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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant at page 3 argues at first full Paragraph that “A snapshot of concentration across multiple sensors at a single moment in time cannot show a delay between peaks at different sensors, nor can it show an amplitude difference between corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol event at different spatial positions, both of which inherently require comparing signals across time. All three alternatives (“a delay between…an amplitude between…and applying a cross-correlation…) in claim 1 requires analyzing level signals to identify “corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol generation event” or applying cross-relation to those signals. These are signal processing techniques for detecting and correlating unknown aerol events by analzying the sensor outputs themselves. The same aerosol event will necessarily result in peaks at different time points for sensors at different spatial positions”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims 1 and 19 do no call for “comparing signals across time”. In light of the Specification, PGPUB Par. 110 recites “At a later time, the air quality processing device 216 may detect a peak corresponding to the same aerosol event at one or more of the remaining sensors 208a . . . 208g, 208i . . . 208l in the ward bay 206 based on a corresponding particulate level signal exceeding the second event threshold. At a yet later time, the air quality processing device 216 may detect a peak corresponding to the same aerosol event on a further PM sensor 208m located in the corridor 204 based on a corresponding particulate level signal exceeding the second event threshold” which calls for comparison with thresholds. Per MPEP 2111, claim must be given their BRI in light of the specification, however, under MPEP 2111 (II), it is proper to import claim limitations from the specification.
Further, the three alternatives does not call for analyzing level signals to identify “corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol generation event”
Claim 1 recites “wherein the air quality processing device is further configured to determine the particulate matter flow in the building between the at least two PM sensors based on at least one of: a delay between corresponding peaks of the particulate level signals at the at least two PM sensors, the corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol generation event; an amplitude different between corresponding peaks of the particulate level signals at the at least two PM sensors, the corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol generation event; and applying a cross-correlation to the particulate level signals associated with the at least two PM sensors”.
-Applicants further argue at Page 3, last Paragraph that “none of the recited sections of Reeves disclose measuring a time delay between corresponding at different sensors to determine flow”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not call for “measuring a time delay between corresponding peaks at different sensors to determine flow”.
Claim 1 calls for “wherein the air quality processing device is further configured to determine the particulate matter flow in the building between the at least two PM sensors based on at least one of: a delay between corresponding peaks of the particulate level signals at the at least two PM sensors”. There is no recitation of “measuring a time delay”.
-In response to Applicant’s argument at Page 4, Paragraph 1, that Reeve’s recitation does not disclose “determining flow by comparing amplitude differences between corresponding peaks at different sensors that are representative of the same aerosol event”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not call for “determining flow by comparing amplitude differences…”. Claim 1 calls for “wherein the air quality processing device is further configured to determine the particulate matter flow in the building between the at least two PM sensors based on at least one of… an amplitude difference between corresponding peaks of the particulate level signals at the at least two PM sensors, the corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol generation event…
In the Examiner’s position, Reeves discloses the limitation “wherein the air quality processing device is further configured to determine the particulate matter flow in the building between the at least two PM sensors based on at least one of: a delay between corresponding peaks of the particulate level signals at the at least two PM sensors, the corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol generation event; an amplitude different between corresponding peaks of the particulate level signals at the at least two PM sensors, the corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol generation event; and applying a cross-correlation to the particulate level signals associated with the at least two PM sensors”.
Reeves discloses at Par. 63 that “FIGS. 12-14, described below, are examples of graphical output reporting analyzed data. The rate at which the intensity drops with time (change in amplitude), for example from point 1212 to point 1214 on the central graph, can be used to compute the air change per hour (ACH), a common quantity used to parameterize the entirety of how quickly particles are cleared (the flow) from a room”.
Reeves further discloses at Pars. 66-70 that he method of FIG. 5 provides a complete analysis of the air flows in the entire indoor space. This allows careful examination of the spread of aerosols within rooms, across rooms and in common areas and passageways. Pars. 78-86 discloses evacuation planning for high-intensity air events. Abstract: Flow intensity map generation is then used to map the aerosol particles and air flow is changed to optimize aerosol particle concentration using the actuators.
Par. 81 and Fig. 12 shows the intensity vs time plot for each of the sensor (center image) and corresponding peaks of intensity at different time for each of the sensors that are overlaid on the floorplans shown in 1202-1216.
Therefore, Reeves meets the claimed limitation “wherein the air quality processing device is further configured to determine the particulate matter flow in the building between the at least two PM sensors based on at least one of: a delay between corresponding peaks of the particulate level signals at the at least two PM sensors, the corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol generation event; an amplitude different between corresponding peaks of the particulate level signals at the at least two PM sensors, the corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol generation event; and applying a cross-correlation to the particulate level signals associated with the at least two PM sensors.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 pa tent 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-19, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reeves et al.(USPAP. 20220034540)(hereinafter “Reeves”).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Reeves discloses an air quality monitoring system (Figs. 2A and 2B) comprising:
a plurality of particulate matter, PM, sensors, the plurality of PM sensors (sensor assembly 202 includes particle PM sensors 212 in Fig. 2A and Fig. 2B particle sensors 212) positionable at a corresponding plurality of positions in a building (see sensors positions in a building as in Par. 50) (Fig. 2A: sensors 202, building as classroom as an example in Fig. 2A; see Pars. 29-53);
and an air quality processing device (system processor 208) coupled to each of the plurality of PM sensors (sensors assembly 202 include PM sensors 212) via a communications network (via network 130 and WiFi; see Pars. 46 and 48) (Also see Figs. 1, 2A, and 2B), the air quality processing device configured to:
receive a particulate level signal from at least two of the plurality of PM sensors (Par. 48); and determine particulate matter flow in the building between the at least two PM sensors based on the corresponding particulate level signals (Par. 35 and 49: Based on the software configuration, a sensor assembly 202 can be permanently placed to locally monitor aerosol generation, clearance, and movement. It can also be set up in a temporary configuration to map the aerosol flows in a space as conditions in the space are modified. Pars. 55-60: he sensor 212 detects raw data, such as the particle count, and transmits the particle count to the sensor processor 216. The sensor processor 216, in turn, can perform pre-processing of that raw data and data conditioning. The sensor processor 216 can further store the pre-processed data and transmit data to the system processor 208. The system processor 208 receives data from all of the sensor processors, and performs calculations and generates outputs and reports based on the received data),
wherein the air quality processing device is further configured to determine the particulate matter flow in the building between the at least two PM sensors based on at least one of: a delay between corresponding peaks of the particulate level signals at the at least two PM sensors, the corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol generation event; an amplitude difference between corresponding peaks of the particulate level signals at the at least two PM sensors, the corresponding peaks representative of the same aerosol generation event; and applying a cross-correlation to the particulate level signals associated with the at least two PM sensors (Fig. 12, Par. 65-68 and 83-85, 88-90: Reeves discloses at Par. 63 that “FIGS. 12-14, described below, are examples of graphical output reporting analyzed data. The rate at which the intensity drops with time (change in amplitude), for example from point 1212 to point 1214 on the central graph, e.g. center image shown in Fig. 12, can be used to compute the air change per hour (ACH), a common quantity used to parameterize the entirety of how quickly particles are cleared (the flow) from a room. Reeves further discloses at Pars. 66-70 that he method of FIG. 5 provides a complete analysis of the air flows in the entire indoor space. This allows careful examination of the spread of aerosols within rooms, across rooms and in common areas and passageways. Pars. 78-86 discloses evacuation planning for high-intensity air events. Abstract: Flow intensity map generation is then used to map the aerosol particles and air flow is changed to optimize aerosol particle concentration using the actuators. Par. 81 and Fig. 12 shows the intensity vs time plot for each of the sensor (center image) and corresponding peaks of intensity at different time for each of the sensors that are overlaid on the floorplans shown in 1202-1216. Hence Reeves discloses determining the flow based on the amplitude difference between corresponding peaks…).
Regarding claim 2, Reeves discloses wherein the air quality processing device is configured to determine particulate matter flow between the at least two PM sensors by: detecting an aerosol event at a first of the at least two PM sensors based on the particulate level signal exceeding a first event threshold; and detecting the aerosol event at a second of the at least two PM sensors based on the particulate level signal exceeding a second event threshold (Pars. 56-60).
Regarding claim 3, Reeves discloses wherein the first event threshold comprises an adaptive event threshold (Par. 65: adjustable thresholds).
Regarding claim 4, Reeves discloses wherein the second vent threshold comprises a scaled value of the first event threshold (Par. 65).
Regarding claim 7, Reeves discloses wherein the air quality processing device is configured to identify one or more of: a source of the particulate matter flow; a path of the particulate matter flow; a velocity of the particulate matter flow; an attenuation of the particulate matter flow; and / or one or more predicted destinations of the particulate matter flow (Pars. 56, 65, 68).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the air quality processing device is further configured to output an intervention signal configured to operate one or more air quality intervention mechanisms (Pars. 55-59 adjust the injector, adjust fan seppd).
Regarding claim 9, Reeves discloses wherein the air quality intervention mechanisms comprise one or more of: an automatic door or actuator thereof; operating parameters of an air filtering device; operating parameters of a heating, ventilation and air conditioning, HVAC, system; and an alert signal (Pars. 55-59).
Regarding claim 10, Reeves discloses wherein the air quality processing device is configured to output the intervention signal to operate one or more air quality intervention mechanisms at: a location associated with the source of the particulate matter; a location associated with the path of the particulate matter flow; and / or a location associated with the one or more potential destinations of the particulate matter flow (Pars. 55-59).
Regarding claim 11, Reeves discloses wherein the air processing device is further configured to: analyse the particulate level signal for one or more PM sensors over a time period to determine a particulate matter prevalence associated with the one or more PM sensors; and output prevalence data indicating the particulate matter prevalence (Pars. 39, 65: identify trouble spots ).
Regarding claim 12, Reeves discloses wherein the prevalence data indicates: high risk regions of the monitoring area corresponding to one or more PM sensors with a particulate matter prevalence exceeding a first prevalence threshold; and / or low risk regions of the monitoring area corresponding to one or more PM sensors with a particulate matter prevalence less than a second prevalence threshold (Pars. 64, 70: trouble spots).
Regarding claim 13, Reeves discloses wherein the particulate matter prevalence includes periodic aerosol events associated with the one or more PM sensors and the prevalence data indicates: the periodic aerosol events; the times of occurrence of the periodic aerosol events; and / or the location of the one or more PM sensors associated with the periodic aerosol event (Pars. 32, 64, 70, 86, and 88).
Regarding claim 14, Reeves discloses wherein the air processing device is configured to output an intervention signal for operating one or more intervention mechanisms at times corresponding to the periodic aerosol event (Pars. 32, 48, 55, 56).
Regarding claim 15, Reeves discloses wherein the air processing device is configured to: receive operational data relating to the monitoring area; correlate one or more aerosol events with the operational data; and identify aerosol event triggers based on the correlation (Pars. 79-88).
Regarding claim 16, Reeves discloses wherein each of the PM sensors is configured to measure a concentration of particulate matter in air with particle sizes in a range from a lower detection limit to a particulate matter rating of the PM sensor (sensor assembly 202).
Regarding claim 17, Reeves discloses wherein two or more of the PM sensors are positioned at different heights (sensor assembly 202) (Par. 50).
Regarding claim 18, Reeves discloses a plurality of further sensors, wherein the further sensors comprise one or more of: a carbon dioxide (C02) sensor; a humidity sensor; a temperature sensor; and a pressure sensor (Par. 49).
Regarding claim 19, Reeves discloses wherein the air quality processing device is configured to identify a path of the particulate matter flow (Pars. 33, 68, 79, 80).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Reeves discloses identify a path of the particulate matter flow (Pars. 33, 68, 78-80).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 12, 2026