Ex Parte FrankDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 21, 201813534940 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/534,940 06/27/2012 34206 7590 05/23/2018 FOGG & POWERS LLC 4600 W 77th Street Suite 305 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Andrew Frank 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 977.199US1 6871 EXAMINER FURDGE, LARRY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3744 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2018 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): DA VID@FOGGLA W.COM docketing@fogglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW FRANK 1 Appeal2017-007226 Application 13/534,940 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-10 and 14--24. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Digi International Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claim 11 was canceled by an Amendment and Response Under 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.33, which was filed July 22, 2016, and entered by the Examiner. See Advisory Action, dated Oct. 11, 2016. Appeal2017-007226 Application 13/534,940 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A thermostat for controlling a first device and a second device in a HV AC system, comprising: a first demand circuit associated with the first device; a second demand circuit associated with the second device; a first limited current source and a second limited current source connected to the first and second demand circuits, respectively; an energy storage device connected to the first and second current sources; a DC regulator connected to the energy storage device; and a thermostat control connected to the DC regulator and to the energy storage device; wherein the thermostat control includes a charge monitor, sleep/wake logic and a thermostat processing engine, wherein the thermostat processing engine is configured to activate one or more of the demand circuits as a function of a heating/cooling profile, wherein the charge monitor monitors energy stored in the energy storage device; and wherein the first limited current source provides a first limited current to the energy storage device when the first demand circuit is not activated; wherein the second limited current source provides a second limited current to the energy storage device when the second demand circuit is not activated; wherein the sleep/wake logic is configured to place the thermostat control in alternating periods of sleep state and wake state based on the amount of energy stored in the energy storage device, power requirements of the thermostat control during periods of sleep state being less than power requirements of the thermostat control during periods of wake state; 2 Appeal2017-007226 Application 13/534,940 wherein each of the first limited current and the second limited current is insufficient for power requirements of the thermostat control during periods of wake state; wherein each of the first limited current source and the second limited current source is configured to charge the energy storage device during periods of sleep state; wherein the sleep/wake logic is configured to maintain the sleep state of the thermostat control at least until the amount of energy on the energy storage device is sufficient for the power requirements of the thermostat control during a subsequent wake state. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App'x). REJECTI0NS 3 Claims 1, 5-10, 14, 18-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gingras (US 4,236,084, iss. Nov. 25, 1980), Mulhouse (US 7,476,988 B2, iss. Jan. 13, 2009), and Kates (US 2007 /0119958 Al, pub. May 31, 2007). Claims 2--4, 15-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gingras, Mulhouse, Kates, and Scannell, Jr. (US 2006/0123053 Al, pub. June 8, 2006) ("Scannell"). 3 The rejections of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite, and under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Gingras, Mulhouse, Kates, and Leen (US 2010/0006660 Al, pub. Jan. 14, 2010) are mooted by Appellant's cancellation of claim 11 by an Amendment and Response Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.33, which was filed July 22, 2016, and entered by the Examiner (see Advisory Action, dated Oct. 11, 2016). 3 Appeal2017-007226 Application 13/534,940 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 5-10, 14, 18-20, and 24 Rejected Over Gingras, Mulhouse, and Kates The Examiner relies on the same findings for each of independent claims 1, 8, 14, and 20. Final Act. 3-7 (setting forth findings regarding claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 20). In particular, the Examiner relies on Gingras to teach a thermostat control including a first demand circuit ( electric switch 1 in Fig. 1 ), a second demand circuit ( electrical switch 2 in Fig. 1 ), a limited current source (full wave rectifying network 20 in Fig. 1 ), and an energy storage device (capacitor 74 in Fig. 2A). The Examiner finds that Gingras lacks ( 1) a charge monitor and sleep/wake logic, (2) a charge monitor monitors energy stored in the energy storage device, (3) a first limited current source provides a first limited current to the energy storage device when the first demand circuit is not activated, (4) a second limited current source that provides a second limited current to the energy storage device when the second demand circuit is not activated, ( 5) sleep/wake logic to place the thermostat control in alternating periods of sleep state and wake state based on the amount of energy stored in the energy storage device, ( 6) wherein the first and second limited currents are insufficient for power requirements of the thermostat control during the wake state, (7) wherein the first and second limited current sources are configured to charge the energy storage device during periods of sleep state, and (8) wherein the sleep/wake logic is configured to maintain the sleep state of the thermostat control at least until the amount of energy on the energy storage device is sufficient for the power requirements of the thermostat control during a subsequent wake state. Final Act. 3--4. 4 Appeal2017-007226 Application 13/534,940 The Examiner relies on Mulhouse to teach a control device with a power stealing arrangement where a limited current source provides a first limited current to energy storage device 12 when demand circuit 16 is not activated to charge energy storage device 12 for the obvious advantage of sustaining the power to the control device. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner relies on Kates to teach ( 1) a charge monitor to monitor energy stored in an energy storage device, (2) a sleep/wake logic to place the controller in alternating periods of sleep and wake states with power requirements for the sleep state are less than for the wake state, (3) wherein limited current is insufficient for power requirements of the controller during the wake state, ( 4 ), the sleep/ wake logic maintains the sleep state of the controller at least until the energy storage device has sufficient energy for power requirements of the controller during subsequent wake states. Id. at 5---6 ( citing Kates ,r 52). We agree with Appellant that none of the prior art, individually or in combination, teaches or suggests, first or second limited current sources that provide their respective currents to the energy storage device when the first or second demand circuit is not activated, and wherein the first and second limited currents are insufficient for power requirements of the thermostat during periods of a wake state and must charge the energy storage device during periods of sleep state as claimed. Appeal Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant describes this feature as allowing newer thermostats, which have higher power requirements than existing current sources can meet, to harvest current from an inactive demand circuit ( e.g., a heating or cooling circuit that is not operating) and store the current in an energy storage device during sleep states of the thermostat until sufficient power is stored to power the thermostat control during a wake state. Spec. 3-5, Fig. 2. 5 Appeal2017-007226 Application 13/534,940 The Examiner acknowledges that Gingras does not teach this feature. Final Act. 4. Nor does Mulhouse disclose "a limited current source provides a fist [sic] limited current to an energy storage device (12) when a demand circuit (16) is not activated," as the Examiner finds. Id. at 4--5. We agree with the Examiner that Mulhouse discloses a control device with a power stealing mechanism that takes power from thermostatic load 16 and stores power on storage/power device 12 of a control device, such as a thermostat. Id. ( citing Mulhouse, 1 :23-36). However, the claims require more. First, Mulhouse does not take scavenged current from a circuit that is inactive as recited in independent claims 1, 8, 14, and 20. Mulhouse only discloses that "[p ]ower may be picked off of a supply for a thermostatic load 16" "to take power for the control device, such as thermostatic electronics" and "may be conveyed to a storage/power device 12." Mulhouse, 1 :23-36. There is no teaching that current is scavenged when a circuit is inactive. Nor does Mulhouse disclose that the power and current provided to thermostat loads 16 is in any way "insufficient" to meet the demands of the thermostat during an active, wake state, as recited in each of the independent claims. Indeed, Mulhouse appears to indicate that the scavenged power can be used for the control device without any such limitation. The stored power is used to "sustain operation" of the control device/thermostat, rather than to power it in a wake state upon reaching a certain charge level as claimed. Id. Nor does Kates teach these features. Kates teaches a thermostat that controls the opening/closing of ventilation ducts. Controller 401 is powered by power source(s) 404, 405 that may be chargeable or non-rechargeable batteries that supply current to controller 401. Kates ,r 52; Final Act. 5 ( citing id.). 6 Appeal2017-007226 Application 13/534,940 Kates does not teach first or second current sources, limited or other, that are used to charge power sources 404, 405 when the current source is inactive. Kates merely discloses that one or more of power sources 404, 405 is recharged. Kates ,r 52. The Examiner has not identified any disclosure of current sources that are insufficient to power operation of controller 401 or that charge power sources 404, 405 during an inactive period as claimed. Even if the prior art taught such claimed features, the Examiner has not provided a sufficient reason to include these features in Gingras, which stores energy in DC voltage regulator module 24 "for maintenance of this direct current voltage during times when the output on line 22 of the full- wave rectifying module 20 is short-circuited." Gingras, 5:55---68. Nor is there any indication that electricity source 14 is insufficient in any way to power the operations of the control system/thermostat in any of its states or operations. See id. at 5:32---6:39. Gingras stores charge on capacitor 75 "to maintain the desired output voltage (VCC) on line 26 during times when the output line 22 of the full-wave rectifying network is effectively equal to the potential on ground line 69." Id. at 8:13-20. Even if the power-saving sleep/wake logic of Kates were applied to Gingras, the resulting modification would control operation of capacitor 7 5 rather than a thermostat controller that operates at a higher power level in a wake state and a lower power level in a sleep state, as claimed. Nor has the Examiner explained sufficiently why a skilled artisan would have wanted to make Gingras' current source 14 a limited current source that is insufficient to power operations of the controller when Gingras is configured to charge an energy storage device 24 without using a limited current source. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5-10, 14, 18-20, and 24. 7 Appeal2017-007226 Application 13/534,940 Claims 2-4, 15-17, and 21-23 Rejected Over Gingras, Mulhouse, Kates, and Scannell The Examiner's reliance on Scannell to teach a thermostat control with a Wi-Fi wireless interface that complies with the Zigbee standard does not overcome the deficiencies of Gingras, Mulhouse, and Kates as to any of claims 1, 14, and 20 from which claims 2--4, 15-17, and 21-23 depend respectively. See Final Act. 8; Appeal Br. 18-19. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1-10 and 14--24. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation