DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
This application is a CON of Patent Application 18/312,282 filed on 05/04/2023, and now a U.S. PATENT No. 12,130,039.
Patent Application 18/312,282 is a CON of Patent Application 17/551,510 filed on 12/15/2021, and now a U.S. PATENT No. 11,668,487.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2014, 03/28/2016 and 10/17/2016 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for informalities, lack of antecedent support, or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 9, line 1, replace “high threshold” with “high”
Claim 10, line 1, replace “high threshold” with “high”
Claim 19, line 1, replace “high threshold” with “high”
Claim 20, line 1, replace “high threshold” with “high”
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent 12,130,039. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
As an example, independent claim double patenting analysis is provided below:
18/907,417 (instant application)
12,130,039
Analysis
Claim 1
A method comprising:
determining, by a controller of an HVAC system, that an air conditioning unit is operational for a threshold length of time;
determining, by the controller at a first time interval using a temperature sensor coupled to the HVAC system, that a first temperature measurement is greater than a high temperature threshold;
determining, by the controller, that a cooling cycle of the air conditioning unit during the first time interval is incomplete; and
operating, by the controller, the air conditioning unit to complete the cooling cycle during the first time interval.
Claim 11
A method comprising:
i. determining, by a controller of an HVAC system, that an air conditioning unit is operational for a threshold length of time;
ii. determining, by the controller at a first time interval using a temperature sensor coupled to the HVAC system, that a first temperature measurement is greater than a high temperature threshold;
iii. determining, by the controller, that a cooling cycle of the air conditioning unit during the first time interval is complete;
iv. determining, by the controller, that a capacity of the HVAC system is greater than a threshold capacity;
v. adjusting, by the controller, a setting of the HVAC system by a predetermined amount;
vi. determining, by the controller at a second time interval, that a cooling cycle during the second time interval is incomplete; and
vii. operating, by the controller, the air conditioning unit to complete the cooling cycle during the second time interval.
Same
Same
The first or the second time interval are superficial, as any time interval may be the first time interval, and any other time interval may be the second time interval. (18/907,417 claim recitation)
The first or the second time interval are superficial, as any time interval may be the first time interval, and any other time interval may be the second time interval. (18/907,417 claim recitation)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 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 5 recites the limitation “determining, at a third time interval, that the capacity of the HVAC system is less than the threshold capacity.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the capacity of the HVAC system” and “the threshold capacity”. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “determining, at a third time interval, that a capacity of the HVAC system is less than a threshold capacity.”
For similar reason as discussed above for claim 5, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 6-7 are dependent claims of claim 5. The claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 16-17 are dependent claims of claim 15. The claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 5, 8, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. (Examiner’s remark: Should any of the claims 5, 8, 15 and 18, as recited, be incorporated into corresponding independent claims, the corresponding independent claims will be subject to 101 rejections)
Regarding Claim 5:
(Step 2A, Prong One) (Examiner’s remark: Claim 5 does not further, meaningfully, limit independent claim 1 that the claim depends on.)
Claim 5 recites, “wherein the controller is further configured to: determine, at a second time interval using the temperature sensor, that a second temperature measurement is greater than a high temperature threshold; determine that a cooling cycle of the air conditioning system during the second time interval is complete; determine, at a third time interval, that the capacity of the HVAC system is less than the threshold capacity; and determine that a third temperature measurement after completion of the cooling cycle is less than a low overshoot temperature setting.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0052] - [0059], for instance, the determining functions are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on a acquired data. That is, other than reciting a “controller” (a generic electronic device or generic computer component), a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the determining features enunciated above.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional limitations recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(Step 2B)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim does not recite additional limitations.
Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for same reasons as discussed above for Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8: (Examiner’s remark: Claim 8 does not further, meaningfully, limit independent claim 1 that the claim depends on.)
(Step 2A, Prong One)
Claim 8 recites, “determining that the first time interval is complete; and determining a second temperature measurement.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0052] - [0059], for instance, the determining functions are mental processes that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on a acquired data. That is, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the determining features enunciated above.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A, Prong Two)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional limitations recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(Step 2B)
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In particular, the claim does not recite additional limitations.
Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for same reasons as discussed above for Claim 5.
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, 8, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley (US 5,054,294) (“Dudley”), in view of BRAHME et al. (US 2019/0353375 A1) (“Brahme”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Dudley teaches:
A method comprising: determining, by a controller of an HVAC system, that an air conditioning unit is operational for a threshold length of time; (Dudley: Column 1, lines 7-11 “This invention relates generally to air conditioning systems and, more particularly, to a method and apparatus for varying the speed of a compressor in an air conditioning system to control the discharge temperature thereof.”) (Dudley: Column 3, lines 35-42 “In accordance with the present invention, in addition to the normal control of the variable speed drive 24 of the compressor 19, the controller 26 functions to vary the speed of the variable speed drive 24 in such a way as to prevent excessive temperatures in the compressor discharge line 21. This is accomplished by way of a discharge temperature sensor 33 which communicates with the controller 26 by way of line 34.”) (Dudley: Column 3, lines 46-53 “The comparator 36 then compares the sensed temperature T.sub.D with a predetermined temperature limit T.sub.L1 as shown at block 38. A temperature limit which has been found suitable for this purpose is 230 F. If that predetermined temperature limit T.sub.L1 is exceeded for more than a predetermined time period such as, for example, one minute, then the compressor speed is reduced by a predetermined amount.”) [The controller 26 of the air conditioning system reads on “a controller of an HVAC unit”, and the combination of the variable speed drive 24 and the compressor 19 reads on “an air conditioning unit”. The predetermined time period reads on “a threshold length of time”.]
determining, by the controller at a first time interval using a temperature sensor coupled to the HVAC system, that a first temperature measurement is greater than a high temperature threshold; determining, by the controller, that a cooling cycle of the air conditioning unit during the first time interval is incomplete. (Dudley: Column 3, lines 46-59 “The comparator 36 then compares the sensed temperature T.sub.D with a predetermined temperature limit T.sub.L1 as shown at block 38. A temperature limit which has been found suitable for this purpose is 230 F. If that predetermined temperature limit T.sub.L1 is exceeded for more than a predetermined time period such as, for example, one minute, then the compressor speed is reduced by a predetermined amount. For example, the speed of the motor may be reduced by 10%. This is shown in block 39 of FIG. 2. If, after a suitable predetermined time limit (e.g. one minute), the temperature limit T.sub.L1 continues to be exceeded, then the speed of the motor is further reduced by a given amount such as, for example, 10% (see block 41).”) [The predetermined time period for the any one of the iterations reads on “a first time interval”, and the temperature limit T.sub.L1 reads on “a high temperature threshold”. Determining that after the predetermined time, the temperature limit T.sub.L1 continues to be exceeded reads on “determining at a first time interval … that a first temperature measurement is greater than a high temperature threshold”. The continue running of the compressor when the predetermined time is reached reads on “determining … that a cooling cycle … during the first time interval is incomplete”.]
Dudley does not expressly teach: operating, by the controller, the air conditioning unit to complete the cooling cycle during the first time interval.
Brahme teaches:
operating, by the controller, the air conditioning unit to complete the cooling cycle during the first time interval. (Brahme: FIG. 2B) (Brahme: [0033] “In step 212, if the controller 150 determines that the expected temperature of the comfort zone 140 at the desired time will be different than the desired temperature then the controller 150 may determine an adjusted compressor speed. The adjusted compressor speed determined by controller 150 in step 212 may be determined based on at least the current speed of the compressor 101, the desired temperature, the current temperature, and the remaining time duration, where the remaining time duration is the time between the current time and the desired time. In step 214, the controller 150 may communicate a command to the HVAC system 100 to operate the compressor 101 at the adjusted compressor speed. The adjusted compressor speed of step 214 may be one of either turning the compressor off, decreasing the speed of the compressor, or increasing the speed of the compressor. In embodiments where the HVAC system 100 is configured for heating mode, in steps 212-214 controller 150 may instead determine and communicate a command to the HVAC system 100 to operate heat pump 101 at an adjusted rate.”) [The desired time when the desired temperature is reached reads on “the first time interval”. Increasing the compressor speed so that the expected temperature is at the desired temperature within the desired time reads on “operating … to complete the cooling cycle”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Dudley and Brahme before them, to modify the cooling cycle control of the air conditioning system, to incorporate adjusting the compressor speed based on the desired temperature and the desired time for the temperature to reach the desired temperature.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow for the desired temperature being reached within the desired time. (Brahme: [0015] “… For example, the system may include a self-tuning algorithm that updates the actions (e.g., when to start the system, and at what speed to operate) based on forecasted weather and any changes in the controller configuration (e.g., starting temperature, desired temperature, and desired time for the desired temperature) for a particular house.”)
Regarding claim 8, Dudley and Brahme teach all the claimed features of claim 1. Dudley further teaches:
determining that the first time interval is complete; and determining a second temperature measurement. (Dudley: Column 3, lines 46-59 as discussed in claim 1) [Continued measurement after the prior predetermined time period has passed and the new predetermined time period has begun reads on “determing that the first time interval in complete” and “determining a second temperature measurement”.]
Regarding independent claim 11:
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Dudley and Brahme teach all the claimed features of claim 11.
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 8 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Claims 2-3, 5, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley, in view of Brahme, further in view of Mowris et al. (US 2021/0071888 A1) (“Mowris”).
Regarding claim 2, Dudley and Brahme teach all the claimed features of claim 1. Dudley further teaches:
determining, by the controller at a second time interval using the temperature sensor, that a second temperature measurement is greater than a high temperature threshold; (Dudley: Column 3, lines 46-59 as discussed in claim 1) [The sensed temperature continues exceeding the temperature limit T.sub.L1 at the predetermined time period for any one of iteration after its prior iteration reads on “a second temperature measurement is greater than a high temperature threshold”.]
determining, by the controller, that a capacity of the HVAC system is greater than a threshold capacity; and adjusting¸ by the controller, a setting of the HVAC system by a predetermined amount. (Dudley: Column 3 lines 59-68 “This process is continued until the temperature T.sub.D, of the discharge gas is reduced below the predetermined limit T.sub.L1 or the minimum compressed operating speed is reached as shown in block 42. The compressor will then continue to operate at that speed for the remaining portion of the cycle unless the discharge temperature T.sub.D again rises above the allowed limit T.sub.L1, in which case the speed is then further reduced, but not below the minimum compressor operating speed.”) [Reducing the compressor speed further, for example by 10%, reads on “adjusting … a setting … by a predetermined amount”. The minimum compressor operating speed reads on “a threshold capacity”, and the compressor operating speed not being set below the minimum compressor operating speed reads on “determining … that a capacity … is greater than a threshold capacity”.]
Dudley and Brahme do not expressly teach: determining, by the controller, that a cooling cycle of the air conditioning unit during the second time interval is complete.
Mowris teaches:
determining, by the controller, that a cooling cycle of the air conditioning unit during the second time interval is complete. (Mowris: [0060] “… From 2000 through 2018, the CEC has not recommended or required using the TS method to diagnose low capacity faults caused by low refrigerant charge, dirty air filters, blocked evaporator or condenser coils, low refrigerant charge, iced evaporator, faulty expansion device, restrictions, non-condensables, duct leakage, excess outdoor airflow or low thermostat setpoint which cause longer compressor operation and wasted energy.”) (Mowris: [0129] “If the heating signal or the cooling signal are detected or the thermostat call for heating or the thermostat call for cooling are detected during what was previously the unoccupied continuous fan-only operation and prior to reaching the TFT, then the FDD method performs at least one action selected from the group consisting of: energizing the fan relay to continue energizing the HVAC fan, and monitoring the HVAC system parameters, waiting for the completion of either the heating cycle duration P3 or cooling cycle duration P4 while continuing to energize the HVAC fan, and upon completion of either the heating cycle duration P3 or the cooling cycle duration P4, performing at least one action selected from the group consisting of: determining a variable fan-off time delay P2 based on the heating cycle duration P3 (including the heating on cycle and/or the heating off cycle) or the cooling cycle duration P4 (including the cooling on cycle and/or the cooling off cycle), energizing or continuing to energize the fan relay and the HVAC fan for the variable fan-off delay P2, waiting for the completion of the variable fan-off time delay P2, and de-energizing the fan relay and turning off the HVAC fan at the end of the variable fan-off delay P2.”) [Determining of the cooling cycle completion at any one of the cycles reads on “determining … that a cooling cycle … is complete”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Dudley, Brahme and Mowris before them, to modify the cooling cycle control of the air conditioning system, to incorporate a HVAC fan control when the cooling cycle of the compressor is completed.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow for the appropriate fan off-delay control when the cooling cycle is completed. (Mowris: [0129])
Regarding claim 3, Dudley, Brahme and Mowris teach all the claimed features of claims 1-2. Brahme further teaches:
determining, by the controller at a third time interval, that a cooling cycle during the third time interval is incomplete; and (Brahme: FIG. 2B) (Brahme: [0033] “In step 212, if the controller 150 determines that the expected temperature of the comfort zone 140 at the desired time will be different than the desired temperature then the controller 150 may determine an adjusted compressor speed. The adjusted compressor speed determined by controller 150 in step 212 may be determined based on at least the current speed of the compressor 101, the desired temperature, the current temperature, and the remaining time duration, where the remaining time duration is the time between the current time and the desired time. …”) [The desired time of the current operation duration reads on “a third time interval”. Determining that the expected temperature at the desired time will be different than the desired temperature reads on “determining … a cooling cycle … is incomplete”.]
operating, by the controller, the air conditioning unit to complete the cooling cycle during the third time interval. (Brahme: FIG. 2B) (Brahme: [0033] “In step 212, if the controller 150 determines that the expected temperature of the comfort zone 140 at the desired time will be different than the desired temperature then the controller 150 may determine an adjusted compressor speed. The adjusted compressor speed determined by controller 150 in step 212 may be determined based on at least the current speed of the compressor 101, the desired temperature, the current temperature, and the remaining time duration, where the remaining time duration is the time between the current time and the desired time. In step 214, the controller 150 may communicate a command to the HVAC system 100 to operate the compressor 101 at the adjusted compressor speed. The adjusted compressor speed of step 214 may be one of either turning the compressor off, decreasing the speed of the compressor, or increasing the speed of the compressor. In embodiments where the HVAC system 100 is configured for heating mode, in steps 212-214 controller 150 may instead determine and communicate a command to the HVAC system 100 to operate heat pump 101 at an adjusted rate.”) [The desired time when the desired temperature is reached reads on “the first time interval”. Increasing the compressor speed so that the expected temperature is at the desired temperature within the desired time reads on “operating … to complete the cooling cycle”.]
The motivation to combine Dudley and Brahme as described in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Dudley and Brahme teach all the claimed features of claim 1. Dudley further teaches:
determining, by the controller at a second time interval using the temperature sensor, that a second temperature measurement is greater than a high temperature threshold. (Dudley: Column 3, lines 46-59 as discussed in claim 1) [The sensed temperature continues exceeding the temperature limit T.sub.L1 at the predetermined time period for any one of iteration after its prior iteration reads on “a second temperature measurement is greater than a high temperature threshold”.]
Dudley and Brahme do not expressly teach: determining, by the controller, that a cooling cycle of the air conditioning unit during the second time interval is complete; determining, at a third time interval, that the capacity of the HVAC system is less than the threshold capacity; and determining that a third temperature measurement after completion of the cooling cycle is less than a low overshoot temperature setting.
Mowris teaches:
determining, by the controller, that a cooling cycle of the air conditioning unit during the second time interval is complete; (Mowris: [0060] “… From 2000 through 2018, the CEC has not recommended or required using the TS method to diagnose low capacity faults caused by low refrigerant charge, dirty air filters, blocked evaporator or condenser coils, low refrigerant charge, iced evaporator, faulty expansion device, restrictions, non-condensables, duct leakage, excess outdoor airflow or low thermostat setpoint which cause longer compressor operation and wasted energy.”) (Mowris: [0129] “If the heating signal or the cooling signal are detected or the thermostat call for heating or the thermostat call for cooling are detected during what was previously the unoccupied continuous fan-only operation and prior to reaching the TFT, then the FDD method performs at least one action selected from the group consisting of: energizing the fan relay to continue energizing the HVAC fan, and monitoring the HVAC system parameters, waiting for the completion of either the heating cycle duration P3 or cooling cycle duration P4 while continuing to energize the HVAC fan, and upon completion of either the heating cycle duration P3 or the cooling cycle duration P4, performing at least one action selected from the group consisting of: determining a variable fan-off time delay P2 based on the heating cycle duration P3 (including the heating on cycle and/or the heating off cycle) or the cooling cycle duration P4 (including the cooling on cycle and/or the cooling off cycle), energizing or continuing to energize the fan relay and the HVAC fan for the variable fan-off delay P2, waiting for the completion of the variable fan-off time delay P2, and de-energizing the fan relay and turning off the HVAC fan at the end of the variable fan-off delay P2.”) [Determining of the cooling cycle completion at any one of the cycles reads on “determining … that a cooling cycle … is complete”.]
determining, at a third time interval, that the capacity of the HVAC system is less than the threshold capacity; and (Mowris: [0075] “The main objects of the present invention are: (1) to provide reliable and efficient method to diagnose and detect HVAC system faults that reduce cooling or heating system capacity and efficiency; (2) to control fan operation when cooling sensible capacity or heating capacity are below a threshold”)
determining that a third temperature measurement after completion of the cooling cycle is less than a low overshoot temperature setting. (Mowris: [0025] “…In the heat mode when the triac (heat) is turned on, the differential may be 0.5° F., above the set temperature for a predetermined time period (6 minutes) and then decreased to the set temperature until the triac is turned off. When the triac is turned off, the differential is varied to be 0.5° F. less than the set temperature for 6 minutes and then is increased to the set temperature until the triac is turned back on. In the cooling cycle, the threshold differential characteristic is +/−0.5° F. for ten minutes versus the six minutes in heating mode. …”) [The −0.5° F for the cooling cycle turns off the reads on “a low overshoot temperature setting”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Dudley, Brahme and Mowris before them, to modify the cooling cycle control of the air conditioning system, to incorporate a HVAC fan control when the cooling cycle of the compressor is completed.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow for the appropriate fan off-delay control when the cooling cycle is completed. (Mowris: [0129])
Regarding claim 12, Dudley and Brahme teach all the claimed features of claim 11.
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 2 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 13, Dudley, Brahme and Mowris teach all the claimed features of claims 11-12.
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 3 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 15, Dudley and Brahme teach all the claimed features of claim 11.
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 5 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley, in view of Brahme, further in view of Mowris, further in view of Cary et al. (US 2006/0260334 A1) (“Cary”).
Regarding claim 4, Dudley, Brahme and Mowris teach all the claimed features of claims 1-2. Dudley, Brahme and Mowris do not expressly teach the recitations of claim 4.
Cary teaches:
determining, at a third time interval, that a third temperature measurement is less than the high temperature threshold; and causing the air conditioning unit to complete the cooling cycle during the third time interval. (Carey: [0011] “… As long as the sensed temperature is not less than the set point temperature at step 190 the air conditioner will continue to run. If the sensed temperature is less than the set point temperature at step 190, the processor will discontinue operation of the compressor and blower at step 200.”) [Current operating period reads on “a third time interval”. The sensed temperature at the current time reads on “a third temperature measurement”. The set point temperature reads on “the high temperature threshold”. Stopping the operation of the compressor and the blower reads on “causing … to complete the cooling cycle”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Dudley, Brahme, Mowris and Carey before them, to modify the cooling cycle control of the air conditioning system, to incorporate a continuous temperature reading in all operating periods.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow for the appropriate compressor control for the cooling cycle control. (Carey: [0011])
Regarding claim 14, Dudley, Brahme and Mowris teach all the claimed features of claims 11-12.
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 4 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley, in view of Brahme, further in view of Mowris, further in view of Kewekordes, II et al. (US 2023/0013263 A1) (“Kewekordes”). Kewekordes is a reference cited in the information disclosure statement submitted on 10/04/2024.
Regarding claim 6, Dudley, Brahme and Mowris teach all the claimed features of claims 1 and 5. Dudley, Brahme and Mowris do not expressly teach the recitations of claim 6.
Kewekordes teaches:
causing a gain setting to be adjusted by a predetermined amount. (Kewekordes: [0070] “In heating applications, the temperature controller 1 can auto-tune its control algorithm based on the measured thermal response resulting from the transport delay 6, thermal mass in the bath volume 3, heating capacity of the heating element 7A, thermal mass in the heated fluid volume 2 and mass flow rate 8. FIGS. 7A, 7B and 7C show implementation of auto-tuning process for setting control gains and error thresholds. FIG. 7A implements the initial temperature measurement and comparison sequence steps 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158 and 160; FIG. 7B implements the second temperature measurement and comparison sequence steps 188, 190, 192, 194, 196, 198, 200, 202, 204, 206, and 208; and FIG. 7C implements the category assignment process sequence steps 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, and 186.”; [0071] “The auto-tuning algorithm sets the linear PID control gains based on the measured response …”) [Implementing the category assignment process, as illustrated in FIG 7C, reads on “a gain setting … by a predetermined amount”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Dudley, Brahme, Mowris and Kewekordes before them, to modify the cooling cycle control of the air conditioning system, to incorporate auto-tuning the speed control.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow for the appropriate gain setting based on the auto-tuning. (Kewekordes: [0060] Controller 1 can use a fuzzy logic module 38 with the PID controller 30 to take corrective action of the process. The module 38 typically includes input fuzzy sets, module rules, and fuzzy output sets. The controller uses “fuzzy logic” to differentiate auto-tuned gains into several speed “groups” for additional optimization of the PID parameters and other runaway detection variables.”)
Regarding claim 16, Dudley, Brahme and Mowris teach all the claimed features of claims 11 and 15.
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 6 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudley, in view of Brahme, further in view of Mowris, further in view of ZHOU et al. (US 2018/0087498 A1) (“Zhou”).
Regarding claim 7, Dudley, Brahme and Mowris teach all the claimed features of claims 1 and 5. Dudley, Brahme and Mowris do not expressly teach the recitations of claim 7.
Zhou teaches:
causing an operational time setting to be adjusted by a predetermined amount. (Zhou: [0036] “With reference to FIG. 2A, in one embodiment, the disclosed method or algorithm 200 initiates at step 106 and proceeds to step 109 where a determination is made as to a required capacity of the conditioned space 104. The term “required capacity” means a capacity or speed of the variable speed compressor 137 that is necessary to achieve a predetermined temperature and/or a predetermined relative humidity.”) (Zhou: [0055] “If the operating state of the compressor 137 is determined to be in the running state 212, then the algorithm proceeds to step 235 where a time calculation is made. In one example, the time calculation involves calculating an amount of time the compressor will be turned on. In one instance, the time calculation is based on the required capacity calculated in step 109.”) [The compressor runtime reads on “an operational time setting”. The required capacity based on predetermined temperature reads on “a predetermined amount”.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Dudley, Brahme, Mowris and Zhou before them, to modify the cooling cycle control of the air conditioning system, to incorporate calculating the amount of time the compressor will be turned on based on the required capacity.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow for the appropriate time setting to meet the required capacity for the predetermined temperature. (Zhou: [0036] “With reference to FIG. 2A, in one embodiment, the disclosed method or algorithm 200 initiates at step 106 and proceeds to step 109 where a determination is made as to a required capacity of the conditioned space 104. The term “required capacity” means a capacity or speed of the variable speed compressor 137 that is necessary to achieve a predetermined temperature and/or a predetermined relative humidity.”)
Regarding claim 17, Dudley, Brahme and Mowris teach all the claimed features of claims 11 and 15.
The claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 7 and is rejected using the same teachings and rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Each of the Claims 9-10 and 19-20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-5069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights