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 Objection
Claim 22 is objected to because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 22 appears to recite a computer program only of the control unit. MPEP 2106 clearly states that a computer program per se is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Please use the following language to overcome the pending objection: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions stored thereon, that when executed by a processor, perform the steps comprising”
Note the bold-underlined texts of the following MPEP 2106.03:
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave; and
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
35 USC 112(b) rejections
Claims 1, 3-24 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.
Claims 1, 3-24 are rejected because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained because of the following reasons.
1) In independent claim 1, lines 10-11, the newly added limitations “wherein the pump controller is configured to control the pump operation of the pump based on the start and stop signals as only external control inputs” is conflict with the limitation on line 2 of claim 1 that recites “the pump being configured to be started and stopped based on a sensed zone temperature”; the pump is clearly controlled by more than only the start and stop signals as claimed. Note dependent claims 5, 6, 15-20, recite more control parameter inputs that create more conflicts. Independent claim 21 recites similar newly added limitations “wherein operation of the pump is controlled based on the start and stop signals as only external control inputs,” that is conflict with “start and stop triggers based on a sensed zone temperature” on line 2 of claim 21.
2) Several claimed limitations do not have clear antecedent basis including: “the start and stop signals” on last line of claim 1, and lines 3-4 of claim 21, “the thermostat” on line 3 of claim 4. Please recheck and correct all claims for similar errors.
3) The term “in particular” has been repeated used on line 3 of claim 5, line 3 of claim 9, line 2 of claim 10, line 1 of claim 15, line 2 of claim 20; that term is vague/indefinite and should be avoided in claim language.
4) The term “such as” has been repeated used on line 2 of claim 7, line 2 of claim 12, line 4 of claim 15; that term is vague/indefinite and should be avoided in claim language.
5) Several claimed elements are multiple inclusions of the same claimed elements including: “start and stop signals” on line 2 of claim 4, “an impeller speed” on line 2 of claim 6, “a fluid pressure” on line 2 of claim 6, “a stop trigger” on line 4 of claim 13 and last line of claim 21, “a plurality of pumps” on line 2 of claim 24, “each pump” on line 3 of claim 24, “each thermostat” on line 4 of claim 24. Those terms must be modified by “said” or “the” after the first appearance to avoid multiple inclusions. Please recheck and correct all claims for any similar errors.
For examination purposes the offending limitations above will be interpreted to be as follows.
1) The phrases “wherein the pump controller is configured to control the pump operation of the pump based on the start and stop signals as only external control inputs” in independent claims 1, 21 will be treated as not parts of those claims because the operation of the pump can be controlled by other claimed external control inputs.
2) All non-antecedent basis limitations are treated as no errors but corrections should be made.
3) All the limitations after “in particular” are treated as not parts of the claims.
4) All the limitations after “such as” are treated as not parts of the claims.
5) All multiple inclusion claimed limitations are treated as no errors but corrections should be made.
35 USC 102 rejections
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-16, 21-24, as far as definite, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0219219 (Miller).
Regarding independent claim 1, Miller discloses a pump 152 for a zoned heating or cooling system, the pump being configured to be started and stopped based on a sensed zone temperature of a zone of the zoned heating or cooling system, wherein the pump comprises a pump controller 112 configured to: responsive to receiving a start trigger, control the pump to start pump operation in a first operational mode (see paragraph 35, blocks 402, 404 in figure 4); in the absence of a stop trigger during at least a first time interval after receipt of the start trigger, to automatically control the pump to change pump operation after the first time interval to a second operational mode, different from the first operational mode (see paragraph 36, and blocks 406, 408 in figure 4); and responsive to receiving a stop trigger, to control the pump to stop pump operation (see paragraphs 36, 88-90), wherein the pump controller is configured to control the pump operation of the pump based on the start and stop signals as only external control inputs (controller 112 can clearly turn on/off the pumps and as set forth above in the 112(b) rejection, this limitation is given little patentable weight because the pump can be controlled by many external control inputs including the sensed zone temperature on line 2).
Regarding claim 5, Miller discloses wherein the first operational mode is a first constant parameter mode during which the pump controller 112 controls the pump to operate with a predetermined reference parameter, in particular an impeller speed, a fluid flow or a fluid pressure, at a first parameter value and wherein the second operational mode is a second constant parameter mode during which the pump controller controls the pump to operate with said predetermined reference parameter at a second parameter value, higher than the first parameter value (paragraphs 25, 29, 35-36, 67-69 disclose the controller 112 can control flow rates, pump speeds which are equivalent with impeller speed and fluid pressure).
Regarding claim 6, Miller discloses wherein the predetermined reference parameter is an impeller speed, a fluid flow or a fluid pressure (paragraphs 25, 29, 35-36, 67-69 disclose the controller 112 can control flow rates, pump speeds which are equivalent with impeller speed and fluid pressure).
Regarding claim 7, Miller discloses wherein the first time interval is a predetermined and/or user-configurable time interval, such as a time interval between 20 min. and 60 min, and/or an automatically selected or adjusted time interval (note step 408 in paragraph 84).
Regarding claim 8, Miller discloses wherein the pump controller is configured to automatically select or adjust the first time interval based on at least a first selection criterion (paragraphs 84-87 show various time internal for different sensed parameters).
Regarding claim 9, Miller discloses wherein controlling the pump to change pump operation to the second operational mode comprises controlling the pump to gradually, in particular continuously or incrementally, transition between the first and the second operational modes over a second time interval (paragraphs 69-108 discloses many operation modes for different time intervals based on different sensed parameters).
Regarding claim 10, Miller discloses wherein the second time interval is a predetermined and/or user-configurable time interval, in particular a time interval between 10 minutes and 30 minutes (paragraphs 84-86 each discloses time interval of 15 minutes).
Regarding claim 11, Miller discloses wherein the pump controller is configured to automatically select or adjust the second time interval based on at least a second selection criterion (paragraphs 69-108 discloses many operation modes for different time intervals based on different sensed parameters).
Regarding claim 12, Miller discloses wherein the second time interval is shorter than first time interval, such as between 20% and 70% of the first time interval (the differences between time internals in paragraphs 69-108 clearly meet the 20-70% range).
Regarding claim 13, Miller discloses wherein controlling the pump to change pump operation to the second operational mode further comprises controlling the pump to maintain operation in the second operational mode until receipt of a stop trigger (paragraphs 108-109 disclose that the pump can run until no longer demands).
Regarding claim 14, Miller discloses wherein the pump controller is further configured to monitor fluid flow through the pump (all the parameters in paragraphs 67-108 are used to monitor the fluid flows through the pump including pump speeds).
Regarding claim 15, Miller discloses comprising a pump motor, in particular an electric pump motor, operationally coupled to the pump controller, and wherein monitoring the fluid flow comprises estimating the fluid flow from one or more operational parameters of the pump motor, such as from a current motor power (the pumps in Miller are electric pumps controlled by a controller 112 and must be driven by an electric motor).
Regarding claim 16, Miller discloses wherein the pump controller is further configured to control the pump operation responsive to the monitored fluid flow (all the parameters in paragraphs 67-108 are used to monitor the fluid flows through the pump including pump speeds).
Regarding claim 21, Miller discloses a method of controlling a pump 152 for operation in a zoned heating or cooling system responsive to start and stop triggers based on a sensed zone temperature of a zone of the zoned heating or cooling system, wherein operation of the pump is controlled based on the start and stop signals as only external control inputs (controller 112 can clearly turn on/off the pumps and as set forth above in the 112(b) rejection, this limitation is given little patentable weight because the pump can be controlled by many external control inputs including the sensed zone temperature on line 2), and wherein the method comprises: responsive to receiving a start trigger, controlling the pump to start pump operation in a first operational mode (see paragraph 35, blocks 402, 404 in figure 4); in the absence of a stop trigger during at least a first time interval, automatically controlling the pump to change pump operation after the first time interval to a second operational mode, different from the first operational mode (see paragraph 36, and blocks 406, 408 in figure 4); and responsive to receiving a stop signal, controlling the pump to stop pump operation (see paragraphs 36, 88-90).
Regarding claim 22, Miller discloses a computer program comprising program code (note paragraph 126 for computer software/circuitry) configured to cause, when executed by a pump controller, the pump controller to perform the acts of the method according to claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Miller discloses a pump controller 112 configured to perform the acts of the method according to claim 21
Regarding claim 24, Miller discloses a network of fluid conduits defining multiple zones, a plurality of pumps, each pump configured to pump fluid through a respective one of the zones, and a plurality of thermostats, each thermostat being directly or indirectly operationally connected to a respective one of the plurality of pumps (paragraph 37 disclose thermostats for many zones and many pumps including primary pump, secondary pump).
35 USC 103 rejections
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0219219 (Miller). Miller discloses all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose: 1) wherein the pump is configured to receive the start and stop triggers as a start and stop, respectively, of receipt of operational power for driving the pump (claim 3), and 2) wherein the pump is configured to receive the start and stop triggers as start and stop control signals, respectively, directly or indirectly from the thermostat (claim 4). However, according to MPEP 2144.05, II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION, A) Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation, note In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). The concept of getting the start/stop signals whether from the triggers or from the thermostats in these claims involves only or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, or the result of “routine optimization”. It would have been a “routine optimization” for a person having ordinary skill in the art to obtain the start/stop signals either from the triggers or from the thermostats as claimed in Miller for the purpose of achieving equivalent temperatures based on the specifically sensed temperature locations.
Allowable Subject Matter and Reasons for Allowance
Claims 17-20 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.
In claim 17, the recitation of “wherein the pump controller is configured to control the pump to change, responsive to the monitored fluid flow decreasing below a lower flow limit during operation of the pump in the first control mode, pump operation to the second operational mode or to a third operational mode, the third operational mode being different from the first and second operational modes” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 17, is neither disclosed by a single prior art reference nor rendered obvious by a combination of prior art references. Thus, claim 17 and its dependent claims are allowable.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maxwell, Green, van Berkel, Sprayberry, and Hillerup discloses pumps for HVAC systems having controllers to control pump operations based on various sensed parameters.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Examiner Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4861. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday--Thursday from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi, can be reached on (571) 270-7878.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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).
/HOANG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
HOANG NGUYEN
PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 3746
Hoang Minh Nguyen
3/23/2026