussed above teaches limitations from claim 2, the air conditioning system according to claim 1, wherein when the communication group information set to the another air conditioner and the communication group information set to the air conditioner itself match each other (if an indoor unit 4 receives a signal from the outdoor unit 3 of another group (A or B) as described in ¶¶ 98-101 and thus its address matches the indoor units of this other group rather than its own) and the signal level is a predetermined first threshold or lower (the amplitude failing to exceed a threshold as taught in ¶ 117 of Gyota and thus not being found to be abnormal), the circuitry determines that notification to the notification means is necessary (as described in the above rejection of claim 1)..
Okano as modified by Gyota as discussed above teaches limitations from claim 3, the air conditioning system according to claim 1, wherein when the communication group information set to the another air conditioner and the communication group information set to the air conditioner itself are different from each other (when the miswiring determination described in ¶¶ 98-101 is not made) and the signal level is a predetermined second threshold or higher (the amplitude exceeding “a certain threshold” as taught in ¶ 117 of Gyota and thus being determined as abnormal), the circuitry (the control unit 5 of the respective outdoor unit 3) determines that notification to the notifier (11) is necessary (as described in the above rejection of claim 1).
Okano teaches limitations from claim 5 in fig. 3, shown above, an air conditioning system (1) including two or more refrigerant systems (“a plurality of refrigerant circulation groups 2A-2D” as taught in ¶ 53) connected to a plurality of air conditioners (not individually numbered but each having an outdoor unit 3 and a corresponding plurality of indoor units (4) coupled by one refrigerant circulation group 2 as shown in fig. 3 and taught in ¶ 53) via a refrigerant pipe (of the circulation group 2) and a communication line (system communication paths 7 as well as the centralized communication path 10 which communicates between the air conditioners as shown in fig. 1 and taught in ¶¶ 54-55), communication between the plurality of air conditioners via the communication line being performed with signal (as taught in ¶¶ 54-55), the air conditioning system comprising:
a notifier (the remote controls 11 taught in ¶ 57 to be associated with each indoor unit 4), wherein
each of air conditioners (corresponding to the circulation groups 2A-2D) included in the air conditioning system (1) includes
a signal level determiner to determine a signal level of a communication frame received from another air conditioner included in the air conditioning system, and
circuitry (the respective control units 5a… of the air conditioners, and particularly the “incorrect wiring recognition means (31a… taught in ¶ 99) to generate notification information including communication group information set to the another air conditioner, communication group information set to the air conditioner itself, and transmit the generated notification information to the notifier (the determination of a miswiring state and the incorrect addressing of an indoor unit 4 by a miswiring recognition means is described in ¶¶ 99-100 and is communicated by the communication paths 7 and 10 and an “incorrectly wired code” is generated, transmitted, and displayed on the remote control 11 of the relevant indoor units 4 as taught in ¶ 101); and
the notifier (11) determines necessity of notification relating to incorrect setting of communication group information to a user based on the notification information received from each of the air conditioners included in the air conditioning system, and when determining that notification to the user is necessary, performs notification to the user based on the notification information (when the code is transmitted to the remote control 11 which indicates that an error in wiring has been determined, the remote control displays this code as taught in ¶ 101).
Okano does not teach the air conditioners to include “a signal level determiner” to determine a signal level of a communication received by the air conditioner or this determination being used in the determination of an incorrect communication wiring and generating a relevant notification. Gyota teaches in ¶¶ 27-29, 116-117, and 122 an air conditioning system in which a plurality of air conditioners (10) are arranged with individual outdoor units (10a) and indoor units (10b) and with a shared communication network (20) and air conditioning system diagnosis apparatus (100) which includes “communication waveform analyzing means 133” within a ”system diagnosis means” which analyzes the waveforms of communication signals sent via the network (20) for faults such as differences from expected signal widths, amplitudes, and similar thresholds which may identify the signal as “abnormal” with such an diagnosis result output via a display (180) by a diagram generating means (170) of the air conditioning system diagnosis apparatus (100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Okano with the signal analysis, including amplitude and signal widths as taught by Gyota in order to ensure that signals transmitted within the system fall exhibit characteristics to be recognized and implemented by other system components and that failures in this regard may be recognized and remedied in order to ensure effective and reliable air conditioning operations.
Neither Okano nor Gyota particularly teaches the signals transmitted by and within the air conditioning systems of their inventions to be “high frequency signals”. Kwon teaches in ¶ 47 that known communications networks for use with components of an air conditioning system operate using “high-frequency signals from several hundreds of kilohertz (kHz) to several tens of megahertz (MHz)” for the transmission of data via power connections, with applicant teaching in ¶ 37 “high-frequency signals of several MHz to several tens of MHz” as either a definition or example of “high-frequency signals” within the present disclosure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Okano to use “high-frequency signals”, including signals having a frequency within the recited range taught in ¶ 37, as such signals are known in the art to be effective for communication over power-line communication arrangements, which in turn offer benefits regarding the reduction in wiring and simplicity of installation and layout for an air conditioning system using such communication.
Okano teaches limitations from claim 6, the air conditioning system according to claim 5, wherein the [circuitry] identifies, based on the notification information received from each of the air conditioners included in the air conditioning system, an air conditioner of which the communication group information is highly likely incorrectly set, and notifies a user of information relating to the identified air conditioner (as described in ¶ 99, when a wiring recognition means (31a or b) erroneously receives a control signal addressed to a unit in another control group, the outdoor unit of the other control group is recognized by its address number (in this case A) not corresponding to the receiving indoor unit (of group B) and performs the notification taught in ¶ 101.)
Okano does not teach the notifier being the element of the system which identifies the group information which has been incorrectly set. Gyota teaches in fig. 1, shown above, the display unit (180) being integrally formed with the air conditioning system diagnosis apparatus (100) along with the system diagnosis means (130) so that the system diagnosis apparatus may be taken as the notifier of claim 6, both determining faults (via its system diagnosis means 130) and outputting a notification based on such a determination (via the display unit 180). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the arrangement and combination of electronic and control devices of the system of Okano for example in the grouping of all such components into a single air conditioning system diagnosis apparatus as taught by Gyota in order to simplify the connection and installation of the control elements of the system by allowing them to be embodied in a single unit.
Regarding the limitations of claim 8, refer to the above rejection of claim 2 upon which claim 8 depends and of claim 3 which presents equivalent limitations.
Regarding the recitations of the first threshold and second threshold, it is noted that the claims do not establish any specific values or relations for these thresholds so that they may be of equivalent value, for example as the threshold taught by ¶ 117 of Gyota.
Claims 4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano, Gyota, and Kwon as applied to claims 1, 2, and 3 above, and further in view of WIPO Publication No. 2018/179141 A1 to Yahata.
An English translation of Yahata has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Japanese-language original document.
Regarding claim 4, Okano teaches an air conditioning system in which a plurality of refrigeration circuits with respective outdoor and indoor units are provided, these units being arranged and connected in communication groups and tested so that, if a unit receives a signal addressed for a different group than the one in which it is provided, an error message is generated by outdoor unit control circuitry and displayed by a remote control. Gyota further teaches the use of signal strength including a comparison of signal parameters such as amplitude to predetermined thresholds in diagnosing communication errors in an air conditioning system. Neither Okano nor Gyota teaches the system comprising “a system information input receiver” for receiving input including at least one of a wiring length or type of the communication line and a number of indoor units, this information used in the determination of the communication signal level.
PNG
media_image3.png
338
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yahata teaches in fig. 2, shown above, an air conditioning system (1) having an indoor unit (use side unit 3) and an outdoor unit (heat source side unit 2) connected by wiring (5). Yahata teaches a controller (4) of the system including a measurement unit (31b) taught in ¶ 19 “that measures information about the pair of wirings 5 when a voltage is supplied from the power source 20, and is, for example, a measurement resistor” and that the controller may use input from this unit (31b) to measure the resistance of the wire and calculate its length from this resistance and further teaches in ¶ 35 that this resistance may be used in determining the quality of the wire and that these measured properties of the wire will affect the quality of a signal carried by the wired and output by the circuit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the system of Okano as modified by Gyota as discussed above further to determine parameters of the communication line of the refrigeration system as taught by Yahata in order to allow the effects of the wiring on the signals transmitted over it to be understood and accounted for in the signal monitoring and control of the system to ensure effective and reliable operations and control determinations.
Regarding the limitations of claim 9, refer to the above rejection of claim 2 upon which claim 9 depends and on claim 4 which presents equivalent limitations.
Regarding the limitations of claim 10, refer to the above rejection of claim 3 upon which claim 9 depends and on claim 4 which presents equivalent limitations.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano, Gyota, and Kwon as applied to claims 5 and 6 above, and further in view of Korean Publication No. 10-2022-0013221 to Lee.
An English translation of Lee has been provided with this Office Action and citations to specific passages and paragraphs of this reference are directed to this translation rather than to the Korean-language original document.
Regarding claim 7, Okano teaches an air conditioning system in which a plurality of refrigeration circuits with respective outdoor and indoor units are provided, these units being arranged and connected in communication groups and tested so that, if a unit receives a signal addressed for a different group than the one in which it is provided, an error message is generated by outdoor unit control circuitry and displayed by a remote control. Okano does not teach the system resetting communication group information of the air conditioner identified as being incorrectly set. Lee teaches in ¶¶ 53-54, an air conditioning system in which a controller (110) determines communication errors including duplications in communication address between communicating components of the system and, when an error is determined, resets the address of these components based on product information or data recovery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Okano with the communication address reset taught by Lee in order to allow errors in communication to be identified and remedied without requiring intervention by a user, thus increasing the convenience and reliability of the system’s operation.
Regarding the teaching of this control operation being performed by the notifier, refer to the above rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights