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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 10/20/25 is acknowledged.
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 2, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “the total removal capability being defined by:
Q
V
-
ln
β
”, which is a mathematical formula that is an abstract idea as it could be performed in the human mind or with a mere pen and pencil.
Claim 6 recites “the control device: calculates a ventilation air volume threshold determined by an exposure period of a person present in the indoor space” where the terms “calculates” and “determined” are mental processes that involve only math and a decision made based on subjective information that could be gathered merely by observing conditions in the space.
Claim 7 recites “obtains presence information” which is a process that could be performed in the human mind as it is merely an observation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: Claim 2 only recites that the control device “controls the ventilation device and the supply device to increase a total removal capability”, where a generic “control” limitation is only high level and nonspecific and only merely connects the claimed abstract idea to the particular field of technology. The limitation amounts to a mere “apply it” and is not specific nor particular enough to integrate the claimed abstract idea into any particular or specific process achieving any notable result. The functions are performed on a generic computer and by a generic device. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 6 only recites “controls the ventilation device to replace a volume of air greater than or equal to the ventilation air volume threshold” where a generic “control” limitation is only high level and nonspecific and only merely connects the claimed abstract idea to the particular field of technology. The limitation amounts to a mere “apply it” and is not specific nor particular enough to integrate the claimed abstract idea into any particular or specific process achieving any notable result. The functions are performed on a generic computer and by a generic device. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 7 only recites “using a transition from a state in which a person is present in the indoor space to a state in which a person is absent in the indoor space based on the obtained presence information as a trigger, starts the first mode with the second operation, and continues the first mode with the first operation after a predetermined period of time” where a generic initiation of a function of the control device is only high level and nonspecific and only merely connects the claimed abstract idea to the particular field of technology. The limitation amounts to a mere “apply it” and is not specific nor particular enough to integrate the claimed abstract idea into any particular or specific process achieving any notable result. The functions are performed on a generic computer and by a generic device. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The function of the claim could be, as claimed, performed by a human being observing occupancy of a room and toggling a switch, which is not a particular practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements presented in the claims are, respectively:
(with respect to claim 2) – there are no additional elements recited in the claim. The claim is directed entirely to the mathematical concept and a generic “apply it” function performed by the control device.
(with respect to claim 6) – there are no additional elements recited in the claim. The claim is directed entirely to the abstract idea and a generic “apply it” function performed by the control device.
(with respect to claim 7) – there are no additional elements recited in the claim. The claim is directed entirely to the abstract idea and a generic “apply it” function performed by the control device.
The additional elements required by claim 1, from which the claims above require, are elements that are only well-understood, routine, and conventional, particularly in view of Panasonic as set forth below which teaches a ventilation and supply device along with a control device for performing the claimed operations in the claimed modes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites a formula
Q
V
-
ln
β
, where the units do not correspond between the
Q
V
term and the
ln
β
term. The units of
Q
V
are
1
t
where t is a time, as a
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
i
m
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
simplifies to a per unit time term. The log of a rate (
β
) is dimensionless. It cannot be determined what the units of the solved expression is because a dimensionless term and a per unit time term cannot be simplified. The scope of the total removal capability therefore cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted the removal capability is defined by the expression in the claim with some characteristic unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Panasonic (WO 2019/142647).
Regarding claim 1, Panasonic (WO 2019/142647) (already present in file wrapper) discloses –
A control system (Figs. 1 and 8, space 10 with environmental control system 300), comprising:
a ventilation device that replaces indoor-space air containing an infectious material with outdoor-space air to perform discharge removal of the infectious material (ventilator 342, p. 13 pars. 6-8 discloses the ventilator is for replacing air in the space 10 with outdoor air);
a supply device that supplies an inactivation agent for inactivating the infectious material to an indoor space to perform inactivation removal of the infectious material (p. 13 pars. 2 and 4 disclose the generator 341 is for generating inactivating chlorine dioxide in the space); and
a control device that controls the ventilation device and the supply device (control unit 353, p. 13 last two pars.), wherein
the control device switches between a first mode and a second mode (p. 14 par. 5-7 disclose the control device operating in a plurality of different modes, including at least a purification mode and comfort mode),
the first mode being a mode in which at least one of the following is performed:
a first operation that decreases a removal capability of one of the ventilation device and the supply device when a removal capability of another of the ventilation device and the supply device is increased; or
a second operation that increases the removal capability of the one of the ventilation device and the supply device when the removal capability of the other of the ventilation device and the supply device is decreased (p. 14 last par. discloses a purification mode in which the hypochlorous acid generator 341 being controlled to be at a second concentration range when the ventilator 342 is stopped or reduced, the second concentration range having a higher upper limit of concentration than another operation, see p. 14 pars. 1-2 – therefore the generator being increased in capability when the ventilator is decreased),
the second mode being different from the first mode (p. 14 pars. 5-7 disclose multiple modes, including a comfort mode, which is different than the purification mode).
Regarding claim 3, Panasonic further teaches in the second mode, the control device performs a third operation that keeps the removal capability of one of the ventilation device and the supply device constant when the removal capability of another of the ventilation device and the supply device is increased (p. 15 pars. 8 – 10 describe functionality of the device where the acid generator 341 is increased in capability while no change is made to the ventilator).
Regarding claim 4, Panasonic further teaches in the first mode, the control device: obtains a C02 concentration in the indoor space from a C02 sensor that measures the C02 concentration in the indoor space; and controls the ventilation device to replace air to reduce the C02 concentration obtained to a C02 threshold or less (p. 20 par. 1 discloses CO2 concentrations being measured by a sensor and operating the ventilator to maintain the amount of CO2 below a comfortable level).
Regarding claim 7, Panasonic further teaches the control device:
obtains presence information regarding whether a person is present in the indoor space from a presence sensor that detects whether a person is present in the indoor space (p. 23 pars. 4-6 discloses the detection of a particular person in the space using an image sensor); and
using a transition from a state in which a person is present in the indoor space to a state in which a person is absent in the indoor space based on the obtained presence information as a trigger, starts the first mode with the second operation (p. 23 par. 6 discloses the concentration category being changed in response to a person being present in the space, which includes changing the concentration to a second concentration for performing the function of mode 1 operation 2), and continues the first mode with the first operation after a predetermined period of time (p. 16 par. 2 describe functionality of the device where, after a period of time where higher concentration is maintained for purification, returning to a high ventilation and low supply device mode).
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.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panasonic (WO 2019/142647) in view of Rudnick and Milton (NPL 2003) (hereinafter referred to as Rudnick).
Regarding claim 5, Panasonic is set forth above with regards to claim 4, but appears to be silent with regards to the threshold CO2 being a target concentration in the indoor space that is determined by an exposure period during which a person is present in the indoor space that is exposed to the infection material and an upper probability limit that is an upper limit of an infection probability in transmission of the infectious material to the person.
Rudnick (already cited on IDS and present in file wrapper) teaches the probability of airborne infection transmission is correlated to a CO2 concentration in the space and a time spent in the space by a person (“Discussion and conclusions”, “Carbon dioxide-based risk equation” disclose the amount of CO2 and the amount of re-breathed air alongside a time spent in the space contribute to infection transmission). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Panasonic such that the CO2 threshold is a target CO2 concentration in the indoor space that is determined by an exposure period during which a person present in the indoor space is exposed to the infectious material and an upper infection probability limit that is an upper limit of an infection probability in transmission of the infectious material to the person as suggested by Rudnick to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to reduce the transmission of disease in the target space to arrive at a safer and improved environmental control system.
Regarding claim 6, Panasonic is set forth above with regards to claim 1, but appears to be silent with regards to a calculation of a ventilation air volume threshold.
Rudnick teaches the ventilation rate of a space and exposure period of a person in the space to a pathogen affect the infection rate of the person (“Discussion and conclusions”, “Carbon dioxide-based risk equation” disclose supply of outdoor air into an indoor space and the amount of re-breathed air alongside a time spent in the space contribute to infection transmission probability). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Panasonic such that, in the first mode, the control device calculates a ventilation air volume threshold determined by an exposure period of a person present in the indoor space to the infectious material and an upper infection probability limit that is an upper limit of an infection probability in transmission of the infectious material to the person and controls the ventilation device to replace a volume of air greater than or equal to the ventilation air volume threshold as suggested by Rudnick to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to adequately ventilate the space to reduce disease transmission to arrive at an improved environmental control system.
Prior Art
Regarding claim 2, the prior art fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 2. The prior art considered to be the closest prior art is Panasonic in view of Rudnick.
Panasonic teaches a control device with the first mode, but is silent with regards to a total removal capability being calculated.
Rudnick teaches the airflow of a space correlating to the disease transmission within that space (“results and discussion”).
Panasonic and Rudnick are silent with regards to the total removal capability being defined by:
Q
V
-
ln
β
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758