DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to papers filed on 8 December 2025.
Claims 1-5 are pending and presented for examination.
The terminal disclaimer filed on December 9, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. US 11,243,007 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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
The objections made to claims 4 and 5 are withdrawn in light of the amendments made.
The rejection of claims 1-5 on grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,243,007 B2 is withdrawn in light of the filing of the Terminal Disclaimer.
The rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orfield (US Patent Publication No. US 2011/0066465 A1) is withdrawn in light of the amendments made.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Orfield (US Patent Publication No. US 2011/0066465 A1) in view of Marks et al. (US Patent Publication No. US 2013/0243240 A1) is withdrawn in light of the amendments made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 8, 2025, with respect to claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 3-5 and 2 have been withdrawn.
Applicants argue that the newly added limitations are not taught by the previous prior arts of record. For this reason, new prior arts have been found and applied to the instant claims.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. US 2011/0066465 to Orfield in view of US Patent Publication No. US 2018/0228006 A1 to Baker et al..
The published invention of Orfield teaches of an intelligent environmental control and feedback system usable in an office building or other architectural setting; in doing so, the prior art teaches and/or fairly suggests the limitations of the instant invention as stated herewith.
Independent claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for controlling a user environment comprising:
a structure having an inner volume defining a personal space for a user – (taught in paragraph [0028] by Orfield where the structure is defined as the workplace and the personal space is stated as an individual office or cubicle);
a sound sensor disposed outside of the personal space - (taught by Orfield in paragraph [0028] where the inclusion of sensors within the space is explained);
a sound generator disposed inside the personal space - (taught by Orfield in paragraph [0031] as a speaker for emitting acoustic noise is described); and
a controller configured to cause the sound generator to generate a sound that cancels, inside the personal space a sound sensed by the sound sensor
– (taught in paragraph [0025] of Orfield wherein the physical conditions of the private space is in accord with the preferences of the occupant. Although sensors and personal space are taught by Orfield, the prior art of reference does not teach the use of controllers configured to cancel noise. For this reason the published prior art of Baker et al. (herein after “Baker”) is introduced. In paragraph [0077] Baker teaches of the control system able to cancel the noise that is created as “one or more speakers in the load control system may output sound to cancel the noise in the room”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned invention of Orfield with the noise cancelling aspect of Baker so as to allow for creating more focus and tranquility by eliminating distracting background noise, improving concentration for work or study, reducing stress in chaotic environments, and protecting hearing by lowering the volume needed to drown out ambient sounds, making travel, commuting, and noisy offices much more peaceful as it is well-known.).
Independent claim 3 is directed to a method for controlling a user environment comprising the steps of:
monitoring a controlled volume and generating first output signals representative of parameters defining the controlled volume;
monitoring an exterior volume and generating second output signals representative of parameters defining the external volume; and,
using the first and second output signals to determine whether desired environmental conditions of the controlled volume have been satisfied, including if the output sound signal has a non-zero magnitude, causing a sound source within the controlled volume to generate an internal sound that cancels a portion of the output sound that propagates into the controlled volume.
In paragraphs [0041]-[0043], Orfield explains the monitoring method of controlling conditions of a space. The output signals as claimed is found to be commensurate with the “physical condition” used by the reference in paragraph [0041]. While Orfield teaches of a method of controlling a user environment as claimed, the reference to Orfield does not specifically define the output sound signal as a non-zero magnitude so as to cancel a portion of the output sound. For this reason, Baker is relied upon. In paragraph [0076], Baker teaches that “… [the] detection and identification of sounds may be based on a confidence threshold for correct identification. When a confidence threshold has been reached for an unidentified sound (i.e., the system has determined that the sound is not background noise), the microphone devices may alert the occupant that an abnormal sound was detected …”. The threshold for correct identification being commensurate with the non-zero magnitude. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned invention of Orfield with the noise cancellation aspect of Baker so as to provide more focus and tranquility by eliminating distracting background noise, improving concentration for work or study, reducing stress in chaotic environments, and protecting hearing by lowering the volume needed to drown out ambient sounds, making travel, commuting, and noisy offices much more peaceful as it is well-known.
Claim 4, dependent upon independent claim 3, supplements the method as further comprising the step of adjusting at least one of the first and second output signals if the desired environmental conditions of the controlled volume have not been met. This aspect of the method of the instant invention is described and taught by Orfield in paragraph [0044].
As for claim 5, dependent upon claim 4, further comprises the step of applying adaptive learning methodology to learn from the adjusting of the at least one of the first and second output signals. The adaptive learning methodology is addressed by Orfield in paragraph [0012] where the data being surveyed and stored for further control of the environmental control device is described.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication No. US 2011/0066465 A1 to Orfield in view of US Patent Publication No. US 2018/0228006 A1 to Baker et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of. US Patent Publication No. US 2013/0243240 A1 to Marks et al..
Orfield teaches the invention as aforementioned.
With regard to independent claim 2 is directed to a system for controlling a user environment comprising:
• a structure having an inner volume defining a personal space for the user and a first outer side (taught by Orfield in paragraph [0028] where the structure is defined as the workspace and the personal space is the cubicle or individual office), the inner volume including:
a user station disposed within the inner volume – (although Orfield teaches of a structure and personal space, the prior art does not specifically teach of a user station within an inner space as claimed; however, the prior art of Marks et al. (herein after “Marks”) teaches of a desk or furniture being in every office or personal space in paragraph [0019]. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have included the use of a desk or any furniture piece as used by Marks within the personal space or cubicle of Orfield since it is well known that desks and other furniture items are present in office spaces or cubicles.);
a noise source disposed within the inner volume - (taught by Orfield in paragraph [0031] as the “environmental control device 110 may be a heating element, an air conditioning unit, a humidifier, a dehumidifier, a fan, a light, or a speaker for emitting acoustic noise”);
o an at least one sensor coupled to a first control unit – (taught by Orfield in paragraph [0029] where the sensors are used to measure and detect physiological/behavioral parameters of the occupant and relay the information to the computer or control unit);
o the first control unit further coupled to a first controller – (the setup of the private space is shown in Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0031] and [0034] of Orfield);
o the first controller coupled to at least one port, the at least one port disposed between the inner volume and the first outer side, and further coupled to the first control unit – (as per the instant disclosure, in paragraph [0032] a port is equated to a vent; Orfield teaches of a heating/cooling unit which necessarily includes vents as is well known to be coupled with the controller for purposes of intake and output of air, as described in paragraph [0039]); and,
o a second controller coupled to the first control unit, whereby information sent from the second controller to the first control unit may affect a change in the first control unit and be delivered through the at least one port to the inner volume – (Orfield teaches the use of multiple environmental control devices which is commensurate with the first and second controllers of the claimed invention, where each of them are controlled by the main computer or controller in paragraphs [0031]-[0033]); and
wherein at least one of the first control unit. first controller, or second controller is configured to:
cause the noise sensor to sense a noise external to the inner volume and having a noise magnitude and noise phase: and
cause the noise source to generate. within the inner volume. a cancellation sound having a cancellation magnitude approximately equal to the noise magnitude and having a cancellation phase approximately opposite to the noise phase.
The steps of the first or second controller being configured to cause the noise sensor to sense a noise, having a noise magnitude and phase along with the noise source generating a cancellation sound is taught by Baker in paragraphs [0075]-[0076] as aforementioned in relation to claims 1 and 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the above mentioned invention of Orfield with the noise cancelling aspect of Baker so as to allow for creating more focus and tranquility by eliminating distracting background noise, improving concentration for work or study, reducing stress in chaotic environments, and protecting hearing by lowering the volume needed to drown out ambient sounds, making travel, commuting, and noisy offices much more peaceful as it is well-known.
For the reasons stated above, the limitations of the instant invention are taught and/or fairly suggested by the prior arts of record; thereby, rendering the instant claims unpatentable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. US 2016/0195856 A1 Spero et al.
Relates to sensor devices for detect information on room and in communication with a controller.
US Patent Publication No. US 2013/0067834 Downey et al.
Relates to personal space units having a user controlled customizable environment.
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 Sheela Rao whose telephone number is (571) 272- 3751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday from 7:00 am to 1:00 pm.
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 on (571) 272-4105. The fax number for the organization where this application or any proceeding papers has been assigned is (571) 273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. It should be noted that status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http:// pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should any questions arise regarding access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sheela Rao/Examiner, Art Unit 2119 January 6, 2026
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119