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 .
Status of Application
Claims 29-48 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 29-31, 34, 40-42 & 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication Number 2020/0031205 A1 to Johnstone in view of US Patent Publication Number 2024/0017592 A1 to Knowles.
A) As per Claims 29 & 40, Johnstone teaches a system for monitoring and controlling environmental parameters in an enclosed space comprising a controller (Johnstone: Figure 1),
at least first sensors (Johnstone: Abstract; pressure sensor and dust particle sensor) to monitor parameters indicative of air quality inside the enclosed space, the first sensors including
at least one pressure sensor to sense the pressure inside and outside the enclosed space,
at least one dust sensor to sense the presence of dust particles in the enclosed space,
an air pressuriser (Johnstone: Figure 1, Item 125) to filter and deliver air from outside the enclosed space into the enclosed space, and
an air filtration unit (Johnstone: Figure 1, Item 155) to filter air within the enclosed space,
wherein the difference between the pressure inside the enclosed space, sensed by the at least one pressure sensor, and the pressure outside the enclosed space, sensed by the at least one pressure sensor, defines a pressure differential, and
wherein the controller and the first sensors are in operative communication such that, in use, the controller receives one or more input signals from the first sensors and in response to the input signals the controller generates one or more output signals that are sent to the air pressuriser and/or the air filtration unit to control the operation of the air pressuriser and/or the air filtration unit by adjusting the speed of a respective motor of the air pressuriser and/or the air filtration unit to thereby control at least some environmental parameters relating to air quality inside the enclosed space, the air pressuriser operable to filter and deliver air from outside the enclosed space into the enclosed space and the air filtration unit operable to filter air within the enclosed space (Johnstone: Figure 4), and
wherein control of the operation of the air pressuriser includes
maintaining positive pressure in the enclosed space (Johnstone: Figure 4), and
increasing the speed of the motor of the air pressuriser to thereby increase the volume of air delivered by the air pressuriser to the enclosed space in response to the controller receiving an input signal from the at least one pressure sensor that indicates that the differential pressure has fallen below a predetermined value (Johnstone: Figure 4), or the controller receiving an input signal from the at least one CO2 sensor that indicates that the CO2 level in the enclosed space has exceeded a predetermined value, and
wherein control of the operation of the air filtration unit includes increasing the speed of the motor of the air filtration unit to thereby draw more air from within the enclosed space through the air filtration unit to cause more air to be filtered by a filter of the air filtration unit in response to the controller receiving an input signal from the at least one dust sensor that indicates that the dust level in the enclosed space has risen above a predetermined value (Johnstone: Figure 4).
Johnstone does not teach that at least one CO2 sensor to sense the presence of CO2 in the enclosed space.
However, Knowles teaches at least one CO2 sensor to sense the presence of CO2 in the enclosed space (Knowles: Claim 49).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Johnstone by adding more sensors, as taught by Knowles, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Johnstone with these aforementioned teachings of Knowles with the motivation of preventing dangerous chemical buildup within the cabin.
B) As per Claims 30 & 41, Johnstone in view of Knowles teaches that control of the operation of the air pressuriser further includes increasing the speed of the motor of the air pressuriser to thereby increase the volume of air delivered by the air pressuriser to the enclosed space in response to the controller receiving an input signal from the at least one dust sensor that indicates that the dust level in the enclosed space has risen above a predetermined value (Johnstone: Figure 4).
C) As per Claims 31 & 42, Johnstone in view of Knowles teaches that the first sensors further include at least one airflow sensor to sense the airflow in and/or into the enclosed space; and
wherein control of the operation of the air pressuriser further includes adjusting the speed of the motor of the air pressuriser to maintain the airflow in or into the enclosed space above a predetermined value in response to an input signal received by the controller from the at least one airflow sensor (Knowles: Paragraph 0101-0102).
D) As per Claims 34 & 45, Johnstone in view of Knowles teaches that the first sensors further include one or more sensors (Knowles: Claim 49) to sense the presence of one of more other gases other than CO2 in the enclosed space and wherein control of the operation of the air pressuriser includes increasing the speed of the motor of the air pressuriser to thereby increase the volume of air delivered by the air pressuriser to the enclosed space in response to the controller receiving an input signal from the one or more sensors to sense the presence of one of more other gases other than CO2 that indicates that the level of the one of more other gases other than CO2 in the enclosed space has exceeded a predetermined value.
Claim(s) 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnstone in view of Knowles as applied to claim 31 or 42 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2019/0001250 A1 to Moredock.
A) As per Claims 43-44, Johnstone in view of Knowles teaches control of the operation of the air filtration unit includes adjusting the speed of the motor of the air filtration unit to maintain the airflow in or into the enclosed space above a predetermined value in response to an input signal received by the controller from the at least one airflow sensor (Knowles: Paragraph 0101-0102).
Johnstone in view of Knowles does not explicitly teach providing the at least one airflow sensor at an outlet, of the air filtration unit (Claim 44) or air pressuriser (Claim 43), that directs filtered air into the enclosed space.
However, Moredock teaches providing the at least one airflow sensor at an outlet (Moredock: Paragraph 0138).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Johnstone in view of Knowles by having the airflow sensor at an outlet, as taught by Moredock, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Johnstone in view of Knowles with these aforementioned teachings of Moredock since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the airflow sensor location of Moredock for the airflow sensor location of Johnstone in view of Knowles.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 35, 37 & 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnstone in view of Knowles as applied to claim 29 or 42 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2004/0065204 A1 to Dietrich.
A) As per Claims 35 & 46, Johnstone in view of Knowles teaches all the limitations except that a pressure test upon start-up to detect the current relationship between the speed of the motor of the air pressuriser and air pressure in the enclosed space.
However, Dietrich teaches a pressure test upon start-up to detect the current relationship between the speed of the motor of the air pressuriser and air pressure in the enclosed space (Dietrich: Figure 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Johnstone in view of Knowles by doing a pressure test, as taught by Dietrich, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Johnstone in view of Knowles with these aforementioned teachings of Dietrich with the motivation of making sure the blower is functioning correcting.
B) As per Claim 37, Johnstone in view of Knowles teaches all the limitations except that the controller signals an alert if the motor of the air pressuriser is running at or near its full speed and the pressure sensed inside the enclosed space is below a predetermined value.
However, Dietrich teaches the controller signals an alert if the motor of the air pressuriser is running at or near its full speed and the pressure sensed inside the enclosed space is below a predetermined value (Dietrich: Figure 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Johnstone in view of Knowles by doing warning when the blower is at full speed, as taught by Dietrich, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Johnstone in view of Knowles with these aforementioned teachings of Dietrich with the motivation of making sure the blower is functioning correcting and proper pressure can be maintained.
Claim(s) 36 & 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnstone in view of Knowles and Dietrich as applied to claim 35 or 42 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2006/0118290 A1 to Klassen.
A) As per Claim 36 & 47, Johnstone in view of Knowles and Dietrich teaches all the limitations except that the system employs a PID control, the PID control used to calculate a motor speed correction for the motor of the air pressuriser and/or the motor of the air recirculation unit.
However, Klassen teaches the system employs a PID control, the PID control used to calculate a motor speed correction for the motor of the air pressuriser and/or the motor of the air recirculation unit (Klassen: Paragraph 0060).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Johnstone in view of Knowles and Dietrich by having a motor feedback system, as taught by Klassen, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Johnstone in view of Knowles and Dietrich with these aforementioned teachings of Klassen with the motivation of ensuring the motor speed is being controlled as desired.
Claim(s) 38-39 & 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnstone in view of Knowles as applied to claims 29 or 42 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2006/0179853 A1 to Vosburgh.
A) As per Claims 38-39 & 48, Johnstone in view of Knowles teaches all the limitations except that the second sensors include a sound sensor to sense the sound level inside the enclosed space and/or vibration sensor to sense vibration inside the enclosed space.
However, Vosburgh teaches a sound sensor to sense the sound level inside the enclosed space and/or vibration sensor to sense vibration inside the enclosed space (Vosburgh: Paragraph 0014).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Johnstone in view of Knowles by adding a presence sensor, as taught by Vosburgh, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Johnstone in view of Knowles with these aforementioned teachings of Vosburgh with the motivation of being able to control based on whether or not a person is present within the vehicle to save energy and increase occupant comfort.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) The Applicant asserts that Knowles teaches away from controlling fan speed. The Examiner notes that Knowles is only relied upon for controlling a cabin CO2 level for the health of the occupant, while Johnstone is relied upon for teaching changing the fan speeds based on sensed conditions. The combination of these reference teaches the claim limitations. The motivation to combine of providing the further air qualities to control by adding a CO2 sensor to the fan/control system of would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner notes that the vent of Knowles is not added to Johnstone with the combination.
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 ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights