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 Status
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for domestic benefit to the earlier filed international application PCT/JP2021/029591, filed August 11, 2021, which claims priority to foreign application JP 2020-145333, filed August 31, 2020, is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. At this point in the examination, the effective filing date of claims 1-11 is August 31, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 19, 2023 and June 18, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
An obtainer that obtains user information regarding a user who uses an indoor space.
A proposal unit that proposes a condition of use of the indoor space depending on the user information obtained, wherein the proposal unit: calculates an infection probability in transmission of an infectious material to the user based on a total number of users of the indoor space and a period of use of the indoor space which are included in the user information; and when the infection probability calculated exceeds an upper infection probability limit, proposes the condition of use under which the infection probability falls below the upper infection probability limit.
Claim 2:
wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes use of another indoor space different from the indoor space.
Claim 3:
wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes a change in at least one of the total number of users of the indoor space or the period of use of the indoor space.
Claim 4:
A ventilation device that replaces indoor-space air containing the infectious material with outdoor-space air to perform discharge removal of the infectious material.
A supply device that supplies an inactivation agent for inactivating the infectious material to the indoor space to perform inactivation removal of the infectious material.
Claim 5:
wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes a change in at least one of (i) a ventilation air volume of the ventilation device which is a replacement air volume per unit time or (ii) a residual rate of the infectious material remaining per unit time in the inactivation removal using the inactivation agent.
Claim 6:
wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes placement of at least one of (i) a ventilation device that replaces indoor-space air containing the infectious material with outdoor-space air to perform discharge removal of the infectious material or (ii) a supply device that supplies an inactivation agent for inactivating the infectious material to the indoor space to perform inactivation removal of the infectious material.
Claim 7:
wherein the proposal unit: obtains a C02 concentration in the indoor space from a C02 sensor that measures the C02 concentration in the indoor space; estimates the ventilation air volume that reduces the CO2 concentration obtained to a CO2 threshold or less; calculates the infection probability for the ventilation air volume that reduces the CO2 concentration in the indoor space to the CO2 threshold or less; and when the infection probability calculated exceeds the upper infection probability limit, proposes the condition of use under which the infection probability falls below the upper infection probability limit.
Claim 8:
wherein the proposal unit: estimates a breathing volume of the user from an intended use of the indoor space which is included in the user information; and calculates the infection probability in transmission of the infectious material to the user based on the breathing volume estimated, the total number of users of the indoor space, and the period of use of the indoor space.
Claim 9:
wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes a change in the intended use of the indoor space.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraphs 0176-0183 of the published specification indicate the components of the proposal system are computer systems with software/hardware implements to perform the disclosed functions. MPEP 2181(II)(B) requires a structure and an algorithm be disclosed in the specification for computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. The sections in the published specification disclosing the structure and algorithms for the above recited means-plus-function limitations are:
Obtainer:
Regarding the obtainer recited in claim 1, paragraphs 0114-0122 indicate the obtainer is part of a reservation management system which has a reservation management device implemented by causing a processor and memory to execute a predetermined program. Figure 11 shows the third obtainer (132) as part of the reservation management device (130); therefore, the obtainer is interpreted as a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation that performs the claimed function. However, the specification fails to clearly link the structure of the obtainer that performs the claimed function because there is no indication of what the obtainer is or how its’ function is performed other than it is part of a reservation management device which is also not clearly defined except that it is implemented by causing a processor to execute programmed instructions.
Proposal unit:
Regarding the proposal unit recited in claims 1-3 and 5-9, paragraph 0124 indicates the proposal unit is a processor executing predetermined program instructions and therefore is a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation programmed to perform the claimed functions. The recited steps performed by the proposal unit in claims 1-3 and 5-9 provide the algorithms the proposal unit is programmed to perform.
Ventilation device:
Regarding the ventilation device recited in claims 4 and 6, paragraphs 0031 and 0034 of the published specification and Figures 1 and 2 will be used to interpret the structure. Essentially any structure that is capable of replacing the air in an indoor space with external air.
Supply device:
Regarding the supply device recited in claims 4 and 6, paragraphs 0035-0037 of the published specification and Figures 1 and 2 will be used to interpret the structure. The supply device is a machine that either sprays an inactivation agent into the indoor space or sucks the indoor air into itself and causes the air to contact an inactivation agent.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 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.
The claim 1 limitation of “an obtainer that obtains user information regarding a user who uses an indoor space” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph 0122 of the published specification states the obtainer is a functional unit and implemented as a communication module for obtaining user information. However, the terms functional unit and communication module do not convey any structure to describe what the obtainer is because these terms themselves are non-structural terms having no specific structural meaning (i.e., nonce terms).
Paragraphs 0176-0183 indicate that the proposal system as a whole can be a computer specially programmed to perform the claimed functions which implies the obtainer can be some component of the computer. MPEP 2181(II)(B) states computer-implemented means-plus function limitations must be supported by a disclosure of an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function. The specification does not provide an algorithm to accomplish the claimed function performed by the obtain and merely restates in paragraph 0122 that the obtainer obtains user information by directly obtaining reservation information or from the management unit. Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and do not resolve the issue of indefiniteness.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 4, the claim makes reference the proposal system limitations of claim 1 that results in confusion as to what the wherein clause is further limiting. It is unclear if the ventilation device and supply devices are to be regarded as part of the proposal system or if only the calculation of infection probability is further limited by incorporating the operation of at least one of those devices (MPEP 2173.05(f)). This renders the claim indefinite because the scope of protection sought cannot be established. For the purpose of examination, the devices will be interpreted as separate from the proposal system. Claims 5 and 7 are also rejected because they depend from claim 4.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are 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 claim(s) 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.
Claim 1 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C., sixth paragraph as discussed above. The claim is rejected as being indefinite for the specification failing to disclose sufficient structure to accomplish the claimed function of the obtainer. MPEP 2163.03(VI) discussed that indefinite claims interpreted under 112(f) also lack written description because unbound functional limitations would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Claims 2-9 are also rejected because they depend from claim 1.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
The first part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether a claim falls within any statutory category (MPEP 2106.03). Claims 1-9 recite components of a proposal system configured to reduce risk of infection in an indoor space. The claims are directed to a computer system connected to other devices and fall within the machine statutory category of invention. Claims 10-11 recite a method of reducing infection risk in an indoor space and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instruction to cause a computer to perform the method. The claims are directed towards a process and fall within one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, prong 1:
In accordance with MPEP 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Claim 1 recites: … a proposal unit that proposes a condition of use of the indoor space depending on the user information obtained, wherein the proposal unit: calculates an infection probability in transmission of an infectious material to the user based on a total number of users of the indoor space and a period of use of the indoor space which are included in the user information; and when the infection probability calculated exceeds an upper infection probability limit, proposes the condition of use under which the infection probability falls below the upper infection probability limit.
Claim 2 recites: wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes use of another indoor space different from the indoor space.
Claim 3 recites: wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes a change in at least one of the total number of users of the indoor space or the period of use of the indoor space.
Claim 4 recites: wherein at least one of the following is placed in the indoor space: (i) a ventilation device that replaces indoor-space air containing the infectious material with outdoor-space air to perform discharge removal of the infectious material; or (ii) a supply device that supplies an inactivation agent for inactivating the infectious material to the indoor space to perform inactivation removal of the infectious material, and the infection probability in transmission of the infectious material to the user is calculated under a condition that at least one of the ventilation device or the supply device is in operation.
Claim 5 recites: wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes a change in at least one of (i) a ventilation air volume of the ventilation device which is a replacement air volume per unit time or (ii) a residual rate of the infectious material remaining per unit time in the inactivation removal using the inactivation agent.
Claim 6 recites: wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes placement of at least one of (i) a ventilation device that replaces indoor-space air containing the infectious material with outdoor-space air to perform discharge removal of the infectious material or (ii) a supply device that supplies an inactivation agent for inactivating the infectious material to the indoor space to perform inactivation removal of the infectious material.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the proposal unit: … estimates the ventilation air volume that reduces the CO2 concentration obtained to a CO2 threshold or less; calculates the infection probability for the ventilation air volume that reduces the CO2 concentration in the indoor space to the CO2 threshold or less; and when the infection probability calculated exceeds the upper infection probability limit, proposes the condition of use under which the infection probability falls below the upper infection probability limit.
Claim 8 recites: wherein the proposal unit: estimates a breathing volume of the user from an intended use of the indoor space which is included in the user information; and calculates the infection probability in transmission of the infectious material to the user based on the breathing volume estimated, the total number of users of the indoor space, and the period of use of the indoor space.
Claim 9 recites: wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes a change in the intended use of the indoor space.
Claims 10-11 recite: A proposal method comprising: … proposing a condition of use of the indoor space depending on the user information obtained, wherein the proposing includes: calculating an infection probability in transmission of an infectious material to the user based on a total number of users of the indoor space and a period of use of the indoor space which are included in the user information; and when the infection probability calculated exceeds an upper infection probability limit, proposing the condition of use under which the infection probability falls below the upper infection probability limit.
The limitations of proposing a condition of use of the indoor space recited in claims 1 and 10-11 encompass the mental processes of judgment and opinion in determining how to use a room. The limitations of claims 2-3, 5-6, and 9 further limit the mental process recited in claim 1 to specific proposals. The limitations in claim 4 of a ventilation device or supply device placed in the room further limit the mental process recited in claim 1 by describing what is contained in the indoor space being evaluated. Claims 1 and 10-11 also recite limitations of calculating infection probability which encompass mathematical calculations performed to obtain a probability value. These limitations are used by the mental process of evaluating data to determine if a proposal should be made to change the use of the room. The limitation in claim 4 of the infection probability being calculated based on the ventilation device or supply device being active further limits the mathematical calculations recited in claim 1.
The limitations in claim 7 of the proposal unit estimating air volume and calculating infection probability based on the air volume encompasses mathematical calculation needed to determine the rate of air exchange needed to reduce CO2 concentration in a room and obtaining a probability value of the risk of infection based on the estimate. These limitations are used by the mental process to determine if a proposal should be made to the use of the room. The limitations in claim 8 of the proposal unit estimating breathing volume and calculating the infection probability using the estimate encompass mathematical calculations that further limit the calculations performed in claim 1 to determine the risk of transmission.
Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mathematical concepts” and “Mental processes” groupings of judicial exception (Step 2A, prong 1: YES).
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, prong 2). The claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 (and its’ dependent claims 2-9) recites: an obtainer that obtains user information regarding a user who uses an indoor space; and a proposal unit…
Claim 7 recites: wherein the proposal unit: obtains a C02 concentration in the indoor space from a C02 sensor that measures the C02 concentration in the indoor space…
Claim 10 recites: obtaining user information regarding a user who uses an indoor space…
Claim 11 recites: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for use in a computer, the recording medium having a program recorded thereon for causing the computer to execute the proposal method according to claim 10.
The additional elements recited in claims 1, 7, and 10 of obtaining user information or CO2 concentration are tangentially related to the invention and don’t impose meaningful limits on the claims and amount to necessary data gathering because all uses of the judicial exception require such data gathering. These limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable recoding medium in claim 11 and a proposal unit in claims 1-9 are recited at a high level of generality having broad applicability and are an invocation of computers to perform the judicial exception. These additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception in a computer environment (MPEP 2106.05f).
Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies/uses the recited judicial exception in some other meaningful way and the claims are directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, prong 2: NO).
Step 2B:
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims recite additional elements that equate to mere instructions to apply the recited
judicial exception in a generic computing environment. Claims that amount to nothing more than
instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea
eligible. Alice Corp., 576 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. The claims also recite computer functions that the courts have ruled to be well-understood, routine, and conventional such as: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As such, the combination of additional elements recited in the claims is well-understood,
routine and conventional. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when
considered individually or as an ordered combination that transform the claimed judicial exception into
a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO) and claims 1-11 are not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Douglas et al. (US20220065479A1). The italicized text corresponds to the instant claim limitations.
Regarding claim 1, Douglas et al. teach inputting parameters into a computer-implemented constraint generator to generate infection probability and a controller that provides recommendations to the user (paragraphs 0096-0099, 0126, 0132) which discloses an obtainer that obtains user information regarding a user who uses an indoor space; and a proposal unit that proposes a condition of use of the indoor space depending on the user information obtained... Douglas et al. teach their systems use an infection probability constraint in various optimizations to facilitate reducing infection probability (paragraph 0076). The calculation involves the number of people in a room and the time spent in the room (Id.) which discloses … wherein the proposal unit: calculates an infection probability in transmission of an infectious material to the user based on a total number of users of the indoor space and a period of use of the indoor space which are included in the user information; and when the infection probability calculated exceeds an upper infection probability limit, proposes the condition of use under which the infection probability falls below the upper infection probability limit.
Regarding claim 3, Douglas et al. teach there should be a time interval where the average infection probability is below the constraint and a maximum tolerable threshold can be chosen to act as a linear constraint (paragraph 0122). In this way, plugging in a probability of infection into the calculation will allow the user to determine the time that can be spent in a room before the probability goes above the threshold. Additionally, Douglas et al. teach reducing the number of individuals allowed in a space can keep the infection probability at a desired level (paragraph 0240). Together, these teachings disclose wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes a change in at least one of the total number of users of the indoor space or the period of use of the indoor space.
Regarding claim 4, Douglas et al. teach that the risk of transmission can be calculated by the Wells-Riley equation that takes into account volumetric flow rate of fresh outdoor air provided by air handler units (paragraph 0076) which discloses wherein at least one of the following is placed in the indoor space: (i) a ventilation device that replaces indoor-space air containing the infectious material with outdoor-space air to perform discharge removal of the infectious material…, and the infection probability in transmission of the infectious material to the user is calculated under a condition that at least one of the ventilation device … is in operation.
Regarding claim 5, Douglas et al. teach adjusting airflow or changing the fresh-air intake fraction for a zone to control infectious quanta concentration in that space (paragraphs 0133, 0155) which discloses wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes a change in at least one of (i) a ventilation air volume of the ventilation device which is a replacement air volume per unit time…
Regarding claim 7, Douglas et al. teach carbon dioxide is readily measurable by zone sensors (i.e., a CO2 sensor in a room) (paragraph 0085) which discloses wherein the proposal unit: obtains a C02 concentration in the indoor space from a C02 sensor that measures the C02 concentration in the indoor space… Additionally, the optimization manager can enforce fresh-air ventilation bounds by modeling corresponding bounds for CO2 concentration (paragraph 0116) which discloses … estimates the ventilation air volume that reduces the CO2 concentration obtained to a CO2 threshold or less… Douglas et al. also teach that CO2 measurements serve as a proxy for measurements of infectious quanta concentration in the air (paragraphs 0085-0090). Since infectious quanta concentration is used to calculate risk of infection (paragraphs 0082, 0091), this discloses …calculates the infection probability for the ventilation air volume that reduces the CO2 concentration in the indoor space to the CO2 threshold or less; and when the infection probability calculated exceeds the upper infection probability limit, proposes the condition of use under which the infection probability falls below the upper infection probability limit.
Regarding claim 8, Douglas et al. teach the infection model manager adjusts the inhalation rate based on expected activity in the building (paragraph 0285, 0327). Since calculating infection probability takes into account volumetric breath rate, number of people in a room, and time of exposure (paragraph 0076) this teaching discloses wherein the proposal unit: estimates a breathing volume of the user from an intended use of the indoor space which is included in the user information; and calculates the infection probability in transmission of the infectious material to the user based on the breathing volume estimated, the total number of users of the indoor space, and the period of use of the indoor space.
Regarding claim 9, Douglas et al. teach the infection control system keeps the infection probability below a desired level by various means including requiring masks be worn in the building (paragraph 0240) which discloses wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes a change in the intended use of the indoor space.
Regarding claim 10, Douglas et al. teach the controller can be used as a design tool and receive various inputs from the user and then outputs suggestions of how to keep the infection probability to the desired threshold (paragraph 0132) and the infection probability is calculated with consideration to the number of people in a room and the length of time spent in the room (paragraph 0076) which discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Douglas et al. teach the methods contemplated include embodiments program products on any machine-readable media for accomplishing various operations (paragraph 0386) which discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for use in a computer, the recording medium having a program recorded thereon for causing the computer to execute the proposal method according to claim 10.
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 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 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas et al. (US20220065479A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nesler et al. (US20210010701A1). The italicized text corresponds to the instant claim limitations.
The limitations of claim 1 have been taught by Douglas et al.
Regarding claim 2, Douglas et al. teach that dynamic models to calculate infection risk can be generated on a zone-by-zone basis and the models can be used by the optimization manager to solve an optimization problem (paragraph 0099) and recommendations may include operating strategy or any other options to improve control objectives like minimizing infection probability (paragraph 0150). Nevertheless, Douglas et al. appears to be silent to wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes use of another indoor space different from the indoor space.
Regarding claim 6, Douglas et al. teach the controller may provide recommendations of suggestions based on a location of the building and the recommendations may notify the user regarding what equipment is needed to keep the infection probability of zones within the threshold (paragraph 0132). Additionally, recommendations can be to purchase equipment and operational recommendations for the HVAC system (paragraph 0150). Regardless, Douglas et al. appears to be silent to wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes placement of at least one of (i) a ventilation device that replaces indoor-space air containing the infectious material with outdoor-space air to perform discharge removal of the infectious material…
However, these limitations were known in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, as taught by Nesler et al.
Regarding claim 2, Nesler et al. teach health risk visualizations can be presented to a user to recommend locations within a building to host a desired event to minimize health risk (paragraphs 0159, 0468) which discloses wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes use of another indoor space different from the indoor space.
Regarding claim 6, Nesler et al. teach maps for assessing health risk within a building can also be used for control purposes such as identifying locations where an air handling action should be performed to reduce health risks for building occupants (paragraph 0159) which discloses wherein as the condition of use, the proposal unit proposes placement of at least one of (i) a ventilation device that replaces indoor-space air containing the infectious material with outdoor-space air to perform discharge removal of the infectious material…
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the teachings of Douglas et al. with those of Nesler et al. in order to decrease the probability of disease transmission inside buildings and to avoid increased costs from maintaining other environmental factors because both references disclose techniques to improve safety for building occupants while balancing cost (Douglas et al. paragraph 0002-0003; Nesler et al. paragraphs 0002-0003). There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references use computer systems (such as building management systems) that analyze data obtained from a user or sensors inside rooms of the building to assess infection risk (Douglas et al. paragraph 0057; Nesler et al. paragraph 103). The inventions of claims 2 and 6 are therefore prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
E-mail Communications Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (570-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (570-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMUR Y OLJUSKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4006. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 0800-1630 EST.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at 571-272-2249. 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.
/T.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights