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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending in this application.
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.
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 number-of-operating-device determination unit configured to determine an increase or a decrease in the number of operating devices (recites in claim 1; disclosed in the specification as part of the control calculation unit 583, See FIG.20).
a standby time determination unit configured to determine a length of the standby time (recites in claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8; disclosed in the specification as part of the control calculation unit 583, See FIG.20).
a thermal load calculation unit configured to calculate thermal load information (recites in claims 2 and 5; disclosed in the specification as part of the control calculation unit 583, See FIG.20).
an accumulation unit configured to accumulate the thermal load information (recites in claims 2, 4 and 5; disclosed in the specification as a storage unit 582, See FIG.20 and [0215]).
a deviation information output unit configured to output deviation information (recites in claim 9; disclosed in the specification as output unit 584, See FIG.20).
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.
As noted, placeholders “a number-of-operating-device determination unit”, “a standby time determination unit”, “a thermal load calculation unit”, “an accumulation unit”, and “a deviation information output unit” are disclosed as part of a controller 580 and is implemented by a computer (See FIG.20 and [00179]). The specification fails to disclose a detailed algorithm (step-by-step) plan for each of the units and functions that invoked 112f. Thus, the claimed limitations as recited in claims 1-9 are not supported by the specification and are not in accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B).
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9 recite the elements “a number-of-operating-device determination unit”, “a standby time determination unit”, “a thermal load calculation unit”, “an accumulation unit”, and “a deviation information output unit” that have been interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See claim interpretation above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material or acts perform the claimed function.
A review of Applicant’s specification, describes the combination of the units as part of a controller 580 and is implemented by a computer (See FIG.20 and [00179]). Given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the invoked elements are software per se and do not have any corresponding structures. Nonetheless, the specification fails to disclose a detailed algorithm (step-by-step) plan for each of the units and functions that invoked 112f. Thus, the claimed limitations as recited in claims 1-9 are not supported by the specification and are not in accordance with MPEP 2181(II)(B).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(0) and 2181.
Claims 2-9 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hazui et al. (US-2021/0063037-A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hazui teaches a device management system configured to manage a number of operating devices of a plurality of heat source devices (chiller system 1 includes four chillers 11, 12, 13, and 14 and a control device 20, fig.1), the management system comprising:
a number-of-operating-device determination unit configured to determine an increase or a decrease in the number of operating devices when a condition for changing the number of operating devices regarding a thermal load is continuously satisfied for a predetermined standby time (operation number control unit 21 causes the increase stage determination unit 211 and the decrease stage determination unit 212 to increase or decrease the number of the chillers 11, 12, 13, and 14 to be operated according to a load factor, [0034]); and
a standby time determination unit configured to determine a length of the standby time based on a predicted thermal load information (The condition for preventing a light load stop is a condition where the current operating state is a state where when the operation continues without a stage decrease, the probability of occurrence of a light load stop in the chiller in operation increases to a certain degree. This state is a state where it is desirable that a stage decrease is performed immediately without waiting for the elapse of the time T1 or after a standby time T2 shorter than the time T1 to prevent the occurrence of a light load stop, [0044]).
With respect to claim 3, Hazui teaches wherein the standby time determination unit, based on the predicted thermal load information, is configured to reduce the length of the standby time in a case in which the number of operating devices of the plurality of the heat source devices is predicted to be insufficient, or to increase the length of the standby time in a case in which the number of operating devices of the plurality of the heat source devices is predicted to be excessive (the decrease stage determination unit 212 determines whether or not the time T1 (predetermined standby time) has elapsed from when the number of the chillers to be operated is changed (step S13). When the time T1 has elapsed from when the number of the chillers to be operated is changed (in the case of “Yes” in step S13), the decrease stage determination unit 212 again determines whether or not the predetermined decrease stage condition is satisfied (step S11), [0043]).
With respect to claim 5, Hazui teaches wherein the thermal load calculation unit is configured to calculate the thermal load information based on an inlet temperature of a heat medium entering the heat source devices and an outlet temperature of the heat medium exiting from the heat source devices, and the accumulation unit is further configured to accumulate at least one of the thermal load information calculated by the thermal load calculation unit, weather information, and information on the number of operating devices of the plurality of the heat source devices in association with each other (The pipe 41 is provided with a temperature sensor 71 and a flow rate sensor 73. The temperature sensor 71 measures a temperature K1 of the chilled water flowing through the pipe 41, to output a measurement result to the control device 20. The temperature K1 of the chilled water which is measured by the temperature sensor 71 is substantially the same as the temperature of the chilled water flowing into the chillers 11 to 14 from the chilled water inlets 111, 121, 131, and 141. The flow rate sensor 73 measures a flow rate Q1 of the chilled water flowing through the pipe 41, to output a measurement result to the control device 20. The flow rate Q1 of the chilled water which is measured by the flow rate sensor 73 is the total flow rate of the chilled water that flows into the chillers 11 to 14 from the chilled water inlets 111, 121, 131, and 141. The pipe 42 is provided with a temperature sensor 72. The temperature sensor 72 measures a temperature K2 of the chilled water flowing through the pipe 42, to output a measurement result to the control device 20. The temperature K2 of the chilled water which is measured by the temperature sensor 72 substantially coincides with temperatures at the chilled water outlets of the chillers 11, 12, 13, and 14 in operation, [0030, 0040]).
With respect to claim 8, Hazui teaches wherein the standby time determination unit is configured to calculate a time at which the number of operating devices of the plurality of the heat source devices is increased or decreased, based on the thermal load information and the information on the number of operating devices of the plurality of the heat source devices, and set, as the length of the standby time, a time period from when the number of operating devices is changed to when the number of operating devices is next changed (The predetermined set values are the set values of the chilled water temperature which are measured at the chilled water inlets 111, 121, 131, and 141, or the set values of the chilled water temperature which are measured at the chilled water outlets 112, 122, 132, and 142. When the chillers 11, 12, 13, and 14 transmit the information, which indicates the set values of the chilled water temperature when the light load stop is executed, to the control device 20, the chillers 11, 12, 13, and 14 may transmit information, which indicates the set values at the chilled water inlets or the set values at the chilled water outlets, to the control device 20. A cooling water system 80 is connected to the chillers 11, 12, 13, and 14, and a cooling water circulates through the chillers 11, 12, 13, and 14, [0031]; The operation number control unit 21 causes the increase stage determination unit 211 and the decrease stage determination unit 212 to increase or decrease the number of the chillers 11, 12, 13, and 14 to be operated according to a load factor. Operation examples of the increase stage determination unit 211 and the decrease stage determination unit 212 will be described with reference to FIGS. 2 and 3. FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating an operation example of the increase stage determination unit 211. FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating an operation example of the decrease stage determination unit 212, [0034]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazui et al. (US-2021/0063037-A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (JP-2017055302-A).
With respect to claim 2, Hazui teaches further comprising a thermal load calculation unit configured to calculate thermal load information (Hazui: the load factor is a ratio between the amount of heat supplied to the chilled water by the load 2 or the like and the total value of the rated outputs of the chillers in operation, [0040]). Hazui does not appear to teach: an accumulation unit configured to accumulate the thermal load information calculated by the thermal load calculation unit, the predicted thermal load information being calculated based on the thermal load information accumulated in the accumulation unit.
However, it is known by Suzuki to teach of an accumulation unit configured to accumulate the thermal load information calculated by the thermal load calculation unit, the predicted thermal load information being calculated based on the thermal load information accumulated in the accumulation unit (Suzuki: the management server device 2 transmits load information indicating the size of its own processing load to each of the equipment devices 10. Specifically, the management server device 2 displays load information indicating the size of the processing load such as its own CPU usage rate at each predetermined timing (for example, every 30 minutes, every hour, etc.). Then, the information processing unit 11b of the remote control device 11 configuring each facility device 10 stores the load information transmitted from the management server device 2 in the storage unit 11a, page 5).
Because Suzuki’s teaching is also directed to teaches a device management system (Suzuki: management server device 2 of a device information management system of fig.1; Hazui: chiller system 1 includes four chillers 11, 12, 13, and 14 and a control device 20, fig.1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Suzuki with Hazui for the purpose to improve the maintenance service, such as monitoring the operation status
of the equipment, and if there is an abnormality, promptly contact the user to perform maintenance based on the amount of information transmitted from the facility device to the management server device increases as the number of facility devices that transmit information increases (Suzuki: pages 1-2).
With respect to claim 4, Hazui and Suzuki combined teaches wherein the accumulation unit is configured to accumulate information on the number of operating devices of the plurality of the heat source devices in order to process the thermal load, in association with the thermal load information (Suzuki: a function of identification information for deriving the standby time is stored in the storage unit 11a of the remote control device 11, and the relationship between the event type and the event coefficient as shown in Table 1 is stored. In addition, the load information (the size of the processing load) received from the management server device 2 is stored, and the relationship between the processing load size and the load coefficient as shown in Table 2 is stored, page 6).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazui et al. (US-2021/0063037-A1) in view of Ahmed et al. (US-2005/0192915-A1).
With respect to claim 9, Hazui does not appear to teach further comprising a deviation information output unit configured to output deviation information in a case in which a deviation of an actual thermal load in the heat source devices from the thermal load information is larger than a predetermined threshold value.
However, it is known by Ahmed to teach a deviation information output unit configured to output deviation information in a case in which a deviation of an actual thermal load in the heat source devices from the thermal load information is larger than a predetermined threshold value (Ahmed: determines whether a fault detection has occurred. Any difference between predicted thermal loads and measured thermal loads that are greater than a fault threshold causes a fault detection, [0021, 0044]; The thermal load predictions are compared to actual measured loads and the deviations are attributable to a non-weather function for the building [0047]).
Because Ahmed’s teaching is also directed to a device management system (Ahmed: environment management system, fig.1 and [0004]; Hazui: chiller system 1 includes four chillers 11, 12, 13, and 14 and a control device 20, fig.1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Suzuki with Ahmed for the purpose to regulate the temperature and flow of air throughout a building (Ahmed: [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are 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 and to further overcome the 112 rejections as set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious, which makes the following claims allowable over the prior art:
With respect to claim 6, wherein the standby time determination unit is configured to determine, as the length of the standby time, a value obtained by, in a case in which a number of occurrences of a predicted thermal-load local maximum value included in the predicted thermal load information is one, dividing a time required from an operating start time of the heat source devices to a time at which the predicted thermal-load local maximum value occurs by the required number of times the number of operating devices is increased to make the number of operating devices of the plurality of the heat source devices at a time of occurrence of the predicted thermal-load local maximum value, and the predicted thermal-load local maximum value is a local maximum value of predicted values of the thermal load included in the predicted thermal load information.
With respect to claim 7, wherein in a case in which the number of occurrences of a predicted thermal-load local maximum value included in the predicted thermal load information is plural, the standby time determination unit is configured to set the length of the standby time from a time at which the predicted thermal-load local minimum value included in the predicted thermal load information occurs until the predicted thermal-load local maximum value next occurs, to a value obtained by dividing a time required from the time at which a predicted thermal-load local minimum value included in the predicted thermal load information occurs until the predicted thermal-load local maximum value next occurs by the number of times the number of operating devices is increased or decreased in the required time, the predicted thermal-load local maximum value is a local maximum value of predicted values of the thermal load included in the predicted thermal load information, and the predicted thermal-load local minimum value is a local minimum value of predicted values of the thermal load included in the predicted thermal load information.
Conclusion
The additional prior arts made of record and have not been relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as follows: NAKAMURA et al. (WO-2017/216833-A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN (CINDY) D KHUU whose telephone number is (571)272-8585. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Ken Lo can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIEN D KHUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights