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 .
Response to Arguments
In light of amendments to Table I, the previous objection to the specification is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, pages with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection provided here within.
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 1-12 and 14-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the position." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "a position" was not previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the center of circles." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "center of circles" was not previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the positions of the three gas detection devices are taken as the center of circles." The limitation raises the following question: Are the center[s] of the of circles interpreted as mathematical concepts, geographic detection spaces/areas, albeit the radii is not referenced, and/or merely detection regions? Additionally, the claim language fails to provide how the data is converted into distances. The amended claim language makes claim 1 indefinite. For examination on the merits prior art that discloses triangulation or trilateration will be interpreted to disclose the previous limitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "so as to calculate the distances between the three gas detection devices and the location of the polluted gas" relative to the limitation "the corresponding detection area." The calculated information in relationship to the corresponding detection area is unclear, and therefore the claim language is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the distances." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "distances" was not previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the location of the polluted gas." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "a location" was not previously recited.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the volume of each detection area." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "a volume" was not previously recited.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasao (JP 2006177685 A) in view of Cornwall (US 20170193790 A1).
For claim 1, as interpreted, Sasao discloses a method for detecting and filtering indoor polluted gas adapted to figure out a polluted gas in an indoor space for filtration, the indoor space comprises a plurality of areas, wherein the method steps comprises:
providing a plurality of gas detection devices to detect the polluted gas, wherein each of the gas detection devices arranged in the corresponding area to detect a data of the polluted gas of the corresponding area in the indoor space and output the data (plurality of measuring devices 2a, 2b, 2c for measuring the pollutant concentration; Fig. 9);
providing a plurality of filtration and purification devices to filter the polluted gas (plurality of air purifiers 90a and 90b; Fig. 9), wherein each of the filtration and the purification devices receives a first control command through a wireless communication or a wired communication to enable filtration of the polluted gas (“the operating state of the air cleaners 90a and 90b are controlled based on the information on the pollution source calculated by the pollution source exploration device 70”; Fig. 9), each of the filtration and purification devices comprises a flow-guiding component and a filtration and purification module (see 90a and 90b in Fig. 9), the flow-guiding component guides the polluted gas to pass through the filtration and purification module for filtration and purification (Fig. 9), wherein each of the detection areas is defined by a surrounding area consisting of the gas detection device and the filtration and purification device (Fig. 9); and,
providing a connection device to perform intelligent computation, wherein the connection device receives and compares the data of the polluted gas detected by the gas detection devices, and then selects three gas detection devices (pollution source exploration device 70; “measurement results of the plurality of measuring devices 2a, 2b, 2c are input to the pollution source searching device 70”), the positions of the three gas detection devices are taken as the center of circles;
wherein the filtration and purification device at the location of the indoor space containing the polluted gas is enabled to filter the polluted gas, allowing the polluted gas in the indoor space to become a clean, safe, and breathable gas (“air cleaner 90a, 90b takes in the air in the room 10, removes contaminants in the air, and then supplies the air into the room 10 again”)
Sasao does not explicitly teach wherein the data of the polluted gas detected by the gas detection devices in three detection areas performs intelligent computation by a trilateration, so as to calculate the distances between the three gas detection devices and the location of the polluted gas and determine and figure out a location of the corresponding detection area containing the polluted gas in the indoor space and to intelligently and selectively transmit the first control command to a filtration and purification device at the location of the corresponding detection area of the indoor space containing the polluted gas. Sasao discloses a simulator 3 that performs the calculation method but also discloses that the calculation method may be based on another theory. Cornwall is analogous art and discloses a method of gas detection including determining a location of a gas leak by triangulating, i.e., trilateration (pars [0020]-[0035]; Figs. 1, 4, 5, 6b, 7, 8, 9).
At the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the triangulating, i.e., trilateration method of Cornwall that is another theory of a calculation method as suggested in Sasao with a reasonable expectation of success.
For claim 2, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Sasao further discloses pollutant is a gaseous substance (or air pollutant) that is a chemical but does not expressly state a specific chemical. Nonetheless, the listed polluted group recited in claim 2 are also chemical substances and particles. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to envisage the polluted gas comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of particulate matters, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, total volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, bacteria, fungi, and viruses (“a gaseous substance such as a chemical substance”).
For claim 3, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Cornwall discloses further discloses said method wherein the connection device intelligently and selectively transmits the first control command to and enable the filtration and purification device at the location containing the polluted gas; wherein the connection device intelligently and selectively transmits a second control command to and enable rest of the filtration and purification devices to accelerate the filtration of the polluted gas (i.e., enabling filtration and purification devices would apparently accelerate filtration since additional filtration and purifications devices would clean more polluted gas), allowing the polluted gas in the indoor space to become a clean, safe, and breathable gas (Fig. 2; par [0017]).
For claim 4, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Sasao discloses further said method wherein each of the gas detection devices is disposed in the indoor space and is stationary or movable (Fig. 9; “measurement device 2 is illustrated as being fixed indoors, but the measurement device may be movable”)
For claim 5, the prior art is relied upon. The combined teaching of the prior art discloses said method wherein the connection device is in communication to the plurality of gas detection devices, and receives and compares the data of the polluted gas in the indoor space detected by at least three of the gas detection devices (Sasao Fig. 9), the connection device intelligently computes the data having a highest value among the data to determine (Cornwall Figs. 2, 5 & pars [0017], [0020]) and selectively figure out the location of the indoor space containing the polluted gas (Fig. 6B).
For claim 6, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above, Cornwall further discloses wherein each of the gas detection devices comprises a control circuit board, a gas detection main body, a microprocessor, and a communication device (Figs. 1, 8, 9); the gas detection main body, the microprocessor, and the communication device are integrally packaged with the control circuit board and electrically connected to each other; the microprocessor controls the detection of the gas detection main body, the gas detection main body detection the polluted gas to output a detection signal, and the microprocessor receives the detection signal to perform computation to output the data of the polluted gas to the communication device for wirelessly transmitting outwardly (Figs. 1, 8, 9).
For claim 11, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Cornwall discloses further wherein the connection device is selected from the group consisting of a mobile device and a cloud processing device (Fig. 1; pars [0015]-[00160] [0020]).
For claim 12, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Cornwall discloses further wherein the wireless communication is achieved by one of a Wi-Fi module, a Bluetooth module, a radiofrequency identification module, and a near field communication module (Fig. 1; pars [0015]-[00160] [0020]).
Claims 7-10, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasao and Cornwall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mou (US 20210254845 A1).
For claim 7, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. The combined teaching of the prior art references disclose the method for detecting and filtering indoor polluted gas according to claim 1. The prior art references teach filtration and purification devices but do not explicitly disclose the gas detection main body as recited at lines 3-49 of claim 7, but Mou does (Figs. 5A-D, 6A-B, 7, 8A-B, 9A-B, 10A-C; Claim 13; pars [0056]-[0066]) in order to solve air quality issues. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the method of Sasao and Cornwall with the filtration and purification devices disclosed in Mou in order to solve air quality issues.
For claim 8, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Mou discloses further wherein the particulate sensor is capable of detecting particulate matter (par [0059]).
For claim 9, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Mou discloses further wherein the gas sensor comprises a volatile organic compound detector capable of detecting carbon dioxide or total volatile organic compounds (par [0065]).
For claim 10, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Mou discloses further wherein the gas sensor comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a formaldehyde sensor, a bacterial sensor, and a virus sensor; the formaldehyde sensor is capable of detecting formaldehyde gas; the bacterial sensor is capable of detecting bacteria or fungi; the virus sensor is capable of detecting viruses (pars [0059], [0065]).
For claim 14, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Mou discloses further wherein the flow-guiding component is at least one selected from the group consisting of an electric fan, a cleaner, an air conditioner, and a fresh air purifier (pars [0039]-[0044]).
For claim 16, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Mou further discloses, wherein the filtration and purification module comprises a high-efficiency particulate air filter, HEPA (pars [0039]-[0043]).
For claim 17, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above, Mou discloses further the filtration and purification module is a combination of a high-efficiency particulate air filter and a catalyst unit (par [0040]).
For claim 18, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Mou discloses further that the HEPA filter is coated with at least one selected from the group consisting of a cleansing factor layer having chlorine dioxide and a layer of silver ions, wherein the cleaning factor layer and the layer of silver ions suppress viruses and bacteria in the polluted gas (par [0039]).
For claim 19, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Mou discloses further that the HEPA filter is coated with an herbal protection coating layer including the extracts of Rhus chinensis Mill and the extracts of Ginkgo biloba to form an herbal protection anti-allergy filter which can efficiently perform anti-allergy function and destroy cell surface proteins of influenza viruses passing through the herbal protection anti-allergy filter (par [0039]).
For claim 20, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Mou discloses further the filtration and purification module further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a photo plasma unit, a negative ion unit, and a plasma ion unit (pars [0041]-[0043]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sasao, Cornwall, and Mou in further view of Mou ‘55 (US 20220120655 A1).
For claim 15, as interpreted, the teaching of the prior art is set forth above. The combined teaching of the prior art references does not appear to disclose the features recited in claim 15. Mou ’55 does disclose wherein the volume of each of the filtration and purification devices in the indoor space is in a range between 16.5 and 247.5 m3, the number of the filtration and purification devices is in a range between 2 and 75, and the clean air delivery rate of the flow-guiding component of each of the filtration and purification devices is in a range between 200 m3/h and 1600 m3/h, so that the polluted gas is cleaned by each of the filtration and purification devices in one minute (pars [0026]-[0029], [0031]-[0037], and [0042]-[0047]), and Mou teaches that the gas flow rate and the volume of the indoor space, corresponds to the number of devices and that the number of devices can be adjusted according to requirements to maintain predictable air quality results (see Table 1) in the indoor space. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would recognize the advantages of cleaning polluted gas from the volume of space to prevent exposure to polluted gas and optimize the result-effective variables that are the number of devices for the method to achieve predictable results without undue experimentation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to arrive at the results recited at lines 8-15 in claim 15, as the result of nothing more than routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP § 2144(II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. Also, see the prior art examples provided below in response to this correspondence. Examples follow:
US 20190203959 A1: an energy efficient air purification system 100; Figs. 1, 2A-2B; air pollution monitoring units communicate the air quality data to the automated control unit 500 that is adapted to analyze the air quality data, and on basis of such analysis, the automated control unit 500 further instructs the air purification units for further action; automated control unit 500 remotely controls plurality of air purification units.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (EST).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 August 27, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights