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 .
Claim Objections
Claim3 objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3 applicant recites "os" where the word "of" would make more sense grammatically. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of Claims 1-7 are presumed to have their plain meaning consisted with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claims 1-7 is a controller (which is a device such as a general purpose computer in communication with sensors) for detecting and reporting information gathered by sensors applied to one or more purification devices which performs the functions of (a) collecting data (b) analyzing data (c) reporting the result of the analysis. The additional structures of claims 2, 3, and 5 merely specify or add sensors for additional or specified data gathering. The preamble here does not positively add limitations to the claimed system or further modify limitations recited in the body of the claim, and thus does not limit the claim
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is directed to a system and recites (Claims 1-3) one or more air purification devices, sensors, a network and computing device, a high performance filter including filter media. (Claims 4-5) One or more purification devices, sensors, a network and computing device, a reactor which uses radiation (Claim 6-7) one or more purification devices, sensors, a network and computing device, a high performance filter, a reactor which uses radiation. Thus the claims are directed to a filtration system or machine which is a statutory category of invention. However, The claim(s) recite(s) gathering information, analyzing information, and reporting that information with no other meaningful limitations. The limitation of (a) gathering information is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than by reciting “the sensors detect” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “sensors” language, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually observing the conditions of the filters. Generic sensors represent “mere data gathering” that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality and thus their contribution to the limitations do not amount to significantly more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Additionally, collecting contaminant presence information is well-known, and this remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon re-consideration. Similarly, the limitation of (b) analyzing information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “a computing device” language, “analyze the sensor data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually looking at the gathered data and making a determination. Finally, the limitation of reporting information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “a computing device” language, “report whether or not the purification devices are operating correctly” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually looking at the gathered data and making a determination and then telling someone else about it or writing it down. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computing device to perform the analyzing and reporting steps. The computing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer function of analyzing and reporting based on a sensed information provided by generic sensors) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982)” MPEP 2106.05(g) and is not considered to be a practical application of the abstract idea but an insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using sensors to gather information and a computing device to perform analysis and report results amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional structures of filter components are the subject matter the abstract idea is applied to and are also recited at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roeder et al. (US 2022/0144675) hereinafter "Roeder".
With regards to Claim 1 Roeder teaches:
A fluid purification system which reads on applicant's claimed one or more purification devices comprising a reaction zone, part 1002, light sources, parts 1003, upstream sensor, part 1007, which reads on applicant's claimed sensor located in the inlet, part 1006, and a downstream sensor, part 1008, located in the outlet, part 1009. (See Roeder Paragraphs 42-44 and Fig. 1) A control system comprising a sensor control module, part 2015, connected to the sensors via a cable, part 2016, collects information from the sensors and uses operating parameters to send electronic signals to electronically controlled valves. (See Roeder Paragraphs 44, 45, and 50) This reads on applicant’s claimed data collecting and processing device to which data is sent from the sensors via a network and which includes a computing device capable of analyzing the sensor data, and reporting on the operating conditions of the purification system. (See Roeder Paragraphs 44-48) In particular, the changes in optical properties of the catalyst detected by the colorimetric sensors which reads on applicant's claimed sensors detecting a direct stimulus. (See Roeder Paragraphs 47 and 48)
With regards to Claim 2-3 Roeder teaches:
The purification device includes a high performance particle air purifier (HEPA filter) and a HEPA filter in combination with a photocatalytic monolith either of which reads on applicant's claimed high performance filter that includes filter media into which intake air flow. (See Roeder Paragraph 4, 106-107 and Fig. 7) Sensor feedback, radiation or illumination intensity, and changes in the photocatalyst optical properties indicate the status of contaminants on the photocatalytic filter. (See Roeder Paragraphs 46-48) Another sensor, part 1008, at the output is capable of measuring contaminants present in the output filtered air leaving the filter. (See Roeder Paragraph 53 and Paragraphs 69-73, 81, 101-103, 106-108) And the sensor, part 1006, at the inlet is capable of detecting incoming contaminants.
With regards to Claim 4 Roeder teaches:
The invention as detailed above in rejection of Claim 1 and additionally; An array of detectors and sensors, parts 2009, 2011, a sensor control module, part 2015, connected to the sensors by a cable, part 2016. (See Roeder Paragraph 50) Detecting a reflected light which reads on applicant's claimed indirect stimulus of the purification devices which include UV LED arrays. (See Roeder Paragraph 50, 70, 71 and 47 and Fig. 2)
With regards to Claim 5 Roeder teaches:
Utilizing UVA and UVC light frequencies, which reads on applicant's claimed radiation at a predetermined wavelength, to create a reagent, namely hydrogen peroxide and other reactive oxygen species, to disable residual viable viruses. (See Roeder Paragraphs 69-71) And optical sensors capable of detecting light at specific wavelengths. (See Roeder Paragraph 47)
With regards to Claim 6 Roeder teaches:
Sensors capable of detecting both direct, presence of UV light, and indirect, reflection of the light from a photocatalytic monolith. (See Roeder Paragraphs 47-50) Collecting and sending that data to a sensor control module, part 2015, via a capable, part 2016, which reads on applicant's claimed collecting and sending data via a network from sensor to a computing device and analyzing the sensor data to prove the operation of the purification devices. (Roeder Paragraph 53 and Paragraphs 69-73, 81, 101-103, 106-108)
With regards to Claim 7 Roeder teaches:
The purification device includes a high performance particle air purifier (HEPA filter) and a HEPA filter in combination with a photocatalytic monolith either of which reads on applicant's claimed high performance filter that includes filter media into which intake air flow. (See Roeder Paragraph 4, 106-107 and Fig. 7) Sensor feedback, radiation or illumination intensity, and changes in the photocatalyst optical properties indicate the status of contaminants on the photocatalytic filter. (See Roeder Paragraphs 46-48) Another sensor, part 1008, at the output is capable of measuring contaminants present in the output filtered air leaving the filter. (See Roeder Paragraph 53 and Paragraphs 69-73, 81, 101-103, 106-108) And the sensor, part 1006, at the inlet is capable of detecting incoming contaminants.
An array of detectors and sensors, parts 2009, 2011, a sensor control module, part 2015, connected to the sensors by a cable, part 2016. (See Roeder Paragraph 50) Detecting a reflected light which reads on applicant's claimed indirect stimulus of the purification devices which include UV LED arrays. (See Roeder Paragraph 50, 70, 71 and 47 and Fig. 2) Sensors capable of detecting both direct, presence of UV light, and indirect, reflection of the light from a photocatalytic monolith. (See Roeder Paragraphs 47-50)
Utilizing UVA and UVC light frequencies, which reads on applicant's claimed reactor using radiation at a predetermined wavelength, to create a reagent, namely hydrogen peroxide and other reactive oxygen species, to disable residual viable viruses. (See Roeder Paragraphs 69-71) And optical sensors capable of detecting light at specific wavelengths which reads on applicant's claimed sensor measuring intensity and wavelength of said radiation. (See Roeder Paragraph 47)
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIT E ANBACHT whose telephone number is (571)272-9876. The examiner can normally be reached on M, T, R, F 11 am - 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9876.
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. 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 you have questions on 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.
/BRIT E. ANBACHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
BRIT E. ANBACHT
Examiner
Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights