Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has submitted amendments to the claims on 07/01/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez et al (US PUB. 20200393152, herein Ramirez) in view of Brown et al (US PUB. 20210381861, herein Brown).
Regarding claim 1, Ramirez teaches A room controller for providing local control of conditions within a room, comprising:
a housing (0012);
a controller disposed within the housing, and comprising at least one non-transitory storage medium storing program code, the program code comprising a plurality of room condition requirements (0012, 0038-0039), the controller being configured to:
receive a plurality of sensor inputs, each sensor input being representative of a condition within the room, each sensor input being respectively received from one of a plurality of sensors disposed locally with respect to the room controller (0030, 0045 “system can use a noise sensor and audio detection algorithm to determine if a smoke detector, and/or carbon monoxide detector siren is sounding, and if outside air quality is not significantly worse than inside air quality, the system can command the dampers to allow outside air into the building, prevent the recirculation of inside air by the air handler, and signal the air handler blower to activate (i.e., fan=ON”) ;
determine, from at least one of the plurality of sensor inputs, whether a condition within the room fails to satisfy at least one of the plurality of room condition requirements (0050 “he outside air quality is better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can command dampers 320, 322 to allow outside air into the building. This can also include controlling an economizer or energy recovery ventilator (“ERV”) by sending commands to those respective controllers 324, 326. If the controller 310 determines that the outside air quality is not better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can command dampers to prevent the outside air from entering into building. Additionally, if an ERV is present and the outside air quality is better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can activate the ERV to ventilate the building”);
and upon determining that the condition within the room fails to satisfy the requirement, performing:
controlling at least one connected device to take an action designed to satisfy the room condition requirement (0050 “the outside air quality is better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can command dampers 320, 322 to allow outside air into the building. This can also include controlling an economizer or energy recovery ventilator (“ERV”) by sending commands to those respective controllers 324, 326. If the controller 310 determines that the outside air quality is not better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can command dampers to prevent the outside air from entering into building. Additionally, if an ERV is present and the outside air quality is better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can activate the ERV to ventilate the building”).
The cited prior art do not teach and sending an alert to at least one device located outside of the room that the room condition fails to meet the room condition requirement, wherein the step of sending an alert to at least one device located outside of the room that the room condition fails to meet the room condition requirement occurs upon determining, based on at least one subsequently received sensor input representative of the condition within the room that controlling the at least one connected device to take the action fails to satisfy the room condition.
Brown teaches and sending an alert to at least one device located outside of the room that the room condition fails to meet the room condition requirement, wherein the step of sending an alert to at least one device located outside of the room that the room condition fails to meet the room condition requirement occurs upon determining, based on at least one subsequently received sensor input representative of the condition within the room that controlling the at least one connected device to take the action fails to satisfy the room condition requirement (0184, 0023 “generating an alert in response to one of: the temperature value being outside the compliance standard temperature, the pressure value being outside the compliance standard pressure, or the humidity value being outside the compliance standard humidity, recording criticality information related to the generated alert; receiving a log of actions taken in response to the generated alert; and generating a compliance report document including the generated alert and criticality information related to the generated alert”, 0200 “The client devices 448 can include one or more devices such as tablets, computers, smart phones, access points, interactive wall panels, augmented reality devices, smart watches, virtual reality devices, glasses, commercial human machine interfaces, etc., that provide an interface for a user.”, fig. 12, 0254 “by implementing the process 900, a system (e.g., the BMS 400) may experience less down time due to compliance issues or equipment problems and may maintain compliance for longer periods of time. In this regard, the process 900 may provide a better and safer experience for occupants of a building (e.g., patients in a hospital)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Ramirez with Brown since Brown teaches a “system for monitoring TPH and related factors could improve a hospital's ability to pass inspections and maintain a healthy environment for patient care” (0003).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teach the room controller of claim 1.
Ramirez teaches the room controller further comprising a temperature sensor disposed within the housing, the temperature sensor outputting a temperature sensor signal representative of an ambient temperature within the room, wherein the room controller is further configured to control a climate control system according to a target temperature and the temperature sensor signal such that the climate control system maintains the ambient temperature at the target temperature (0031 0033 0053).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teach The room controller of claim 1.
Ramirez teaches wherein one of the plurality of sensor inputs is an input from an air quality sensor representing an air quality of the room, wherein one of the plurality of room condition requirements is an air quality requirement such that the controller is configured to determine whether the air quality of the room satisfies the air quality requirement as one of the plurality of room condition requirements (0050 “the outside air quality is better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can command dampers 320, 322 to allow outside air into the building. This can also include controlling an economizer or energy recovery ventilator (“ERV”) by sending commands to those respective controllers 324, 326. If the controller 310 determines that the outside air quality is not better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can command dampers to prevent the outside air from entering into building. Additionally, if an ERV is present and the outside air quality is better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can activate the ERV to ventilate the building”).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teach The room controller of claim 5.
Ramirez teaches wherein determining whether the air quality of the room satisfies the air quality requirement comprises comparing the air quality represented by the air quality input to a threshold (0050 “the outside air quality is better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can command dampers 320, 322 to allow outside air into the building. This can also include controlling an economizer or energy recovery ventilator (“ERV”) by sending commands to those respective controllers 324, 326. If the controller 310 determines that the outside air quality is not better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can command dampers to prevent the outside air from entering into building. Additionally, if an ERV is present and the outside air quality is better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can activate the ERV to ventilate the building”).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teach The room controller of claim 5.
Ramirez teaches wherein, for the air quality requirement, controlling at least one connected device to take an action designed to satisfy the room condition requirement comprises sending a control signal to a damper to circulate external air within the room (0050 “the outside air quality is better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can command dampers 320, 322 to allow outside air into the building. This can also include controlling an economizer or energy recovery ventilator (“ERV”) by sending commands to those respective controllers 324, 326. If the controller 310 determines that the outside air quality is not better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can command dampers to prevent the outside air from entering into building. Additionally, if an ERV is present and the outside air quality is better than inside air quality, the controller 310 can activate the ERV to ventilate the building”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez et al (US PUB. 20200393152, herein Ramirez) in view of Brown et al (US PUB. 20210381861, herein Brown) in further view of Kolavennu et al (US PUB. 20180211666, herein Kolavennu).
Regarding claim 4, Ramirez teaches The room controller of claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein sending the alert to at least one device located outside the room comprising sending an alert to a hotel room management system.
Kolavennu teaches wherein sending the alert to at least one device located outside the room comprising sending an alert to a hotel room management system (0081 “hotel automation controller 22 may record an alarm/event log for each room. The alarm/event log may include alarms/events associated with equipment in the room such as the thermostat 24, the door controller 26, the room scene control panel 28, the activity services control panel 30, the drapes/sheers controller 32, the lighting controller 34, the audio/visual controller 40, and/or any other suitable controller or equipment. The alarm/event log may, for example, identify the HVAC status, room entry logs, room temperature logs, customer complaints, equipment failure such as a bad door sensor, water leaks, communication errors and/or any other alarm or event”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Ramirez and Brown with the teachings of Kolavennu since Kolavennu teaches a means for increasing guest satisfaction (0047).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez et al (US PUB. 20200393152, herein Ramirez) in view of Brown et al (US PUB. 20210381861, herein Brown) in further view of Heintzelman et al (US PUB. 20200282564, herein Heintzelman).
Regarding claim 8, Ramirez teaches The room controller of claim 5.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein, for the air quality requirement, sending an alert to at least one device located outside of the room comprises sending an alert to a hotel room management system that the air quality of the room fails to satisfy the air quality requirement
Heintzelman teaches wherein, for the air quality requirement, sending an alert to at least one device located outside of the room comprises sending an alert to a hotel room management system that the air quality of the room fails to satisfy the air quality requirement (0039 “the following description will be described with respect to a home automation system including a comfort system (e.g., an HVAC system), a security system, and/or any number of Internet of Things (IoT) devices (e.g., household devices having built-in wireless connectivity, sometimes called “smart” devices or “connected” devices), however the systems and methods described herein may be applied to commercial buildings, hotels, apartment buildings, etc. The home automation system may include one or more of an HVAC system, a lighting control system, a fire suppression system, a security system, and any other suitable home automation system devices”, fig. 1, 0078 “sensors and connected devices 210 may be a part of a building automation system and may include components of an HVAC system (e.g., including, but not limited to, a thermostat 212, temperature sensors 214, humidity sensors 216, etc.), a lighting control system (e.g., including, but not limited to, network connected lights 218), a fire suppression system (e.g., including, but not limited to, fire alarms 220, smoke detectors, sprinkler systems, etc.), a security system 222 (e.g., including, but not limited to, motion sensors, limit switches, noise sensors, cameras etc.), or other internet enabled or “smart” devices (e.g., including, but not limited to indoor air quality (IAQ) monitors”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Ramirez and Brown with the teachings of Heintzelman since it teaches a means for enhanced data collection of a building (0002).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez et al (US PUB. 20200393152, herein Ramirez) in view of Brown et al (US PUB. 20210381861, herein Brown) in further view of Connell, II et al (US PUB. 20210049881, herein Connell).
Regarding claim 9, Ramirez teaches The room controller of claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein one of the plurality of sensor inputs is an input from a microphone representing an ambient noise within the room, wherein one of the plurality of room condition requirements is an ambient noise requirement such that the controller is configured to determine whether the ambient noise of the room satisfies the ambient noise requirement as one of the plurality of room condition requirements.
Connell teaches wherein one of the plurality of sensor inputs is an input from a microphone representing an ambient noise within the room, wherein one of the plurality of room condition requirements is an ambient noise requirement such that the controller is configured to determine whether the ambient noise of the room satisfies the ambient noise requirement as one of the plurality of room condition requirements (0020 “if sensors were deployed in hotel rooms it could monitor the usual sounds generated therein and generate the ambient noise model. If the system detected a loud thump or screech, it could notify the front desk to initiate an inquiry by, for example, sending someone to knock on the door of the room”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Ramirez and Brown with the teachings of Connell since Connell teaches a means for determining acoustic anomalies and determine that an alert is needed (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teach The room controller of claim 9.
Connell teaches wherein determining whether the ambient noise of the room satisfies the ambient noise requirement comprises comparing the ambient noise represented by the microphone input to a threshold (0020 “In another example, if the system is expecting a certain level of ambient noise based on the ambient noise model but the amplitude is suddenly diminished, that could be a sign that someone has blocked the microphone and an inquiry is warranted”).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teach The room controller of claim 9.
Connell teaches wherein determining whether the ambient noise of the room satisfies the ambient noise requirement comprises comparing the ambient noise represented by the microphone to one of a plurality of stored signals to determine whether the ambient noise matches one of the stored signals (0069 “he audio analytics module 314 identifies the acoustic anomalies by recognizing acoustic patterns indicative of danger within the current ambient noise depicted by the current audio data. This might include isolating audio signals for discrete sounds (e.g. the acoustic anomalies) within the current ambient noise and determining whether properties of the isolated sounds match the acoustic signatures for one or more of the danger indicators”).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teach The room controller of claim 9.
Connell teaches wherein, for the ambient noise requirement, sending an alert to at least one device located outside of the room comprises sending an alert to a hotel room management system that the ambient noise fails to satisfy the ambient noise requirement (0020 ““if sensors were deployed in hotel rooms it could monitor the usual sounds generated therein and generate the ambient noise model. If the system detected a loud thump or screech, it could notify the front desk to initiate an inquiry by, for example, sending someone to knock on the door of the room …In another example, if the system is expecting a certain level of ambient noise based on the ambient noise model but the amplitude is suddenly diminished, that could be a sign that someone has blocked the microphone and an inquiry is warranted”).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez et al (US PUB. 20200393152, herein Ramirez) in view of Brown et al (US PUB. 20210381861, herein Brown) in further view of Xiong (US PUB. 20210282106).
Regarding claim 13, Ramirez teaches the room controller of claim 1.
The cited prior art do not teach wherein the controller is further configured to provide a beacon signal, via the antenna, such that a nearby antenna-equipped device can locate itself relative to the beacon signal.
Xiong teaches wherein the controller is further configured to provide a beacon signal, via the antenna, such that a nearby antenna-equipped device can locate itself relative to the beacon signal (0020 “the beacon may comprise multiple transmission points, perhaps in the form of multiple antennae, and in such a case the signal indicating the geographical location of the beacon will indicate multiple geographical locations corresponding to the multiple transmission points”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the teachings of Ramirez and Brown with the teachings of Xiong since Xiong teaches a means for “beacon [which] can be used for transmitting signals perhaps in different directions towards different user equipment, and in order for the position of user equipment to be determined accurately the geographical location of each transmission point should be known” (0020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the claim required order of controlling a connected device to satisfy the room condition requirement, then receiving sensor input and then sending an alert in the case that the prior control action failed to satisfy the room condition requirement.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Brown teaches in figure 12 to first receive sensor data, process the sensor data and based on the processing of the sensor data to then initiate an automated response procedure (fig. 12). Brown further teaches that the flow diagram of process 900 is done periodically to avoid compliance or equipment problems (0254, 0260). Therefore, the monitoring of compliance over periods of time corresponds to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the argued limitation.
Applicant then argues that the office action fails to articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Ramierz’s ventilation control system with Brown’s hospital compliance monitoring and reporting system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Brown teaches a means for a building management system which automates an HVAC system in order to ensure patient comfort and safety (0203) which combined with Rameriz teaches a means for a room controller for providing local control of conditions within a room.
Therefore, claim 1 and its dependent claims are rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMEEM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1627. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAMEEM D SIDDIQUEE/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights