DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed 19 March 2025 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-5, 8-19, 21, and 23-25 are presently pending, with claims 12-19 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-5, 8-11, 21, and 23-25 being examined herein.
3. All rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
4. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1-4, 9-11, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benefield (US 2019/0346417 A1) in view of Sloo et al (US 2015/0100167 A1) and Pliskin (US 2016/0041074 A1).
7. Regarding claim 1, Benefield teaches a system for mitigating airborne contamination in a conditioned indoor environment (system for indoor air quality sensing and environmental control operably engaged with an HVAC system, par 0009), the system comprising:
at least one sensor (IAQ sensors, pars 0009, 0034, 0037) configured to detect contaminants in the conditioned indoor environment (IAQ monitoring of contaminant type, par 0041), the contaminants comprising at least one of particles or aerosols (e.g. PM2.5 (particulate matter), carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, smoke, etc., par 0041), the at least one sensor comprising a first sensor at a first distance from a location of interest (each multi-sensor IAQ device corresponds to a specific location in the building, par 0033) and a second sensor at a second distance from the location of interest (plurality of multisensor IAQ devices, pars 0032-0033; each multi-sensor IAQ device corresponds to a specific location in the building, par 0033), each of the first sensor and the second sensor configured to detect a same contaminant material (each multisensory IAQ device may be comprised of one or more sensors operable to measure a plurality of IAQ data points such as PM2.5, pars 0033 and 0041);
at least one mitigation device (HVAC system, pars 0032 and 0034) to reduce the contaminants in the conditioned indoor environment (if IAQ is reduced at certain times of day i.e., if higher contamination levels are detected, the controller may execute instructions for the HVAC system to run the fan or increase the fresh air intake to proactively maintain desired IAQ thresholds, par 0036);
a computing device (controller coupled to an application server via computing unit, pars 0034-0036) configured to automatically activate the at least one mitigation device (controller queries database for IAQ remediation data and automatically adjusts HVAC system 710 to achieve a desired environmental condition, par 0051) based on at least one of (IAQ remediation based on processing sensor data at the controller level, par 0044):
the first sensor measurement of the contaminant material by the first sensor exceeding a first mitigation threshold (target thresholds for one or more AIG measurements, e.g., PM2.5 or carbon dioxide, par 0041); and
the second sensor measurement of the contaminant material by the second sensor exceeding a second mitigation threshold different than the first mitigation threshold (target thresholds for one or more AIG measurements, e.g., PM2.5 or carbon dioxide, par 0041).
Benefield does not specifically teach that the second mitigation threshold would be different than the first mitigation threshold, only that there would be target thresholds for one or more AIG measurements, e.g., PM2.5 or carbon dioxide (par 0041).
Sloo teaches a similar climate control system of a smart-home environment (Abstract) that provides HVAC fan control (pars 0218-0220) in response to sensor data provided by an analogous multi-sensing detector to the one claimed (one or more hazard detectors 104, pars 0045). Thresholds are set based on the detectors’ locations within a home (pars 0194-0203), giving the advantageous example of setting a kitchen smoke/CO threshold higher than a bedroom smoke/CO threshold to provide a tolerance for the contaminant and prevent false alarms for mitigation (par 0194).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to assign to the first and second sensors of Benefield different thresholds for the same contaminant based on location as taught by Sloo. Doing so would predictably provide the same beneficial capability of assigning a higher contaminant concentration threshold to a location with higher tolerance for the contaminant and activating the mitigation device in response to exceeding a lower contaminant threshold in a higher risk location as taught by Sloo (pars 0194-0202, FIGS. 16-17).
Benefield does not teach that the at least one mitigation device comprises at least one of a wet scrubber, a dry scrubber, an ozone generator, and an ultraviolet lamp.
Pliskin teaches a contaminant monitoring and air filtration system (Title, Abstract) wherein an ultraviolet light source may be incorporated into the air filtration system in the air flow path (par 0047). Due to the deadly effect of UV radiation on micro-organisms such as pathogens, viruses, and molds (par 0047), the UV light mitigation device can be activated in response to detection of certain levels and/or certain particulates to clean the air (par 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate into the mitigation device of Benefield an ultraviolet lamp as taught by Pliskin. Doing so would predictably provide the same ability to mitigate pathogens, viruses, and molds, as Pliskin demonstrates the effectiveness of a sensor-activated UV light source in an analogous air monitoring system.
8. Regarding claim 2, Benefield as modified by Sloo and Pliskin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is further configured to automatically collect an air sample (multi-sensor IAQ devices 104a are configured to continuously collect data and communicate such data to controller, Benefield par 0033) from the conditioned indoor environment (multi-sensor IAQ devices 104a may be distributed in one or more rooms of the commercial or residential building, Benefield par 0032) output from the at least one sensor (sensor outputs, Benefield par 0037).
9. Regarding claim 3, Benefield as modified by Sloo and Pliskin teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the system mitigates biological contaminants such as mold or pollen by monitoring indoor air quality versus outdoor air quality (Benefield par 0032). The combination does not teach wherein the computing device is further configured to cause a biological analyzer to identify one or more pathogens in the air sample.
Pliskin teaches within an analogous contaminant monitoring and air filtration system (Title, Abstract, FIGS. 1 and 5, par 0043) a biological analyzer that uses fluorescence to help reveal the identity and/or class of biological particles present in the air sample (par 0050) allowing for the identification and mitigation of harmful biological particulates such as pathogens, viruses, and bacteria (par 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the computing device of modified Benefield to cause an added biological analyzer to identify one or more pathogens in the air sample as taught by Pliskin. Doing so would predictably provide the controller and the user with actionable information about biological hazards in the airflow, enabling remedial actions such as activating an air purification means similar to the system of Pliskin (Pliskin par 0059).
10. Regarding claim 4, Benefield as modified by Sloo Pliskin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a carbon dioxide sensor, a humidity sensor, and/or an occupancy sensor configured to sense the presence of at least one human within the conditioned indoor environment (multi-sensor IAQ devices comprised of one or more sensors operable to measure temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide, sound, light intensity, or the like, Benefield par 0033).
11. Regarding claim 9, Benefield as modified by Sloo and Pliskin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the at least one mitigation device is positioned in the ductwork of an HVAC apparatus (ultraviolet light source may be introduced into the air flow path before or after inlet filter…or before or after final filter, Pliskin par 0047, Pliskin FIG. 5) associated with the conditioned indoor environment (HVAC system operably engaged with controller and installed in the interior of a commercial or residential building, Benefield par 0032).
12. Regarding claim 10, Benefield as modified by Sloo and Pliskin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is further configured to generate a user-perceptible alarm or generate one or more reports comprising information indicative of or derived from the computing device (application server is operable to query database to assemble one or more IAQ reports, Benefield pars 0031 and 0033). Pliskin further teaches that information obtained by the biosensor/control unit can be processed to produce reports or alarms (Pliskin par 0017), such a visual or audio i.e., user-perceptible alarm (Pliskin par 0054) indicating when a threshold value has been exceeded (Pliskin par 0017).
13. Regarding claim 11, Benefield as modified by Sloo and Pliskin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is further configured to control an HVAC apparatus associated with the conditioned indoor environment (HVAC system operably engaged with controller and installed in the interior of a commercial or residential building, Benefield par 0032).
14. Regarding claim 21, Benefield as modified by Sloo and Pliskin teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the computing device is further configured to cause a chemical analyzer to identify one or more constituents of the air sample (IAQ devices 104a may be comprised of one or more sensors being operable to measure…carbon dioxide, Benefield par 0033; analyzes IAQ data against target thresholds, Benefield par 0041).
15. Regarding claim 23, Benefield as modified by Sloo and Pliskin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is further configured to activate an alarm for various unspecified events (Benefield par 0038). The combination does not specifically teach activating an alarm based on detected contaminants exceeding an alarm threshold larger than the first mitigation threshold and the second mitigation threshold.
Pliskin teaches an alarm to indicate high concentration levels of particulates sensed in the room (Pliskin par 0054), wherein the alarm can be indicator lights of red for danger, yellow for caution, green for acceptable levels, blue for clean (Pliskin par 0054), with all alarm levels corresponding to programmable particulate levels (Pliskin par 0054). Considering the teaching that activation of the air purification unit can occur upon detection of certain levels or when contamination exists (Pliskin par 0022), at least the alarm indicating ‘danger’ would read upon an alarm threshold larger than the first and second mitigation thresholds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the computing device of modified Benefield to activate the alarm based on detected contaminants exceeding an alarm threshold larger than the first and second mitigation thresholds as taught by Pliskin. Doing so would predictably provide the user with an alert to protect against hazardous air quality in the room, as Pliskin further teaches the utility of taking protective actions such as locking a door or displaying a visual indicator in response to exceeding the alarm threshold (Pliskin par 0054).
16. Regarding claim 24, Benefield as modified by Sloo and Pliskin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is further configured to:
automatically associate an event with a contaminant increase based on data correlations (if IAQ is reduced at certain times of day, the controller may execute instructions for the HVAC system to run the fan or increase the fresh air intake to proactively maintain desired IAQ thresholds in response to data trends, Benefield par 0036);
and upon detection of the event (source of contamination, Benefield par 0042), automatically activate the at least one mitigation device based on the detected event (recommended remediation may be a mix of automated steps and physical steps i.e., new HVAC, increased fresh air intake, etc., Benefield par 0042) to prevent contaminants in the conditioned indoor environment from reaching at least one of the first mitigation threshold or the second mitigation threshold (identify target thresholds for one or more AIG measurements, e.g. PM2.5, carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, smoke, and the like, Benefield par 0041; functionally compare the sensor data to target and historical levels and execute one or more system controls in response to sensor data, Benefield par 0044).
17. Regarding claim 25, Benefield teaches a system for mitigating airborne contamination in a conditioned indoor environment (system for indoor air quality sensing and environmental control operably engaged with an HVAC system, par 0009), the system comprising a computing device (smart HVAC controller integrated with application server, pars 0031-0033) configured to:
receive, at the computing device from at least one sensor (multi-sensor IAQ devices 104a are configured to continuously collect data and communicate such data to controller, par 0033), detected contaminants in a conditioned indoor environment (multi-sensor IAQ devices 104a may be associated with a specific location in the building, par 0033), the contaminants comprising at least one of particles or aerosols (IAQ monitoring of contaminant type, e.g., PM2.5 (particulate matter), carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, smoke, etc., par 0041), the at least one sensor comprising a first sensor at a first distance from a location of interest (each multi-sensor IAQ device corresponds to a specific location in the building, par 0033) and a second sensor at a second distance from the location of interest (plurality of multisensor IAQ devices, pars 0032-0033; each multi-sensor IAQ device corresponds to a specific location in the building, par 0033), each of the first sensor and the second sensor configured to detect a same contaminant material (each multisensory IAQ device may be comprised of one or more sensors operable to measure a plurality of IAQ data points such as PM2.5, pars 0033 and 0041);
automatically activating, by the computing device, at least one mitigation device to reduce contaminants in the conditioned indoor environment (if IAQ is reduced at certain times of day i.e., if higher contamination levels are detected, the controller may execute instructions for the HVAC system to run the fan or increase the fresh air intake to proactively maintain desired IAQ thresholds, par 0036), the at least one mitigation device comprising an HVAC system (pars 0032 and 0034), the automatic activation based on at least one of (IAQ remediation based on processing sensor data at the controller level, par 0044):
the first sensor measurement of the contaminant material by the first sensor exceeding a first mitigation threshold (target thresholds for one or more AIG measurements, e.g., PM2.5 or carbon dioxide, par 0041); and
the second sensor measurement of the contaminant material by the second sensor exceeding a second mitigation threshold (target thresholds for one or more AIG measurements, e.g., PM2.5 or carbon dioxide, par 0041).
Benefield does not specifically teach that the second mitigation threshold would be different than the first mitigation threshold for the same contaminant, only that there would be target thresholds for one or more AIG measurements, e.g., PM2.5 or carbon dioxide (par 0041).
Sloo teaches a similar climate control system of a smart-home environment (Abstract) that provides HVAC fan control (pars 0218-0220) in response to sensor data provided by an analogous multi-sensing detector to the one claimed (one or more hazard detectors 104, pars 0045). Thresholds are set based on the detectors’ locations within a home (pars 0194-0203), giving the advantageous example of setting a kitchen smoke/CO threshold higher than a bedroom smoke/CO threshold to provide a tolerance for the contaminant and prevent false alarms for mitigation (par 0194).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to assign to the first and second sensors of Benefield different thresholds for the same contaminant based on location as taught by Sloo. Doing so would predictably provide the same beneficial capability of assigning a higher contaminant concentration threshold to a location with higher tolerance for the contaminant and activating the mitigation device in response to exceeding a lower contaminant threshold in a higher risk location as taught by Sloo (pars 0194-0202, FIGS. 16-17).
Benefield does not teach that the at least one mitigation device comprises at least one of a wet scrubber, a dry scrubber, an ozone generator, and an ultraviolet lamp.
Pliskin teaches a contaminant monitoring and air filtration system (Title, Abstract) wherein an ultraviolet light source may be incorporated into the air filtration system in the air flow path (par 0047). Due to the deadly effect of UV radiation on micro-organisms such as pathogens, viruses, and molds (par 0047), the UV light mitigation device can be activated in response to detection of certain levels and/or certain particulates to clean the air (par 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate into the mitigation device of Benefield an ultraviolet lamp as taught by Pliskin. Doing so would predictably provide the same ability to mitigate pathogens, viruses, and molds, as Pliskin demonstrates the effectiveness of a sensor-activated UV light source in an analogous air monitoring system.
18. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benefield, Sloo, and Pliskin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rodriguez et al (US 2020/0109870 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Benefield as modified by Sloo and Pliskin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one mitigation device comprises a ventilation system (HVAC system to run the fan or increase the fresh air intake, Benefield par 0036) configured to increase exchange of air between the conditioned indoor environment and an outdoor environment (incorporate a fresh air intake of outside air, Benefield par 0032), wherein the ventilation system is configured to control a fan (HVAC system to run the fan, Benefield par 0036). The combination does not teach this fan as an inlet fan and an outlet fan.
Rodriguez teaches a building ventilation system (Title, Abstract, pars 0016-0017) used to reduce humidity, toxins, radioactive gases, pollutants, allergens and other unwanted chemicals (par 0003). The system compares interior air with exterior air and exchanges the air when needed (Abstract) using an intake fan for intake air (par 0016) and an exhaust fan for exhaust air (par 0016). Based on sensor inputs and “algorithm set points” (par 0021), the “controller may turn the fan on, change the speed of the fan, or even reverse the direction of airflow” (par 0021), and the presence of two fans eliminates the contamination drawbacks of simple exhaust systems (par 0005) and overcomes the climate limitations of simple supply systems (par 0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the ventilation module of modified Benefield with inlet and outlet fans as taught by Rodriguez. Doing so would predictably provide active ventilation between the conditioned indoor space and the outside to controllably reduce contamination within the conditioned space.
19. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benefield, Sloo, and Pliskin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sher (US 2018/0001249 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Benefield as modified by Sloo and Pliskin teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one mitigation module comprises a plurality of mitigation modules including a smart HVAC system to regulate indoor air parameters (Benefield par 0011) as well as an ultraviolet lamp (Pliskin par 0047). The combination of Benefield and Pliskin does not teach that the mitigation modules comprise a second module of any of the following types: a wet scrubber, a dry scrubber, or an ozone generator.
Sher teaches a system for conditioning and purifying air (Title, Abstract) within a space such as indoor residential, office, or industrial spaces (par 0067) that includes a scrubber to mechanically wash the air and collect particles/pollutants therein (pars 0009 and 0104, FIG. 2D). Sher teaches that wet scrubbers are effective for removing various pollutants, dust particles, and toxic gases (pars 0009-0011) and that dry scrubbers are effective for removing odorous and corrosive gases (pars 0019-0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the mitigation device of Benefield a wet scrubber and/or a dry scrubber as taught by Sher. Doing so would predictably provide effective mitigation of various air pollutants, as Sher teaches the utility of both wet and dry scrubbers in a similar air purifying system for removing pollutants, dust particles, and toxic, odorous, and corrosive gases.
Response to Arguments
20. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 08 September 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 8-11, 21, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. As discussed in the telephonic interview on 28 August 2025 and then asserted by Applicant, the claim amendments were sufficient to overcome the rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Benefield and Pliskin in view of Sloo, which fully teaches the design and use of different contaminant thresholds for the same contaminant based on sensor location in an analogous smoke detection and HVAC control system. This new ground(s) of rejection was necessitated by the amendment.
Conclusion
21. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758