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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The numerous information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Nevertheless, it is impractical for the examiner to review the cited references thoroughly due to the number of references disclosed in the case. By initialing each of the disclosures on the accompanying 1449 forms, the examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made of the cited references. Further, examiner notes: Applicant's duty to disclose information material to patentability is not satisfied by presenting the examiner with “a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work.” Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chem. Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573, 200 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Patent applicant has a duty not only to disclose pertinent prior art references, but also to make the disclosure in such way as to avoid "burying" a material reference within a large number of less material references. See Golden Valley Microwave Food Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co., 837 F. Supp. 1444, 1447, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 260, 272 (S.D. FIa. 1972).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Currently, no claim limitation is being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,720,659 to Wicks (Wicks) in view of KR101840682 (KR’682). KR’682 as cited on an IDS and a copy thereof filed with the application. A machine translation thereof has been included with this Office Action and recitations of specific portions of the text refer to the translation document.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 18, Wicks discloses a safety system and method of a structure, comprising: a source of breathable air (air sources 44); a fixed piping system (30) installed within the structure for supply of the breathable air across the safety system; an air analysis device (82) along an air flow path of the breathable air from the source thereof, the air analysis device comprising a sensor associated therewith to sense a parameter (smoke or carbon monoxide level in the air from the source) of the breathable air within the safety system (col. 3, lines 38-43); and at least one of: a valve (valves 46) and a vacuum pump to, in response to an alert signal indicative of the sensed parameter of the breathable air being outside a predetermined threshold value, automatically switching the source of air (col. 3, lines 38-43). Wicks does not disclose automatically purging the safety system of at least a portion of the breathable air in response to an alert signal indicative of the sensed parameter of the breathable air being outside a predetermined threshold value. KR’682 discloses a safety system and method ([0033], [0117]-[0131] and figures 3-6) including a flow control unit (260) determines whether to switch a flow based on a judgment of an evacuation instruction unit (240), maintains an air supply flow path (311) and an exhaust flow path (321), and maintains a switching exhaust flow path (312) and a switching air supply flow path (322), wherein the judgment is based on detected parameters of the air being outside a predetermined threshold; [0130]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included automatically purging at least a portion of the breathable air as taught by KR’682 in the system and method of Wicks to reduce the likelihood of dangerous gases being supplied to the occupants during a fire emergency.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Wicks as modified by KR’682 further discloses coupling an air analysis device along an air flow path of the breathable air from the source within the safety system (see Fig. 1, air analysis device 82 is positioned in the air flow path); sensing the parameter of the breathable air using a sensor associated with the air analysis device (detecting the smoke or CO level in the air); automatically bypassing the source of the breathable air with respect to the supply of the breathable air across at least the portion of the safety system using a bypass controller device coupled to the air analysis device (col. 3, lines 38-43; the controller selects the best air source based on the air quality data, which bypasses at least a portion of the safety system [i.e., the portion from the unsafe air source]); and automatically purging the safety system of at least the portion of the breathable air based on an alert signal from one of: the air analysis device, a bypass controller device coupled to the air analysis device, and a data processing device communicatively coupled to the air analysis device through a computer network (as modified above to include purging as taught by KR’682, the purging is based on signals from the air analysis devices).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 12, Wicks as modified by KR’682 further discloses in response to the detection of the parameter of the breathable air being outside the predetermined threshold value based on the sensing using at least one of: the air analysis device (82) and the data processing device, through the bypass controller device, switching from the source of the breathable air to another source (sources 44) of the breathable air in the safety system in addition to the automatic bypassing of the source of the breathable air to ensure a continued supply of the breathable air across the safety system (the system of Wicks automatically switches and bypasses an unsafe source of air in favor of the safest air source; col. 3, lines 38-43).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 22, Wicks as modified by KR’682 further discloses the parameter of the breathable air comprising at least one of: an air quality parameter and an air component parameter (Wicks discloses detecting smoke and CO in the breathable air; KR’682 discloses detecting oxygen concentration, carbon dioxide concentration, humidity and temperature of the breathable air).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Wicks as modified by KR’682 further discloses at least one of: automatically bypassing the source of the breathable air and switching to another source of the breathable air (col. 3, lines 38-43) based on controlling, through the bypass controller device (the controller that operates the valves based on the sensor signals), at least one valve (valves 46) associated with at least one component of the safety system.
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 23, Wicks as modified by KR’682 further discloses the sensor associated with the air analysis device comprising at least one of: a carbon monoxide sensor configured to sense a level of carbon monoxide in the breathable air (sensor 82 of Wicks), a carbon dioxide sensor configured to sense a level of carbon dioxide in the breathable air (carbon dioxide sensor of KR’682), an oxygen sensor configured to sense a level of oxygen in the breathable air (oxygen sensor of KR’682), a nitrogen sensor configured to sense a level of nitrogen in the breathable air, a hydrocarbon sensor configured to sense a condensed hydrocarbon content in the breathable air, and a moisture sensor configured to sense a moisture concentration in the breathable air (humidity sensor of KR’682).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Wicks as modified by KR’682 further discloses automatically purging the safety system of at least the portion of the breathable air using at least one of: a valve (valves 34 and 36) and a vacuum pump controllable based on the alert signal.
Regarding claims 9, 17 and 24, Wicks as modified by KR’682 further discloses at least one of: audibly (via whistles; see claim 18)and visually indicating at least one of: the automatic purging of at least the portion of the breathable air and the automatic bypassing of the source of the breathable air (because the whistles are located in the air flow path, purging of the breathable air can audibly indicate the purging as air flows through the whistles).
Regarding claim 19, Wicks as modified by KR’682 further discloses the alert signal is from one of: the air analysis device (82), a bypass controller device coupled to the air analysis device, and a data processing device communicatively coupled to the air analysis device through a computer network.
Regarding claim 20, Wicks as modified by KR’682 further discloses a bypass controller device (the controller of Wicks which receives signals from sensors 82 and operates valves 46) communicatively coupled to the air analysis device to, in response to detecting, using at least one of: the air analysis device and the data processing device, that the parameter of the breathable air is outside the predetermined threshold value based on the sensing, automatically bypass the source of the breathable air with respect to the supply of the breathable air across at least a portion of the safety system (col. 3, lines 38-43).
Regarding claim 21, Wicks as modified by KR’682 further discloses, in response to the detection of the parameter of the breathable air being outside the predetermined threshold value, the bypass controller device further switches from the source of the breathable air to another source of the breathable air in the safety system in addition to the automatic bypassing of the source of the breathable air to ensure a continued supply of the breathable air across the safety system (col. 3, lines 38-43; the controller selects the best air source based on the air quality data, which bypasses at least a portion of the safety system [i.e., the portion from the unsafe air source]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 February 12, 2026