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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because the limitation of “a measured value” should be “the measured value.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 11–18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allen et al., US 2019/0209806 A1 (“Allen”).
Regarding claim 11:
Allen discloses that a nursery system (Allen discloses as particular space or habitable environment, which could be a nursery, Allen [0006]), comprising:
an air modification device (Allen discloses its nursery could comprise an air handling system 208, Allen Fig. 2, [0260]);
a sensor (Allen discloses indoor air quality sensors and humidity sensors, labelled 214 in Fig. 2, Allen Fig. 2 [0161]) that is separate from but wirelessly connected to the air modification device (Allen discloses its system with the space may be connected or in communication wirelessly via a wireless network, and Allen’s sensor 214 and air handing system 208 are separate from each other as shown in Fig. 2, Allen Fig. 2, [0279]), wherein the sensor is positioned to monitor air breathed by an infant (Allen discloses its sensor could monitor environmental conditions of a space, Allen Fig. 2, [0021], Allen also discloses its space could be a nursery, Allen [0006], Allen then discloses the environmental condition of the space could be air condition, Allen Fig. 2, [0021], Allen therefore discloses that the sensor is positioned to monitor air condition in a nursery, which is air breathed by an infant, Allen Fig. 2, [0011]); and
an electronic device (Allen’s control subsystem 202 and alerting device, Allen [0094] and [0273]) which stores a software application (Allen discloses its controller device could include software) that controls and communicates with the sensor and/or the air modification device (as best shown in Fig. 11, Allen Figs. 2 and 11, [0392] and [0260]),
wherein environmental data representative of the air breathed by the infant generated by the sensor causes adjustment of operation of the air modification device to achieve one or more programmed parameters (Allen discloses that it environmental control system include sensors to monitor environmental conditions and then configure to adjust environmental conditions of the space based on environmental parameter setting associated therewith, and such setting can be adjusted via one or more controllable devices, wherein the controllable devices are connects to the air handling subsystem, Allen [0021] and [0013]).
Regarding claim 12:
Allen discloses that the nursery of claim 11, wherein the air modification device 208 is a humidifier because Allen discloses its air handling system could include humidifier. Allen [0016].
Regarding claim 13:
Allen discloses that the nursery of claim 12, wherein the sensor detects humidity in the air and communicates a measured value to the humidifier (Allen discloses its sensor 214 comprise humidity sensor 282 positioned to detect humidity and proving signal to the air handling system, which in this case, is the air humidifier). Allen [0016].
Regarding claim 14:
Allen discloses that the nursery of claim 13, wherein the humidifier initiates operation if the measured value of the humidity is less than a pre-determined value which has been programed in the software application in the electronic device (Allen discloses in Fig. 7, where at 704, the control subsystem receives signals from humidity sensor and at step 712, the control subsystem provide signals to humidifier to humidify (add moisture) to the air, the humidity value triggers the humidifier would be the “pre-determined value.”) Allen Fig. 7, [0228] and [0232].
Regarding claim 15:
Allen discloses that the nursery of claim 11, wherein the air modification device is an air purifier (Allen discloses its air handling system could be an air purifiers). Allen [0260].
Regarding claim 16:
Allen discloses that the nursery of claim 15, wherein the sensor detects particulates in the air and communicates a measured value to the air purifier (Allen’s discloses its sensor comprising indoor air quality sensor, which is connected to the HVAC system and ventilation rates may increase if indoor air quality hits a particular threshold that would result in poor air quality, which means Allen’s indoor air quality sensor detects air quality and communicate the value to the HVAC system, which is the air purifier). Allen [0161].
Regarding claim 17:
Allen discloses that the nursery of claim 16, wherein the air purifier initiates operation if the measured value of any given particulate is greater than a pre-determined value which has been programed in the software application in the electronic device (Allen’s discloses its sensor comprising indoor air quality sensor, which is connected to the HVAC system and ventilation rates may increase if indoor air quality hits a particular threshold that would result in poor air quality, which means Allen’s indoor air quality sensor detects air quality and communicate the value to the HVAC system, which is the air purifier, Allen discloses such step is a programed control). Allen Fig. 7, [0161] and [0087].
Regarding claim 18:
Allen discloses that the nursery of claim 16, wherein the sensor sends an alert message to the electronic device if a measured value of any given particulate is greater than a pre-determined value which has been programed in the software application in the electronic device (Allen discloses an alert can be transmitted to the user to notify the user if the indoor air quality sensor detects indoor air quality hits a particular threshold, and the process is programmed and executed by the electronic device, which is the controller). Allen [0161], [0168] and [0172].
Regarding claim 22:
Allen discloses that the nursery system of claim 11, wherein the electronic device generates an alert message based on the environmental data received from the sensor (Allen discloses its system could include alerting devices to indicate that an environmental condition within the space do not meet the required or desired limits, Allen [0273], Allen’s electronic device therefore generates the claimed alert message based on the environmental data received from sensor because Allen relies on sensors to monitor environmental conditions, Allen [0021]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen in view of Freen et al., US 2011/0185895 A1 (“Freen”).
Regarding claim 21:
Allen does not disclose that the nursery system of claim 11, wherein the air modification device includes a child lock feature configured to prevent infants and toddlers from interfering with the operation of the air modification device.
In the analogous of air modification device comprising monitors, Freen discloses its filter monitoring device 20 is rendered child proof by clip 26b and flange 24a, Freen Fig. 3, [0032]. Freen disclose such design is configured so the mount 26 cannot be disengaged except force beyond the capacity of a child, Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Freen’s child lock design in Allen’s nursery system because Allen’s nursery system is not a toy and it is designed to use in nursery and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a child proof feature for the safety of child.
Response to Arguments
Restrictions of Claims 19–20
In response to applicant’s request for rejoinder, Applicant Rem. Feb. 02, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 5, claims 19–20 is currently not rejoined because claim 1 is not in allowable condition. The examiner further encourages the applicant to check any potential 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues for future possibly of rejoinder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner drops the current rejection because the applicant has amended the claims to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The applicant further amends the claims to overcome Allen, and argues that Allens fails to teach the further amendments, Applicant Rem. ps. 6–7. The applicant argues that modification of Allen to incorporate the amended limitation would require a change in principle of operation and may even render Allen’s unsatisfactory for ins intended use because Allen’s framework is directed to sensing and regulating environmental conditions at the level of enclosed environments of spatial regions thereof, including sub spaces that are entire rooms or regions and since modified claim requires the environmental data representative of air breathed by an infant, Allen’s principle of operation from space/region-based environmental regulating to occupant-localized sensing and control would change, Applicant Rem. ps. 6–7.
The examiner does not agree, as discussed in the claim rejection section, Allen anticipates the current claim 1. The limitation of “the air breathed by the infant” is interpreted as air inside the nursery under the broadest reasonable interpretation. A person of ordinary skill in the art understands that air in a room constantly moves and convects, and therefore, interpreting “air breathed by the infant” as air inside a nursery is reasonable. Allen therefore still anticipates the amended claim 1. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
New Claims
Please see new claims rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776