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 .
In view of appeal brief filed on October 15, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Appellant’s appeal brief filed on October 15, 2025 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-3 5-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-22 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2025, 07/28/2025, 10/22/2025, and 11/18/2025 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Appellant’s arguments filed on October 15, 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under§ 112(a):
On pages 13-15 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that the Appellant submits that the plain language of the claims are adequately clear for the purposes of claim interpretation without reference to either the specification. Accordingly, the emphasized claim recitations do comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 22, the claim limitation of “eliminating a defect of at least one of a ventilation facility of the determination target, an air conditioning facility of the determination target, the sensor, and an application for controlling any one of the ventilation facility, the air conditioning facility and the sensor” lacks proper written description. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the claim limitation related to examples, equations and/or explanation how to acquire “eliminating a defect of at least one of a ventilation facility of the determination target, an air conditioning facility of the determination target, the sensor, and an application for controlling any one of the ventilation facility, the air conditioning facility and the sensor” is disclosed in the instant application. Further, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the claim limitation related to examples, equations and/or explanation how to acquire “eliminating a defect of at least one of a ventilation facility” is disclosed in the instant application. The Examiner further notes that appellant explains, in para. [0052], that for example, when the situation Sd is, for example, a situation where the concentration of the CO2 (carbon dioxide) 510 is an abnormal value, the contractor who can improve or eliminate the factor is a ventilation contractor who can eliminate the abnormal value. Further, Appellant explains, in para. [0053], that when the measurement situation Sm is for example, a situation where the CO2 sensor 400 performs the measurement in an insufficiently calibrated state. Furthermore, appellant explains, in para. [0061], a ventilation facility and air condition facility. However, appellant does not reasonably demonstrate possession such that ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner that appellant implements or otherwise achieves this claim feature. Applicant states the results but not what they are in possession of to achieve the results. The paragraphs [0052]-[0053] and [0062] do not give an algorithm or other reasonable explanation for eliminating a defect of at least one of a ventilation facility. Merely stating that eliminating abnormal value is used without any further explanation to demonstrate the manner in which the claim features are implemented does not reasonably demonstrate possession of the claim features. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
Rejections under§ 112b:
On page 16 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that "... improvement information by which at least one of the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration and the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration can be improved by eliminating a defect of at least one of a ventilation facility of the determination target, an air conditioning facility of the determination target ... " Pages 6-7 of the Final Office Action asserts that this emphasized claim recitation is indefinite; the Appellant traverses this assertion. The Final Office Action provided minimal reasoning and the reasoning that was provided quoted the recitations of the claims in an incomplete form that removed adequate context which would have otherwise been clear that the claims recitations of claim 22 are definite. Accordingly, this emphasized claim recitation is not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
The phrase “an electronic commerce contractor” on line 20 is indefinite. This phrase is indefinite because the metes and bounds of what would and would not be considered an electronic commerce contractor are unclear. All contractors are commerce contractors as they are reasonably conducting commerce, such as being paid, for their work. All contractors that use any form of electronics would therefore reasonably be electronic commerce contractors. This phrase is therefore sufficiently broad to reasonably include all contractors, including those contractors distinctly recited in these claims. As such, this phrase is indefinite because the metes and bounds of this phrase are unclear, and the difference and relationship between the above phrase and the other claimed contractors is unclear.
Rejections under 101:
On page 16 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-22 recite determining" ... whether or not there is an abnormality ... of a carbon dioxide concentration in [a] determination target... " and notifying a" ... transmission destination ... " of" ... improvement information ... ", wherein the transmission destination is " ... a calibration equipment contractor ... ". The Patent Examiner erroneously asserts on page 9 of the Final Office Action that emphasized claim recitations relate to "mathematical concepts". The Appellant respectfully traverses this assertion based on the plain language of the claims. The Patent Examiner erroneously asserts on pages 12-13 that the emphasized claim recitations are an "insignificant extra-solution activity". The Appellant respectfully traverses any such assertion. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), when determining whether the claims recitations are "significantly more". whether the claims recitations are "significantly more", the following should be considered: 1) "Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known." It is clear from the prosecution history that the emphasized claim recitations are not well known, as set forth in the arguments below related to the prior art rejections. In other words, the emphasized claim recitations are not a token extra solution activity. 2) "Whether the limitation is significant." The specific recitations of the emphasized claim recitations are significant. For example, emphasized claim recitations are integrated into the conditions for which an abnormality in a carbon dioxide concentration of a determination target can be improved by a calibration equipment contractor with maximized efficiency. 3) "Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting." It is clear from the plain language of the emphasized claim recitations that the recitations of the claims do not relate to mere data gathering and outputting. In view of the forgoing, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 should be withdrawn. The Examiner disagrees for the following reasons:
"Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known”
The Appellant has argued that the prosecution record demonstrates that the additional elements are not well-known. Examiner respectfully disagrees because below references do reasonably demonstrate that the additional elements are conventional because these elements are found in more than one reference. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Scaramelli, Otani, Tetsuya, Morgan (US 2021/0239335), Pham (WO 2019/204789 A1), Ricciardelli (US 2017/0367618 A1), Ohashi (JP2016081090A), Kimura (JP2020119303A)).
“Whether the limitation is significant”
Appellant has argued that the abstract idea itself is significant. However, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Appellant has not, respectfully, demonstrated with evidence why the abstract idea itself would amount to more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II : Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)).
Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting
The additional elements such as “notify a determination result by the determination of the abnormality” and “notify the determination result and the improvement information of the transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target” are insignificant extra-solution (post solution) activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements such as “acquire improvement information by which at least one of the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration and the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration can be improved by eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor, when the determination apparatus determines that there is an abnormality, wherein the improvement information is advertisement information” and “acquire location information of the determination target and one or more transmission destinations, wherein the one or more transmission destinations are at least one of calibration equipment contractors” are pre-solution activity (gathering data), insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Rejections under 103
Appellant’s arguments filed April 29, 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because Fig. 5 fails to show “internet line” as described in the specification (paras. [0061]-[0062]). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the appellant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 13, the phrases “at least one of a calibration equipment contractor” should read “at least one of calibration equipment contractors.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1-3, 5-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1 and 13,
The phrase “eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor, when the determination apparatus determines that there is an abnormality” is lacks proper written description. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the claim limitation related to examples, equations and/or explanation how to acquire “eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor, when the determination apparatus determines that there is an abnormality” is disclosed in the instant application. The Examiner further notes that appellant explains, in para. [0052], that for example, a situation where the concentration of the CO2 (carbon dioxide) 510 is an abnormal value, the improvement information Si may include improvement information for eliminating the abnormal value, maintenance information, or the like. However, appellant does not reasonably demonstrate possession such that ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner that appellant implements or otherwise achieves this claim feature. Applicant states the results but not what they are in possession of to achieve the results. The paragraphs [0052] does not give an algorithm or other reasonable explanation for eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor. Merely stating that eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor is used without any further explanation to demonstrate the manner in which the claim features are implemented does not reasonably demonstrate possession of the claim features. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
The phrase “acquiring improvement information” lacks proper written description. Examiner notes that no description related to the claim limitation related to examples, equations and/or exploration how to acquire “acquiring improvement information” is disclosed in the instant application. The Examiner further notes that appellant explains, in para. [0052], that for example, the improvement information Si according to the measurement situation Sm refers to advertisement information or the like of a contractor who can remedy the measurement situation Sm. However, appellant does not reasonably demonstrate possession such that ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner or function that appellant implements or otherwise achieves this claim feature. The paragraph [0052] does not give an algorithm or other reasonable explanation for the acquiring improvement information. Merely stating that the acquiring improvement information is used without any further explanation to demonstrate the manner or function in which the claim features are implemented does not reasonably demonstrate possession of the claim features. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
As to claim 22,
The claim limitation of “eliminating a defect of at least one of a ventilation facility of the determination target, an air conditioning facility of the determination target, the sensor, and an application for controlling any one of the ventilation facility, the air conditioning facility and the sensor” lacks proper written description. Examiner notes that no description related to the claim limitation related to examples, equations and/or exploration how to acquire “eliminating a defect of at least one of a ventilation facility” is disclosed in the instant application. The Examiner further notes that appellant explains, in para. [0052], that for example, when the situation Sd is, for example, a situation where the concentration of the CO2 (carbon dioxide) 510 is an abnormal value, the contractor who can improve or eliminate the factor is a ventilation contractor who can eliminate the abnormal value. However, appellant does not reasonably demonstrate possession such that ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner that appellant implements or otherwise achieves this claim feature. Applicant states the results but not what they are in possession of to achieve the results. The paragraphs [0052]-[0053] and [0062] do not give an algorithm or other reasonable explanation for eliminating a defect of at least one of a ventilation facility. Merely stating that eliminating abnormal value is used without any further explanation to demonstrate the manner in which the claim features are implemented does not reasonably demonstrate possession of the claim features. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
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 appellant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-22 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 appellant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1 and 13
The phrase “eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor” is indefinite. It is unclear what eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor means. For the purposes of examination, it was assumed that eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor is improving the indoor air quality.
The phrase "insufficiently" in claims 1 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term " insufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The phrase “the improvement information is advertisement information” is indefinite. It is unclear what the improvement information and advertisement information means. For the purposes of examination, it was assumed that improvement information is eliminating the abnormal carbon dioxide concentration or a name or the like of a contractor who can eliminated the abnormal carbon dioxide concentration (see paras. [0052], [0057] of instant application) and advertisement is advertisement information of a ventilation facility contractor, advertisement information of a calibration facility contractor, or the like (see para. [0068] of instant application).
The phrase “notify a determination result” in line 11 is indefinite. it is unclear what appellant means by “notify a determination result” itself. This is the same as stating “notify the data.” Appellant most likely means alert a user or notify a user of the determination result, but it is indefinite to state that the data or result itself is notified.
As to claim 22,
The phrase “an electronic commerce contractor” on line 20 is indefinite. This phrase is indefinite because the metes and bounds of what would and would not be considered an electronic commerce contractor are unclear. All contractors are commerce contractors as they are reasonably conducting commerce, such as being paid, for their work. All contractors that use any form of electronics would therefore reasonably be electronic commerce contractors. This phrase is therefore sufficiently broad to reasonably include all contractors, including those contractors distinctly recited in these claims. As such, this phrase is indefinite because the metes and bounds of this phrase are unclear, and the difference and relationship between the above phrase and the other claimed contractors is unclear.
The phrase “notify a determination result” in line 11 is indefinite. it is unclear what appellant means by “notify a determination result” itself. This is the same as stating “notify the data.” Appellant most likely means alert a user or notify a user of the determination result, but it is indefinite to state that the data or result itself is notified.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A determination apparatus which is configured to
determine, based on a carbon dioxide concentration output by a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure a carbon dioxide concentration in a determination target, and a situation in which the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target is measured by the carbon dioxide sensor, whether or not there is an abnormality in at least one of a carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target and a measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target, wherein the determination target is indoors;
notify a determination result by the determination of the abnormality;
acquire improvement information by which at least one of the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration and the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration can be improved by eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor, when the determination apparatus determines that there is an abnormality, wherein the improvement information is advertisement information;
acquire location information of the determination target and one or more transmission destinations, wherein the one or more transmission destinations are at least one of calibration equipment contractors; and
notify the determination result and the improvement information of the transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (machine).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
For example, step of “determine, based on a carbon dioxide concentration output by a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure a carbon dioxide concentration in a determination target, and a situation in which the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target is measured by the carbon dioxide sensor, whether or not there is an abnormality in at least one of a carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target and a measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target, wherein the determination target is indoors (see Fig. 2 and paras. [0043]-[0045] of instant application)” is mathematical calculations (i.e., comparing the carbon dioxide concentration with normal value). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical concepts, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas because the above-described claim limitation is indicative of a mathematical calculating related to comparing the abnormal carbon dioxide concentration with normal carbon dioxide concentration value. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 11, 13, and 22.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A determination apparatus (preamble); notify a determination result by the determination of the abnormality; acquire improvement information by which at least one of the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration and the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration can be improved by eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor, when the determination apparatus determines that there is an abnormality, wherein the improvement information is advertisement information; acquire location information of the determination target and one or more transmission destinations, wherein the one or more transmission destinations are at least one of calibration equipment contractors; notify the determination result and the improvement information of the transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target;
In Claim 11: a determination system (preamble); information acquisition unit; one or a plurality of mobile terminals, each having the carbon dioxide sensor; notify a determination result by the determination of the abnormality; acquire improvement information by which at least one of the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration and the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration can be improved by eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor, when the determination apparatus determines that there is an abnormality, wherein the improvement information is advertisement information; acquire location information of the determination target and one or more transmission destinations, wherein the one or more transmission destinations are at least one of calibration equipment contractors; notify the determination result and the improvement information of the transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target;
In Claim 13: a determination method (preamble); acquiring improvement information by which at least one of the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration and the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration can be improved by eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor, when the determination apparatus determines that there is an abnormality, wherein the improvement information is advertisement information; acquiring location information of the determination target and one or more transmission destinations, wherein the one or more transmission destinations are at least one of calibration equipment contractors; notifying the determination result and the improvement information of the transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target; and
In Claim 22: a determination apparatus (preamble); notify a determination result by the determination of the abnormality; acquire improvement information by which at least one of the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration and the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration can be improved by eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor, when the determination apparatus determines that there is an abnormality, wherein the improvement information is advertisement information; acquire location information of the determination target and one or more transmission destinations, wherein the one or more transmission destinations are at least one of calibration equipment contractors; notify the determination result and the improvement information of the transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target.
The generically recited preamble represents field-of-use limitation that is not meaningful. The additional element such as determination apparatus and one or a plurality of mobile terminals, each having the carbon dioxide sensor are a field-of-use limitation that is generally recited and, therefore, not meaningful and is not qualified as a particular machine. The additional elements such as “notify a determination result by the determination of the abnormality” and “notify the determination result and the improvement information of the transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target” are insignificant extra-solution (post solution) activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements such as “acquire improvement information by which at least one of the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration and the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration can be improved by eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor, when the determination apparatus determines that there is an abnormality, wherein the improvement information is advertisement information” and “acquire location information of the determination target and one or more transmission destinations, wherein the one or more transmission destinations are at least one of calibration equipment contractors” are pre-solution activity (gathering data), insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, These limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Scaramelli, Otani, Tetsuya, Morgan (US 2021/0239335), Pham (WO 2019/204789 A1), Iio (JP6557853), Ricciardelli (US 2017/0367618 A1), Ohashi (JP2016081090A), Kimura (JP2020119303A)). For example, Scaramelli, Morgan, Pham, and Ricciardelli teaches acquire improvement information by which at least one of the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration and the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration can be improved by eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor, when the determination apparatus determines that there is an abnormality, wherein the improvement information is advertisement information (para. [0053] of Scaramelli; paras. [0102], [0226] of Morgan; paras. [0068]-[0070], [0082] of Pham; paras. [0063] and [0105] of Ricciardelli). Further, Otani, Morgan, Pham, Ichikawa, and Ohashi teach acquiring location information of the determination target and one or more transmission destinations, wherein the one or more transmission destinations are at least of a calibration equipment contractor (page 3, lines 6-9 of Otani; paras. [0107[, [0110], [0226] of Morgan; paras, [0079], [0154] of Pham; page 3, lines 9-11 of Ichikawa; page 10, lines 12-14 of Ohashi). Furthermore, Tetsuya and Kimura teach one or a plurality of mobile terminals, each having a carbon dioxide sensor (page 9, lines 14-16 of Tetsuya; page 5, lines 23-24 of Kimura).
Regarding claim 2
The additional claim feature of “determine the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration based on a change over time of the carbon dioxide concentration” is mental process or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 3
The additional element of “the determination apparatus is further configured to determine the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration based on the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target and a carbon dioxide concentration in another determination target different from the determination target” is metal process (observation or judgment) or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 5
The additional element of “a motion sensor configured to detect at least one of an acceleration, an angular rate, and terrestrial magnetism information” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (paras. [0015], [0062] of Kou (US 2008/0250661 A1) and para. [0040] of Ishihama (US 2017/0176187A1)).
The additional element of “the improvement information according to the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration is information based on at least one of the acceleration, the angular rate, and the terrestrial magnetism information which are detected by the motion sensor” is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the claim does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 6
The additional elements of “the determination apparatus is further configured to transmit the determination result and the improvement information, further acquire transmission destination information regarding the transmission destination” is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
The additional elements of “transmit the determination result and the improvement information to the transmission destination” are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Fig. 1, para. [0009] and [0031] para of Scaramelli; page 3, lines 22-24 and page 8, lines 11-13 of Hiromitu (JP 2012008713A)).
Therefore, the claim does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 8
The additional element of “the determination apparatus is further configured to acquire an image of the determination target” is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional claim feature of ”correct the determination result based on the image acquired by the image acquisition unit” is mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 9
The additional element of “the determination apparatus is further configured to correct the determination result when the determination apparatus acquires an image of predetermined equipment that emits a predetermined amount or more of carbon dioxide” is mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 10
The additional claim feature of “the carbon dioxide sensor wherein the determination apparatus is further configured to acquire a distance between the carbon dioxide sensor and a target object” is mathematical calculations.
The additional element of “notify warning information when the distance acquired is shorter than a predetermined distance” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Fig. 1, para. [0028] of Scaramelli and page 4, lines 17 of Hiromitsu).
Therefore, the claim does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 12
The additional element of “each of the plurality of mobile terminals has a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure a carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target and a wireless transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit information of the carbon dioxide concentration measured by the carbon dioxide sensor to the determination apparatus” is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional claim feature of “the determination apparatus is further configured to determine a state of the carbon dioxide sensor based on a first radio intensity between the wireless transmitter in a first mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and the determination apparatus and a second radio intensity between the wireless transmitter in a second mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and the determination apparatus” is metal process (observation or judgment) or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 14
The additional claim feature of “determining the situation is determining, by the determination apparatus, the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration based on a change over time of the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target” is mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 15
The additional claim feature of “determining the situation is determining, by the determination apparatus, the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration based on the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target and a carbon dioxide concentration in another determination target different from the determination target” is mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 17
The additional element of “the acquiring the improvement information is further acquiring, by the determination apparatus, transmission destination information regarding the transmission destination” is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
The additional element of “the notifying is transmitting , by the determination apparatus, the determination result and the improvement information to the transmission destination based on location information of the determination target” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Fig. 1, paras. [0009]. [0019], [0031] and para. [0053] of Scaramelli and page 3, lines 22-24, page 6, lines 19-21, page 8, lines 11-13, and page 9, lines 7-9 of Hiromitsu (JP 2012008713A)).
Therefore, the claim does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 18
The additional element of “measuring, by the carbon dioxide sensor, the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target; acquiring, by the determination apparatus, a distance between the carbon dioxide sensor and a target object” is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
The addition element of “notifying warning information on the notification unit when the distance acquired by the distance acquisition unit is shorter than a predetermined distance” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Fig. 1, para. [0028] of Scaramelli and page 4, lines 17 of Hiromitsu (JP 2012008713A; para. [0008] of Toyoda).
Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 19
The additional element of “measuring, by the carbon dioxide sensor, the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target” and “wirelessly transmitting, by a wireless transmitter included in each of a first mobile terminal and a second mobile terminal, information of the carbon dioxide concentration to the determination apparatus” are insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional claim feature of “determining, by the determination apparatus, a state of the carbon dioxide sensor based on a first radio intensity between the wireless transmitter in the first mobile terminal and the determination apparatus and a second radio intensity between the wireless transmitter in the second mobile terminal and the determination apparatus” is mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 21
The additional elements of “the determination apparatus is further configured to acquire a current location of the determination target” is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements of “change the improvement information to be notified according to the location and the location information of the transmission destination when a transmission destination that is closest to the current location of the transmission target changes along with a movement of the determination apparatus” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (page 3, lines 6-9 of Otani and paras. [0075]-[0078] of Funayama et al (US 2021/0409396 A1)).
Therefore, the claim does not include additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
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 with 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.
Claims 1, 2-3, 6, 13-15, 17, and 21- 22 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. (US 2021/0041118 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Morgan”) in view of Otani et al. (JP 2012128469 A, hereinafter referred to as “Otani”).
Regarding claim 1, Morgan teaches a determination apparatus (para. [0065]: the amount of carbon dioxide is greater than a predetermined value), which is configured to
determine, based on a carbon dioxide concentration output by a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure a carbon dioxide concentration in a determination target (para. [0065]: by carbon dioxide sensor of the IAQ (indoor air quality) sensor module within the building, measuring an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air at the IAQ sensor module), and
a situation in which the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target (para. [0065]: within building) is measured by the carbon dioxide sensor (para. [0065]: by carbon dioxide sensor of the IAQ (indoor air quality) sensor module within the building, measuring an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air at the IAQ sensor module),
whether or not there is an abnormality in at least one of a carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target (para. [0065]: the amount of carbon dioxide is greater than a predetermined value, note that the above feature of “the amount of carbon dioxide is greater than a predetermined value” reads on “abnormality”) and a measurement situation (para. [0065]: measuring an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air at the IAQ sensor module within the building) of the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target (para. [0065]: within building), wherein the determination target is indoors (para. [0065]: by carbon dioxide sensor of the IAQ (indoor air quality) sensor module within the building);
notify a determination result by the determination of the abnormality unit (para. [0171]: an efficiency decrease greater than a predetermined threshold may be reported to the customer device 524);
acquire improvement information by which at least one of the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration and the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration (para. [0196]: the mitigation module 1004 may leave the ventilator 440 on until the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than an OFF carbon dioxide threshold; para. [0110]: customers and/or HVAC contractors may be notified of current and predicted issues (e.g., dirty filter) affecting effectiveness or efficiency of the HVAC system and/or the mitigating devices, and may receive notifications related to routine maintenance, note that since Morgan teaches mitigation module in [0196] and contractors of the mitigation module that may be notified if there is an issue with maintenance in para. [0110], acquiring improvement information (i.e., eliminating the abnormal value using mitigation device related to contractor) is an inherent functional property of such method) can be improved by eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor (paras. [0110], [0196]: see above, note that the above feature of “the mitigation module 1004 may leave the ventilator 440 on until the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than an OFF carbon dioxide threshold” reads on “eliminating an insufficiently calibrated state of carbon dioxide concentration measurement of the carbon dioxide sensor” because inhaled air through ventilator can eliminate the poor quality of indoor air condition),
when the determination apparatus determines that there is an abnormality (para. [0065]: the amount of carbon dioxide is greater than a predetermined value; para. [0171]: an efficiency decrease greater than a predetermined threshold may be reported to the customer device 524), wherein the improvement information is advertisement information (para. [0196]: the mitigation module 1004 may leave the ventilator 440 on until the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than an OFF carbon dioxide threshold; para. [0110]: customers and/or HVAC contractors may be notified of current and predicted issues (e.g., dirty filter) affecting effectiveness or efficiency of the HVAC system and/or the mitigating devices, and may receive notifications related to routine maintenance);
acquire location information of the determination target (para. [0174]: the local data server 520 may obtain the local data from one or more local data sources 532 via a wide area network, such as the internet 416, using a geographical location of the building, note that the above feature of “obtain the local data from one or more local data sources 532 via a wide area network, such as the internet 416, using a geographical location of the building” reads on “acquire location information of the determination target”) and
one or more transmission destinations, wherein the one or more transmission destinations are at least one of a calibration equipment contractor (para. [0107]: the monitoring system can provide performance information, diagnostic alerts, and error messages to one or more users associated with the building and/or third parties, such as designated HVAC contractors; para. [0110]: customers and/or HVAC contractors may be notified of current and predicted issues (e.g., dirty filter) affecting effectiveness or efficiency of the HVAC system and/or the mitigating devices, and may receive notifications related to routine maintenance, note that the above feature of “one or more users associated with the building and/or third parties, such as designated HVAC contractors” in para. [0107] and “HVAC contractors receiving notification related to issue affecting effectiveness or efficiency and maintenance of the system” in para. [0110] reads on “the one or more transmission destinations are at least one of a calibration equipment contractor” because acquiring person’s location in some manner in order to be able to transmit information to the contractor should be done); and
notify the determination result (para. [0171]: an efficiency decrease greater than a predetermined threshold may be reported to the customer device 524) and the improvement information (para. [0196]: the mitigation module 1004 may leave the ventilator 440 on until the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than an OFF carbon dioxide threshold; para. [0110]: customers and/or HVAC contractors may be notified of current and predicted issues (e.g., dirty filter) affecting effectiveness or efficiency of the HVAC system and/or the mitigating devices, and may receive notifications related to routine maintenance, note that the above feature of “mitigation module” in para. [0196] and “ HVAC contractors” in para. [0110] reads on “improvement information” because mitigating device is relate to improve air quality through mitigation ON cycles) of the transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target (para. [0171]: customer device 524; para. [0107]: one or more users associated with the building and/or third parties, such as designated HVAC contractors, note that “customer device 524” and “building and/or third parties” reads on “closest to a location of the determination target” because “customer device and “building and/or third parties” located in closest distance is inherent functional property or obvious in order to save time and reduce cost for maintenance of the system. It is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to contact those closest to the point of the incident as opposed to those far. This is common practice to notify those closest so they could respond to the incident with the fastest response time and also minimize travel costs associated with responding).
Morgan teaches notifying user and contactors associated with the building in para [0107]. While such users and contractors of the building are likely “closest” when compared to those who do not use or are not associated with the building, such as non-users or out of state contractors, Morgan does not explicitly teach the “transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target”.
Otani teaches the transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target (page 3, lines 6-9: The gas shut-off device 10 in the target room 40a is detected by the CO sensor 111 and the human sensor 112, determines the indoor state by the main body, and notifies the information, and transmits the information to the communication network 15 such as a telephone line or the Internet. Via the fire station 30 and other external facilities. The information is also transmitted to the gas shut-off device 10 in the adjacent room 40b, and can be notified to a person 42 in the adjacent room 40b).
Morgan and Otani are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of notifying a gas leak. 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 the transmission destination such as is described in Otani into Morgan, in order to provide an information notification apparatus that can perform an operation such as shutting off gas while being notified of information (Otani, page 2, lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 2, Morgan in view of Otani teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Morgan teaches that wherein the determination unit is configured to determine the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration (para. [0065]: the amount of carbon dioxide is greater than a predetermined value; para. [0171]: an efficiency decrease greater than a predetermined threshold may be reported to the customer device 524) based on a change over time of the carbon dioxide concentration (Fig. 11-13).
Regarding claim 3, Morgan in view of Otani teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Morgan teaches that the determination unit is configured to determine the situation of the carbon dioxide concentration based on the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target (para. [0065]: by carbon dioxide sensor of the IAQ (indoor air quality) sensor module within the building, measuring an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air at the IAQ sensor module) and a carbon dioxide concentration in another determination (para. [0107]: the monitoring system can provide performance information, diagnostic alerts, and error messages to one or more users associated with the building and/or third parties, such as designated HVAC contractors) target different from the determination target (para. [0065]: within the building).
Regarding claim 6, Morgan in view of Otani teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Morgan teaches further comprising: a transmission unit configured to transmit the determination result (para. [0171]: an efficiency decrease greater than a predetermined threshold may be reported to the customer device 524) and the improvement information (para. [0196]: the mitigation module 1004 may leave the ventilator 440 on until the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than an OFF carbon dioxide threshold, note that the above feature of “mitigation module” reads on “improvement information” because mitigating device is relate to improve air quality through mitigation ON cycles), wherein the information acquisition unit is configured to further acquire transmission destination information regarding a transmission destination to which the determination result and the improvement information are to be transmitted (para. [0110]: customers and/or HVAC contractors may be notified of current and predicted issues (e.g., dirty filter) affecting effectiveness or efficiency of the HVAC system and/or the mitigating devices, and may receive notifications related to routine maintenance), and the control unit is configured to control the transmission unit in such a way as to transmit the determination result (para. [0171]: an efficiency decrease greater than a predetermined threshold may be reported to the customer device 524 ) and the improvement information (para. [0196]: the mitigation module 1004 may leave the ventilator 440 on until the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than an OFF carbon dioxide threshold ) to the transmission destination (para. [0107]: the monitoring system can provide performance information, diagnostic alerts, and error messages to one or more users associated with the building and/or third parties, such as designated HVAC contractors; para. [0110]: customers and/or HVAC contractors may be notified of current and predicted issues (e.g., dirty filter) affecting effectiveness or efficiency of the HVAC system and/or the mitigating devices, and may receive notifications related to routine maintenance).
Regarding claim 17, Morgan in view of Otani teaches all the limitation of claim 13, in addition, Morgan teaches that the acquiring the improvement information is further acquiring, by the information acquisition unit, transmission destination information regarding a transmission destination to which the determination result (para. [0171]: an efficiency decrease greater than a predetermined threshold may be reported to the customer device 524; para. [0174]: the local data server 520 may obtain the local data from one or more local data sources 532 via a wide area network, such as the internet 416, using a geographical location of the building ) and the improvement information are to be transmitted (para. [0196]: the mitigation module 1004 may leave the ventilator 440 on until the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than an OFF carbon dioxide threshold. The mitigation module 1004 may turn the ventilator 440 off when the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than the OFF carbon dioxide threshold; para. [0110]: customers and/or HVAC contractors may be notified of current and predicted issues (e.g., dirty filter) affecting effectiveness or efficiency of the HVAC system and/or the mitigating devices, and may receive notifications related to routine maintenance), and the controlling is controlling, by the control unit, a transmission unit in such a way as to transmit the determination result (para. [0171]: an efficiency decrease greater than a predetermined threshold may be reported to the customer device 524 ) and the improvement information (para. [0196]: see above ) to the transmission destination based on location information of the determination target (para. [0174]: the local data server 520 may obtain the local data from one or more local data sources 532 via a wide area network, such as the internet 416, using a geographical location of the building).
Regarding claim 13, it is method type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, it is a dependent on claim 13 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2 abov3.
Regarding claim 15, it is a dependent on claim 13 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 21, Morgan in view of Otani teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Morgan teaches acquiring a current location of the determination target (para. [0174]: the local data server 520 may obtain the local data from one or more local data sources 532 via a wide area network, such as the internet 416, using a geographical location of the building); and
changing the improvement information (para. [0196]: the mitigation module 1004 may leave the ventilator 440 on until the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than an OFF carbon dioxide threshold; para. [0110]: customers and/or HVAC contractors may be notified of current and predicted issues (e.g., dirty filter) affecting effectiveness or efficiency of the HVAC system and/or the mitigating devices, and may receive notifications related to routine maintenance) to be notified according to the location information of current location of the determination target and the location information of the transmission destination (para. [0107]: the monitoring system can provide performance information, diagnostic alerts, and error messages to one or more users associated with the building and/or third parties, such as designated HVAC contractors; para. [0110]: customers and/or HVAC contractors may be notified of current and predicted issues (e.g., dirty filter) affecting effectiveness or efficiency of the HVAC system and/or the mitigating devices, and may receive notifications related to routine maintenance) when a transmission destination that is closest to the current location of the transmission target changes along with a movement of the determination apparatus (para. [0171]: customer device 524; para. [0107]: one or more users associated with the building and/or third parties, such as designated HVAC contractors, note that “customer device 524” and “building and/or third parties” reads on “closest to a location of the determination target” because “customer device and “building and/or third parties” located in closest distance is inherent or obvious functional property in order to save time and reduce cost for maintenance of the system. It is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to contact those closest to the point of the incident as opposed to those far. This is common practice to notify those closest so they could respond to the incident with the fastest response time and also minimize travel costs associated with responding).
Morgan teaches notifying user and contactors associated with the building in para [0107]. While such users and contractors of the building are likely “closest” when compared to those who do not use or are not associated with the building, such as non-users or out of state contractors, Morgan does not explicitly teach the transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target”.
Otani teaches the transmission destination that is closest to a location of the determination target (page 3, lines 6-9: The gas shut-off device 10 in the target room 40a is detected by the CO sensor 111 and the human sensor 112, determines the indoor state by the main body, and notifies the information, and transmits the information to the communication network 15 such as a telephone line or the Internet. Via the fire station 30 and other external facilities. The information is also transmitted to the gas shut-off device 10 in the adjacent room 40b, and can be notified to a person 42 in the adjacent room 40b).
Morgan and Otani are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of notifying a gas leak. 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 the transmission destination such as is described in Otani into Morgan, in order to provide an information notification apparatus that can perform an operation such as shutting off gas while being notified of information (Otani, page 2, lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 22, it is an apparatus type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above.
The additional elements of a measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration can be improved by eliminating a defect of at least one of a ventilation facility of the determination target, an air conditioning facility of the determination target, the sensor, and an application for controlling any one of the ventilation facility, the air conditioning facility (para. [0065]: by carbon dioxide sensor of the IAQ (indoor air quality) sensor module within the building, measuring an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air at the IAQ sensor module; para. [0196]: the mitigation module 1004 may leave the ventilator 440 on until the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than an OFF carbon dioxide threshold. The mitigation module 1004 may turn the ventilator 440 off when the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than the OFF carbon dioxide threshold), taught by Morgan.
Further, the additional elements of acquire location information of the determination target and one or more transmission destinations wherein the one or more transmission destinations are at least one of a ventilation facility contractor, a calibration equipment contractor, a clearing contractor, an electronic commerce contractor and a contractor operating an application of air quality management (para. [0107]: the monitoring system can provide performance information, diagnostic alerts, and error messages to one or more users associated with the building and/or third parties, such as designated HVAC contractors; para. [0110]: customers and/or HVAC contractors may be notified of current and predicted issues (e.g., dirty filter) affecting effectiveness or efficiency of the HVAC system and/or the mitigating devices, and may receive notifications related to routine maintenance; para. [0110]: customers and/or HVAC contractors may be notified of current and predicted issues (e.g., dirty filter) affecting effectiveness or efficiency of the HVAC system and/or the mitigating devices, and may receive notifications related to routine maintenance; para. [0226]: the lookup table or equation may be calibrated to increase the amount that the filter 104 is filled as the measured mitigation period increases and vice versa, note that the above feature of “one or more users associated with the building and/or third parties, such as designated HVAC contractors” in para. [0107], “mitigating device operated by HVAC contractors” in para. [0110], and lookup table or equation that is calibrated” in para. [0226] reads on “acquire location information of the determination target and one or more transmission destinations wherein the one or more transmission destinations are at least one of a ventilation facility contractor, a calibration equipment contractor, a clearing contractor, an electronic commerce contractor and a contractor operating an application of air quality management”), taught by Morgan.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Otani further in view of Kou et al. (US 2008/0250661 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kou”).
Regarding claim 5, Morgan in view of Otani teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Morgan teaches further comprising: the improvement information according to the measurement situation of the carbon dioxide concentration (para. [0196]: the mitigation module 1004 may leave the ventilator 440 on until the amount of carbon dioxide measured by the carbon dioxide sensor 324 is less than an OFF carbon dioxide threshold).
Morgan and Otani do not specifically teach that a motion sensor configured to detect at least one of an acceleration, an angular rate, and terrestrial magnetism information.
However, Kou teaches a motion sensor configured to detect at least one of an acceleration, an angular rate, and terrestrial magnetism information (para. [0015]: a motion sensor detects at least one of an acceleration or angular motion of the mobile object; para. [0062]:[ a part of the acceleration sensor 21, as shown in a FIG. 4A as an example, includes the terrestrial magnetism sensor 11. Therefore, the acceleration sensor 21 and the terrestrial magnetism sensor 11 can be integrally formed); and
information based on at least one of the acceleration, the angular rate, and the terrestrial magnetism information which are detected by the motion sensor (para. [0015]: a motion sensor detects at least one of an acceleration or angular motion of the mobile object; para. [0062]:[ a part of the acceleration sensor 21, as shown in a FIG. 4A as an example, includes the terrestrial magnetism sensor 11. Therefore, the acceleration sensor 21 and the terrestrial magnetism sensor 11 can be integrally formed).
Morgan and Kou are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of sensor module, a correction method executed in the sensor module, a correction method executed in the sensor module, and a mobile object including the sensor module. and can be set from past data. Note that motion sensor is well known work in one field of endeavor which may prompt variations of it for use in either the same filed to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date, as Kou teaches a motion sensor detecting at least one of an acceleration or angular motion of the mobile object.
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 the well-known motion sensor such as is described in Kou into Morgan, in order to detect at least one of an acceleration or angular motion of the mobile object and outputs second azimuth data indicating a second direction the reference portion in the mobile object faces based on the acceleration or angular motion (Kou, para. [0015]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Otani further in view of Scaramelli et al. (US 2021/0222901 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Morgan in view of Otani teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Morgan and Otani do not specifically teach an image acquisition unit configured to acquire an image of the determination target, wherein the determination unit is configured to correct the determination result based on the image acquired by the image acquisition unit.
However, Scaramelli teaches the determination apparatus is further configured to acquire an image of the determination target (Fig. 1, unit 7) (para. [0019]: air quality of an indoor environment of a building; para. [0080]: first, second, third and fourth alerts correspond to a first, a second, a third and a fourth light colors and/or intensities that can be emitted by the light source) and
correct the determination result based on the image acquired (Fig. 1, unit 5 and unit 6) (para. [0080]: first, second, third and fourth alerts correspond to a first, a second, a third and a fourth light colors and/or intensities that can be emitted by the light source).
Morgan and Scaramelli are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of controlling air quality in an indoor environment of a building. 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 an image acquisition unit such as is described in Scaramelli into Morgan, in order to control air quality in an indoor environment of a building by a system that comprises a carbon dioxide sensor configured to detect an instantaneous value of carbon dioxide concentration in the air of the indoor environment of the building (Scaramelli, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Morgan in view of Otani and Scaramelli teaches all the limitation of claim 8.
Moragan and Otani do not specifically teach the determination apparatus is further configured to correct the determination result when the determination apparatus acquires an image of predetermined equipment that emits a predetermined amount or more of carbon dioxide.
However, Scaramelli teaches that the determination apparatus is further configured to correct the determination result when the determination apparatus acquires an image of predetermined equipment that emits a predetermined amount or more of carbon dioxide (para. [0080]: for example, the first alert corresponds to a white color, the second alert corresponds to a cyan color, the third alert corresponds to a red color, and the fourth alert corresponds to a magenta color, preferably a flashing magenta color. Therefore, it should be pointed out that, by controlling the light color emitted by the light source, the user is able to immediately check the air quality of the indoor environment).
Morgan and Scaramelli are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of controlling air quality in an indoor environment of a building. 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 the determination apparatus such as is described in Scaramelli into Morgan, in order to control air quality in an indoor environment of a building by a system that comprises a carbon dioxide sensor configured to detect an instantaneous value of carbon dioxide concentration in the air of the indoor environment of the building (Scaramelli, para. [0008]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Otani further in view of Tetsuya (JP 2010/121953 A, hereinafter referred to as “Tetsuya”) (cited in IDS dated May 12, 2022).
Regarding claim 11, Morgan in view of Otani teaches a determination system comprising: the determination apparatus according to claim 1 (para. [0065]: by carbon dioxide sensor of the IAQ (indoor air quality) sensor module within the building, measuring an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air at the IAQ sensor module).
Morgan and Otani do not specifically teach one or a plurality of mobile terminals, each having a carbon dioxide sensor.
However, Tetsuya teaches one or a plurality of mobile terminals, each having a carbon dioxide sensor (page 9, lines 14-16: If such a sensor-equipped mobile device 1 is attached to the above-described bag or the like, the carbon dioxide concentration can be measured at various locations such as during commuting, during work, during leisure, during shopping, during walks, and during walks). Tetsuya teaches the mobile device allowing the carbon dioxide concentration to be measure at various locations. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the plurality of mobile terminals to measure the carbon dioxide concentration at various locations simultaneously.
Morgan and Tetsuya are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of measures the carbon dioxide concentration. Note that adapter is well known work in one field of endeavor which may prompt variations of it for use in either the same filed to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date, as Tetsuya teaches the sensor-embedded portable device including at least a sensor for measuring carbon dioxide concentration.
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 the one or a plurality of mobile terminals such as is described in Tetsuya into Morgan, in order to allow the sensor-embedded portable device of the present invention to include at least a sensor for measuring carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, a module or sensor for detecting the measurement position of the carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, and the carbon dioxide (Tetsuya, page 2, lines 21-23).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Otani further in view of Toyoda et al. (WO 2007/057966 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Toyoda”).
Regarding claim 10, Morgan in view of Otani teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Morgan teaches further comprising: the carbon dioxide sensor (para. [0065]: by carbon dioxide sensor of the IAQ (indoor air quality) sensor module within the building, measuring an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air at the IAQ sensor module…the amount of carbon dioxide is greater than a predetermined value) and notify warning information (para. [0171]: an efficiency decrease greater than a predetermined threshold may be reported to the customer device 524).
Morgan and Otani do not specifically teach the distance acquired is shorter than a predetermined distance.
However, Toyoda teaches the distance acquired is shorter than a predetermined distance (para. [0008]: a distance calculation unit that calculates a moving distance from the start point where the start of measurement is instructed by the start instruction unit; A notification unit for notifying the user of arrival at a destination point that is a predetermined distance away from the start point when the movement distance calculated by the distance calculation unit reaches a predetermined distance). Toyota teaches that a distance calculation unit that calculates a moving distance from the start point where the start of measurement is instructed by the start instruction unit; A notification unit for notifying the user of arrival at a destination point that is a predetermined distance away from the start point when the movement distance calculated by the distance calculation unit reaches a predetermined distance (see para. [0008]). Therefore, the feature of the notification unit when the distance acquired by the distance acquisition unit is shorter than a predetermined distance would be an inherent functional properties or obvious variation of such method. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Morgan to compute the above features in order to determine distance related data.
Regarding claim 18, it is a dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitation as of claim 10 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 10 above.
The addition element of measuring the carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target (para. [0065]: by carbon dioxide sensor of the IAQ (indoor air quality) sensor module within the building, measuring an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air at the IAQ sensor module…the amount of carbon dioxide is greater than a predetermined value), taught by Morgan.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan in view of Otani further in view of Tetsuya and Takeshi (JP 2007213470 A, hereinafter referred to as ““Takeshi”) and Scaramelli.
Regarding claim 12, Morgan in view of Otani and Tetsuya teaches all the limitation of claim 11.
Morgan, Otani, and Tetsuya do not specifically teach each of the plurality of terminals has a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure a carbon dioxide concentration in the determination target and a transmitter configured to transmit information of the carbon dioxide concentration measured by the carbon dioxide sensor to the determination apparatus.
However, Scaramelli teaches that each of the plurality of terminals has a carbon dioxide sensor (Fig. 1, unit 2, note that each terminals in Fig. 1 has a different types of sensors such as carbon dioxide, temperature, therefore, each of the plurality of terminal having a carbon dioxide sensor is inherent or obvious functional property) configured to measure a carbon dioxide concentration (para. [0020]: the carbon dioxide sensor 2 is configured to continuously measure carbon dioxide concentration of air in the indoor environment) in the determination target (para. [0019]: an indoor environment of a building) and a transmitter (Fig. 1. unit 4) configured to transmit information of the carbon dioxide concentration measured by the carbon dioxide sensor to the determination apparatus (Fig. 1. unit 5) (para. [0028]: the output signal generated by the control unit 5 controls the visual and/or acoustic warning unit 7. This warning unit 7 changes its warning state according to the output signal. As a result, the user of the indoor environment can infer the instantaneous air quality level in the indoor environment by checking the warning state of the warning unit) and
the determination apparatus (Fig. 1. unit 5) is further configured to determine a state of the carbon dioxide sensor (Fig. 1, unit 2).
Morgan, Otani, Scaramelli do not specifically teach a wireless transmission unit and a first radio between the wireless transmitter in a first mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and the any information processing terminal and a second radio between the wireless transmitter in a second mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and any information processing terminal.
However, Tetsuya teaches a wireless transmitter (page 6, lines 30-31: In a preferred aspect of the sensor-equipped mobile device according to the present invention, the output means includes at least a terminal that transmits data to the information processing terminal or a wireless module that transmits data to the network; page 6, lines 30-31: In a preferred aspect of the sensor-equipped mobile device according to the present invention, the output means includes at least a terminal that transmits data to the information processing terminal or a wireless module that transmits data to the network), and a first radio intensity between the wireless transmitter in a first mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and the any information processing terminal and a second radio intensity between the wireless transmission unit in a second mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and the any information processing terminal (page 6, lines 30-31: In a preferred aspect of the sensor-equipped mobile device according to the present invention, the output means includes at least a terminal that transmits data to the information processing terminal or a wireless module that transmits data to the network; page 9, lines 14-16: If such a sensor-equipped mobile device 1 is attached to the above-described bag or the like, the carbon dioxide concentration can be measured at various locations such as during commuting, during work, during leisure, during shopping, during walks, and during walks, note that above feature of “wireless module” in page 6, lines 30-31 and “such a sensor-equipped mobile device 1 is attached to the above-described bag or the like” and “the carbon dioxide concentration can be measured at various locations such as during commuting, during work, during leisure, during shopping, during walks, and during walks” in page 9, lines 14-16 reads on “a first radio intensity between the wireless transmitter in a first mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and any information processing terminal and a second radio intensity between the wireless transmitter in a second mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and the any information processing terminal”).
Morgan and Tetsuya are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of measures the carbon dioxide concentration. 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 the mobile terminals having a carbon dioxide sensor such as is described in Tetsuya into the system of Morgan, in order to allow the sensor-embedded portable device of the present invention to include at least a sensor for measuring carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, a module or sensor for detecting the measurement position of the carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, and the carbon dioxide (Tetsuya, page 2, lines 21-23).
Morgan, Otani, Tetsuya, and Scaramelli do not specifically teach a first radio intensity measurement.
However, Takeshi teaches a radio intensity measurement (page 2, lines 16-21: the base station measures the radio wave intensity measuring means for measuring a plurality of radio wave intensities when the radio waves coming from the mobile terminal are received by the plurality of antennas, and the radio wave intensity measuring means. A wireless communication system having a movement direction detection function, comprising: a movement direction determination unit that determines a movement direction of the mobile terminal from a temporal change in the difference between the plurality of radio field intensities; page 5, lines 37-38: moving direction determination unit compares the plurality of radio field intensities measured by the radio field intensity measurement unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the radio intensity measurement such as is described in Takeshi into the system of Morgan, in order to allow radio| wireless communications system to have the moving direction detection function which can detect the moving direction of a mobile terminal can be obtained (Takeshi, page 5, lines 52-43).
Regarding claim 19, Morgan in view of Otani teaches all the limitation of claim 13, in addition, Morgan teaches further comprising:
measuring, by the carbon dioxide sensor, the carbon dioxide concentration (para. [0065]: by carbon dioxide sensor of the IAQ (indoor air quality) sensor module within the building, measuring an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air at the IAQ sensor module…the amount of carbon dioxide is greater than a predetermined value);
determination unit (para. [0065]: by carbon dioxide sensor of the IAQ (indoor air quality) sensor module within the building);
determining, by the determination apparatus, a state of the carbon dioxide sensor (para. [0065]: by carbon dioxide sensor of the IAQ (indoor air quality) sensor module within the building).
Morgan and Otani do not specifically teach wirelessly transmitting, by a wireless transmitter included in each of a first mobile terminal and a second mobile terminal, information of the carbon dioxide concentration to any information processing terminal and a first radio between the wireless transmitter in a first mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and any information processing terminal and a second radio between the wireless transmitter in a second mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and any information processing terminal.
However, Tetsuya teaches wirelessly transmitting, by a wireless transmission unit included in each of a first mobile terminal and a second mobile terminal, information of the carbon dioxide concentration to any information processing terminal (page 6, lines 30-31: In a preferred aspect of the sensor-equipped mobile device according to the present invention, the output means includes at least a terminal that transmits data to the information processing terminal or a wireless module that transmits data to the network; page 6, lines 30-31: In a preferred aspect of the sensor-equipped mobile device according to the present invention, the output means includes at least a terminal that transmits data to the information processing terminal or a wireless module that transmits data to the network; page 9, lines 14-16: If such a sensor-equipped mobile device 1 is attached to the above-described bag or the like, the carbon dioxide concentration can be measured at various locations such as during commuting, during work, during leisure, during shopping, during walks, and during walks, note that above feature of “wireless module” in page 6, lines 30-31 and “such a sensor-equipped mobile device 1 is attached to the above-described bag or the like” and “the carbon dioxide concentration can be measured at various locations such as during commuting, during work, during leisure, during shopping, during walks, and during walks” in page 9, lines 14-16 reads on “wirelessly transmitting, by a wireless transmitter included in each of a first mobile terminal and a second mobile terminal, information of the carbon dioxide concentration to any information processing terminal”) and
a first radio between the wireless transmission unit in a first mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and any information processing terminal and a second radio between the wireless transmission unit in a second mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and any information processing terminal (page 6, lines 30-31: In a preferred aspect of the sensor-equipped mobile device according to the present invention, the output means includes at least a terminal that transmits data to the information processing terminal or a wireless module that transmits data to the network; page 9, lines 14-16: If such a sensor-equipped mobile device 1 is attached to the above-described bag or the like, the carbon dioxide concentration can be measured at various locations such as during commuting, during work, during leisure, during shopping, during walks, and during walks, note that above feature of “wireless module” in page 6, lines 30-31 and “such a sensor-equipped mobile device 1 is attached to the above-described bag or the like” and “the carbon dioxide concentration can be measured at various locations such as during commuting, during work, during leisure, during shopping, during walks, and during walks” in page 9, lines 14-16 reads on “a first radio between the wireless transmission unit in a first mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and any processing terminal and a second radio between the wireless transmission unit in a second mobile terminal among the plurality of mobile terminals and any processing terminal”).
Morgan and Tetsuya are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of measures the carbon dioxide concentration. 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 the wireless transmission unit such as is described in Tetsuya into the system of Scaramelli, Otani, and Yamada, in order to allow the sensor-embedded portable device of the present invention to include at least a sensor for measuring carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, a module or sensor for detecting the measurement position of the carbon dioxide concentration and temperature, and the carbon dioxide (Tetsuya, page 2, lines 21-23).
Morgan, Otani, and Tetsuya do not specifically teach a first radio intensity measurement.
However, Takeshi teaches a radio intensity measurement (page 2, lines 16-21: the base station measures the radio wave intensity measuring means for measuring a plurality of radio wave intensities when the radio waves coming from the mobile terminal are received by the plurality of antennas, and the radio wave intensity measuring means. A wireless communication system having a movement direction detection function, comprising: a movement direction determination unit that determines a movement direction of the mobile terminal from a temporal change in the difference between the plurality of radio field intensities; page 5, lines 37-38: moving direction determination unit compares the plurality of radio field intensities measured by the radio field intensity measurement unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the radio intensity measurement such as is described in Takeshi into the system of Morgan, in order to allow radio| wireless communications system to have the moving direction detection function which can detect the moving direction of a mobile terminal can be obtained (Takeshi, page 5, lines 52-43).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to appellant's disclosure.
Pham et al. (WO 2019/204789 A1) teaches an IAQ sensor module includes: a sensor configured to measure an amount of an item in air, the item being one of particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, and carbon dioxide; a minimum module configured to selectively store the amount of the item as a minimum value of the amount when a mitigation device has been on for at least a predetermined period.
Morgan et al. (WO 2019/204792 A1) teaches first and second IAQ sensors are located within a building and are configured to measure first and second IAQ parameters, respectively, the first and second IAQ parameter being the same one of: relative humidity; amount of particulate; amount of volatile organic compounds; and amount of carbon dioxide. A mitigation device is separate from an HVAC system and includes a control module configured to turn the mitigation device on and off based on the first IAQ parameter, the second IAQ parameter, and whether the HVAC system is on or off.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, appellant 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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571)270-5628. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858