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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-15, & 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 should read “units[[,]] which are respectively”
Claim 7, lines 2-3 should read “and the non-selected flow producing unit is at least temporarily operated[[,]] if the standstill”
Claim 8, lines 3-4 should read “when selecting the flow producing units from the flow producer group, the flow producing units are prioritized.”
Claim 9, line 2 should read “flow producing unit[[,]] which is”
Claim 10, lines 1-2 should read “parameter is
Claim 11, line 4 should read “flow, wherein the flow producing units are”
Claim 14, line 4 should read “is a motor controller of the electric”
Claim 20, lines 2-3 should read “and the non-selected flow producing unit is at least temporarily operated[[,]] if the standstill duration exceeds a maximum duration.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “flow producing units” and “flow producing unit” in claims 1-24-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17-18.
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 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 1-2, 4-15, & 17-20 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 recites the phrasing “can be” to describe potential group control within the claim. However, the phrasing “can be” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether or not the limitations construed with this phrasing are actually present in the invention or not. Thus, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 13 recites the limitation “its individual operation limitation”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the “repeatedly determined individual operation limitations” recited earlier the claim or 2) introducing another individual operation limitation altogether. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, rendering the claim, as a whole, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this limitation using the first interpretation.
Claim 11 recites the phrasing “can be” to describe potential group control within the claim. However, the phrasing “can be” renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether or not the limitations construed with this phrasing are actually present in the invention or not. Thus, the claimed scope is rendered unclear, and hence, indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11, line 12 recites the limitation “its individual operation limitation”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the “repeatedly determined individual operation limitations” recited earlier the claim or 2) introducing another individual operation limitation altogether. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, rendering the claim, as a whole, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this limitation using the first interpretation.
Claim 13, line 3 recites the limitation “one individual local control unit”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the “multiple local control units” recited earlier the claim or 2) introducing another local control unit altogether. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, rendering the claim, as a whole, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this limitation using the first interpretation.
Claim 14, line 3 recites the limitation “one individual local control unit”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the “multiple local control units” recited earlier the claim or 2) introducing another local control unit altogether. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, rendering the claim, as a whole, indefinite. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has interpreted this limitation using the first interpretation.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-12, 15, & 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0191506 to Landreth et al.
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 11, and with particular reference to Figures 1, 2b, & 3, Landreth et al. (Landreth) discloses:
1. A method (100; Fig. 2) for operating a flow producing system (Fig. 1A) comprising a control device (26, 30, 44) and a flow producer group (29) that can be controlled by means of the control device and that comprises multiple flow producing units (21), which are respectively configured to create an individual fluid flow (Fig. 1A), wherein the flow producing units are fluidically connected with a common flow space (10, 13A), wherein the method comprises: setting at least one set point parameter (“internal air pressure”; “total induced airflow”; “air pressure generated by the overall fan array”; para. 3, 6, 9, 21) that is to be controlled for atmosphere in the flow space (“send fan speed control signals to the fans 21 according to instructions from the central cooling system control 44”; para. 33), selecting at least one flow producing unit from the flow producer group (“operational fans”; paras. 22, 50) and determining an individual set point operating condition (“fan speed”; para. 50) for each selected flow producing unit under consideration of repeatedly (“method 100 then returns to operation 101 wherein the fan array fault response control system 30 repeats the method 100 and continues to monitor the fans 21”; para. 40) determined individual operation limitations (“minimum and/or maximum speeds”; “speed limits”; paras. 50-51; “processor 31 determines that speed limiting should be employed if a sensed portion of the cooling tower 10 is vibrating with a magnitude or frequency above a predetermined threshold”; para. 46) in order to control the at least one set point parameter (“to inhibit the operational fans from having backflow issues caused by the air pressure generated by the overall fan array”; para. 21), and wherein each flow producing unit is operated in multiple different operating conditions (“criteria”; para. 22; in other words, differing combinations of operational and non-operational fans that occur throughout operation of the array, as is apparent in Figs. 3A-4D) for determination of its individual operation limitation (paras. 22, 46-52).
11. A flow producing system (Fig. 1A) comprising a control device (26, 30, 44) and a flow producer group (29) that can be controlled by means of the control device and that comprises multiple flow producing units (21) that are respectively configured to create an individual fluid flow (Fig. 1A), whereby the flow producing units are fluidically connected to a common flow space (10, 13A), wherein the control device is configured to carry out the following method: setting at least one set point parameter (“internal air pressure”; “total induced airflow”; “air pressure generated by the overall fan array”; para. 3, 6, 9, 21) to be controlled for the flow space (“send fan speed control signals to the fans 21 according to instructions from the central cooling system control 44”; para. 33), selecting at least one flow producing unit (“operational fans”; paras. 22, 50) from the flow producer group and determining an individual set point operating condition (“fan speed”; para. 50) for each selected flow producing unit under consideration of repeatedly (“method 100 then returns to operation 101 wherein the fan array fault response control system 30 repeats the method 100 and continues to monitor the fans 21”; para. 40) determined individual operation limitations (“minimum and/or maximum speeds”; “speed limits”; paras. 50-51; “processor 31 determines that speed limiting should be employed if a sensed portion of the cooling tower 10 is vibrating with a magnitude or frequency above a predetermined threshold”; para. 46) in order to control the at least one set point parameter (“to inhibit the operational fans from having backflow issues caused by the air pressure generated by the overall fan array”; para. 21), and wherein each flow producing unit is operated in multiple different operating conditions (“criteria”; para. 22; in other words, differing combinations of operational and non-operational fans that occur throughout operation of the array, as is apparent in Figs. 3A-4D) for determination of its individual operation limitation (paras. 22, 46-52).
In regards to Claim 2, the individual operation limitations (i.e. speed limits; vibration limits) of the flow producing units are repeatedly determined in a time-triggered and/or event-triggered manner (“upon detecting a failure of one or more of the fans of the fan array, an alarm is operated. The alarm triggers a fan motor speed control system of the fan array fault response control system to set speed limits for the operational fans of the fan array”; para. 22; “processor 31 determines that speed limiting should be employed if a sensed portion of the cooling tower 10 is vibrating with a magnitude or frequency above a predetermined threshold. If speed limiting is not required at operation 111, the method 100 proceeds to operation 105 discussed above.”; para. 46).
In regards to Claims 4 & 17, for the determination of the individual operation limitation of a flow producing unit, operating conditions having different mechanical and/or electrical power of the flow producing unit are set (paras. 22-23, 40, & 46-52 make clear that the fan array monitoring method repeatedly/continuously monitors the fan array for fan failures, each cycle of which produces different minimum/maximum speed limits according to a given failed fan that implicitly provides different mechanical and/or electrical power settings (i.e. speeds) of the flow producing unit).
In regards to Claims 5 & 18, for determination of the individual operation limitation (“vibration”; para. 46) of a flow producing unit, a monitored parameter (vibration magnitude/frequency) that depends on operation of the flow producing unit is determined and it is checked whether the monitored parameter is within a predefined allowable range (para. 46; “if a sensed portion of the cooling tower 10 is vibrating with a magnitude or frequency above a predetermined threshold”).
In regards to Claims 6 & 19, the monitored parameter is an oscillation parameter (“vibration”; para. 46).
In regards to Claim 9, each individual operation limitation (i.e. speed limit) defines at least one operating condition (i.e. a speed-regulation condition) of the respective flow producing unit (i.e. a speed-limited fan), which is inappropriate for a stationary operation of the flow producing unit (paras. 50-51 make clear that minimum speed limits are implemented to avoid stationary operation of the operational fans).
In regards to Claim 10, the at least one set point parameter is or are one or more of the following indicated parameters in arbitrary combination: a pressure of the atmosphere in the flow space, a temperature of the atmosphere in the flow space, a humidity of the atmosphere in the flow space, a flow velocity of a total fluid flow in the flow space and/or a volume flow rate of the total fluid flow in the flow space (“internal air pressure”; “total induced airflow”; “air pressure generated by the overall fan array”; para. 3, 6, 9, 21).
In regards to Claim 12, each flow producing unit (21) additionally comprises a controllable electric motor (22; Fig. 1A) and a rotor (21A; Fig. 1A) that is drivingly connected with the electric motor (para. 29).
In regards to Claim 15, the control device comprises a superordinate control (44) that is communicatively connected with the flow producing units (Fig. 1B).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-15, & 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,188,355 to Allen et al.
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 11, and with particular reference to Figures 1, 2b, & 3, Allen et al. (Allen) discloses:
1. A method (Figs. 8-12) for operating a flow producing system (Fig. 1) comprising a control device (110, 112, 120, 300) and a flow producer group (100) that can be controlled by means of the control device and that comprises multiple flow producing units (210), which are respectively configured to create an individual fluid flow (Fig. 1), wherein the flow producing units are fluidically connected with a common flow space (col. 10, lines 49-64; “computer housing”), wherein the method comprises: setting at least one set point parameter (“maintain thermostat readings in a cooling system at below a predetermined maximum”; “requirements presented to the controller by the external control device, such as a thermostat, remote control means or a humidity sensor”; “the fan array controller may be adapted to respond to requests determined and made by such a ventilation control device”) that is to be controlled for atmosphere in the flow space (“the fan array controller is capable of reading the static and dynamic data stored on board each fan in order to automatically configure the system and to efficiently deploy the fans of the system in a manner that is responsive to requirements presented to the controller by the external control device, such as a thermostat, remote control means or a humidity sensor”), selecting at least one flow producing unit (any combination of fans 210) from the flow producer group (100) and determining an individual set point operating condition (i.e. fan duty cycle, fan run time, fan rest time, fan current, fan temperature) for each selected flow producing unit under consideration of repeatedly (“after a pre-determined period of time, the ventilation fan system in accordance with either embodiment of the invention reconfigures fan deployment to meet ventilation demands”) determined individual operation limitations (“MTBF”; “on-cycle specification data”; “dynamic data”) in order to control the at least one set point parameter, and wherein each flow producing unit is operated in multiple different operating conditions for determination of its individual operation limitation (“MTBF of a particular type of fan is referred to as a predicted elapsed time between failures of the fan during operation, and it is calculated by the manufacturer as the arithmetic mean (average) time between failures for that type of fan”; “dynamic fan data may be derived from sensors and/or system clock, logic and memory on the array controller”).
11. A flow producing system (Fig. 1) comprising a control device (110, 112, 120, 300) and a flow producer group (100) that can be controlled by means of the control device (Fig. 1) and that comprises multiple flow producing units (210) that are respectively configured to create an individual fluid flow (Fig. 1), whereby the flow producing units are fluidically connected to a common flow space (col. 10, lines 49-64; “computer housing”), wherein the control device is configured to carry out the following method: setting at least one set point parameter to be controlled for the flow space (“maintain thermostat readings in a cooling system at below a predetermined maximum”; “requirements presented to the controller by the external control device, such as a thermostat, remote control means or a humidity sensor”; “the fan array controller may be adapted to respond to requests determined and made by such a ventilation control device”), selecting at least one flow producing unit (any combination of fans 210) from the flow producer group (100) and determining an individual set point operating condition (i.e. fan duty cycle, fan run time, fan rest time, fan current, fan temperature) for each selected flow producing unit under consideration of repeatedly (“after a pre-determined period of time, the ventilation fan system in accordance with either embodiment of the invention reconfigures fan deployment to meet ventilation demands”; “coordinated control routines”) determined individual operation limitations (“MTBF”; “on-cycle specification data”; “dynamic hours in service”) in order to control the at least one set point parameter, and wherein each flow producing unit is operated in multiple different operating conditions for determination of its individual operation limitation (“MTBF of a particular type of fan is referred to as a predicted elapsed time between failures of the fan during operation, and it is calculated by the manufacturer as the arithmetic mean (average) time between failures for that type of fan”; “dynamic fan data may be derived from sensors and/or system clock, logic and memory on the array controller”).
In regards to Claim 2, the individual operation limitations of the flow producing units are repeatedly determined in a time-triggered and/or event- triggered manner (“coordinated control routines, including add ventilation, subtract ventilation and recycle array routines. These routines are deployed depending upon system requirements and input from other called routines that present fan data to the controller. These routines utilize a calculation for determining the remaining lifetime of the fans in the system that divides dynamic hours in service data by static anticipated mean-time-between-failure data to determine anticipated remaining fan life”).
In regards to Claims 4 & 17, for the determination of the individual operation limitation of a flow producing unit, operating conditions (“dynamic data”) having different mechanical and/or electrical power of the flow producing unit are set (“The system is then capable of using the static and dynamic fan data, received either from the plurality of ventilation fans, from sensors, or from system memory, to lengthen the useful life of the ventilation fan system by deploying least used fans having the longest remaining life”; “The start_delay static fan data value, suggested eight bits, specifies the minimum amount of time, in seconds, that a selected smart fan needs to spin up to full speed once power is applied to the fan motor control circuit, whereas the stop.sub.— delay value, suggested eight bits, specifies the minimum amount of time in seconds that the selected smart fan needs to come to a full stop once power is removed from the motor circuit”).
In regards to Claims 5 & 18, for determination of the individual operation limitation (“dynamic hours in service”) of a flow producing unit, a monitored parameter (“dynamic fan data, a particular fan's current total time in use”) that depends on operation of the flow producing unit is determined and it is checked whether the monitored parameter is within a predefined allowable range (“a particular fan's current total time in use may be compared with its rated MTBF to suggest replacement and perhaps limited further use strategies”).
In regards to Claim 7, a standstill duration (“off_cycle static fan data value”) of a non-selected flow producing unit is determined and the flow producing unit is at least temporarily operated, if the standstill duration exceeds a maximum duration (“the amount of time, in seconds, that a fan should remain at rest before being returned to service. Of course, if an emergency were to exist, and the only fan that was available to meet demands of the target environment, then, as further described below, the system should be enabled to override the off_cycle time requirement”).
In regards to Claim 8, a total operation parameter (“MTBF”) of each flow producing unit is determined (Fig. 6; “fans are rated by a manufacturer specification of mean-time-between-failure (MTBF) designating the number of hours that the fan, on average, will run before it risks end of life types of failure”) and wherein when selecting the flow producing units from the flow producer group the flow producing units are prioritized that have a total operation parameter characterizing lower stress of the flow producing unit (“a particular fan's current total time in use may be compared with its rated MTBF to suggest replacement and perhaps limited further use strategies, given the status of other fans, and their data, as determined by system logic”; “static fan data values described above, including fan serial number, MTBF in hours, on_cycle, off_cycle, start_delay, stop_delay, rotations per minute (RPM), cubic feet per minute (CFM), maximum current and maximum temperature, are used by the various system routines to determine which fans to turn on and which fans to turn off when responding to commands from an external controller pursuant to the goals of the system to efficiently utilize MTBF hours”).
In regards to Claim 10, the at least one set point parameter is or are one or more of the following indicated parameters in arbitrary combination: a pressure of the atmosphere in the flow space, a temperature of the atmosphere in the flow space, a humidity of the atmosphere in the flow space, a flow velocity of a total fluid flow in the flow space and/or a volume flow rate of the total fluid flow in the flow space (“maintain thermostat readings in a cooling system at below a predetermined maximum”; “requirements presented to the controller by the external control device, such as a thermostat, remote control means or a humidity sensor”).
In regards to Claim 12, each flow producing unit (210) additionally comprises a controllable electric motor (240) and a rotor (232) that is drivingly connected with the electric motor (Figs. 2a-2b).
In regards to Claim 13, the control device (110, 112, 120, 300) comprises multiple local control units (112) communicatively connected with one another (via network 117; Figs. 1-2b) and wherein each flow producing unit comprises one individual local control unit (112; Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 14, the control device (110, 112, 120, 300) comprises multiple local control units (112) communicatively connected with one another (via network 117; Fig. 1) and wherein each flow producing unit comprises one individual local control unit (112; Fig. 1), and wherein each local control unit is a motor control (264) of the electric motor (Figs. 2a-2b).
In regards to Claim 15, the control device (110, 112, 120, 300) comprises a superordinate control (110) that is communicatively connected with the flow producing units (Fig. 1; “Commands for controlling the smart fan array system are primarily received from an external ventilation control device 110 networked via network 119 to the controller 300”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landreth (applied above) in view of Allen (applied above).
In regards to Claim 20, Landreth discloses the method according to claim 19, but does not further disclose that a standstill duration of a non-selected flow producing unit is determined and the non-selected flow producing unit is at least temporarily operated, if the standstill duration exceeds a maximum duration.
However, as noted previously above for Claim 7, Allen clearly discloses that a standstill duration (“off_cycle static fan data value”) of a non-selected flow producing unit is determined and the flow producing unit is at least temporarily operated, if the standstill duration exceeds a maximum duration (“the amount of time, in seconds, that a fan should remain at rest before being returned to service. Of course, if an emergency were to exist, and the only fan that was available to meet demands of the target environment, then, as further described below, the system should be enabled to override the off_cycle time requirement”). Allen makes clear that by monitoring/controlling rest periods for each flow producing unit (selected or non-selected), the program logic of the controller is enabled to function to determine whether a fan is in use, or not, available or not, or otherwise struggling, in order to allow making of a determination of how the fan may continue to be used, or not used, in meeting system requirements while extending fan lifetime (see also step 1250 in Fig. 12). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a fan control method that optimizes fan lifetime through designated rest periods, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Allen in combination with those seen in Landreth in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Landreth’s controller logic with the rest period methodology and optimization taught in Allen in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a fan array that maximizes individual fan lifetime.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See also US 11,181,118 to Fessel and US 2016/0293314 to Wang et al., both of which disclose multi-fan control systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights