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 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control unit” in claim 1, line 9 and claim 10, line 9. Although this apparatus is discussed in the specification (e.g. in ¶¶ 16-17 and 24) it is described only in terms of its connections and functions (e.g. being connected to the sensors for receiving data) and the structure of the “unit” is not described. Refer to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth below.
“a heating element” in line 4 of claim 6, line 6 of claim 14, and line 3 of claim 19, interpreted as a set of furnace coils in accordance with the teachings of ¶ 63 and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As discussed above, each of independent claims 1 and 10 teaches “a control unit”, invoking interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by the combination of the generic placeholder term “unit” with the functional language “control” (as well as teachings of specific control functions such as receiving measurements and modulating a heating operation). The specification discusses the functions of the control unit and its connections to other structure of the system such as the sensors but does not describe the structure of the claimed “unit” by which the function of “control” is to be performed. For this reason, claims 1 and 10 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement with regard to the claimed “control unit”.
Claims 2-9 and 11-15 are each rejected as depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-15 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.
As discussed above, each of independent claims 1 and 10 teaches “a control unit”, invoking interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) by the combination of the generic placeholder term “unit” with the functional language “control” (as well as teachings of specific control functions such as receiving measurements and modulating a heating operation). The specification discusses the functions of the control unit and its connections to other structure of the system such as the sensors but does not describe the structure of the claimed “unit” by which the function of “control” is to be performed so that it is not clear what structures for “control” would or would not fall within the scope of the claimed invention. For this reason, the scope of the invention cannot be positively ascertained and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
In line 3 of claim 15, the recitation of “the flue fan” lacks antecedent basis as neither claim 15 nor claim 10 upon which it depends includes any previous teaching of this element. Claim 14 teaches “a flue fan” in line 7 thereof, but because claim 15 is presented as depending upon claim 10 rather than on claim 14, it is not clear whether claim 15 is intended to include the limitations presented in claim 14 with regard to this flue fan (such as its placement in a combustion chamber of the furnace) and thus the scope of the claim with regard to the flue fan cannot be positively ascertained. For this reason, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 2-9 and 11-15 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
658
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-7, 10, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2010/0090017 A1 to Naghshineh in view of US Publication No. 2022/0214087 A1 to Lee et al.
Naghshineh teaches limitations from claim 1 in fig.1, shown above, a heating system with hybrid heating (taught as “hybrid heating system 10” in ¶ 13) for controlling heat and comfort of a building, the heating system comprising:
a heat pump (14) for exchanging heat;
a furnace (“non-electric second heat source 22”, taught in ¶ 16 as “a natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas furnace”) for heating air;
an upstream temperature sensor (16) located at an intake of the heating system (disposed at an intake of the blower 18 as shown in fig. 1);
a downstream temperature sensor (24) located at an outlet of the heating system (at the outlet of the second heat source 22 as shown in fig. 1); and
a control unit coupled to the heat pump and the furnace (while not explicitly taught, the output of the sensors is taught for example in ¶¶ 7 and 15 to control operation of the heat pump, implicitly teaching a control unit coupled to the heat pump to perform such control based on the sensor output), wherein the control unit:
receives readings from the upstream and downstream temperature sensors (as taught in ¶ 15),
controls operation of the heat pump and the furnace to achieve a desired temperature downstream (as taught in ¶¶ 15 and 18).
Naghshineh teaches the position of the temperature sensor 16 to be one which may be taken as “an intake of the heating system” (being the inlet of a component within the system), they do not teach a temperature sensor located at the inlet into the system and further do not teach the controller of the system receiving inputs from upstream and downstream humidity sensors, used in controlling the system and modulating a heating operation to achieve a desired downstream humidity.
PNG
media_image2.png
478
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches in fig. 2, shown above, a heat pump air conditioning system having an indoor unit (B) for taking in air (either as outdoor suction air at hole 16 or as indoor circulation air at hole 17) conditioning it using heat exchanger coils (13 and 14) and supplying it to a conditioned space (at a hole 18 as taught in ¶¶ 73 and 80), and teaches in that ¶ 83 that each of the holes (16, 17, 18) through which air is introduced into or exhausted from the indoor unit (B) is provided with a respective sensor (19, 20, 20) communicated with a control unit and configured to sense the temperature and humidity of air at its location (or configured as separate temperature and humidity sensors disposed at each location) with the coils (13 and 14) of the indoor unit (B) and mixture of air taken from the holes (16 and 17) controlled to condition air flowing therethrough to maintain the temperature and humidity of air at the discharge hole (18) at constant values (as taught in ¶ 74 and 79-80). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Naghshineh with the temperature and humidity sensing taught by Lee in order to ensure user comfort by allowing air to be provided at both a desired temperature and a desired humidity level and to prevent undesirable and uncomfortable fluctuations in both of these parameters.
Regarding claim 2, Naghshineh does not teach the furnace being disposed “in an upstream airflow communication with the heat pump” (the second heat source 22 shown downstream from the heat exchanger 12 of the heat pump 14 in fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have found it to be an obvious mechanical expedient to arrange the heat pump and furnace in his manner because the courts have found that the rearrangement of the working parts of a system is a matter of obvious design choice and does not carry patentable weight when the rearrangement would not have modified the operation of the system. In support of the finding that this rearrangement of the heat pump and furnace would not modify the operation of the system, it is noted that the instant application recites and claims both the downstream arrangement (shown in fig. 1C, taught in ¶ 50 of the specification, and claimed in claim 3) and the upstream arrangement (shown in fig. 1B, taught in ¶ 29 of the specification, and claimed in claim 2) of the furnace and heat pump, thus showing that the arrangement of these two elements does not substantially alter the operation of a heating system as neither is critical to the operation. See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale and particularly subsection (VI)(C) regarding Rearrangement of Parts as well as In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Naghshineh teaches limitations from claim 3 in fig. 1, shown above, heating system with hybrid heating for controlling heat and comfort of the building as claimed in claim 1, wherein the furnace (second heat source 22) is in a downstream airflow communication with the heat pump (from the heat exchanger 12 of the heat pump 14 as shown by the arrows indicating the airflow direction shown in fig. 1).
Naghshineh teaches limitations from claim 4, the heating system with hybrid heating for controlling heat and comfort of the building as claimed in claim 1, wherein the furnace (22) is activated to supplement the heat pump (14) when the heat pump is operating at maximum heating capacity (as taught in ¶ 17, “when the first heat output of the heat pump 14 is, by itself, insufficient to reach and maintain the desired indoor temperature”).
Naghshineh teaches limitations from claim 5, the heating system with hybrid heating for controlling heat and comfort of the building as claimed in claim 1, wherein the heat pump (14) comprises:
a … fan (blower 18); …
and wherein the control unit is configured to modulate the heating operation of the heat pump (14) by varying [the operation of the heat pump] and the [speed] of the … fan (as taught in ¶ 17, the operations of the heat pump and the controller are each controlled “with regard to reaching and maintaining the desired indoor temperature”.)
Naghshineh does not explicitly teach the heat pump to include a compressor which is controlled to control the heat pump’s output or a fan of the system to be an intake fan. Lee teaches in fig. 2, shown above, the heat pump of his invention including a fan (shown in the pressure chamber 11 of the indoor unit B in fig. 2) disposed at the intake of the unit (at the air suction holes 16 and 17) for providing a stream of air to the coils (13 and 14) of the system and teaches in ¶¶ 33 and 149-150 that a compressor (53 and/or 54) of the system may be an inverter compressor having a variable drive frequency which may be raised or lowered to increase the heat exchange capacity of the system and the output of the heat pump. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Naghshineh with the intake fan and variable frequency compressors taught by Naghshineh in order to allow the airflow over the heat exchange coil(s) and the respective temperature of the coil(s) of Naghshineh to be more precisely controlled for maintaining desired levels of temperature and humidity of the air supplied to the space to be conditioned and to ensure user comfort.
Naghshineh teaches limitations from claim 6 in fig. 1, shown above, the heating system with hybrid heating for controlling heat and comfort of the building as claimed in claim 1, wherein the furnace (22) comprises:
a blower fan (18) to move airflow through the heating system (11); and
a heating element (one or both of the heat exchangers 20A and 20B of the second heat source 22), and
wherein the control unit is configured to modulate the heating operation of the furnace by varying speed of the blower fan and heating intensity of the heating element (as taught in ¶ 17, both the heat source 22 and the blower 18 may be controlled to reach and maintain the desired indoor temperature).
Naghshineh as modified by Lee and discussed above teaches limitations from claim 7, in fig. 2 of Lee, shown above, the heating system with hybrid heating for controlling heat and comfort of the building as claimed in claim 1, wherein the upstream temperature sensor and the upstream humidity sensor (the combined or separate sensors 21 taught in ¶ 83 of Lee) are located at an exit port of the furnace (at the exhaust hole 18 of the indoor unit B of Lee, or at the exhaust opening B of the unit 11 of Naghshineh according to the modification of this unit with the teachings of Lee as discussed in the above rejection of claim 1).
Naghshineh teaches limitations from claim 10 in fig. 1, shown above, a heating system (taught as “hybrid heating system 10” in ¶ 13) for heating upstream air to provide downstream air to a building, the heating system comprising:
a heat pump (14) comprising a coil (12) for exchanging heat;
a furnace (“non-electric second heat source 22”, taught in ¶ 16 as “a natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas furnace”):
positioned downstream to the coil (12, as shown in fig. 1), and
in airflow communication with the coil (12, as shown in fig. 1),
a plurality of sensors (16 and 24) to measure upstream and downstream temperature of the heating system (upstream and downstream of the heat exchangers 20A and 20B of the second heat source 11 as shown in fig. 1); and
a control unit (while not explicitly taught, the output of the sensors is taught for example in ¶¶ 7 and 15 to control operation of the heat pump, implicitly teaching a control unit coupled to the heat pump to perform such control based on the sensor output) that is configured to:
receive readings from the plurality of sensors (16 and 24) for upstream and downstream temperature,
control operation of the heat pump and the furnace to achieve a desired temperature downstream (as taught in ¶¶ 17-18).
Naghshineh teaches the position of the temperature sensor 16 to be one which may be taken as “an intake of the heating system” (being the inlet of a component within the system), they do not teach a temperature sensor located at the inlet into the system and further do not teach the controller of the system receiving inputs from upstream and downstream humidity sensors, used in controlling the system and modulating a heating operation to achieve a desired downstream humidity. Lee teaches in fig. 2, shown above, a heat pump air conditioning system having an indoor unit (B) for taking in air (either as outdoor suction air at hole 16 or as indoor circulation air at hole 17) conditioning it using heat exchanger coils (13 and 14) and supplying it to a conditioned space (at a hole 18 as taught in ¶¶ 73 and 80), and teaches in that ¶ 83 that each of the holes (16, 17, 18) through which air is introduced into or exhausted from the indoor unit (B) is provided with a respective sensor (19, 20, 20) communicated with a control unit and configured to sense the temperature and humidity of air at its location (or configured as separate temperature and humidity sensors disposed at each location) with the coils (13 and 14) of the indoor unit (B) and mixture of air taken from the holes (16 and 17) controlled to condition air flowing therethrough to maintain the temperature and humidity of air at the discharge hole (18) at constant values (as taught in ¶ 74 and 79-80). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Naghshineh with the temperature and humidity sensing taught by Lee in order to ensure user comfort by allowing air to be provided at both a desired temperature and a desired humidity level and to prevent undesirable and uncomfortable fluctuations in both of these parameters.
Naghshineh teaches limitations from claim 16 in fig.1, shown above, a method for controlling heat and comfort of a building by a hybrid heating system (taught as “hybrid heating system 10” in ¶ 13), the method comprising:
receiving readings from upstream and downstream temperature sensors (16 and 24, upstream and downstream of the heat exchangers 20A and 20B of the second heat source 22 as shown in fig. 1),
controlling operation of a heat pump (14) and a furnace (“non-electric second heat source 22”, taught in ¶ 16 as “a natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas furnace”) to achieve a desired temperature downstream (as taught in ¶¶ 17-18).
Naghshineh teaches the position of the temperature sensor 16 to be one which may be taken as “an intake of the heating system” (being the inlet of a component within the system), they do not teach a temperature sensor located at the inlet into the system and further do not teach the controller of the system receiving inputs from upstream and downstream humidity sensors, used in controlling the system and modulating a heating operation to achieve a desired downstream humidity. Lee teaches in fig. 2, shown above, a heat pump air conditioning system having an indoor unit (B) for taking in air (either as outdoor suction air at hole 16 or as indoor circulation air at hole 17) conditioning it using heat exchanger coils (13 and 14) and supplying it to a conditioned space (at a hole 18 as taught in ¶¶ 73 and 80), and teaches in that ¶ 83 that each of the holes (16, 17, 18) through which air is introduced into or exhausted from the indoor unit (B) is provided with a respective sensor (19, 20, 20) communicated with a control unit and configured to sense the temperature and humidity of air at its location (or configured as separate temperature and humidity sensors disposed at each location) with the coils (13 and 14) of the indoor unit (B) and mixture of air taken from the holes (16 and 17) controlled to condition air flowing therethrough to maintain the temperature and humidity of air at the discharge hole (18) at constant values (as taught in ¶ 74 and 79-80). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Naghshineh with the temperature and humidity sensing taught by Lee in order to ensure user comfort by allowing air to be provided at both a desired temperature and a desired humidity level and to prevent undesirable and uncomfortable fluctuations in both of these parameters.
Regarding the limitations of claim 17, refer to the above rejections of claim 15 on which claim 17 depends and claim 4 which presents equivalent limitations.
Regarding the limitations of claim 18, refer to the above rejections of claim 15 on which claim 18 depends and claim 5 which presents equivalent limitations.
Regarding the limitations of claim 19, refer to the above rejections of claim 15 on which claim 19 depends and claim 6 which presents equivalent limitations.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naghshineh and Lee as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2004/0000152 A1 to Fischer et al.
Regarding claim 8, Naghshineh teaches a heating system having a heat pump and a fossil fuel furnace arranged in series for heating a flow of air through an air handler unit. Lee teaches a heat pump air handler unit controlled on the basis of sensed temperature and humidity at both the inlet and the outlet of the unit. Neither Naghshineh nor Lee teaches the furnace comprising a modulated regulator controlling the furnace as a function of desired downstream humidity. Fischer teaches in their abstract and in ¶¶ 62-63 a furnace used in a hybrid air conditioning system for controlling temperature and humidity in a space, the furnace comprising a butterfly valve for controlling the flow of gas to a burner of the furnace, the butterfly valve controlled based on input from a “temperature and/or humidity sensor” to a control module. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Naghshineh with the humidity-controlled butterfly valve taught by Fischer in order to ensure that the operation of the furnace is tailored as closely as possible to the instant conditions in which the system operates in order to ensure efficient and effective control of the system.
Regarding the limitations of claim 20, refer to the above rejections of claim 15 on which claim 20 depends and claim 8 which presents equivalent limitations.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naghshineh and Lee as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2014/0048244 A1 to Wallace.
Regarding claim 9, Naghshineh teaches a heating system having a heat pump and a fossil fuel furnace arranged in series for heating a flow of air through an air handler unit. Lee teaches a heat pump air handler unit controlled on the basis of sensed temperature and humidity at both the inlet and the outlet of the unit. Neither Naghshineh nor Lee teaches the system comprising a hydronic heat exchanger controlled as a function of the desired downstream humidity. Wallace teaches in their abstract and in ¶¶ 81 and 90, a hydronic building system including a hydronic coil-to-air heat exchanger (42) as well as a heat pump (72) for conditioning air flowing to a space, the hydronic coil-to-air heat exchanger (42) controlled on the basis of sensor inputs reflecting the temperature and humidity of the space relative to desired or set point values. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Naghshineh with the hydronic heat exchange system and the control thereof taught by Wallace in order to improve the efficiency of the system by allowing waste heating or cooling capacity to be stored in a supply of water for circulation to condition the space in response to a later demand without requiring operation of the compressor of the heat pump or the burner of the furnace.
PNG
media_image3.png
464
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naghshineh and Lee as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,257,958 to Jagers.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Naghshineh teaches a heating system having a heat pump and a fossil fuel furnace arranged in series for heating a flow of air through an air handler unit. Lee teaches a heat pump air handler unit controlled on the basis of sensed temperature and humidity at both the inlet and the outlet of the unit. Neither Naghshineh nor Lee teaches the system including a diverter positioned in airflow communication with the heat pump and furnace and having an inlet and two outlets respective arranged to direct airflow towards a furnace zone of the furnace and bypassing the furnace zone as taught in claim 11, these outlets being controlled selectively or partially as taught in claim 12. Jagers teaches in fig. 1, shown above, and in col. 3, lines 4-34, an air treatment unit having an air heater (12) comprising a burner (34) provided with an air-flow controlling section having an air inlet (20) and a pair of air outlets (22 and 24) of which one (22) provides air to the burner (34) and one directs air to bypass the burner (34) as taught in claim 11, the system controlling dampers (26 and 28) to control the admittance of air to the burner via a damper control (72) and damper positioner (38) as taught in claim 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Naghshineh with the furnace bypassing dampers taught by Jagers in order to control the heating of air by the furnace and the temperature and humidity of air provided to the outlet, providing flexibility of control and user comfort.
PNG
media_image4.png
620
792
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Naghshineh as modified by Jagers as discussed above teaches limitations from claim 13 in fig. 1X, a version of Jagers’s fig. 1 annotated by examiner and reproduced above, the heating system for heating upstream air to provide downstream air to the building, the heating system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the first outlet comprises a first baffle (either of the internal walls A or B identified in annotated fig. 1X) and the second outlet comprises a second baffle (either of the internal walls B or C identified in annotated fig. 1X), the first baffle and the second baffle are installed at a predefined angle with respect to a base of the furnace (being fixed in the housing of the unit (12) and thus fixed relative to the base (14) on which it is installed.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naghshineh, Lee, and Jagers as applied to claims 10 and 11 above, and further in view of US Publication No. 2017/0167744 A1 to Arensmeier et al.
PNG
media_image5.png
460
654
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Naghshineh teaches a heating system having a heat pump and a fossil fuel furnace arranged in series for heating a flow of air through an air handler unit. Although Naghshineh does not teach the system including a blower fan (18) forcing air through the heat pump and furnace heat exchangers, Naghshineh does not teach furnace including a blower and a combustion chamber which comprises a heating element, a flue fan, and a heat exchanger in airflow communication with the chamber. Arensmeier teaches in fig. 2A, shown above, an air hander unit (136) having a gas furnace installed in an airflow path (formed between a return air plenum 228 to a supply air plenum 236), the furnace having a burner (120), an inducer blower (132) and a heat exchanger (124) equivalent to the claimed heating element, flue fan, and heat exchanger of claim 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify Naghshineh with the furnace structure taught by Arensmeier in order to allow the supply of fuel to and removal of exhaust gases from the furnace of Naghshineh ensuring safe, effective and reliable operation of the furnace.
Naghshineh as modified by Lee and Arensmeier as discussed above teaches limitations from claim 15, in fig. 2A of Arensmeier, the heating system for heating upstream air to provide downstream air to the building, the heating system as claimed in claim 10, wherein the control unit is further configured to control the flue fan as a function of the desired downstream humidity teaches in ¶ 8 that the inducer fan (132) to be controlled to operate based on the timing of operation of the burner (120, remaining active while the burner is operating and running for a set period after the burner 120 turns off. Regarding the operation of the furnace on the basis of a sensed humidity, refer to the above rejection of claim 10).
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
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights