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 .
Drawings
The drawings (figure 4) are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p) due to a minor typographical error, at “decision 403”; please amend “gas concentraion” to read “gas concentration”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
In re Claim 3, line 1, please amend the minor typographical error such that line 1 reads, “The method of claim 2, further comprising: [[s]]”
In re Claims 5 and 9, in order to provide clear antecedence for the limitations “the toxic gas detection logic” (claim 5 (lns 9 and 11), claims 6 – 8, claim 9 (lines 4 and 6), and claims 10 – 12), and “the gas source control logic” (claims 6 – 8 and 12 ), please amend claim 5 (lns 2 and 9) and claim 9 (lns 2 and 4) as follows:
Claim 5. An apparatus comprising:
a toxic gas detection logic comprising a plurality of inputs to receive gas concentration levels from a plurality of gas detectors and a control signal output, operative to:
calculate a time weighted average gas concentration level based on gas concentration level inputs received from the plurality of gas detectors;
determine that the gas concentration level detected by at least one of the gas detectors has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration; and
a gas source control logic, operatively coupled to the toxic gas detection logic to receive a control signal therefrom, and operative to disable a gas emitting source in response to the control signal received from the toxic gas detection logic.
Claim 9. An apparatus comprising:
a toxic gas detection logic comprising a plurality of inputs to receive gas concentration levels from a plurality of gas detectors and a control signal output; and
a gas source control logic, operatively coupled to the toxic gas detection logic to receive a control signal therefrom, and operative to disable at least one gas emitting source in response to the control signal received from the toxic gas detection logic.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berry (US 6,293,861).
In re Claim 1, Berry discloses a method (fig 4) of detecting and terminating a source of toxic gas emission, the method comprising:
detecting (fig 2: via (20); col 2, lns 14 – 20; col 3, lns 13 – 23) a gas concentration level in a zone (fig 2: Lobby (30); col 7, lns 32 – 48) exceeding a threshold (fig 4: “ABOVE THRESH.”; col 13, lns 5 – 8; col 8, lns 5 – 8;);
calculating a time weighted average gas concentration level (col 4, lns 56 – 58) within the zone;
Please note that as Berry discloses detecting “to levels below time weighted averages”, it is apparent that the method includes calculating time weighted average gas concentration levels.
determining that the gas concentration level in the zone (col 9, lns 49 – 59) has exceeded (“above”) the time weighted average gas concentration; and
Please note that as Berry discloses “detecting levels below time weighted averages…for ensuring safe return upon decontamination” (col 4, lns 56 – 58), it is apparent that the method includes determining/detecting that the concentration levels exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration.
disabling a gas emitting source (col 6, lns 22 – 26: “close and seal all external air communication openings”) in response to determining that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration.
Please note that the “gas” of the “gas emitting source” has been interpreted as external air, the “emitting source” has been interpreted as external entrance opening (28), and the door (34) is a means to close and seal (disable) the source, when a signal activated drive unit (36) is sent from the central processor unit (24) (col 3, lns 25 – 28).
In re Claim 4, the method of Berry has been discussed (see In re Claim 1, above), further comprising:
determining that a gas concentration level in the zone (30) has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration (fig 4: (106) Y); col 3, lns 13 – 23) where the zone corresponds to a gas exhaust system (“filter system” (64), (col 2, lns 48 – 50; col 3, lns 58 – 59; col 8, lns 3 – 4.); and
“an internal sensor system will cause the central processor to…exhaust air from the closed area through a filter” (col 2, lns 48 – 50)
“Each room may also include …a filter system input 64 activated by the central processor unit” (col 3, lns 58 – 59).
“should an attack occur inside the building 10 in … one of the rooms 42, 44, or 46, the central processor unit will respond … at 90 to detectors in one or more of the rooms.” (col 7, lns 32 – 36)
disabling a gas emitting source (closing and sealing “external air communication openings” (28) by door (34): col 3, lns 24 – 28)) corresponding to the gas exhaust system (64) in response to determining (via an activation signal from CPU (24) [Wingdings font/0xE8] gas exhaust system (64)) that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration (col 13, lns 1 – 10)
Claims 5, and Claims 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kates (US 2006/0267756).
In re Claim 5, Kates discloses an apparatus (fig 8** (102)) comprising:
a toxic gas detection logic (figs 1, 2: (202)) comprising a plurality of inputs (as seen in fig 2) to receive gas concentration levels from a plurality of gas detectors ([0034, 0054-0056] “one or more sensors 201”) and a control signal output [0038], operative to:
calculate a time weighted average gas concentration level [0090] based on gas concentration level inputs received from the plurality of gas detectors (“sensors”);
“In one embodiment, the sensor unit 102 is configured as an adjustable-threshold sensor that computes a reporting threshold level. In one embodiment, the reposting threshold is computed as an average of a number of sensor measurements… In one embodiment, the average is a time-weighted average wherein recent sensor readings used in the averaging process are weighted differently than less recent sensor readings…The average is used to set the threshold level.” [0011, 0090]
determine that the gas concentration level detected by at least one of the gas detectors (201) has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration (“threshold”) [0056, 0097]; and
a gas source control logic (112/113) [0050] operatively coupled to the toxic gas detection logic (202) to receive a control signal therefrom [0038, 0056], and operative to disable a gas emitting source (gas shutoff valve (fig 8: (811 [0072])) in response to the control signal received from the toxic gas detection logic (202) [0099].
“in one embodiment, the sensor unit 102 controls a gas shutoff valve 811 to shut off the gas supply to the water heater 801 and/or to a furnace (not shown) when dangerous conditions (such as, for example, gas leaks, carbon monoxide, etc.) are detected. In one embodiment, a gas detector 812 is provided to the sensor unit 102.” [0072]
**The examiner notes that paragraphs [0071 – 0075] disclose that figure 8 shows that “the sensor unit 102 includes a water level sensor 803 and/or a water temperature sensor 804”, a “gas detector 812”, “an optional temperature sensor 818”, “an optional temperature sensor 819”, and an “optional current probe”. As figure 8 shows a sensor unit 802, and not sensor unit 102 as discussed in the specifications, figure 8 has been understood as to show a sensor unit 102.
PNG
media_image1.png
451
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that both the “detection logic” and the “control logic” have been understood to comprise a PLC, a processor, or equivalent, as discussed in specification paragraph [0028 – 0032].
In re Claims 9 – 12, please see above In re Claim 5, wherein:
In re Claim 9, Kates discloses an apparatus comprising:
a toxic gas detection logic comprising a plurality of inputs to receive gas concentration levels from a plurality of gas detectors and a control signal output; and
a gas source control logic, operatively coupled to the toxic gas detection logic to receive a control signal therefrom, and operative to disable at least one gas emitting source in response to the control signal received from the toxic gas detection logic.
In re Claim 10, Kates discloses wherein the toxic gas detection logic is further operative to:
calculate a time weighted average gas concentration level based on gas concentration level inputs received from the plurality of gas detectors.
In re Claim 11, Kates discloses wherein the toxic gas detection logic is further operative to:
determine that a gas concentration level detected by at least one of the gas detectors has exceeded a time weighted average gas concentration.
In re Claim 12, Kates discloses wherein the gas source control logic is further operative to:
receive a control signal from the toxic gas detection logic, and
disable at least one gas emitting source in response to the control signal received from the toxic gas detection logic.
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US 6,293,861) in view of Eiler et al (US 2008/0015794).
In re Claim 2, the method of Berry has been discussed, further comprising:
a ventilation duct (32); and
determining that a gas concentration level in a zone (fig 4: (90)) has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration (fig 4: (106))(col 4, lns 45 – 54; col 5, lns 41 – 43); and
disabling a gas emitting source (ingress of external air) corresponding to the ventilation duct (32) (fig 4: (112)) in response to determining that the gas concentration level in the zone (col 3, lns 29 – 32) has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration (col 4, lns 34 – 39, 56).
Please note that Berry discloses “detection suites 66… will be located near the air entry points of the building (lobby, air intake ducts)” (col 4, lns 10 – 12).
Accordingly, duct (32) has been interpreted to be a ventilation (air intake) duct.
PNG
media_image2.png
271
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Berry lacks wherein “a zone” is within the ventilation duct (32), and so accordingly lacks:
determining a gas concentration level in the ventilation duct; and
disabling the gas emitting source in response to determining the gas concentration level in the ventilation duct.
Eiler et al teaches an apparatus and method for toxic gas detection and disabling of toxic gas emission sources, comprising:
detecting a gas concentration level (52, 53) in a zone (“outside building 11” [0067]) exceeding a threshold [0030, 0040];
Chemical/gas sensor system(s) 52 and nuclear/radiation sensor system(s) 53 are preferably placed as close to outdoor air intake 20 of inlet air duct 21 to provide the earliest possible detection of toxic agents entering building 11 from the outside”. [0027]
disabling a gas emitting source (shut down HVAC system 10)) [0067] in response to determining that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the threshold [0040];
Specifically, one such embodiment of the present invention is a building protection system for protecting a building from one or more of chemical, biological, nerve and nuclear agents by detecting their presence in real time, and in response, rapidly causing fans to be shut off to avoid further contamination of the building and/or injury to occupants of the building. [0008]
“If contaminants…are detected…then building protection system 50… will send a signal to building control system 40 to cause it… to turn off fans in building 11 to prevent the contaminants from being drawn into building 11.” [0067]
determining that a gas concentration level (via return air sensors (56, 57)) in a ventilation duct (fig 1: (24)) [0043] has exceeded the threshold (“above a preset alarm trigger point--a predetermined level”) [0030]; and
“(C)hemical/gas sensor system(s) 56 and nuclear/radiation sensor system(s) 57 are located, for example, and without limitation, downstream from the last return air stream duct of building 11, and generally upstream of damper 36. Without such a placement of chemical/gas sensor system(s) 56 and nuclear/radiation sensor system(s) 57, a terrorist could release toxic materials somewhere inside building 11, the toxic materials would circulate through the entire building--by way of the building return air stream entering economizer 23--without ever passing chemical/gas sensor system(s) 52 and nuclear/radiation sensor system(s) 53 located in inlet air duct 21.” [0028]
disabling a gas emitting source [0030, 0040] corresponding to the ventilation duct in response to determining that the gas concentration level in the ventilation duct has exceeded the threshold.
“Similarly, nuclear/radiation sensor system 57(s) in…return air duct 24 is located adjacent to chemical/gas sensor system(s) 56 in return air duct 24--it can be positioned in front of or behind chemical/gas sensor system(s) 56… PLC 80 uses the count information to determine if a nuclear/radiological threat event has occurred (i.e., if the counts in CPS are above a preset alarm trigger point--a predetermined level). If so, PLC 80…, triggers a shutdown of the building fan systems.” [0030]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Berry as taught by Eiler et al, such that the method comprises
determining a gas concentration level in the ventilation duct; and
disabling the gas emitting source in response to determining the gas concentration level in the ventilation duct.
for the benefit of preventing circulating toxic materials, that may be released within a building and may only be present in a return air stream – throughout the entire building, thereby improving occupant safety.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US 6,293,861), in view of Eiler et al (US 2008/0015794), and further in view of Combe (US 2021/0222877).
In re Claim 3, the proposed method has been discussed, comprising:
determining that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration where the zone is near a first gas emitting source (external air);
determining that a gas concentration level in the ventilation duct (32) has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration where the ventilation duct is associated with the first gas emitting source (col 6, lns 22 – 26); and
disabling the first gas emitting source (via signal from CPU to duct closure (fig 1: 38)).
While the method of Berry discloses responding to gas concentration levels at a plurality of sources, in a plurality of zones [Abstract], it could be interpreted that Berry lacks:
where the zone is near a first and second gas emitting source;
where the ventilation duct is associated with a third gas emitting source; and
disabling the first, second and third gas emitting sources.
Combe teaches a method (fig 10) for toxic gas detection and elimination, comprising::
detecting (fig 10: steps 120, 122) a gas concentration level;
determining that the gas concentration level in a zone (fig 5: building) has exceeded a gas concentration (fig 13: 182) where the zone is near (“located”) a first (30) and second (32) gas emitting source [0031, 0034];
“The location of each carbon monoxide source incorporates a smoke/carbon monoxide evacuation strategy” [0031]. Accordingly, the zone comprises at least one toxic gas detection system (figs 1, 5: (10)), comprising a gas concentration level detector (14).
The zone has been understood to be near [0050] a first gas emitting source (furnace, fig 5: (30)) [0036, 0048], or power generator (Abstract)), a second gas emitting source (water heater, fig 5: (32) [0034])
determining that a gas concentration level in an adjacent zone has exceeded the gas concentration where the adjacent zone is associated with a third gas emitting source [0038, 0050]. and
[0038] “new ductwork may be added to create a ventilation passageway for a particular carbon monoxide source”
[0050] a third gas emitting source (e.g.: fig 5 cooktop system (34/40) [0031, 0037],
disabling the first, second and third gas emitting sources [0048, 0049, 0052] (via “a power cut-off device…to cut off power to the carbon monoxide source… so that the carbon monoxide source automatically stops generating carbon monoxide”. (Abstract)).
“The receiving transceiver 106 provides the received command signal to a microprocessor/microcontroller 112, which causes the power switch 114 to open, thus automatically cutting off power to the furnace 110” [0048]
The “system would first automatically eliminate the source of carbon monoxide” [0049]
“The receiving transceiver 150 provides the received command signal to a microprocessor/microcontroller 156, which causes the power switch 158 to open, thus automatically cutting off power 160” [0052]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed method as taught by Combe, such that the method comprises
determining that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the gas concentration where the zone is near a first and second gas emitting source;
determining that a gas concentration level in an adjacent zone has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration where the adjacent zone is associated with a third gas emitting source; and
disabling the first, second and third gas emitting sources.
for the benefit of a method that improves home safety, by using a combination of sensors, strategically, so that the carbon monoxide source automatically stops generating carbon monoxide.
Regarding the limitation “determining that a gas concentration level in the ventilation duct has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration”, as the proposed method1 discloses determining a gas concentration level in a ventilation duct, the proposed method would yield wherein the method comprises:
determining that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration where the zone is near a first and second gas emitting source;
determining that a gas concentration level in the ventilation duct has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration where the ventilation duct is associated with a third gas emitting source; and
disabling the first, second and third gas emitting sources.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kates (US 2006/0267756), in view of Eiler et al (US 2008/0015794).
.In re Claim 6, the apparatus of Kates has been discussed, wherein the toxic gas detection logic of the apparatus is further operative to:
determine that a gas concentration level (via a sensor (201)) has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration [0090];
send a control signal to the gas source control logic (fig 1: (112/113)) [0050] to disable a gas emitting source in response to determining that the gas concentration level has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration;
and
determine a gas temperature, via a stack2 temperature sensor (818)) [0073]
Although Kates discloses wherein the apparatus is further operative to determine a gas temperature in a duct, Kates lacks wherein the toxic gas detection logic of the apparatus is further operative to:
determine a gas concentration level in a ventilation duct; and
send a control signal to the gas source control logic to disable a gas emitting source corresponding to the ventilation duct in response to determining that the gas concentration level in the ventilation duct has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration.:
Eiler et al teaches an apparatus (figs 1 – 3: (40/50/60)) and method for toxic gas detection and disabling of toxic gas emission sources, comprising a toxic gas detection logic (fig 3: (60/80)), operative to:
determine that a gas concentration level (via return air sensors (56, 57)) in a ventilation duct (fig 1: (24)) [0043] has exceeded a threshold (“above a preset alarm trigger point--a predetermined level”) [0030]; and
“(C)hemical/gas sensor system(s) 56 and nuclear/radiation sensor system(s) 57 are located, for example, and without limitation, downstream from the last return air stream duct of building 11, and generally upstream of damper 36. Without such a placement of chemical/gas sensor system(s) 56 and nuclear/radiation sensor system(s) 57, a terrorist could release toxic materials somewhere inside building 11, the toxic materials would circulate through the entire building--by way of the building return air stream entering economizer 23--without ever passing chemical/gas sensor system(s) 52 and nuclear/radiation sensor system(s) 53 located in inlet air duct 21.” [0028]
send a control signal (via (56, 57)) to the gas source control logic (60/80) to disable a gas emitting source corresponding to the ventilation duct (24) in response to determining that the gas concentration level in the ventilation duct has exceeded the threshold (predetermined level).
“(S)ensor system 57 each provides …a first signal output communicated directly to computer 62 … to Ethernet Hub 126 in panel 60, and from Ethernet Hub 126, it may be sent to selected computer(s) such as, for example, to computer 64 in panel 60 and/or to a computer at the remote monitoring center and/or to another computer that is located in the building in which building protection system 50 is located…A second signal output (a count signal comprising actual radiological counts) is communicated to a VHSC (Very High Speed Counter) module in panel 60 …, and the VHSC module sends the count information to PLC 80… PLC 80 uses the count information to determine if a nuclear/radiological threat event has occurred (i.e., if the counts in CPS are above a preset alarm trigger point--a predetermined level). If so, PLC 80, in a manner previously described, triggers a shutdown of the building fan systems and dampers. A third signal output (a zero count output signal) is an alarm output signal… A fourth signal output is a rapid shutdown alarm output signal… In response, PLC 80 will immediately trigger a shutdown of the building fan systems and dampers in a manner previously described without first analyzing the second signal output ("an emergency shutdown).” [0030]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Kates as taught by Eiler et al, such that the apparatus toxic gas detection logic is further operative to:
determine that a gas concentration level in a ventilation duct has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration; and
send a control signal to the gas source control logic to disable a gas emitting source corresponding to the ventilation duct in response to determining that the gas concentration level in the ventilation duct has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration.
for the benefit of preventing the circulation of toxic materials, that may be released within a building and may only be present in a return air stream – throughout the entire building, thereby improving occupant safety.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kates (US 2006/0267756) in view of Eiler et al (US 2008/0015794), and further in view of Combe (US 2021/0222877).
In re Claim 7, the proposed apparatus has been discussed, but lacks wherein the toxic gas detection logic is further operative to:
determine that the gas concentration level in a zone has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration where the zone is near a first and second gas emitting source;
determine that a gas concentration level in the ventilation duct has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration where the ventilation duct is associated with a third gas emitting source; and
send a control signal to the gas source control logic to disable the first, second and third gas emitting sources.
Combe teaches an apparatus (fig 1) for toxic gas detection and elimination (Abstract) in a zone (fig 5) that includes a plurality of gas emitting sources (30, 32, 34, 36, 38), the apparatus comprising:
a gas concentration level detector (fig 10: (14);
determine (via microprocessor (13)) that the gas concentration level in a zone (fig 5: building) has exceeded a gas concentration where the zone is near (“located”) a first (30) and second (32) gas emitting source [0031, 0034];
“The location of each carbon monoxide source incorporates a smoke/carbon monoxide evacuation strategy” [0031]. Accordingly, the zone comprises at least one toxic gas detection system (figs 1, 5: (10)), comprising a gas concentration level detector (14).
The zone has been understood to be near [0050] a first gas emitting source (furnace, fig 5: (30)) [0036, 0048], or power generator (Abstract)), a second gas emitting source (water heater, fig 5: (32) [0034])
determine that a gas concentration level in an adjacent zone has exceeded the gas concentration where the adjacent zone is associated with a third gas emitting source [0038, 0050]. and
[0038] “new ductwork may be added to create a ventilation passageway for a particular carbon monoxide source”
[0050] a third gas emitting source (e.g.: fig 5 cooktop system (34/40) [0031, 0037],
and send a control signal to the gas source control logic to disable the first, second and third gas emitting sources [0021, 0048, 0049, 0052] (via “a power cut-off device…to cut off power to the carbon monoxide source… so that the carbon monoxide source automatically stops generating carbon monoxide”. (Abstract)).
“The receiving transceiver 106 provides the received command signal to a microprocessor/microcontroller 112, which causes the power switch 114 to open, thus automatically cutting off power to the furnace 110” [0048]
The “system would first automatically eliminate the source of carbon monoxide” [0049]
“The receiving transceiver 150 provides the received command signal to a microprocessor/microcontroller 156, which causes the power switch 158 to open, thus automatically cutting off power 160” [0052]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed apparatus, as taught by Combe, such that the logic is further operative to:
determine that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the gas concentration where the zone is near a first and second gas emitting source;
determine that a gas concentration level in an adjacent zone has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration where the adjacent zone is associated with a third gas emitting source; and
send a control signal to the gas source control logic to disable the first, second and third gas emitting sources,
for the benefit of a toxic gas detection logic of an apparatus that improves home safety, by using a combination of sensors, strategically, so that the carbon monoxide sources automatically stops generating carbon monoxide.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kates (US 2006/0267756) in view of Cristoforo (US 2011/0063101).
In re Claim 8, the apparatus of Kates has been discussed, but as Kates lacks a gas exhaust system, Kates lacks wherein the toxic gas detection logic of the apparatus is further operative to:
determine that a gas concentration level in a zone has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration where the zone corresponds to a gas exhaust system; and
send a control signal to the gas source control logic to disable a gas emitting source corresponding to the gas exhaust system in response to determining that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration.
Cristoforo teaches an apparatus (9) for operating a gas exhaust system (Abstract), comprising a gas detection logic (PLC (9)) comprising a plurality of inputs (at detectors (5, 7)), operative to
determine that a gas concentration level in a zone (fig 1: (2)) has exceeded a gas concentration maximum where the zone corresponds to a gas exhaust system [0015]; and
“In other areas such as a basement… a dedicated vent and an exhaust fan can be provided. The controller 9 is also operable to provide an alarm signal when the detector 5 provides a signal indicating carbon monoxide above a predetermined level. [0015]
send a control signal (“the detector is operable to provide a signal”) to the gas source control logic to disable a gas emitting source (31) [0018] corresponding to the gas exhaust system in response to determining that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the gas concentration maximum.
A device 31 has some form of fuel combustion device 32, e.g., a burner. A typical fuel could be natural gas, propane, heating oil or the like. A vent 33 can be provided to normally exhaust combustion products. The detector 5 and system controller 9 can be used to terminate operation of the device 31 if the detector 5 senses a predetermined amount of carbon monoxide in the air in the space 2 … Shut down can be accomplished by terminating flow of fuel to the device 31 as by closing a fuel valve 35. The device 31 can be provided with a receiver 36 operable to receive a shutdown signal from the controller 9 and/or signal generator 22 when the level of carbon monoxide is indicated as having reached a predetermined maximum. The received signal initiates a shutdown procedure of the device 31 as by shutting off of fuel by closing an electrically operated valve 35.[0018]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kates as taught by Cristoforo, such that the toxic gas detection logic of the apparatus is further operative to:
determine that a gas concentration level in a zone has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration where the zone corresponds to a gas exhaust system; and
send a control signal to the gas source control logic to disable a gas emitting source corresponding to the gas exhaust system in response to determining that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the time weighted average gas concentration,
for the benefit of preventing a fire or further generation of toxic gas such as carbon monoxide. [0015]x
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
An example of such pertinent prior art includes Meneely, Jr (US 2006/0154596), who discloses a method3 (fig 15) of detecting and terminating a source of toxic gas emission [0053, 0060- 0061], the method comprising:
determining that a gas concentration level (fig 10: (E1)) ,(fig 11: (E1)) in a ventilation duct ((D6), (D2) respectively) has exceeded a threshold (via a sensor [0018 - 0022]
determining that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the gas concentration threshold [0022]; and
disabling a gas emitting source in response to determining that the gas concentration level in the zone has exceeded the threshold (claim 23).
Applicant is provided 3 months to reply to any office action on the merits; the maximum statutory period for a reply is 6 months. 35 USC 113, 37 CFR 1.134.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frances F. Hamilton (she/her) whose telephone number is 571.270.5726. The examiner can normally be reached on M – F; 9 – 6.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on 571.272.6460. 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, please visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For more information about Patent Center, please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center and for information about filing in DOCX format please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you are a Pro Se inventor and would like assistance, please call the Pro Se assistance center at 866.767.3848. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, please call 800.786.9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571.272.1000.
/Frances F Hamilton/
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Claim 2
2 A “stack” has been interpreted to be an exhaust duct, although sensor 818 is not shown in figure 8; the sensor measuring exhaust temperature.
Stack: (n): 4b: A vertical pipe (as to carry off smoke) © 2025 Merriam-Webster, Inc
3 [0173]