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 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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 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 1 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 1) – the only additional elements are a ventilation device, a supply device, and a control device that switches between a first and second mode, which are only well-understood, routine, and conventional elements in the field of atmospheric treatment and control. See the prior art of record Panasonic (WO 2019/142647) which was relied upon for teaching all of these limitations in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/26/26.
(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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites 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.
The remaining claims are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 102 rejection of claim 1 are persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 101 rejections of claims 1 and 3-7 are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection does not consider the claim as a whole, which is not persuasive. The streamlined analysis that skips steps 2A and 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes is only applicable when the claim clearly improves a technology or computer functionality. The improvement to the technology field of atmospheric treatment and control is not clear, and Applicant does not allege any improvement beyond the limitations that are directed abstract itself. The analysis must proceed to steps 2A and 2B because of the abstract idea as set forth above.
Applicant argues on pages 7 and 8 that the claim requires a first mode, which is not an abstract idea but instead an additional element or manner in which the abstract idea is applied. As set forth above, merely switching a mode or controlling a mode based on an abstract idea as claimed only serves to merely connect the claimed abstract idea to the particular field of technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues on page 8 that the practical application of the abstract idea constitutes an improvement in a technical field. This is not persuasive because the abstract idea does not have a practical application associated with it, and Applicant has not identified the particular practical application.
Applicant further argues on pages 8-9 that the claim constitutes an improvement to a technical field, but fails to identify what the specific technical improvement is. The controlling of a ventilation system as claimed is itself a generic and nonspecific feature. The increasing and decreasing of removal capability is indeed itself not an improvement in the technical field because it is something that is already considered by Panasonic (WO 2019/142647) which was relied upon for teaching all of these limitations in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/26/26. The alleged improvement in the technical field amounts to increasing or decreasing a respective removal capability of a ventilation device or supply device, or vice versa, which is something that already exists in the prior art and therefore cannot reasonably be considered a technical improvement.
Applicant has failed to identify additional elements of claim 1 that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or a particular practical application of the abstract idea that serves to amount to more than a generic “apply it” to a structure known in the prior art. Claim 1 remains rejected.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 101 rejection of claim 6 are further not persuasive.
Applicant identifies “controlling” the ventilation device as a particular practical application of the abstract idea of calculating. This is further not persuasive because the generic and high level recitation of “controlling” a device is not a particular practical application, it amounts to a mere “apply it”.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 101 rejection of claim 7 are further not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim requires a sensor and a toggling from one mode to another automatically, and therefore cannot be performed in the human mind. It is noted the claim does not recite anywhere that this mode transition is “automatic” as argued by Applicant, and this limitation is improperly imported into the claim in this argument. The claim merely requires an observation that a person is in a space, and then a function associated with that detected presence that includes a transition from to the first mode for some amount of time. The obtaining of presence information is a process that can be performed in the human mind, and the associated triggering of a first mode is merely linking the abstract idea to the particular technological field and is not a particular practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of a sensor and a control device are nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional features and therefore do not amount to anything significantly more. Claim 7 remains rejected.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above is further not persuasive. A natural logarithm (ln) is a logarithmic function with base e, and the value that is arrived from resolving the function is dimensionless. Applicant argues that lnf(
β
) is the log of a dimensionless unit and that ln
(
β
)
times t is also unitless. The claim does not include any multiplication by t and this argument is therefore moot, and it further does not address the fact that a natural log of a number produces a unitless number. It is still not clear how the unitless number that is produced by ln
(
β
)
. Applicant argues that lnf(t) = ln
(
β
t
)
=
t
*
l
n
(
β
)
, however ln(x*y) = ln(x) +ln(y) not x*ln(y) (see the attached table of logarithmic laws from www.britannica.com on 8/10/26, cited on the 892 as an evidentiary reference only). In other words, the unit produced would still be dimensionless according to Applicant’s own provided definition because it is the sum of two dimensionless numbers. Therefore, amended claim 1 still recites an expression that improperly adds a dimensionless number and a number with the units 1/t, and therefore the scope of this limitation cannot be determined. Claim 1 and its dependents remain rejected.
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 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
Prosecution Insights