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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seong (US 20060213513 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seong teaches a method (the method performed by the assembly of FIG. 1) of a safety system (the assembly of FIG. 1) of a structure having a fixed piping system installed therewithin to supply breathable air from a source across the safety system, comprising: sensing a parameter of the breathable air circulating within the safety system (paragraph 7, the system detects the pressure of the air); and in response to detecting that the parameter of the breathable air is outside a predetermined threshold value based on the sensing, automatically bypassing the source of the breathable air with respect to the supply of the breathable air across the safety system (paragraph 7, if the pressure is not in the proper range, the air is bypassed through bypass pipe 21).
Regarding claim 2, Seong teaches installing an air analysis device (paragraph 7, FIG. 1, pressure valve member 20, which acts according to gas pressure) along an air flow path of the breathable air from the source within the safety system; sensing the parameter of the breathable air using a sensor (paragraph 7, FIG. 1, the portion of the pressure valve member 20 that actuates at a certain pressure) associated with the air analysis device; and automatically bypassing the source of the breathable air using a bypass controller device communicatively coupled to the air analysis device (paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 4, Seong teaches the parameter of the breathable air comprising at least one of: an air quality parameter, an air component parameter, a pressure of the breathable air (paragraph 7, the valve member 20 detects pressure), a temperature of the breathable air, and leakage thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Seong teaches the sensor comprising at least one of: a pressure sensor (paragraph 7, the valve member 20 detects pressure) configured to sense a pressure of the breathable air and a leakage sensor configured to sense leakage of the breathable air in the safety system.
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.
Claim(s) 11-13, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong and Rittner (EP 2151263 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Seong teaches a method (the method performed by the assembly of FIG. 1) of a safety system (the method performed by the assembly of FIG. 1) of a structure having a fixed piping system installed therewithin to supply breathable air from a source across the safety system, comprising: sensing a parameter of the breathable air circulating within the safety system (the method performed by the assembly of FIG. 1); and in response to detecting that the parameter of the breathable air is outside a predetermined threshold value based on the sensing: automatically bypassing the source of the breathable air with respect to the supply of the breathable air across the safety system (paragraph 7, if the pressure is not in the proper range, the air is bypassed through bypass pipe 21).
Seong fails to teach switching from the source of the breathable air to another source of the breathable air in the safety system in addition to the automatic bypassing of the source of the breathable air to ensure a continued supply of the breathable air across the safety system.
However, Rittner teaches switching from the source of the breathable air to another source of the breathable air in the safety system in addition to the automatic bypassing of the source of the breathable air to ensure a continued supply of the breathable air across the safety system (claim 1, in response to detecting smoke, the system switches between pressurized air and pressurized oxygen).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Seong by allowing the system to switch between gas sources in the case of a compromised gas source, as taught by Rittner, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Seong with these aforementioned teachings of Rittner with the motivation of providing a temporary solution while the alarm of Seong sounds.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Seong and Rittner teaches installing an air analysis device (Seong, paragraph 7, FIG. 1, pressure valve member 20, which acts according to gas pressure) in an air flow path of the breathable air from the source within the safety system; sensing the parameter of the breathable air using a sensor associated with the air analysis device (Seong, paragraph 7, FIG. 1, the portion of the pressure valve member 20 that actuates at a certain pressure); and automatically bypassing the source of the breathable air and switching to the another source of the breathable air using a bypass controller device communicatively coupled to the air analysis device (Rittner, claim 1).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the combination of Seong and Rittner teaches the parameter of the breathable air comprising at least one of: an air quality parameter, an air component parameter, a pressure of the breathable air (Seong, paragraph 7, the valve member 20 detects pressure), a temperature of the breathable air, and leakage thereof.
Regarding claim 18, Seong teaches a safety system (the method performed by the assembly of FIG. 1) of a structure, comprising: a source of breathable air (FIG. 1, portable air tank 10); a fixed piping system (FIG. 1, the pipe system displayed) installed within the structure for supply of the breathable air across the safety system; an air analysis device (paragraph 7, FIG. 1, pressure valve member 20, which acts according to gas pressure) along an air flow path of the breathable air from the source thereof, the air analysis device comprising a sensor associated therewith to automatically detect a parameter of the breathable air circulating within the safety system (paragraph 7, FIG. 1, the portion of the pressure valve member 20 that actuates at a certain pressure).
Seong fails to teach a bypass controller device communicatively coupled to the air analysis device to, in response to detecting that the parameter of the breathable air is outside a predetermined threshold value, automatically bypass the source of the breathable air with respect to the supply of the breathable air across the safety system.
However, Rittner teaches a bypass controller device (FIG. 1, control unit 30) communicatively coupled to the air analysis device to, in response to detecting that the parameter of the breathable air is outside a predetermined threshold value, automatically bypass the source of the breathable air with respect to the supply of the breathable air across the safety system (claim 1, in response to detecting smoke, the system switches between pressurized air and pressurized oxygen).
Claim(s) 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 14-17, 19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 above, and further in view of Rittner.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Seong fails to teach, in response to the detection of the parameter of the breathable air being outside the predetermined threshold value based on the sensing, through the bypass controller device, switching from the source of the breathable air to another source of the breathable air in the safety system in addition to the automatic bypassing of the source of the breathable air to ensure a continued supply of the breathable air across the safety system.
However, Rittner teaches, in response to the detection of the parameter of the breathable air being outside the predetermined threshold value based on the sensing, through the bypass controller device, switching from the source of the breathable air to another source of the breathable air in the safety system in addition to the automatic bypassing of the source of the breathable air to ensure a continued supply of the breathable air across the safety system (claim 1, in response to detecting smoke, the system switches between pressurized air and pressurized oxygen).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Seong by allowing the system to switch between gas sources in the case of a compromised gas source, as taught by Rittner, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Seong with these aforementioned teachings of Rittner with the motivation of providing a temporary solution while the alarm of Seong sounds.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Seong fails to teach remotely certifying the safety system via a data processing device communicatively coupled to the air analysis device in accordance with determining that the automatically detected parameter of the breathable air within the safety system is within the predetermined threshold value.
However, Rittner teaches remotely certifying the safety system via a data processing device communicatively coupled to the air analysis device in accordance with determining that the automatically detected parameter of the breathable air within the safety system is within the predetermined threshold value (Rittner, FIG. 1, the operation is controlled by control unit 30).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Seong by operating the method using a control unit, as taught by Rittner, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Seong with these aforementioned teachings of Rittner with the motivation of ensuring precision and allowing a user to access data regarding the operation of the system.
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 21, the combination of Seong and Rittner teaches at least one of: automatically bypassing the source of the breathable air and switching to the another source of the breathable air based on controlling, through the bypass controller device, at least one valve associated with at least one component of the safety system (Rittner, claim 1, in response to detecting smoke, the system switches between pressurized air and pressurized oxygen).
Regarding claims 7, 16, and 22, Seong fails to teach the sensor associated with the air analysis device comprising at least one of: a carbon monoxide sensor configured to sense a level of carbon monoxide in the breathable air, a carbon dioxide sensor configured to sense a level of carbon dioxide in the breathable air, an oxygen sensor configured to sense a level of oxygen in the breathable air, a nitrogen sensor configured to sense a level of nitrogen in the breathable air, a hydrocarbon sensor configured to sense a condensed hydrocarbon content in the breathable air, and a moisture sensor configured to sense a moisture concentration in the breathable air.
However, Rittner teaches the sensor associated with the air analysis device comprising at least one of: a carbon monoxide sensor configured to sense a level of carbon monoxide in the breathable air, a carbon dioxide sensor configured to sense a level of carbon dioxide in the breathable air, an oxygen sensor configured to sense a level of oxygen in the breathable air, a nitrogen sensor configured to sense a level of nitrogen in the breathable air, a hydrocarbon sensor configured to sense a condensed hydrocarbon content in the breathable air (claim 1, the system uses a smoke sensor (i.e., a hydrocarbon sensor)), and a moisture sensor configured to sense a moisture concentration in the breathable air.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Seong by allowing the system to switch between gas sources in response to detecting smoke, as taught by Rittner, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Seong with these aforementioned teachings of Rittner with the motivation of widening the range of emergencies the system can respond to.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the combination of Seong and Rittner teaches sampling the breathable air from at least one of: the source and the another source of the breathable air instantaneously through at least one of: the air analysis device (Rittner, claim 1, the system samples breathable air using a control unit 30) and a data processing device communicatively coupled to the air analysis device through a computer network.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Seong and Rittner teaches controlling at least one valve associated with at least one of: the bypass controller device, the source of the breathable air (Rittner, FIG. 1, safety valve 40), the another source of the breathable air and an emergency air fill station of the structure through a mobile air connection panel external to the structure to enable utilization of a mobile air unit as the another source of the breathable air.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762