Carrier Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2022

2021003778 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/344,369 11/04/2016 Jinliang Wang 72222US02 [1511607.116-9] 9849 61654 7590 03/15/2022 Locke Lord LLP P.O. BOX 55874 BOSTON, MA 02205 EXAMINER DINH, LYNDA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2865 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patent@lockelord.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JINLIANG WANG, ASHUTOSH TEWARI, and MIKHAIL B. GORBOUNOV Appeal 2021-003778 Application 15/344,369 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-15 of Application 15/344,369, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application 15/344,369 filed Nov. 4, 2016; the Final Office Action dated June 30, 2020 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 30, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated March 26, 2021 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed May 26, 2021 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies CARRIER CORPORATION as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003778 Application 15/344,369 2 For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-15 but denominate the affirmance as new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). BACKGROUND The subject matter of the invention relates to virtual fluid flow systems for determining fluid flow of at least a portion of an HVAC system. Spec. 2, ll. 17-23. Appellant indicates that thermal energy meters, also called BTU (British Thermal Unit) meters are used in building energy auditing and commissioning, but most buildings do not have BTU meters installed due to cost. Id. at 1, l. 22 to 2, l. 12. The greatest portion of this cost is in the material, installation, and calibration of fluid flow rate measurement systems. Id. at 2, ll. 2-3. According to Appellant, there is a need for low cost energy management systems for buildings. Id. at 2, ll. 14-15. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. An HVAC thermal energy flow measurement system, comprising: a computerized virtual fluid flow measurement system configured to estimate and output a quantified fluid flow value within at least a portion of the HVAC system based on at least one HVAC system condition; and at least one HVAC system sensor for sensing the at least one HVAC system condition, wherein the at least one HVAC system sensor is operatively connected to the virtual flow measurement system to provide the virtual flow measurement system with the at least one HVAC system condition, wherein the HVAC thermal energy flow measurement system is configured to determine thermal energy Appeal 2021-003778 Application 15/344,369 3 flow of at least a portion of the HVAC system without a BTU meter by using the quantified fluid flow value. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Karamanos et al. (“Karamanos”) US 2015/0019022 A1 Jan. 15, 2015 Smith et al. (“Smith”) US 2015/0057810 A1 Feb. 26, 2015 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Smith in view of Karamanos. Final Act. 4-9. DISCUSSION The Examiner concludes that the combination of Smith and Karamanos renders claims 1-15 obvious. Final Act. 4-9. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that claims 1-11, 13, and 14 are obvious over Smith alone, and claims 12 and 15 are obvious over Smith-as applied to claims 9 and 13 below-and Karamanos. Claim 1 During prosecution, an application’s claims are given their broadest reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim must be read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. Any special Appeal 2021-003778 Application 15/344,369 4 definitions for claim terms must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Claim 1 includes a negative limitation: “wherein the HVAC thermal energy flow measurement system is configured to determine thermal energy flow of at least a portion of the HVAC system without a BTU meter by using the quantified fluid flow value” (emphasis added). We do not interpret this language as precluding the presence of BTU meters in the system. Rather, we interpret claim 1 as requiring a system configured such that thermal energy flow can be determined without using a BTU meter, e.g., using an estimated fluid flow. Applying this claim construction, we find that Smith discloses or suggests each of the claim 1 limitations as follows: An HVAC thermal energy flow measurement system: Smith discloses “a building energy analysis and management system for measurement and verification of building performance.” Smith Abstract. As shown in Figure 1, building 105 includes several areas A-H, each of which is associated with one or more HVAC units 110a-h. Smith ¶¶ 16-17. A computerized virtual fluid flow measurement system configured to estimate and output a quantified fluid flow value within at least a portion of the HVAC system based on at least one HVAC system condition: Smith discloses that server 145 may use physics-based models to calculate predicted measurements. Smith ¶ 38. “[O]perating condition modifiers may be incorporated into physics-based models to more accurately predict expected measurements. Predicted measurements may be in various units such as BTUs, BTUs per gallon, BTUs per square foot, kilowatts, gallons Appeal 2021-003778 Application 15/344,369 5 per minute [“a quantified fluid flow value” (claim 1)] or temperature.” Id. (emphasis added). The measurements may be gathered on a unit by unit basis. Smith ¶ 12. In other words, the system is configured to use a measurement taken from one of building area A-H’s HVAC unit’s sensors- i.e., “at least a portion of the HVAC system” (claim 1)-to calculate a quantified fluid flow value for that portion of the HVAC system. Smith explicitly discloses that in some embodiments, a controller monitors the stem positions of pressure sensors “to infer the flow rate” (id. ¶ 71), i.e., the system is configured to estimate a quantified fluid flow value based on a system condition (pressure). Smith also discloses that “[t]he system outputs reports or other data display using a graphical user interface that can be adjusted for an anticipated user.” Smith Abstract. At least one HVAC system sensor for sensing . . . at least one HVAC system condition: Smith discloses that “HVAC units 110 may be equipped with numerous sensors,” e.g., “supply and return fluid temperature sensors, pressure sensors,” and the like. Smith ¶ 17. The at least one HVAC system sensor is operatively connected to the virtual flow measurement system to provide the virtual flow measurement system with the at least one HVAC system condition: Smith discloses that “HVAC units 110 may be connected to one or more Surge Panels 120 via data link 115.” Id. ¶ 18; Fig. 1. Surge Panels 120 gather data from the HVAC units’ sensors and may also collect other measurements from building 105. Id. ¶ 19. HVAC sensors may include temperature, pressure, valve, and flow rate sensors. Id. ¶ 26. Server 145 may receive this data through network 130 and data link 160. Id. The “received data” may include Appeal 2021-003778 Application 15/344,369 6 data that was preprocessed at Surge Panels 120, i.e., data calculated using sensor measurements. Id. The HVAC thermal energy flow measurement system is configured to determine thermal energy flow of at least a portion of the HVAC system without a BTU meter by using the quantified fluid flow value: Smith discloses that “Server 145 may also obtain data such as results of previous analytics, previously entered building and unit specifics, operating condition modifiers, expected performance levels, engineering modeling, component performance curves, or building models from locally connected database 150.” Smith ¶ 26. “Server 145 may apply analytics to the received data and obtained data to generate predicted measurements.” Id. Smith discloses that BTUs may be calculated from other system measurements. Id. ¶ 32. For example, change in temperature and flow rate may be used to generate BTUs. Id. ¶ 19. Smith explicitly discloses that “BTU rate being transferred” may be determined by multiplying a flow rate inferred from pressure sensor stem positions by “the difference in temperature across the heating or cooling load (e.g. a coil).” Id. ¶ 71. Thus, the ordinary artisan at the time of filing would have understood that Smith’s server is configured to calculate thermal energy flow (BTUs) in one of building areas A-H by multiplying temperature change using sensor measurements from one of HVAC units 100a-h sensors and predicted flow rate in that building area, where predicted flow rate was inferred from pressure sensor stem positions or obtained using physics-based models and an HVAC system condition, e.g., building professional entered parameters or airflow. See Smith ¶¶ 38, 71. Appeal 2021-003778 Application 15/344,369 7 For the above reasons, we determine that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Smith. Claims 2-8 Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1. We rely on the Examiner’s additional findings in the Final Office Action regarding claims 2-8-all of which rely on Smith for the dependent claims’ additional limitations-in determining that these claims are obvious over Smith. Claims 9-11, 13, and 14 Independent claims 9 and 13 read as follows: 9. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions comprising the steps of: receiving at least one HVAC system condition from an HVAC system sensor; inputting the at least one HVAC system condition from the HVAC system sensor into a virtual fluid flow system to determine a fluid flow of at least a portion of the HVAC system; outputting a quantified fluid flow value from the virtual fluid flow system; and determining thermal energy flow using at least the quantified fluid flow value from the virtual fluid flow system. 13. A method for measuring thermal energy flow in an HVAC system, comprising: receiving at least one parameter or variable from the HVAC system; inputting the at least one parameter or variable from the HVAC system into a virtual fluid flow system to determine a fluid flow of at least a portion of the HVAC; outputting a quantified fluid flow value from the virtual fluid flow system; and Appeal 2021-003778 Application 15/344,369 8 determining thermal energy flow using at least the quantified fluid flow value from the virtual fluid flow system and a sensed temperature. Appeal Br. 14, 15 (Claims App.). We rely on our analysis, supra, for claims 9 and 13. As to claim 9, we note that Smith discloses that “[c]omputing devices . . . , such as server 145 and database 150, may include one or more processing units, a system memory, a storage unit, a network interface or adapter, a display, or an input device. These computing devices may include a variety of computer- readable storage media or memory.” Smith ¶ 23. Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 9, and claim 14 depends from claim 13. We rely on the Examiner’s additional findings in the Final Office Action regarding claims 10, 11, and 14-all of which rely on Smith for the dependent claims’ additional limitations-in determining the claims are obvious over Smith. Claims 12 and 15 Claim 12 depends from claim 9 and further requires that the computer executable instructions include performing a system functional test that includes at least one of bypass valve sweeping or branch sweeping for one or more branches of the HVAC system. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Claim 15 depends from claim 13 and further requires “including performing a system functional test that includes at least one of bypass valve sweeping or branch sweeping for one or more branches of the HVAC system.” Id. The Examiner finds that these additional limitations are disclosed in Karamanos. Final Act. 9 (citing Karamanos ¶¶ 70-74, 163-169). The cited portions of Karamanos concern HVAC systems that are variable air volume (“VAV”) systems. Karamanos ¶¶ 70-74, 163-169. The Examiner also Appeal 2021-003778 Application 15/344,369 9 explains why the ordinary artisan would have modified Smith based on Karamanos, thereby achieving the invention recited in claims 12 and 15. The Appellant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 12 and 15 and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims. Because, as discussed above, we determine that claims 9 and 13 are obvious in view of Smith alone, and rely on different facts and reasons than the Examiner, we denominate our affirmance of claims 12 and 15 as a new ground of rejection. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1-15 103 Smith, Karamanos3 12, 15 12, 15 1-11, 13, 14 103 Smith 1-11, 13, 14 Overall Outcome 12, 15 1-15 This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter 3 We do not reach the rejection of claims 1-11, 13, and 14 because we enter a new ground of rejection for these claims. We designate our affirmance of the Examiner’s original rejection of claims 12 and 15 over Smith and Karamanos a new ground of rejection because they depend from claims 9 and 13, for which we have entered the new ground. Appeal 2021-003778 Application 15/344,369 10 reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2020). AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)