DETAILED ACTION
Final 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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 has a duplicate comma in the 3 portion of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6, 8, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0014295) in view Hussain (U.S. Pat. 9,618,222).
As to claim 1, Davis teaches an indoor air pollution detecting and purifying prevention method, for locating air pollution in an indoor space and implementing detection, filtration and purification, comprising: providing a plurality of gas detection devices (elements 175a), disposed in the indoor space for detecting the air pollution [abstract, 0018 - Control determinations by the IAQ controller 110 may be made based on input data received from one or more sensors or control devices to which the IAQ controller 110 is connected including thermostat 140, sensors 175a, 175b, . . . 175x, remote control device 115, or other communicatively coupled components of the system. Sensors 175a, 175b, . . . 175x may include one or more of humidity sensors, temperature sensors, carbon dioxide sensors, motion sensors, volatile organic compound sensors, particulate sensors, radio sensors, etc. ] , wherein the plurality of gas detection devices detect and output air pollution data, wherein no more than 13 of the gas detection devices are installed per 10 ping of the indoor space [ 0026 n a similar manner as described above for automatic sanitization mode activation, zone specific air sanitization could be triggered automatically based on sensor data received from sensors for specific zones. For example, IAQ controller 110 may receive sensor data from an air quality sensor 175a . . . x that is associated with a particular zone. In response to determining that the sensor data for the zone-specific sensor exhibits an unacceptable air quality condition, IAQ controller 110 may activate the sanitization mode and control associated zone dampers such that sanitized air is directed to the particular zone associated with the unacceptable air quality condition and not directed to other zones that exhibit an acceptable air quality condition. 1 per zone.]; and providing a device disposed in the indoor space [0026 IAQ controller 110 may also implement zone-specific air sanitization control. For example, IAQ controller 110 may coordinate control of the air sanitization unit 135 and the air circulation unit with one or more zone dampers 180a, 180b, . . . 180x such that sanitized air may be directed to one or more particular zones within the indoor space], a device comprising a driver for receiving the air pollution data detected by the gas detection devices [0021 IAQ controller 110 may automatically trigger a sanitization mode based on various conditions within the indoor space. Controller 110 sends a start signal to the sanitization unit that then drives the sanitization process], determining whether the air pollution data exceeding a safety detection value or not, wherein when the air pollution data exceeds the safety detection value[0021], the driver controls the corresponding filtration device to be enabled[0021].
Davis teaches most of the claimed advice, but does not teach all of the claims 1 and 18, however, this is an obvious variation as taught by Hussain as follows:
As to claim 1, Hussain teaches a plurality of filtration devices each that contain a driver for receiving air pollution detected data a causing a filtration when that data indicates an amount has been exceeded(col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 lines 3 In one embodiment, the SmartVent may employ a UV purification light filter 677; for example, such a filter may be controlled and engaged by the SmartVent when the SmartVent's particulate sensor 628 detects particulate over a threshold level.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date to include the teachings of Hussain into the system and methods of Davis since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Specifically substituting the filtration system of Davis allows for the sensors and filtration unit to be a single unit (SmartVents) which reduces the number of components. Furthermore, the smart vents can be retrofitted which shows that the substitution is possible (col. 12 lines. 4-5)
As to claim 2, Davis teaches wherein the air pollution is at least one selected from the group consisting of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide[0018], ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, total volatile organic compounds (TVOC), formaldehyde, bacteria, fungi, virus and a combination thereof.
As to claim 3, Davis teaches wherein a connection device is further provided to receive and compare the air pollution data detected by the plurality of gas detection devices, an intelligent a computation is performed to determine a location of the air pollution in the indoor space, and a controlling instruction is issued, wherein the controlling instruction is provided and received by the drivers of the plurality of filtration devices, thereby the driver controls the corresponding filtration device to be enabled [0021].
As to claim 4, Davis teaches wherein the connection device receives and compares the air pollution data detected by at least three of the gas detection devices in the indoor space for computing and determining the location of the air pollution in the indoor space based on the highest one of the air pollution data [0021 – this occurs with 3 or more zones].
As to claim 6, Davis teaches wherein the connection device is one selected from the group consisting of a mobile device, a cloud processing device and a combination thereof[0056].
As to claim 8 wherein the plurality of gas detection devices are fixedly disposed in the indoor space (col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 lines 3 attached to the smart vent).
As to claim 12, Hussain wherein the gas detection device comprises a controlling circuit board, a gas detection main part, a microprocessor and a communicator, and the gas detection main part, the microprocessor and the communicator are integrally packaged on the controlling circuit board and electrically connected to the controlling circuit board, wherein the microprocessor controls the detection of the gas detection main part, the gas detection main part detects the air pollution and outputs a detection signal, and the microprocessor receives and processes the detection signal to generate the air pollution data and provides the air pollution data to the communicator for a wireless communication transmission externally (abstract, col. 12 lines 36-61, col. 14 lines 31-36).
As to claim 13, Hussain teaches wherein the wireless communication transmission is one selected from the group consisting of a Wi-Fi communication transmission, a Bluetooth communication transmission, a radio frequency identification communication transmission and a near field communication (NFC) transmission for external transmission (col. 13 line 44 - col. 14 line 20).
Claim 14 is all structure and not a method or method step, as such , it is determined that the method could be done by the combination and does not need such structure to accomplish the method.
As to claim 15, Hussain teaches wherein the particulate sensor detects information of suspended particulates (col. 13 lines 55-66).
As to claim 16, Hussain teaches wherein the gas sensor comprises one selected from the group consisting of a volatile-organic-compound sensor, a formaldehyde sensor, a bacteria sensor, a virus sensor and a combination thereof, wherein the volatile-organic-compound sensor detects information of carbon dioxide or total volatile organic compounds, the formaldehyde sensor detects information of formaldehyde, the bacteria sensor detects information of bacteria or fungi, and the virus sensor detecting information of virus (col. 13 lines 55-66).
As to claim 17, Hussain teaches wherein the filtration device further comprises a gas guider and a filtering and purifying module, wherein the air pollution is transported by the gas guider to pass through the filtering and purifying module for filtering and purifying (air duct of Hussain).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0014295) in view Hussain (U.S. Pat. 9,618,222) in view of Liu (U.S. Pat. 11,268,724).
Davis in view of Hussain teaches most of the claimed invention, but fails to teach all of claim7, however, this is an obvious variation as follows:
As to claim 7, Liu teaches wherein the safety detection value includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a concentration of PM2.5 which is less than 10 g/m3, a concentration of carbon dioxide which is less than 1000 ppm, a concentration of total volatile organic compounds which is less than 0.56 ppm, a concentration of formaldehyde which is less than 0.08 ppm, a colony-forming unit of bacteria which is less than 1500 CFU/m3, a colony-forming unit of fungi which is less than 1000 CFU/m3, a concentration of sulfur dioxide which is less than 0.075 ppm, a concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is less than 0.1 ppm, a concentration of carbon monoxide which is less than 9 ppm, a concentration of ozone which is less than 0.06 ppm, a
concentration of lead which is less than 0.15 g/m3 and a combination thereof (col. 6 lines 27-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Liu into the system and method of Davis modified by Hussain. The motivation to combine is that in this way, when the indoor temperature is greater than 28° C., the air condition system is started, preventing the indoor people to feel overheated, when the indoor pollutant sensor monitors that any pollutant concentration exceeds a corresponding set value, the purification system is started, so that reducing the damage to health of the indoor people, meanwhile, the indoor unit can keep good air quality all the time through the fresh air system, and preventing the outdoor pollutants to be introduced into the room when the outdoor pollution is serious (col. 13 lines 47-56).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0014295) in view Hussain (U.S. Pat. 9,618,222) in view of Park (U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0235955).
Davis in view of Hussain teaches most of the claimed invention, but fails to teach all of claim 9, however, this is an obvious variation as follows:
As to claim 9, Park wherein the plurality of gas detection devices are movably disposed in the indoor space [0061].
Therefore, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date include the teachings of Park into the system and methods as taught by Davis in view of Hussain . The motivation to do so is Park teaches an additional purifier can travel to wear the concentration of pollutants based on the movable sensor and can filter the air where it is most polluted [0089].
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0014295) in view Hussain (U.S. Pat. 9,618,222) in view of Fan (U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0223220).
Davis in view of Hussain teaches most of the claimed invention, but fails to teach all of claims 11 and 18, however, this is an obvious variation as follows:
As to 11, Fan teaches wherein the indoor space has the area of x pings, the maximum number of the gas detection devices disposed in the indoor space is y, and x and y are selected from (1) x<10 and y=13 [0117], (2) 10 x<20 and y=26, (3) 20 x<30 and y=39, (4) 30 x<40 and y=52, (5) 40 x< 50 and y=65, (6) 50 x<60 and y=78, (7) 60 x< 70 and y=91, (8) 70 x<80 and y=104, (9) 80 x<90 and y=117 or (10) 90 x<100 and y=130.
Claim 18 is a combination of claims 1 and 4 that can be seen above with citations of Davis and Hussain. Claim 18 also discusses the and a ratio of the maximum number of the gas detection devices to the area of the indoor space is ranged from 1.3 to 13 which can be seen in paragraph [0117] of Fan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date to use the number of detectors per area as taught by Fan into the system and methods as taught by Davis in view of Hussain . The motivation to do so is Fan teaches at least one gas detecting apparatus 500 is installed for a region of 10 square meters to ensure good coverage [0117].
Response to Arguments
Applicant has overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not teach alone or in combination wherein the connection device issues the controlling instruction to enable the filtration device closest to the location of the air pollution, and then issues the controlling instruction to further enable the rest of the filtration devices to generate a directional airflow convection, so that a flow of the air pollution is accelerated by the directional airflow convection to move toward the filtration device closest to the location of the air pollution for being filtered and cleaned.
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 NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119