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 .
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 3/2/2025. Accordingly, claims 1-16 are pending for consideration on the merits in this Office Action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/3/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because abstract contains line numbers that are not a part of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(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 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, the recitation of “…adjusting an operation of a first cooling unit of a plurality of cooling units; while the first cooling unit is operating according to the operation adjusted: determining at least one parameter of the first cooling unit; and operating at least one other cooling unit of the plurality of cooling units to compensate for the operation adjusted of the first cooling unit; and comparing the at least one parameter to a reference value,” renders the claims unclear.
For example, the claim purports to have a processor that is configured to perform the functional steps of “determining” and “comparing.” However, pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(g), the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result. Therefore, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
In this instance, the claim does not recite the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function of “determining” i.e. the structure required to determine the recited parameters is not recited in the claims.
Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite in part “... determining at least one parameter of the first cooling unit; and comparing the at least one parameter to a reference value.”
The limitation of “…determining at least one parameter of the first cooling unit; and comparing the at least one parameter to a reference value,” is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a processor and sensors. That is, other than disclosing a processor and sensors, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the processor and sensors, “determining” and “comparing” in the context of the claim encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the stored and received data to determine a parameter and compare said parameter to a reference value. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the clams recite the additional element of a plurality of cooling units. These elements are all claimed at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic structures. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 16 are similarly drawn to the abstract idea and are therefore held to be rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite in part “... determining at least one parameter of the first cooling unit; and comparing the at least one parameter to a reference value.”
The limitation of “…determining at least one parameter of the first cooling unit; and comparing the at least one parameter to a reference value,” is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a processor and sensors. That is, other than disclosing a processor and sensors, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the processor and sensors, “determining” and “comparing” in the context of the claim encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the stored and received data to determine a parameter and compare said parameter to a reference value. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the clams recite the additional element of a plurality of cooling units. These elements are all claimed at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic structures. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite in part “... determining at least one parameter of the first cooling unit; and comparing the at least one parameter to a reference value.”
The limitation of “…determining at least one parameter of the first cooling unit; and comparing the at least one parameter to a reference value,” is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the disclosure of a processor and sensors. That is, other than disclosing a processor and sensors, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the disclosure of the processor and sensors, “determining” and “comparing” in the context of the claim encompasses a user either mentally or with pen and paper, using the stored and received data to determine a parameter and compare said parameter to a reference value. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims are held to recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the clams recite the additional element of a plurality of cooling units. These elements are all claimed at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic structures. Furthermore, it is noted that mere instructions to apply an exception using a processor cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus the claims are held to be directed towards the abstract idea.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 13, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashitani (JP2022039608A) in view of Bailey et al. (US2018/0213684).
Regarding Claims 1, 14 and 15, Kashitani teaches a cooling system [fig 1] comprising a plurality of cooling units [1a, 1b; fig 1]; and a control device [at least the assembly of components 5, 6 & 7; 0036; 0049; 0056; 0057; fig 2], wherein the control device comprises a processor [0036; 0049; 0056; 0057]; and a memory storing computer-executable instructions, the computer-executable instructions when executed causing the processor to perform a method for detecting a leak in a cooling system including a plurality of cooling units [0075-0080; 0036; 0049; 0056; 0057; figs 1, 2 & 6], comprising:
adjusting an operation of a first cooling unit of the plurality of cooling units [0075-0077; 0091];
while the first cooling unit is operating according to the adjusted operation adjusted:
determining at least one parameter of the first cooling unit [0075-0077; 0091; where at least low or high pressure is detected]; and
comparing the at least one parameter to a reference value [0075-0077; 0091; where pressure is compared to a reference value].
Kashitani does not explicitly teach while the first cooling unit is operating according to the adjusted operation adjusted: operating at least one other cooling unit of the plurality of cooling units to compensate for the adjusted operation adjusted of the first cooling unit.
However, Bailey teaches a cooling system for a data center [fig 7] having while a first cooling unit is operating according to the adjusted operation adjusted: operating at least one other cooling unit of the plurality of cooling units to compensate for the adjusted operation adjusted of the first cooling unit [0044-0045; fig 8] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the method as disclosed by known techniques and that in combination, each method step would provide the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a system that improves energy savings [0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kashitani to have while the first cooling unit is operating according to the adjusted operation adjusted: operating at least one other cooling unit of the plurality of cooling units to compensate for the adjusted operation adjusted of the first cooling unit in view of the teachings of Bailey where the method could have been combined by known techniques with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a system where a second cooling unit compensates for adjusted operation of a first cooling unit and thereby improve the overall system [0045].
For clarity, in regard to Claim 1, the method as claimed is carried out during the normal operation of the apparatus of Kashitani, as modified, above.
Regarding Claim 2, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Kashitani teaches comparing a difference between the at least one parameter and the reference value to a threshold [0075-0077; 0091].
Regarding Claim 3, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 above and Kashitani teaches if the difference is greater than the threshold, generating a warning, generating an alarm, or powering off the first cooling unit [0075-0077; 0091; where a warning is given when a pressure threshold is surpassed].
Regarding Claim 4, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 above and Kashitani teaches if the difference is smaller than the threshold, returning the first cooling unit to normal operation and returning the at least one other cooling unit to normal operation [0075-0077; 0091; where operation of the system is continued when a threshold is not surpassed].
Regarding Claim 11, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and Kashitani teaches determining a plurality of parameters of the first cooling unit; and comparing each of the plurality of parameters to a respective reference value of a plurality of reference values [0091].
Regarding Claim 13, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and teaches adjusting an operation of a second cooling unit of the plurality of cooling units; while the second cooling unit is operating according to the operation adjusted: determining at least one additional parameter of the second cooling unit; and operating at least one other cooling unit of the plurality of cooling units to compensate for the operation adjusted of the second cooling unit; and comparing the at least one additional parameter to a reference value [As modified above, see the rejection of claim 1 above for detailed discussion].
Regarding the above teaching being applied to a second cooling unit, it has been held that duplication of working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04 VIB).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashitani (JP2022039608A) and Bailey et al. (US2018/0213684) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mohammad et al. (US2024/0035695).
Regarding Claim 5, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein the reference value is determined during a baseline procedure and the at least one parameter is determined during an online procedure, the method comprising operating the first cooling unit during the online procedure in a corresponding manner to during the baseline procedure.
However, Mohammad teaches system and method for refrigerant leak detection [0005] having wherein the reference value is determined during a baseline procedure and the at least one parameter is determined during an online procedure, the method comprising operating an HVAC system during the online procedure in a corresponding manner to during the baseline procedure [0053-0067] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the method as disclosed by known techniques and that in combination, each method step would provide the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a system that improves refrigerant leak detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kashitani to have wherein the reference value is determined during a baseline procedure and the at least one parameter is determined during an online procedure, the method comprising operating the first cooling unit during the online procedure in a corresponding manner to during the baseline procedure in view of the teachings of Mohammad where the method could have been combined by known techniques with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a system that improves refrigerant leak detection.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashitani (JP2022039608A), Bailey et al. (US2018/0213684) and Mohammad et al. (US2024/0035695) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yoshimi (US2022/0187000).
Regarding Claim 6, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 above but does not teach wherein the at least one parameter comprises a subcooling of the first cooling unit during the online procedure and the reference value comprises a subcooling of the first cooling unit during the baseline procedure.
However, Yoshimi teaches a refrigerant leakage determination system for a refrigerant circuit [0004] having wherein the at least one parameter comprises a subcooling of a refrigerant circuit during the online procedure and the reference value comprises a subcooling of the first cooling unit during the baseline procedure [0066] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the method as disclosed by known techniques and that in combination, each method step would provide the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a method that detects a refrigerant leak.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kashitani to have wherein the at least one parameter comprises a subcooling of the first cooling unit during the online procedure and the reference value comprises a subcooling of the first cooling unit during the baseline procedure in view of the teachings of Yoshimi where the method could have been combined by known techniques with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a method that detects a refrigerant leak.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashitani (JP2022039608A), Bailey et al. (US2018/0213684) and Mohammad et al. (US2024/0035695) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Takayoshi et al. (JPH06273013A).
Regarding Claim 7, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 above but does not teach wherein the at least one parameter comprises a position of an expansion valve of the first cooling unit during the online procedure and the reference value comprises an additional position of the expansion valve during the baseline procedure.
However, Takayoshi teaches a refrigerant leak detection of a refrigeration cycle [0001] having wherein the at least one parameter comprises a position of an expansion valve of a refrigeration cycle during the online procedure and the reference value comprises an additional position of the expansion valve during the baseline procedure [0015; fig 5] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the method as disclosed by known techniques and that in combination, each method step would provide the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides an air conditioner capable of enhancing early and surely detected and the reliability of the refrigerant leakage [0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kashitani to have wherein the at least one parameter comprises a position of an expansion valve of the first cooling unit during the online procedure and the reference value comprises an additional position of the expansion valve during the baseline procedure in view of the teachings of Takayoshi where the method could have been combined by known techniques with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides an air conditioner capable of enhancing early and surely detected and the reliability of the refrigerant leakage.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashitani (JP2022039608A), Bailey et al. (US2018/0213684) and Mohammad et al. (US2024/0035695) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wakabayashi et al. (JP2017009276A).
Regarding Claim 8, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 above but does not teach wherein the at least one parameter comprises a level of refrigerant in a vertical receiver of the first cooling unit during the online procedure and the reference value comprises an additional level of refrigerant in the vertical receiver during the baseline procedure.
However, Wakabayashi teaches an inspection method for a heat pump [0001] having wherein the at least one parameter comprises a level of refrigerant in a vertical receiver [9] of a heat pump during the online procedure and the reference value comprises an additional level of refrigerant in the vertical receiver during the baseline procedure [0014; 0057; 0058] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the method as disclosed by known techniques and that in combination, each method step would provide the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provides a method capable of correctly recognizing the degree of refrigerant leakage from a refrigerant circulation path with a simple device [0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kashitani to have wherein the at least one parameter comprises a level of refrigerant in a vertical receiver of the first cooling unit during the online procedure and the reference value comprises an additional level of refrigerant in the vertical receiver during the baseline procedure in view of the teachings of Wakabayashi where the method could have been combined by known techniques with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provides a method capable of correctly recognizing the degree of refrigerant leakage from a refrigerant circulation path with a simple device.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashitani (JP2022039608A), Bailey et al. (US2018/0213684) and Mohammad et al. (US2024/0035695) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Masashi (JPH04136479U).
Regarding Claim 9, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 above but does not teach wherein the at least one parameter comprises an amount of bubbles on a sight glass of an expansion valve of the first cooling unit during the online procedure and the reference value comprises an additional amount of bubbles on the sight glass during the baseline procedure.
However, Masashi teaches a refrigerant state detecting device [0001] having wherein the at least one parameter comprises an amount of bubbles on a sight glass [23] of an expansion valve [7] of an air conditioner during the online procedure and the reference value comprises an additional amount of bubbles on the sight glass during the baseline procedure [0027-0035; figs 3 & 4; see also fig 6] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the method as disclosed by known techniques and that in combination, each method step would provide the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a refrigerant state detecting device capable of quantitatively detecting the amount of refrigerant charged in a refrigerant passage by a refrigerant state detecting device [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kashitani to have wherein the at least one parameter comprises an amount of bubbles on a sight glass of an expansion valve of the first cooling unit during the online procedure and the reference value comprises an additional amount of bubbles on the sight glass during the baseline procedure in view of the teachings of Masashi where the method could have been combined by known techniques with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a refrigerant state detecting device capable of quantitatively detecting the amount of refrigerant charged in a refrigerant passage by a refrigerant state detecting device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashitani (JP2022039608A) and Bailey et al. (US2018/0213684) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuta et al. (JP2016125673A).
Regarding Claim 10, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 above and teaches removing a refrigerant from the first cooling unit and turning off one or more components of the first cooling unit [0078; where a pump down operation is disclosed]. Kashitani does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one parameter comprises a temperature computed from an internal pressure measurement of the first cooling unit and the reference value comprises an external temperature measured outside the first cooling unit.
However, Yuta teaches a refrigeration cycle device with a refrigerant leakage detecting function [0001] having wherein the at least one parameter comprises a temperature computed from an internal pressure measurement of the first cooling unit and the reference value comprises an external temperature measured outside the first cooling unit [0019-0034] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the method as disclosed by known techniques and that in combination, each method step would provide the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a device that can reliably detect refrigerant leakage [0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kashitani to have wherein the at least one parameter comprises a temperature computed from an internal pressure measurement of the first cooling unit and the reference value comprises an external temperature measured outside the first cooling unit in view of the teachings of Yuta where the method could have been combined by known techniques with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a device that can reliably detect refrigerant leakage.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kashitani (JP2022039608A) and Bailey et al. (US2018/0213684) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Song et al. (US2023/0243534) and Goel (US2020/0393151).
Regarding Claim 12, Kashitani, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 11 above, for each of the plurality of parameters, quantifying a result of the comparing and weighting the quantified result of the comparing;
summing the weighted and quantified results of the comparing to determine a leak detection value; and
comparing the leak detection value to at least one confidence threshold, each confidence threshold associated with a respective predetermined action.
However, Song teaches an electronic apparatus for predicting refrigerant leaks from an air conditioner [0002] having for each of the plurality of parameters, quantifying a result of the comparing and weighing the quantified result of the comparing [0028; 0029; 0093-0097; 0109];
summing the weighted and quantified results of the comparing to determine a leak detection value [0028; 0029; 0093-0097; 0109; fig 6] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the method as disclosed by known techniques and that in combination, each method step would provide the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. to effectively identify whether the refrigerant leaks at or below a specific temperature [0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kashitani to have for each of the plurality of parameters, quantifying a result of the comparing and weighting the quantified result of the comparing; summing the weighted and quantified results of the comparing to determine a leak detection value in view of the teachings of Song where the method could have been combined by known techniques with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. to effectively identify whether the refrigerant leaks at or below a specific temperature.
Also, Goel teaches temperature difference sensor to detect refrigerant leak in an HVAC system [0038 ; fig 3] to compare the leak detection value to at least one confidence threshold, each confidence threshold associated with a respective predetermined action [0048-0057; fig 5] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the method as disclosed by known techniques and that in combination, each method step would provide the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. provide a system that is helpful for diagnosing problems associated with the HVAC system [0058].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kashitani to compare the leak detection value to at least one confidence threshold, each confidence threshold associated with a respective predetermined action in view of the teachings of Song where the method could have been combined by known techniques with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. provide a system that is helpful for diagnosing problems associated with the HVAC system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LARRY L FURDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
