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.
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:
the limitation “a condensing unit” in claims 2, 9 and 15 includes a generic/nonce term “unit” coupled with function “condensing” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a condensing unit” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a compressor”, “a condenser”, “a motor” or “a fan” see figure 2. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or 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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each audio signature" in lines 8 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “each of the plurality of audio signatures”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more components of the HVAC system” in line 11 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is the corresponding structure associated to the one or more components. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a motor”, “a fan” or “a compressor”.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a particular component of the HVAC system” in lines 15-16 and “the particular component” in line 18 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refer to “one or more components of the HVAC system” or a new component. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one or more components of the HVAC system”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an audio signature" in line 17 and “the audio signature” in line 19 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to one of the plurality of audio signatures or a new audio signature. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “one of the plurality of audio signatures”.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a particular fault type” in line 18 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “one or more fault types” or a different fault type. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one or more fault types”.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “determined fault type” in the last line which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “one or more fault types” or “a particular fault type”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “determined one or more fault types”.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “a component” in line 3 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “one or more components of the HVAC system”, “a particular component of the HVAC system” or a new component. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one or more components of the HVAC system”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the determined audio signature" in line 4 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to one of the plurality of audio signatures or a new audio signature. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the determined one of the plurality of audio signatures”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a device” in line 2 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is the corresponding structure associated to the device. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a thermostat” see figure 2.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "each audio signature" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “each of the plurality of audio signatures”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "one or more components of the HVAC system" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one or more components of the HVAC system”.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “a particular component of the HVAC system” in line 8 and “the particular component” in line 10 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refer to “one or more components of the HVAC system” or a new component. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one or more components of the HVAC system”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "an audio signature" in line 9 and “the audio signature” in line 11 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to one of the plurality of audio signatures or a new audio signature. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “one of the plurality of audio signatures”.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “a particular fault type” in line 10 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “one or more fault types” or a different fault type. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one or more fault types”.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “determined fault type” in the last line which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “one or more fault types” or “a particular fault type”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “determined one or more fault types”.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “a component” in line 2 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “one or more components of the HVAC system”, “a particular component of the HVAC system” or a new component. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one or more components of the HVAC system”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a device” in line 2 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is the corresponding structure associated to the device. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a thermostat” see figure 2.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "each audio signature" in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “each of the plurality of audio signatures”.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “a particular component of the HVAC system” in line 11 and “the particular component” in lines 13-14 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refer to “one or more components of the HVAC system” or a new component. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one or more components of the HVAC system”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "an audio signature" in line 12 and “the audio signature” in line 14 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to one of the plurality of audio signatures or a new audio signature. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “one of the plurality of audio signatures”.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “a particular fault type” in line 13 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “one or more fault types” or a different fault type. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one or more fault types”.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “determined fault type” in the last line which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “one or more fault types” or “a particular fault type”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “determined one or more fault types”.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “a component” in line 2 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “one or more components of the HVAC system”, “a particular component of the HVAC system” or a new component. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the one or more components of the HVAC system”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the determined audio signature" in line 4 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to one of the plurality of audio signatures or a new audio signature. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the determined one of the plurality of audio signatures”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a device” in line 2 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is the corresponding structure associated to the device. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a thermostat” see figure 2.
Claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 15 and 17-18 are rejected by the virtual dependency of claims 1, 8 and 14.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, 13-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCune et al. (2021/0302063) in view of Park (2017/0068233).
Regarding claim 1, McCune discloses a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (see figures 1-7), comprising:
a sound sensor (the sensor 164 that monitor the sound level output by the HVAC system 148) configured to capture an audio signal (see figure 5); and
an analysis device (the control system 150) operably coupled to the sound sensor (164; see figure 5), the analysis device (150) comprising:
a memory (152) operable to store an audio signature library (database table with sound profiles stored in the memory 152) comprising a plurality of audio signatures (the sound profiles; paragraph [0052]; see figure 6), wherein:
each audio signature (the sound profiles) identifies one or more attributes for a portion of an audio signal (see figures 5-6); and
a processor (the processor circuitry 154) operably coupled to the memory (152), the processor (152) configured to:
receive the audio signal from the sound sensor (164; see figure 5), wherein the audio signal is associated with a particular component (the compressor 156) of the HVAC system (paragraph [0052]; see figure 5-7);
determine an audio signature (the sound profile 1) of the received audio signal (see figures 5-6).
However, McCune fails to disclose each audio signature is associated with one or more fault types for one or more components of the HVAC system; and determine a particular fault type associated with the particular component based at least in part upon the audio signature present within the audio signal; and output a recommendation based on the determined fault type.
Park teaches a motor driving apparatus comprising a microphone which receives sound corresponding to fault diagnosis of the motor (abstract, paragraph [0012], [0038], [0045] and paragraph [0179]). Wherein an audio signature (the sound output) is associated with one or more fault types (fault diagnosis) for a motor (abstract); and determine a particular fault type (fault diagnosis) associated with the motor based at least in part upon the audio signature (the sound output) present within the audio signal (the audio signal between the microphone 623 and the controller 670; see figure 6); and output a recommendation (display a service mode) based on the determined fault type (fault diagnosis; abstract, paragraph [0012], [0038], [0045] and paragraph [0179]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the HVAC system of McCune to incorporate the claimed determination of fault type of a component based audio signature and the output recommendation based on the determined fault type as taught by Park in order to improve the fault diagnosis control of the HVAC system.
Regarding claim 2, McCune discloses the particular component (the compressor) comprises a motor (the motor of the compressor) or a fan of a condensing unit associated with the HVAC system (paragraph [0052]; see figure 5-7).
Regarding claim 7, McCune as modified discloses outputting the recommendation (the service mode) comprises transmitting a signal to a device (the mobile terminal 600 of Park) that is located external to the HVAC system (the HVAC system of McCune), wherein the recommendation comprises instructions for servicing the particular component (the service of the motor).
Regarding claim 8, McCune as modified in detail as in claim 1 above discloses a method of diagnosing one or more components of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, the method comprising:
storing (the memory 152 performs the storing function) an audio signature library (database table with sound profiles stored in the memory 152) comprising a plurality of audio signatures (the audio profiles), wherein each audio signature identifies one or more attributes for a portion of an audio signal (see figures 5-7) and each audio signature (each audio profile) is associated with one or more fault types (fault diagnosis feature of Park; abstract, paragraph [0012], [0038], [0045] and paragraph [0179]) for one or more components (the compressor) of the HVAC system (paragraph [0052]; see figure 5-7);
receiving an audio signal from a sound sensor (164), wherein the audio signal is associated with a particular component (the compressor 156) of the HVAC system (see figure 5);
determining an audio signature (audio profile) of the received audio signal (see figures 5-7);
determining a particular fault type (fault diagnosis feature of Park; abstract, paragraph [0012], [0038], [0045] and paragraph [0179]) associated with the particular component (the compressor) based at least in part upon the audio signature (the audio profile) present within the audio signal (paragraph [0052]; see figure 5-7); and outputting a recommendation (display a service mode, Park) based on the determined fault type (fault diagnosis of Park; abstract, paragraph [0012], [0038], [0045], [0179] and [0253]).
Regarding claim 9, McCune as modified discloses the particular component comprises a motor (the compressor 156) or a fan of a condensing unit associated with the HVAC system (the HVAC system of McCune).
Regarding claim 13, McCune as modified discloses outputting the recommendation (the service mode) comprises transmitting a signal to a device (the mobile terminal 600 of Park) that is located external to the HVAC system (the HVAC system of McCune), wherein the recommendation comprises instructions for servicing the particular component (the service of the motor).
Regarding claim 14, McCune as modified in detail as in claim 1 above discloses an analysis device (150), comprising:
a memory (152) operable to store an audio signature library (database table with sound profiles stored in the memory 152) comprising a plurality of audio signatures (a plurality of audio profiles; paragraph [0052]; see figures 5-7), wherein:
each audio signature (each audio profile) identifies one or more attributes for a portion of an audio signal (the audio signal between the sensor 164 and the controller 150; see figure 5); and
each audio signature (each audio profile) is associated with one or more fault types (fault diagnosis feature of Park; abstract, paragraph [0012], [0038], [0045] and paragraph [0179]) for one or more components (the compressor 156) of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (see figures 5-7 of McCune); and
a processor (154) operably coupled to the memory (152), configured to:
receive an audio signal from a sound sensor (164; see figure 5), wherein the audio signal is associated with a particular component (the compressor) of the HVAC system (paragraph [0052]; see figures 5-7);
determine an audio signature (an audio profile) of the received audio signal (the audio signal between the sensor 164 and the controller 150; see figure 5);
determine a particular fault type (fault diagnosis feature of Park; abstract, paragraph [0012], [0038], [0045] and paragraph [0179]) associated with the particular component (the compressor 156 of McCune) based at least in part upon the audio signature (the audio profile) present within the audio signal (see figures 5-7 of McCune and the fault diagnosis of Park); and
outputting a recommendation (display a service mode, Park) based on the determined fault type (fault diagnosis of Park; abstract, paragraph [0012], [0038], [0045], [0179] and [0253]).
Regarding claim 15, McCune as modified discloses the particular component comprises a motor (the compressor 156) or a fan of a condensing unit associated with the HVAC system (the HVAC system of McCune).
Regarding claim 20, McCune as modified discloses outputting the recommendation (the service mode) comprises transmitting a signal to a device (the mobile terminal 600 of Park) that is located external to the HVAC system (the HVAC system of McCune), wherein the recommendation comprises instructions for servicing the particular component (the service of the motor).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,222,117 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
Regarding claim 1, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, comprising: a sound sensor configured to capture an audio signal; and an analysis device operably coupled to the sound sensor, the analysis device comprising: a memory operable to store an audio signature library comprising a plurality of audio signatures, wherein: each audio signature identifies one or more attributes for a portion of an audio signal; and each audio signature is associated with one or more fault types for one or more components of the HVAC system; and a processor operably coupled to the memory, the processor configured to: receive the audio signal from the sound sensor, wherein the audio signal is associated with a particular component of the HVAC system; determine an audio signature of the received audio signal; determine a particular fault type associated with the particular component based at least in part upon the audio signature present within the audio signal; and output a recommendation based on the determined fault type (see claim 1 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 2, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses the particular component comprises a motor or a fan of a condensing unit associated with the HVAC system (see claim 1 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 3, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses the processor is further configured to send a command to energize a component sharing a power supply with the motor of the condensing unit (see claims 1-2 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 4, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses the processor is further configured to determine that power is not being supplied to the motor (see claims 1-3 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 5, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses the processor is further configured to determine that the motor is in a protection mode of operation (see claims 1 and 4 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 6, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses the processor is further configured to: generate a representation of the audio signal; and compare the determined audio signature to the representation of the audio signal (see claims 1 and 6 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 7, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses outputting the recommendation comprises transmitting a signal to a device that is located external to the HVAC system, wherein the recommendation comprises instructions for servicing the particular component (see claims 1 and 7 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 14, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses An analysis device, comprising: a memory operable to store an audio signature library comprising a plurality of audio signatures, wherein: each audio signature identifies one or more attributes for a portion of an audio signal; and each audio signature is associated with one or more fault types for one or more components of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system; and a processor operably coupled to the memory, configured to: receive an audio signal from a sound sensor, wherein the audio signal is associated with a particular component of the HVAC system; determine an audio signature of the received audio signal; determine a particular fault type associated with the particular component based at least in part upon the audio signature present within the audio signal; and output a recommendation based on the determined fault type (see claim 14 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 15, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses the particular component comprises a motor or a fan of a condensing unit associated with the HVAC system (see claim 14 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 16, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses the processor is further configured to send a command to energize a component sharing a power supply with the motor of the condensing unit (see claim 14 and 15 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 17, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses the processor is further configured to determine that power is not being supplied to the motor (see claim 14 and 16 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 18, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses the processor is further configured to determine that the motor is in a protection mode of operation (see claim 14 and 17 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 19, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses the processor is further configured to: generate a representation of the audio signal; and compare the determined audio signature to the representation of the audio signal (see claim 14 and 19 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Regarding claim 20, US 12,222,117 B2 discloses outputting the recommendation comprises transmitting a signal to a device that is located external to the HVAC system, wherein the recommendation comprises instructions for servicing the particular component (see claim 14 and 20 of US 12,222,117 B2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reference McCune fails to disclose the claimed control feature of the HVAC system as required in claims 3-6, 10-13 and 16-19. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivations to modify the HVAC system of McCune in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 3-6, 10-13 and 16-19 are allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. 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.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights