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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to amendment filed 12/16/2025. Applicant's arguments have been carefully and fully considered but they are not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11, 13-14, 16, and 20 have been amended. Claims 6 and 15 were canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous Claim Objections has been withdrawn.
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 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03.
The claim is to a pathogen detection system, i.e. one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A prong one: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(11) and the October 2019 Update, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
The claim recites:
“analyze second detection data from a second pathogen detector of the plurality of pathogen detectors;
determine a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on the first detection data and the second detection data;”
These limitations recite concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the limitations fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A prong one: YES).
Step 2A prong two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section lll{A){2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
“A pathogen detection system for a building, comprising:
a plurality of pathogen detectors positioned in the building at a plurality of locations, the plurality of pathogen detectors configured to output pathogen data indicating whether presence of a pathogen has been detected; and
processing circuitry configured to:
obtain first detection data from a first pathogen detector of the plurality of pathogen detectors positioned at a first location in the building;
in response to obtaining the first detection data, …a second pathogen detector of the plurality of pathogen detectors;
and perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone,
wherein the plurality of pathogen detectors comprises the first pathogen detector located in a common area or multiple areas of the building and configured to detect the first detection data impacted by overall air quality or overall sewage conditions within the building, and wherein the second pathogen detector located in the area or zone of the building and configured to detect the second detection data impacted by localized air quality or localized sewage conditions within the area or zone.”
The pathogen detection system and processing circuitry are a recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Thus, these limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer.
Although the claim nominally requires the functions to be performed using “the plurality of pathogen detectors comprises the first pathogen detector located in a common area or multiple areas of the building” and “the second pathogen detector located in the area or zone of the building”, this generic apparatus implementation is not sufficient to take the invention out of the realm of abstract ideas. The plurality of pathogen detectors, the first pathogen detector, and the second pathogen detector may be tools that are used as recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that they represent no more than a mere instruction “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic components. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic electronic component as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The limitation “output pathogen data indicating whether presence of a pathogen has been detected” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they claim mere data outputting.
The limitation “obtain first detection data from a first pathogen detector of the plurality of pathogen detectors positioned at a first location in the building; in response to obtaining the first detection data,” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they claim mere data gathering.
The limitation “perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone;” does not integrate the invention into a practical application because it’s just “applying” the abstract idea. It can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
The limitation “configured to detect the first detection data impacted by overall air quality or overall sewage conditions within the building, and …configured to detect the second detection data impacted by localized air quality or localized sewage conditions within the area or zone” merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they claim mere data gathering.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, pathogen detection system, processing circuitry, the plurality of pathogen detectors, and the first and second pathogen detectors do not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(1) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'I, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A prong two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05
Regarding the additional elements:
The pathogen detection system and processing circuitry are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Thus, these limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic components as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The additional feature including “a plurality of pathogen detectors”, “first pathogen detector”, and “a second pathogen detector”, as recited in the claim may be a tool that is used for output pathogen data is recited so generically that it represents no more than a mere instruction “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic components as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The limitation “output pathogen data indicating whether presence of a pathogen has been detected” represents merely outputting data. Stoughton (US20180330056A1) discloses outputting the identifying if a target pathogen is detected. Further, Andreyev (US11162130B2) discloses outputting the output signal that indicates the presence of bound amplicon: if the target pathogen, target amplicon and/or target organism is present, the color product is formed, and if the target pathogen, target amplicon and/or target organism is not present, the color product does not form.
The limitations “obtain first detection data from a first pathogen detector of the plurality of pathogen detectors positioned at a first location in the building; in response to obtaining the first detection data,” represents mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and is recited at high level of generality. These limitation in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. This is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) – receiving or transmitting data over a network.). Donofrio (US 20160171179 A1) discloses obtaining sampling data from sensors that are placed within or on objects (e.g., on surfaces, clothing, bedding, etc.) designed to detect single cells of pathogens. Further, Dillon (US 20170081707 A1) discloses the control unit can collect data generated from the analysis of samples obtained from one or more sensors.
The limitations “perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone;” represents merely outputting data. Mount (US10967093B2) discloses performing a purification process in response to determining that the indoor environment is contaminated. Further, Federspiel (US11181289B2) discloses initiating a disinfect mode of the HVAC system.
The limitation “configured to detect the first detection data impacted by overall air quality or overall sewage conditions within the building, and …configured to detect the second detection data impacted by localized air quality or localized sewage conditions within the area or zone” represents mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and is recited at high level of generality. These limitation in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. This is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) – receiving or transmitting data over a network.). Law (US 20150330817 A1) discloses detecting the health effect of different pollutants source and comment on the overall air quality. Combs (US 20170087500 A1) discloses detecting and generally affecting indoor air quality in order to improve overall indoor air quality in the space. Further, Davies (US 20200073354 A1) discloses detecting local air quality, temperature, humidity, heater system settings, occupant sensing and building security functions, safety sensors (e.g., smoke detectors), local power consumption for billing and usage optimization, and equipment status monitors to manage maintenance, repair and contingency arrangements.
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7-10, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claims 2-3 and 5 further define the first pathogen detector and the second pathogen detector, claim 4 defines a third pathogen detector, claim 7-8 further define the processing circuitry, and claims 9-10 further define the responsive action, which have been established to include abstract ideas. There are no additional limitations in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 2-5 and 7-10are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim has similar limitations as claim 1 and claim 8; moreover, claim 20 recites a method, which is generic computer components and does not practically integrate the invention nor amount to significantly more. The claims 20 is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03.
The claim is to a pathogen detection system, i.e. one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A prong one: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(11) and the October 2019 Update, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
The claim recites:
“…assess the pathogen data and determine a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on the first sample and the second sample.”
These limitations recite concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the limitations fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A prong one: YES).
Step 2A prong two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section lll{A){2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because: Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
“A pathogen detection system for a building, comprising:
a first pathogen detector configured to obtain a first sample, wherein the first pathogen detector positioned at a first location in the building;
a second pathogen detector configured to obtain a second sample, wherein the first pathogen detector and the second pathogen detector output pathogen data indicating whether presence of a pathogen has been detected; and
a detection controller configured to…
and (ii) perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone;
wherein a plurality of pathogen detectors comprises the first pathogen detector located in a common area or multiple areas of the building and configured to detect the first sample impacted by overall air quality or overall sewage conditions within the building, and wherein the second pathogen detector located in the area or zone of the building and configured to detect the second sample impacted by localized air quality or localized sewage conditions within the area or zone.”
The pathogen detection system and the detection controller a recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Thus, these limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer.
Although the claim nominally requires the functions to be performed using “a first pathogen detector” and “a second pathogen detector”, this generic apparatus implementation is not sufficient to take the invention out of the realm of abstract ideas. The first and second pathogen detectors may be a tool that is used as recited in claim 11, but recited so generically that it represents no more than a mere instruction “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic component. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic electronic component as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Although the claim nominally requires the functions to be performed using “the plurality of pathogen detectors comprises the first pathogen detector located in a common area or multiple areas of the building” and “the second pathogen detector located in the area or zone of the building”, this generic apparatus implementation is not sufficient to take the invention out of the realm of abstract ideas. The plurality of pathogen detectors, the first pathogen detector, and the second pathogen detector may be tools that are used as recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that they represent no more than a mere instruction “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic components. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic electronic component as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The limitations “obtain a first sample” and “obtain a second sample” merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they claim mere data gathering.
The limitation “output pathogen data indicating whether presence of a pathogen has been detected” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they claim mere data outputting.
The limitation “perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone;” does not integrate the invention into a practical application because it’s just “applying” the abstract idea. It can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
The limitation “configured to detect the first detection data impacted by overall air quality or overall sewage conditions within the building, and …configured to detect the second detection data impacted by localized air quality or localized sewage conditions within the area or zone” merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because they claim mere data gathering.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, pathogen detection system, detection controller, and the first and second pathogen detectors do not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(1) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'I, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A prong two: NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05
Regarding the additional elements:
The pathogen detection system and the detection controller are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Thus, these limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic components as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The additional feature including “a first pathogen detector” and “a second pathogen detector”, as recited in the claim may be a tool that is used for output pathogen data is recited so generically that it represents no more than a mere instruction “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic components as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. See Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”)
The limitations “obtain a first sample” and “obtain a second sample” represents mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and is recited at high level of generality. These limitation in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. This is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) – receiving or transmitting data over a network.). Donofrio (US 20160171179 A1) discloses obtaining sampling data from sensors that are placed within or on objects (e.g., on surfaces, clothing, bedding, etc.) designed to detect single cells of pathogens. Further, Dillon (US 20170081707 A1) discloses the control unit can collect data generated from the analysis of samples obtained from one or more sensors.
The limitation “output pathogen data indicating whether presence of a pathogen has been detected” represents merely outputting data. Stoughton (US20180330056A1) discloses outputting the identifying if a target pathogen is detected. Further, Andreyev (US11162130B2) discloses outputting the output signal that indicates the presence of bound amplicon: if the target pathogen, target amplicon and/or target organism is present, the color product is formed, and if the target pathogen, target amplicon and/or target organism is not present, the color product does not form.
The limitations “perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone;” represents merely outputting data. Mount (US10967093B2) discloses performing a purification process in response to determining that the indoor environment is contaminated. Further, Federspiel (US11181289B2) discloses initiating a disinfect mode of the HVAC system.
The limitation “configured to detect the first detection data impacted by overall air quality or overall sewage conditions within the building, and …configured to detect the second detection data impacted by localized air quality or localized sewage conditions within the area or zone” represents mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and is recited at high level of generality. These limitation in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. This is also well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) – receiving or transmitting data over a network.). Law (US 20150330817 A1) discloses detecting the health effect of different pollutants source and comment on the overall air quality. Combs (US 20170087500 A1) discloses detecting and generally affecting indoor air quality in order to improve overall indoor air quality in the space. Further, Davies (US 20200073354 A1) discloses detecting local air quality, temperature, humidity, heater system settings, occupant sensing and building security functions, safety sensors (e.g., smoke detectors), local power consumption for billing and usage optimization, and equipment status monitors to manage maintenance, repair and contingency arrangements.
In view of the foregoing, in accord with MPEP 2106.05(d), simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not qualify the claim as reciting “significantly more”. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 16-19, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claims 12-13 further define the first and second pathogen detectors, claim 4 defines a third pathogen detector, claims 14, and 16-19 further define the detection controller, which have been established to include abstract ideas. There are no additional limitations in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that would impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claims 12-14 and 16-19 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioi et al. (US20200232992A1 -hereinafter Shioi) in view of Gupta et al. (US20210398230A1 -hereinafter Gupta).
Regarding Claim 1, Shioi teaches:
A pathogen detection system for a building, comprising: (see [0001]; Shioi: “a pathogen detection system that detects a pathogen such as a virus suspended in the air.”)
a plurality of pathogen detectors positioned in the building at a plurality of locations (see [0004]; Shioi: “a pathogen detection system including pathogen detectors disposed in different locations, and a controller.”), the plurality of pathogen detectors configured to output pathogen data indicating whether presence of a pathogen has been detected; and (see [0055]; Shioi: “the pathogen detection system further includes a display that displays information based on pathogen concentrations detected by the pathogen detectors.”)
processing circuitry configured to: obtain first detection data from a first pathogen detector of the plurality of pathogen detectors positioned at a first location in the building; (see [0034]; Shioi: “The first pathogen detector transmits a first detection result obtained as a result of pathogen detection to the controller”)
in response to obtaining the first detection data, analyze second detection data from a second pathogen detector of the plurality of pathogen detectors; (see [0034]; Shioi: “the second pathogen detector transmits a second detection result obtained as a result of pathogen detection to the controller. In a case where the first detection result satisfies a predetermined condition, the controller causes the second pathogen detector to change a mode related to the pathogen detection from a first mode to a second mode.”)
wherein the plurality of pathogen detectors comprises the first pathogen detector located in a common area or multiple areas of the building and configured to detect the first detection data impacted by overall air quality or overall sewage conditions within the building (see [0065]; Shioi: “The pathogen detectors 10 i and 10 j are installed in a common room.” See [0067]: “The control device 20 stores the acquired detection results, and in accordance with the stored detection results, causes the display device 30 to display an image based on the pathogen concentrations in the air surrounding the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 p installed inside the nursing home 50.”), and wherein the second pathogen detector located in the area or zone of the building and configured to detect the second detection data impacted by localized air quality or localized sewage conditions within the area or zone. (see [0065]; Shioi: “the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 e are respectively installed in private rooms.”)
However, Shioi does not explicitly teach:
determine a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on the first detection data and the second detection data; and
perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone.
Gupta from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
determine a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on the first detection data and the second detection data; and (see [0004]; Gupta: “The controller is configured to determine a designated time to sanitize the space based at least in part upon information received from the one or more occupancy sensors.”)
perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone. (see [0004]; Gupta: “The controller is configured… to automatically instruct the sanitizer to sanitize surfaces within the space at the designated time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Shioi to include Gupta’s features of determine a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on the first detection data and the second detection data; and perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone. Doing so would reduce risk of pathogen exposure within a building. (Gupta, [0001])
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Shioi and Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Shioi further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to:
monitor additional detection data from the first pathogen detector and the second pathogen detector, wherein monitoring the additional detection data comprises adjusting a frequency of sampling and analysis based on at least one of previous analyses, previously collected detection data, building occupancy, or pathogen community data; and (see [0042]; Shioi: “When the pathogen concentration detected by a first pathogen detector is the reference concentration or higher and there is great need to detect the pathogen concentration in a location other than where the first pathogen detector is installed, the pathogen detection system shortens the time interval of pathogen concentration detection by a second pathogen detector. In other words, when there is little need to detect the pathogen concentration, the pathogen detection system lowers the detection frequency of pathogen concentration detection by the second pathogen detector. Consequently, the pathogen detection system is capable of efficiently detecting the pathogen concentration inside a building.”)
wherein the pathogen detection system is configured to determine a severity or magnitude of the pathogen in the building and/or a locality of areas of the pathogen in the building using the pathogen data. (see [0067]; Shioi: “Each of the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 p transmits a detection result to the control device 20 over the communication network 40. The detection results will be described later in detail. The control device 20 stores the acquired detection results, and in accordance with the stored detection results, causes the display device 30 to display an image based on the pathogen concentrations in the air surrounding the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 p installed inside the nursing home 50. FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of an image displayed on the display device 30. In FIG. 3, a “high influenza infection risk” means a “high pathogen concentration”, a “medium influenza infection risk” means a “medium pathogen concentration”, and a “low influenza infection risk” means a “low pathogen concentration”.”)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Shioi and Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Gupta further teaches wherein the responsive action comprises a control action and the processing circuitry comprises a control system configured to initiate one or more infection control sequences through operation of an infection control system of the building to perform the control action. (see [0028]; Gupta: “The controller 38 may be configured to adjust operation of the HVAC system 30 in response to receiving from the air quality sensor 28 an indication of an air quality that is below a threshold value. The controller 38 may be further configured to activate the air purifier 32 in response to receiving from the air quality sensor 28 an indication of that air quality within the space 24 is below a threshold value.”)
The same motivation to combine of Shioi and Gupta a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Shioi and Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above, Gupta further teaches wherein the one or more infection control sequences comprising at least one of an adjustment to a fresh air intake of an air handling unit (AHU) of a heating, ventilation, or air conditioning (HVAC) system of the building (see [0028]; Gupta: “The controller 38 may be configured to adjust operation of the HVAC system 30 in response to receiving from the air quality sensor 28 an indication of an air quality that is below a threshold value.”), activation of one or more ultraviolet (UV) lights to disinfect return air from a zone of the building (see [0022]; Gupta: “the sanitizer 22 may include one or more ultraviolet (UV) lamps that are disposed within each of the spaces 14.” See [0029]: “The sanitizer 34 may provide UV light such as UV-C light that disinfects surfaces that are exposed to the UV-C light for a sufficient period of time.” See [0029]: “The sanitizer 34 may provide UV light such as UV-C light that disinfects surfaces that are exposed to the UV-C light for a sufficient period of time.”), or initiating one or more filtration techniques to filter air in the building. (see [0028]; Gupta: “The controller 38 may be further configured to activate the air purifier 32 in response to receiving from the air quality sensor 28 an indication of that air quality within the space 24 is below a threshold value.”)
The same motivation to combine of Shioi and Gupta a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, Shioi teaches a pathogen detection system for a building, comprising:
a first pathogen detector configured to obtain a first sample, wherein the first pathogen detector positioned at a first location in the building; (see [0034]; Shioi: “The first pathogen detector transmits a first detection result obtained as a result of pathogen detection to the controller”)
a second pathogen detector configured to obtain a second sample, wherein the first pathogen detector and the second pathogen detector output pathogen data indicating whether presence of a pathogen has been detected; and (see [0034]; Shioi: “the second pathogen detector transmits a second detection result obtained as a result of pathogen detection to the controller. In a case where the first detection result satisfies a predetermined condition, the controller causes the second pathogen detector to change a mode related to the pathogen detection from a first mode to a second mode.”)
wherein a plurality of pathogen detectors comprises the first pathogen detector located in a common area or multiple areas of the building and configured to detect the first sample impacted by overall air quality or overall sewage conditions within the building (see [0065]; Shioi: “The pathogen detectors 10 i and 10 j are installed in a common room.” See [0067]: “The control device 20 stores the acquired detection results, and in accordance with the stored detection results, causes the display device 30 to display an image based on the pathogen concentrations in the air surrounding the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 p installed inside the nursing home 50.”), and wherein the second pathogen detector located in the area or zone of the building and configured to detect the second sample impacted by localized air quality or localized sewage conditions within the area or zone. (see [0065]; Shioi: “the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 e are respectively installed in private rooms.”)
However, Shioi does not explicitly teach:
a detection controller configured to (i) assess the pathogen data and determine a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on the first sample and the second sample and (ii) perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone;
Gupta from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: a detection controller configured to (i) assess the pathogen data and determine a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on the first sample and the second sample (see [0004]; Gupta: “The controller is configured to determine a designated time to sanitize the space based at least in part upon information received from the one or more occupancy sensors.”) and (ii) perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone. (see [0004]; Gupta: “The controller is configured… to automatically instruct the sanitizer to sanitize surfaces within the space at the designated time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Shioi to include Gupta’s features of a detection controller configured to assess the pathogen data and determine a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on the first sample and the second sample and performing the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone. Doing so would reduce risk of pathogen exposure within a building. (Gupta, [0001])
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Shioi and Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above, Shioi further teaches wherein the detection controller is further configured to generate a message indicating at least one of a presence or absence of the pathogen in the first sample or the second sample (see [0052]; Shioi: “The pathogen detection system is capable of generating table information in accordance with the building layout information and the pathogen detector positions.” See [0079]: “FIG. 6 is a table illustrating an example of the detection results stored in the second storage unit 22. As illustrated in FIG. 6, each detection result from the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 p includes a pathogen detector ID, a pathogen concentration, and a detection time indicating when the pathogen concentration was detected.”), and update a plurality of locations of the first pathogen detector or the second pathogen detector within the building based on the presence of the pathogen in the first sample or the second sample. (see [0053]; Shioi: “the transmission distance is updated in accordance with pathogen concentration detection results detected by the pathogen detectors.” See [0125]: “the correspondence relationships expressed by the table information may be updated in accordance with the detection results from the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 p.”)
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Shioi and Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above, Gupta further teaches wherein the detection controller is further configured to perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone. (see [0004]; Gupta: “The controller is configured… to automatically instruct the sanitizer to sanitize surfaces within the space at the designated time.)
The same motivation to combine Shioi and Gupta a set forth for Claim 11 equally applies to Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, Shioi teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, by a pathogen detection system, first detection data from a first pathogen detector of the plurality of pathogen detectors positioned at a first location in the building; (see [0034]; Shioi: “The first pathogen detector transmits a first detection result obtained as a result of pathogen detection to the controller”. See [0065]; Shioi: “The pathogen detectors 10 i and 10 j are installed in a common room.”)
in response to obtaining the first detection data, analyzing, by the pathogen detection system, second detection data from a second pathogen detector of the plurality of pathogen detectors positioned at a second location in an area or zone; (see [0034]; Shioi: “the second pathogen detector transmits a second detection result obtained as a result of pathogen detection to the controller. In a case where the first detection result satisfies a predetermined condition, the controller causes the second pathogen detector to change a mode related to the pathogen detection from a first mode to a second mode.” See [0065]; Shioi: “the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 e are respectively installed in private rooms.”))
determining, by the pathogen detection system, a severity or magnitude of the pathogen detection based on the first detection data and the second detection data; (see [0067]; Shioi: “Each of the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 p transmits a detection result to the control device 20 over the communication network 40. The detection results will be described later in detail. The control device 20 stores the acquired detection results, and in accordance with the stored detection results, causes the display device 30 to display an image based on the pathogen concentrations in the air surrounding the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 p installed inside the nursing home 50. FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of an image displayed on the display device 30. In FIG. 3, a “high influenza infection risk” means a “high pathogen concentration”, a “medium influenza infection risk” means a “medium pathogen concentration”, and a “low influenza infection risk” means a “low pathogen concentration”.”)
determining, by the pathogen detection system, a locality of pathogen detection in the area or zone based on at least one of (i) the first detection data corresponding with the first location or (ii) the second detection data corresponding with the second location; (see [0082]; Shioi: “The display device 30 displays the pathogen concentrations detected by the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 p under control by the second control unit 23. The display device 30 may also display an image based on the detected pathogen concentrations like the one illustrated in FIG. 3, for example.” See [0067]: “FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of an image displayed on the display device 30. In FIG. 3, a “high influenza infection risk” means a “high pathogen concentration”, a “medium influenza infection risk” means a “medium pathogen concentration”, and a “low influenza infection risk” means a “low pathogen concentration”.”)
However, Shioi does not explicitly teach:
determining, by the pathogen detection system, a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on at least one of the severity or magnitude of pathogen detection or the locality of pathogen detection; and
performing, by the pathogen detection system, the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone.
Gupta from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
determining, by the pathogen detection system, a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on at least one of the severity or magnitude of pathogen detection or the locality of pathogen detection; and (see [0004]; Gupta: “The controller is configured to determine a designated time to sanitize the space based at least in part upon information received from the one or more occupancy sensors.” See [0024]: “The controller 20 may be configured to determine a designated time to sanitize the particular space 14 based at least in part upon information received from the sensors 16 (including but not limited to occupancy sensors). The controller 20 may be configured to automatically instruct the sanitizer 22 to sanitize surfaces within the particular space 14 at the designated time.” See [0049]: “The dashboard 100 includes a building health alert 102. As illustrated, the building health alert 102 indicates that there are currently 39 healthy zones, 1 active unhealthy zone and 8 active moderate zones. Active may refer to a zone that is currently being sanitized. An active unhealthy zone is one in which the sanitizing process just began, while an active moderate zone may be one in which the sanitizing process is not yet complete, but has been running for some time. The dashboard 100 also includes an pathogen risk index 104. The pathogen risk index 104, alternatively known as an infection risk index, may be calculated from a number of air quality parameters.”)
performing, by the pathogen detection system, the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone. (see [0004]; Gupta: “The controller is configured… to automatically instruct the sanitizer to sanitize surfaces within the space at the designated time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Shioi to include Gupta’s features of determining, by the pathogen detection system, a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on at least one of the severity or magnitude of pathogen detection or the locality of pathogen detection; and performing, by the pathogen detection system, the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone. Doing so would reduce risk of pathogen exposure within a building. (Gupta, [0001])
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioi in view of Gupta in view of Axelsson (US20220315464A1 -hereinafter Axelsson).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Shioi and Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Shioi further teaches and the second pathogen detector is configured to sense the presence of the pathogen within air. (see [0001]; Shioi: “a pathogen detection system that detects a pathogen such as a virus suspended in the air.”)
However, it the does explicitly teach wherein the first pathogen detector is configured to sense the presence of the pathogen within sewage,
Axelsson from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein the first pathogen detector is configured to sense the presence of the pathogen within sewage, (see [0350]; Axelsson: “Such variation of the operation of the biosensor is then detected to thereby determine the presence and purpose of the bacteria or microorganisms in the liquid medium.” See [0306]: “the microorganisms may consist of bacteria, fungi, archaea, and protists”. See [0015]: “Wastewater from toilets and urinals is often termed black water. It is composed of feces, urine and water, but also paper, or cellulose… Moreover, black water contains pathogenic bacteria from the human intestinal tract (so-called coliform bacteria).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Shioi and Gupta to include Axelsson’s features of the first pathogen detector is configured to sense the presence of the pathogen within sewage. Doing so would implement solution for bioprospecting in a wastewater treatment system without any complex analyses and which is less time-consuming. (Axelsson, [0014])
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Shioi, Gupta, and Axelsson teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above, Shioi further teaches and wherein the second pathogen detector is positioned on a surface of the building. (see [0065]; Shioi: “The pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 p are installed in different locations inside the nursing home 50. For example, the pathogen detectors 10 a to 10 e are respectively installed in private rooms.”)
However, it the does explicitly teach wherein the first pathogen detector is positioned within a sewage line or sewage output of the building,
Axelsson from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein the first pathogen detector is positioned within a sewage line or sewage output of the building, (see [0350]; Axelsson: “the technology disclosed relates to a method that includes detecting and identifying bacteria or microorganisms in a liquid medium.” See [0385]: “the wastewater tank of the wastewater treatment system for biologically breaking down wastewater comprises a sensor/detector for detecting or measuring the thickness of the fat/FOG cake where the fat/FOG cake sensor/detector comprises a plurality of suspended solids sensors each disposed at different fixed locations within the wastewater tank.”)
The same motivation to combine of Shioi, Gupta, and Axelsson a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Shioi and Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the first pathogen detector is a sewage sampling system configured to take a sample of sewage from a sewage line or a sewage outlet of the building and sense the presence of the pathogen within the sample of sewage.
Axelsson from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein the first pathogen detector is a sewage sampling system configured to take a sample of sewage from a sewage line or a sewage outlet of the building and sense the presence of the pathogen within the sample of sewage. (see [0350]; Axelsson: “Such variation of the operation of the biosensor is then detected to thereby determine the presence and purpose of the bacteria or microorganisms in the liquid medium.” See [0306]: “the microorganisms may consist of bacteria, fungi, archaea, and protists”. See [0015]: “Wastewater from toilets and urinals is often termed black water. It is composed of feces, urine and water, but also paper, or cellulose… Moreover, black water contains pathogenic bacteria from the human intestinal tract (so-called coliform bacteria).”)
The same motivation to combine Shioi, Gupta, and Axelsson a set forth for Claim 12 equally applies to Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Shioi, Gupta, and Axelsson teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above, Shioi further teaches wherein the second pathogen detector is an air sensor configured to take a sample of air from one or more areas or zones of the building and sense the presence of the pathogen within the sample of air. (see [0001]; Shioi: “a pathogen detection system that detects a pathogen such as a virus suspended in the air.”)
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioi in view of Gupta in view of ElDelgawy (US20230039967A1 -hereinafter ElDelgawy).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Shioi and Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein a third pathogen detector is a mobile sensor configured to sense the presence of the pathogen on a surface or within air, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: request additional detection data from the first pathogen detector, the second pathogen detector, or the third pathogen detector based on receiving a positive detection from at least one of the plurality of pathogen detectors.
ElDelgawy from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein a third pathogen detector is a mobile sensor configured to sense the presence of the pathogen on a surface or within air, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to (see [0028]; ElDelgawy: “Sensors 110 can measure physical, electrical, optical, and chemical characteristics of particles in air. For example, some of the sensors 110 may be conductivity sensors that measure conductivity of airborne particles, some of the sensors 110 may be chemical sensors that measure reactivity of airborne particles to particular chemicals, some of the sensors 110 may be optical sensors that measure transparency of airborne particles to particular chemicals, and some of the sensors 110 may be sensors that measure physical size of airborne particles, etc.”): request additional detection data from the first pathogen detector, the second pathogen detector, or the third pathogen detector based on receiving a positive detection from at least one of the plurality of pathogen detectors. (see [0042]; ElDelgawy: “In some implementations, the pathogen evaluation module 124 may determine that sensor data 112 indicates that an unknown pathogen has been detected and, in response, determine that an alert should be generated asking a user to identify the unknown pathogen. Additionally or alternatively, the pathogen evaluation module 124 may request that the sensor data collection module 122 collect additional sensor data regarding the unknown pathogen to better train the neural network to identify the pathogen.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Shioi and Gupta to include ElDelgawy’s features of wherein a third pathogen detector is a mobile sensor configured to sense the presence of the pathogen on a surface or within air, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: request additional detection data from the first pathogen detector, the second pathogen detector, or the third pathogen detector based on receiving a positive detection from at least one of the plurality of pathogen detectors. Doing so would help curtail the spread of certain diseases, especially the ones that affect the respiratory system. (ElDelgawy, [0005])
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Shioi, Gupta, and ElDelgawy as discussed connection with claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioi in view of Gupta in view of ElDelgawy in view of Tabib-Azar (US20220412974A1 -hereinafter Tabib-Azar).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Shioi, Gupta, and Axelsson teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above; however, it does not explicitly teach further comprising: request additional detection data from the mobile sensor based on receiving the second detection data from the second pathogen detector; and determine a pattern or trend in both the additional detection data and the second detection data, wherein the pattern or trend is associated with at least one of sensing the presence of the pathogen, a concentration of the pathogen, or a spread of the pathogen within the building.
ElDelgawy from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: request additional detection data from the mobile sensor based on receiving the second detection data from the second pathogen detector; and (see [0042]; ElDelgawy: “In some implementations, the pathogen evaluation module 124 may determine that sensor data 112 indicates that an unknown pathogen has been detected and, in response, determine that an alert should be generated asking a user to identify the unknown pathogen. Additionally or alternatively, the pathogen evaluation module 124 may request that the sensor data collection module 122 collect additional sensor data regarding the unknown pathogen to better train the neural network to identify the pathogen.”)
The same motivation to combine of Shioi, Gupta, and ElDelgawy a set forth for Claim 4 equally applies to Claim 5.
However, it does not explicitly teach: determine a pattern or trend in both the additional detection data and the second detection data, wherein the pattern or trend is associated with at least one of sensing the presence of the pathogen, a concentration of the pathogen, or a spread of the pathogen within the building.
Tabib-Azar from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches determine a pattern or trend in both the additional detection data and the second detection data (see [0029]; Tabib-Azar: “a separate portion of the sensors can include a plurality of such sensors which allow gathering of additional information aside from direct presence of virus.” (see [0038]: “the diagnosis and prognosis module 110 can evaluate the sensor output of the individual sensors 112/114 a-n in the sensor array 118 and identify patterns in the sensor data 108 that correlate to stages of infection of a virus. For example, various patterns of virus detection data, antibody detection data, and vital sign data (e.g., body temperature, heart rate, blood oxygen level, etc.) in the sensor data 108 can correlate to stages of a viral infection.”), wherein the pattern or trend is associated with at least one of sensing the presence of the pathogen, a concentration of the pathogen, or a spread of the pathogen within the building. (see [0038]; Tabib-Azar: “The diagnosis and prognosis module 110 can analyze the sensor data 108 for these patterns and output an estimated prognosis that correlates to an identified pattern.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Shioi, Gupta, and ElDelgawy to include Tabib-Azar’s features of determine a pattern or trend in both the additional detection data and the second detection data, wherein the pattern or trend is associated with at least one of sensing the presence of the pathogen, a concentration of the pathogen, or a spread of the pathogen within the building. Doing so would provide rapid and accurate test results which are easy to interpret and can minimize the risk of infectious exposure to healthcare personnel. (Tabib-Azar, [0027])
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioi in view of Gupta in view of Baarman et al. (US20230001034A1 -hereinafter Baarman).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Shioi and Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Shioi further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to prioritize the responsive action based on the difference in pathogen detection between the first detected data impacted by the overall air quality or the overall sewage conditions within the building and the second detection data impacted by the localized air quality or the localized sewage conditions within the area or zone.
Baarman from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to prioritize the responsive action based on the difference in pathogen detection between the first detected data impacted by the overall air quality or the overall sewage conditions within the building and the second detection data impacted by the localized air quality or the localized sewage conditions within the area or zone. (see [0119]; Baarman: “the overall system treatment level can be adjusted or set based on the pressure differentials between the different pressure level sensors and their locations within the building. In some circumstances, if the pressure levels indicate an unusually high airflow, the system can be set to a maximum treatment level., whereas if the pressure levels indicate an unusually low airflow, the system can be set to a minimum treatment level.” See [0123]: “That is, by monitoring pressure with sensors, directly or indirectly, the dynamic control system can obtain information about airflow traffic around the building, e.g., on a room-by-room basis, and trigger local and global responses based on that information.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Shioi and Gupta to include Baarman’s features of prioritizing the responsive action based on the difference in pathogen detection between the first detection data impacted by the overall air quality or the overall sewage conditions within the building and the second detection data impacted by the localized air quality or the localized sewage conditions within the area or zone. Doing so would dynamically treat an environment with UV energy to reduce pathogens within the environment. (Baarman, [0005])
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Shioi, Gupta, and Baarman as discussed connection with claim 7.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioi in view of Gupta in view of Manautou et al. (US11726439B1 -hereinafter Manautou).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Shioi and Gupta teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above; however, it does not explicitly teach further comprising: a transceiver configured to transmit a message to an external system; and the external system configured to take one or more additional actions to detect or limit a spread of the pathogen in the building responsive to receiving the message from the transceiver.
Manautou from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a transceiver configured to transmit a message to an external system; and (see column 3, lines 61-64; Manautou: “the particle monitor system may transmit an alert message to a client device (e.g., smartphone) of the grower, that advises the grower to adjust the lights of the lighting system.” See column 18, lines 41-44: “An alert may include, for example, a message transmitted to the client device and recommended action (e.g., “Alert: likelihood of a disease outbreak is high, recommend application of fungicide.”).”)
the external system configured to take one or more additional actions to detect or limit a spread of the pathogen in the building responsive to receiving the message from the transceiver. (see column 3, lines 56-64; Manautou: “There can be a combination of manual and autonomous adjustments. For example, an indoor farm may include some control systems (e.g., lighting system) that are connected to the particle monitor system and other control systems (e.g., irrigation system) that are not connected to the particle monitor system. Settings for control systems that are connected to the particle monitor system may be modified autonomously. Settings for control systems that are not connected to the particle monitor system may be modified manually.” See column 4, lines 11-14: “In a specific embodiment, the dynamic feedback loop facilitates operation of a fast feedback loop system in which disease mitigating actions can be rapidly performed on a continuous basis to prevent an outbreak of a disease.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Shioi and Gupta to include Manautou’s features of a transceiver configured to transmit a message to an external system; and the external system configured to take one or more additional actions to detect or limit a spread of the pathogen in the building responsive to receiving the message from the transceiver. Doing so would help manage, reduce, or eliminate damage from pathogenic molds or bacteria. (Manautou, column 1, lines 47-48)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on page 9 of the Amendment:
“Applicant respectfully submits the "analyz[ing]" step is tied to the plurality of pathogen detectors positioned in the building at the plurality of locations and the "determin[ing]" step is tied to the processing circuit configured to perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone. Humans cannot analyze second detection data from the second pathogen detector without the plurality of pathogen detectors positioned in the building at the plurality of locations, nor can they determine the responsive action without the claimed hardware.”
The Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not deemed persuasive.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the published Specification, such as paragraphs [0036] and [0085] describing the analyzing and determining function, the analyzing samples data to determine a presence of a pathogen could be performed as a mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement. Furthermore, the determining recited in the claims could be mental processes that can be performed using pen and paper by determining “determine optimal control actions”, as recited. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on page 11 of the Amendment:
“Similarly, claim 1 recites performing or initiating the responsive action within the area or zone that is tied to physical detection hardware (e.g., pathogen detectors). As in Diehr, where the Arrhenius equation was applied within a specific and tangible manufacturing process, the present claim applies the performing step within a specific and tangible pathogen detection process, thereby integrating the judicial exception into a practical application through meaningful limitations beyond merely linking the exception to a technological environment.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “performing or initiating” does not integrate the invention into a practical application because it’s just “applying” the abstract idea. It can also be viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on page 12 of the Amendment:
“However, the Office Action does not cite anything to establish that the specific combination of "a plurality of pathogen detectors positioned in the building at a plurality of locations," "obtain first detection data from a first pathogen detector," "analyze second detection data from a second pathogen detector," "perform the responsive action or initiate the responsive action within the area or zone," (Claim 1) is conventional. Even if certain individual components are known, MPEP §2106.05(d) and Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981), require that the elements be considered together as an ordered combination. Here, the claimed arrangement integrates pathogen detector hardware, zone-specific building control elements, and control logic in a non-conventional and non-generic manner to produce a specific technical result, targeted mitigation of pathogen exposure within selected areas or zones of the building from distributed detection data, allowing localized responsive actions without unnecessarily affecting unaffected areas.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claim nominally requires these functions to be performed using a plurality of pathogen detectors, this generic apparatus implementation is not sufficient to take the invention out of the realm of abstract ideas. The plurality of pathogen detectors may be tools that are used as recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that it represents no more than a mere instruction “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic component. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic electronic component as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. The “analyze” limitation recites mental process while the “obtain” and “perform” limitations are additional elements. The “obtain” limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d) – receiving or transmitting data over a network.) The “perform” limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception because it claims mere data outputting.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on page 15 of the Amendment:
“Thus, nowhere does Shioi disclose or suggest any detector configured for overall building air or sewage conditions distinct from localized conditions, nor any such use of "overall" versus "localized" detection data as recited in claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully would like to remind applicant that the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations. Examiner interprets the pathogen concentrations measured in a common room reads on ‘overall air quality’, and the pathogen concentrations measured in private rooms reads on ‘localized air quality’.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on page 17 of the Amendment:
“Applicant respectfully submits the cited portions of Shioi and Gupta (alone or any combination) do not teach or suggest "determining, by the pathogen detection system, a severity or magnitude of pathogen detection based on the first detection data and the second detection data," "determining, by the pathogen detection system, a locality of pathogen detection in the area or zone based on at least one of (i) the first detection data corresponding with the first location or (ii) the second detection data corresponding with the second location," and "determining, by the pathogen detection system, a responsive action associated with an area or zone of the building based on at least one of the severity or magnitude of pathogen detection or the locality of pathogen detection." (Claim 1, emphasis added).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points Applicant to the above rejection for details. As explained in the above rejection, Examiner interprets detecting high, medium, or low pathogen concentration reads on ‘a severity or magnitude of pathogen detection’, the pathogen concentrations measured in a common room reads on ‘the first location, and the pathogen concentrations measured in private rooms reads on ‘the second location. Besides, Gupta determines a designated time to sanitize the space based on information received from the sensors such as pathogen risk index and unhealthy zone. Therefore, the combination of Shioi and Gupta teaches the claim limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (NPL: “Integrated environment-occupant-pathogen information modeling to assess and communicate room-level outbreak risks of infectious diseases”) discloses visualize the outbreak risk of different pathogens in each room within a building.
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 VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117