DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: Amendment filed 08/25/2025. This action is made final.
Claims 35-54 are pending in the case. Claims 35 and 46 are independent claims.
Notice as to Grounds of Rejection and Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 51 is non-compliant because it is marked as “currently amended”, but examiner does not notice any amendment made to the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
With regards to claims 35-37, 41-42, 44-45, examiner notes that these claims recite the word “means” explicitly and thus they are interpreted as invoking 112(f), pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 35-37, 39, 41-43, 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnstone (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0031205 A1 hereinafter Johnstone) in view of CURRLE (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0381863 A1 hereinafter Currle - (provided with IDS submitted on 8/25/25)).
With regard to claims 35, 46, Johnstone teaches a system, a method, respectively for monitoring the environment of a cabin comprising:
an air pressurization system <air pressurization para 0012>;
filtration means <Abstract para 0013-0014>;
at least one air pressure sensor <pressure sensor fig 1 item 190 para 0033>; and
control means <para 0024>;
wherein, during operation, the air pressurization system is configured to continuously supply pressurized air having a constant pressure level and speed direct to the filtration means <air pressure is maintained with speed of the fan para 0023-0024>, such pressurized air ultimately being delivered to the cabin and wherein <pressurized air is delivered to the interior of the cabin para 0022, fig 1 item 120>, the control means is configured to determine an air pressure of the cabin by way of the at least one air pressure sensor <air pressure is monitored using pressure sensor and is maintained to the desire pressure para 0022-0024 para 0033, fig 4> and compare a current air pressure level against a desired air pressure level to obtain a first comparative value <pressure is compared to the desired level and is maintained para 0022-0024>,
Even though Johnstone teaches circulation and exchange of air, does not explicitly recite an outflow vent in the cabin; the control means further configured to control a state of the outflow vent in response to at least the first comparative value <air is circulated/exchanged to maintain the desired pressure para 0023, 0029>.
In the same field of endeavor, Currle teaches an outflow vent in the cabin figs 1 and 4, items 34, 36 and 12 para 0034-0036>;
Johnstone and Currle teach the control means further configured to control a state of the outflow vent in response to at least the first comparative value <air is circulated/exchanged to maintain the desired pressure para 0023, 0029, using outflow vent of Currle see para 0044-0045>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnstone, Currle, before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Johnstone to include the teachings of Currle, in order to easily incorporate outflow vent as taught by Currle. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an efficient way to circulate air in the cabin.
With regard to claim 36, this claim depends upon claim 35, which is rejected above. In addition, Johnston teaches centrifugal pre-cleaner before the use of the air filter (cyclonic separator) para 0022>.
With regard to claim 37, this claim depends upon claim 36, which is rejected above. In addition, Johnstone teaches wherein the filtration means further includes at least one of the following: a HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filter <filet can be a HEPA filter para 0023>; an EPA (efficient particular air) filter; a UPA (ultra-low particulate air) filter; a MERV (minimum efficiency reporting valve) filter; and a carbon filter.an EPA filter; a UPA filter; a MERV filter; a carbon filter.
With regard to claim 39, this claim depends upon claim 35, which is rejected above. In addition, Johnstone teaches wherein at least a first of the at least one air pressure sensor is located within the cabin <air pressure sensor is shown inside the cabin fig 1 item 190, para 0035>.
With regard to claims 41, 47, these claims depend upon claims 35 and 46 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Johnstone teaches wherein the outflow vent is configured such that air escaping from the cabin by way of the outflow vent is redirected to the filtration means <air is circulated thru a filter para 0023, 0029>, In addition, see Currle para 0044-0045.
With regard to claims 42, 48, these claims depend upon claims 35 and 46 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Johnstone teaches the system further comprising additional sensors, at least one of the additional sensors configured to measure a level of a contaminant in the cabin <dust sensor and pressure sensor Abstract, para 0026> and provide the measured level to the control means, and wherein the control means is configured to automatically set the outflow vent to a fully open state if the measured level of the contaminant in the cabin exceeds a threshold level <dust level can be checked above a desired (threshold) level and air can be circulated/exchanged para 0029>, In addition see Currle para 0044>.
With regard to claims 43, 49, these claims depend upon claims 42 and 48 respectively, which are rejected above. In addition, Johnston teaches wherein the contaminant is at least one of the following: carbon dioxide; dust <dust particles can be detected para 0029>; nanoparticles; diesel particulates; methane
Claims 38, 40, 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnstone in view of Currle in view of Moredock et al (AU Application 2018204751 A1 hereinafter Moredock (provided with IDS submitted on 6/2/23)).
With regard to claim 38, this claim depends upon claim 36, which is rejected above. Johnston, Currle do not appear to explicitly disclose limitation of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor Moredock teaches wherein the cyclonic separator is operably coupled upstream of a remainder of the filtration system <pre-cleaner as a separator to aid filtering para 0080-0083>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnstone, Currle, Moredock before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Johnstone, Currle to include the teachings of Moredock, in order to easily incorporate pre-cleaner as taught by Moredock. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an effective way to use the pre-cleaner with the filtration system.
With regard to claim 40, this claim depends upon claim 35, which is rejected above. Johnston, Currle do not appear to explicitly disclose limitation of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor Moredock teaches wherein the outflow vent is an atmospheric vent <air from the cabin can be released (atmospheric vent) para 0158>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnstone, Moredock, Currle before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Johnstone, Currle to include the teachings of Moredock, in order to obtain easily releasing air as taught by Moredock. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an effective way to maintain comfortable environment in the cabin.
With regard to claim 52, this claim depends upon claim 46, which is rejected above. Johnstone, Currle do not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Moredock teaches the method further comprising the steps of:
determining an incoming airflow rate of the filtered pressurized air <airflow can be determined para 0145>;
factoring the incoming airflow rate in determining the state the outflow vent should be set to <valve van be set to control airflow exiting the cabin 0145>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnstone, Currle, Moredock before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Johnstone, Currle to include the teachings of Moredock, in order to obtain controlling airflow as taught by Moredock. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an effective way to maintain comfortable environment in the cabin.
Claim 44, 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnstone in view Currle in view of Horner (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0298978 A1 hereinafter Horner).
With regard to claims 44, 50, these claims depend upon claims 42 and 46 respectively, which are rejected above. Johnstone, Currle do not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Horner teaches wherein the control means is configured to automatically set the outflow vent to the fully open state on any of the following events being detected by the control means: vehicle startup; vehicle shutdown <outflow valve can be opened when an aircraft has landed (shutdown) para 0035>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnstone, Currle, Horner before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Johnstone, Currle to include the teachings of Horner, in order to obtain limitations as taught by Moredock. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an effective way to keep the environment clean in the aircraft.
Claims 45, 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnstone in view of Currle in view of Williams et al (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0179800 A1 hereinafter Williams).
With regard to claims 45, 51, these claims depend upon claims 42 and 46 respectively, which are rejected above. Johnston, Currle do not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Williams teaches wherein the control means further applies a smoothing algorithm when controlling the state of the outflow vent to prevent fluttering <valve fluttering can be prevented para 0019-0022>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnstone, Currle, Williams before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Johnstone, Currle to include the teachings of Williams, in order to obtain limitations as taught by Williams. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an effective way to keep the environment clean in the aircraft.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnstone in view of Currle in view of Christenson et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0188446 A1 hereinafter Christenson).
With regard to claim 53, this claim depends upon claim 46, which is rejected above. Johnston, Currle do not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Christenson teaches the method, further comprising the steps of:
determining an outgoing airflow rate of air passing through the outflow vent; comparing an incoming airflow rate with the outgoing airflow rate to obtain a second comparative value <airflow rate incoming and exiting can be determined and accordingly can be controlled para 0043-0048>; and
factoring the second comparative value in determining the state the outflow vent should be set to <control valves can be adjusted para 0043-0048>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnstone, Currle, Christenson before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Johnstone, Currle to include the teachings of Christenson, in order to obtain limitations as taught by Christenson. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an effective way to maintain a comfortable environment in the aircraft.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnstone in view of Currle in view of Vandyke et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0140093 A1 hereinafter Vandyke).
With regard to claim 54, this claim depends upon claim 46, which is rejected above. Johnston, Currle do not appear to explicitly disclose limitations of this claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Vandyke teaches the method further comprising the steps of:
determining a state of a closable leak source <leak source can be determined para 0019>; and
factoring the determined state of the closable leak source in determining the state the outflow vent should be set to <leaks can be prevented para 0083>.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnstone, Currle, Vandyke before him/her before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Johnstone, Currle to include the teachings of Vandyke, in order to obtain limitations as taught by Vandyke. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it provides an effective way to maintain a comfortable airflow in the aircraft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 25, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Examiner used a reference which was newly submitted in the IDS dated 8/25/25 after the non-final action was mailed. Examiner suggests to include limitations which applicant regards as improvement for which applicant argues see page 9 of Remarks.
Conclusion
New ground of rejection is made using a newly submitted reference in the IDS submitted after the Non-Final action was mailed. 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 ANIL K BHARGAVA whose telephone number is (571)270-3278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Adam Queler can be reached at 571-272-4140. 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.
/ANIL K BHARGAVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172