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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 6-12 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-10 and 12-18 of copending Application No. 18/905,349. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3-10 and 12-18 of copending Application No. 18/905,349 anticipated claims 1, 2, 6-12 and 16-20 of the current application. Specifically, claims 1, 3-10 and 12-18 of copending Application No. 18/905,349 disclose all limitations of claims 1, 2, 6-12 and 16-20 of the current application, thus anticipating claims 1, 2, 6-12 and 16-20 of the current application
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-3, 7-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below is an analysis in accordance with the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Process found in MPEP 2106(III).
Claim 11: An air conditioner unit, comprising:
an indoor portion in fluid communication with an indoor space; a sensor; and a controller, the controller configured for:
monitoring, with the sensor, an atmospheric condition of indoor air from the indoor space;
detecting a hazard in the indoor space based on the monitored atmospheric condition of the indoor air; and
providing an emergency notification in response to the detected hazard in the indoor space.
Step 1: The claim recites an air conditioning unit, which is an apparatus. Thus, the claim is to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Limitation (c) in claim 1 recites “detecting a hazard in the indoor space based on the monitored atmospheric condition of the indoor air”. As is evident from applicant’s disclosure, the claimed step (c) falls into the “Mental Processes” group of abstract ideas because the recited step is an observation (detecting a hazard in the indoor space based on the monitored atmospheric condition of the indoor air in step (c)) that is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited calculation or observation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses general purpose computer as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites additional element (a) an air conditioner that includes an indoor portion in fluid communication with an indoor space; a sensor; and a controller element, (b) monitoring, with the sensor, an atmospheric condition of indoor air from the indoor space (d) providing an emergency notification in response to the detected hazard in the indoor space. Additional elements (b) and (d) represent mere data gathering (monitoring an atmospheric condition with a sensor) and data output/display (providing an emergency notification) that is necessary for the use of the recited judicial exception. Accordingly, elements (b) and (d) are insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 11 also recites an air conditioner that includes an indoor portion, an outdoor portion and a controller in element (a). The controller is merely a generic processor which is recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, the controller is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. The indoor portion and outdoor portion of an air conditioner are also recited so generically that they represent merely applying the judicial exceptions to an air conditioner.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. Additional elements (b) and (d), as explained previously, are mere data gathering and data output/display, which is extra-solution activity and for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Thus, limitations (b) and (d) do not amount to significantly more.
As explained previously, the air conditioner that includes an indoor portion, an outdoor portion and a controller in element (a) is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Examiner takes official notice that air conditioners including an indoor portion, an outdoor portion and a controller were well-known and conventionally used before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat or cool air in spaces based on sensed conditions. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, 13 and 17-20 are merely just extensions or variations of the judicial exception, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyd et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0217550 [Boyd].
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Boyd discloses an air conditioner unit, comprising:
an indoor portion in fluid communication with an indoor space [indoor HVAC unit, paragraph 0017];
a sensor [thermal sensors, paragraph 0042]; and
a controller [HVAC control system, paragraph 0042], the controller configured for:
monitoring, with the sensor, an atmospheric condition of indoor air from the indoor space [thermal sensors detect thermal characteristics of heat sources in respective rooms of a building, paragraphs 0040 and 0042];
detecting a hazard in the indoor space based on the monitored atmospheric condition of the indoor air [detecting a heat source that is atypical or unexpected, such as a fire, paragraphs 0042, 0053, 0059 and 0062]; and
providing an emergency notification in response to the detected hazard in the indoor space [triggering a fire alarm upon detection of an atypical or unexpected heart source, paragraphs 0053 and 0059].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Boyd further discloses that the monitored atmospheric condition is temperature, and wherein the detected hazard is a thermal event in the indoor space [temperature sensors and thermal light detectors, paragraph 0037].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Boyd further discloses that the air conditioner unit is a first air conditioner unit of a plurality of air conditioner units in a building, wherein the controller is in communication with a second air conditioner unit of the plurality of air conditioner units, the second air conditioner unit comprising a controller configured to monitor the atmospheric condition of indoor air from an indoor space in fluid communication with an indoor portion of the second air conditioner unit, and wherein the controller is further configured for receiving atmospheric condition data from the second air conditioner and determining a location and spatial extent of the hazard based on the monitored atmospheric condition of the indoor air in fluid communication with the indoor portion of the first air conditioner unit and based on the atmospheric condition data from the second air conditioner [each zone includes a thermal sensor that detects an atypical or unexpected heat source in its respective zone and notifies an HVAC controller, Figure 5 and paragraphs 0039-0040, 0042 and 0053. Therefore, the HVAC controller would be alerted to all locations that have a detected atypical or unexpected heat source].
Regarding claims 4, 5, 14 and 15, Boyd further discloses that the controller is further configured for disabling a make-up air system of the air conditioner unit in response to the detected hazard [the controller may cause the HVAC unit to discontinue a supply of air in order to block advancement of the uncontrolled heat source, paragraph 0053].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Boyd further discloses that the controller is further configured for activating a fan of the air conditioner unit to draw the indoor air from the indoor space towards the sensor of the air conditioner unit while monitoring the atmospheric condition of the indoor air [VAV boxes are used to control flow rate of air through outlets in each room, which causes air to circulate towards thermal sensors in each zone, Figure 5 and paragraphs 0038-0040].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Boyd further discloses that detecting the hazard in the indoor space based on the monitored atmospheric condition of the indoor air comprises determining the monitored atmospheric condition is outside of a predefined operating range of the air conditioner unit [an atypical or unexpected heat source is detected when thermal characteristics are outside of typical or expected values, paragraphs 0042, 0046 and 0059].
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Boyd further discloses that determining the monitored atmospheric condition is outside of the predefined operating range of the air conditioner unit comprises determining the monitored atmospheric condition is above the predefined operating range by at least a predetermined threshold amount [an atypical or unexpected heat source is detected when thermal characteristics are outside of typical or expected values, paragraphs 0042, 0046 and 0059].
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Boyd further discloses that the sensor is a first sensor of the air conditioner unit, further comprising monitoring the atmospheric condition of the indoor air with a second sensor of the air conditioner unit, wherein the hazard is detected based on atmospheric condition data from the first sensor and the second sensor [temperature sensors and thermal light detectors, paragraph 0037].
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Boyd further discloses that the controller is further configured for recording an alert in a memory of the controller of the air conditioner unit in response to the detected hazard in the indoor space [an indication of a detected atypical or unexpected heat source is necessarily stored in some type of memory when users are notified and prompted to respond on a user interface of the HVAC system, paragraph 0071].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Atluri et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2024/0418389 discloses an HVAC system that generates fire alarms and closes dampers for zones in which a potential fire has been detected.
Liu, US Patent Application Publication no. 2003/0126869 discloses a window air conditioner unit that includes a fire alarm and a smoke exhausting device.
Shyu, US Patent no. 5,260,691 discloses a window air conditioning unit including a temperature or smoke sensor that is used to detect a potential fire in a room.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 June 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights