DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to step 1 claim 1 is a method
According to step 2A, prong 1 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
That is Claim(s) 1-16, 20 are directed to a room area acquisition method.
Independent claim 1 recites:
setting a room area initial value according to an air conditioner model parameter;
acquiring a stable operation duration and a number of stop times of an air conditioner outdoor unit from starting up and stable operation to stopping at a temperature point;
estimating a deviation between the room area initial value and a room area actual value according to the stable operation duration and the number of stop times, and outputting a deviation result, wherein the deviation result comprises:
a current room area value is relatively large or a current room area value is relatively small;
adjusting the room area initial value according to the deviation result, and performing estimation again according to an adjusted room area value; and taking the current room area value as the room area actual value when a deviation result output by current estimation is different from a deviation result output by last estimation.
These limitations are directed to arranging human activity including an collection of data, performing observations, evaluations, judgements, and determining optimal results that could be performed using a paper and pencil. The steps of: “setting a room area initial value ….., acquiring a stable operation duration ……, estimating a deviation …., a current room area value …., adjusting the room area initial value ……., can be done using a piece of paper and pencil.
According to step 2A, prong 2 the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1-16 recite an additional element of a room, an air conditioner outdoor unit; also claim 20 recite an additional element of a processor. These elements simply apply the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by generally linking it to an air conditioner outdoor unit. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because these elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
According to step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because even though the claims recite a room, an air conditioner outdoor unit, and a processor the processor is not integrated into a practical application e.g. the processor controlling the air conditioning unit. Accordingly, the claim recite additional elements that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a room and an air conditioning unit – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Applicant may overcome the 101 rejection by reciting a processor or computer or controller that controls an air conditioner outdoor unit.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 3 and 4 each recites, “stable operation”. The is no antecedent basis for “stable operation” in line 4.
Claim 1` further recites, “…from starting up and stable operation to stopping at a temperature point”. It is not clear what all is meant and encompassed by the phrase, ““…from starting up and stable operation to stopping at a temperature point”. It is not clear what is “starting up and stable operation to stopping at a temperature point”.
Claim 1 further recites, “estimating a deviation between the room area initial value and a room area actual value according to the stable operation duration and the number of stop times, and outputting a deviation result, wherein the deviation result comprises: a current room area value is relatively large or a current room area value is relatively small”. It is not clear what all is meant and or encompassed by the recited phrase.
In the phrase, “estimating a deviation between the room area initial value and a room area actual value…” it is not clear how or why the room area is deviating. What is causing the room are to change?
In the phrase,”…. the room area initial value and a room area actual value…” are there two different rooms or this is referring to the same room. The claims need to particularly point out and distinctly recite the limitations.
In the phrase, “….a current room area value is relatively large or a current room area value is relatively small….” the room area value is relatively large or small in comparison to what?
In claim 1, line 11 the term, “estimation” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 18, the phrase, “and/or” is not clear because it is clear what is included or not included in the claims.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on a rejected base claim or for having similar deficiencies as the rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art, Burns (US 20200149761 A1) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights