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
Claims 1 and 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because each recite a sentence fragment in the preamble. Claim 1 should recite “A device for detecting and reducing…” while claim 17 should recite “A method for detecting and reducing…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-16 recite a building door and window comprising at least one device described in claim 1; however, claim 1 recites multiple devices including a device, sensors, and a microcontroller. It is understood a device in claims 15-16 corresponds to the device of claim 1.
Claim 17 is objected to for the limitation “namely inside service buildings, offices, homes, and shopping centers.” The limitation “namely” is interpreted as the equivalent of “in particular.” For clarity, it is advised to recite “at least one of” to preclude potential interpretation of “namely” as a relative limitation.
Claim 2 is objected to for improper Markush group limitations because the claim limitations uses “list” oppose to “group,” see MPEP 2173.05(h), 2117 e.g. “ Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196.”). For purposes of examination, a list is interpreted as group for purposes of applying Markush group limitations. Appropriate clarification is requested.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Device for…” (Figure 3, Figure 12)
For purposes of examination, the “device for” is modified by sufficient structure including the claimed differential pressure sensor, radon sensor, and micro-controller of the device.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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) 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di et al. (PG/PUB 20220042694) in view over Peterson (PG/PUB 20240210068)
Claim 1.
Di teaches a Device (Figure 1-central control circuit) for detecting and reducing radon concentration in an indoor environment , but does not expressly teach at least one differential pressure sensor described below. Peterson et al. teaches a differential pressure sensor described below, comprising
at least one radon gas sensor (0014 e.g. “The sensor array may include one or more sensors that are capable of detecting and/or measuring any detectable air pollutant or air quality parameter including, but not limited to, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), radon, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, noxygen (NOx), and combinations thereof.”)
at least one differential pressure sensor for measuring the difference between the indoor and outdoor atmospheric pressures (0153 e.g. “For an indoor space that has more than one conditioned zone, the flexibility of remediation is further enhanced by employing multiple air handling units in the indoor space, as illustrated in FIG. 4. In a multi-zone multi-AHU scenario, as described below, some rooms or other zones may be bundled together as a single area or zone for remediation, which can address the problem of crossover of air pollutants from one zone to another due to pressure,” see Peterson for differential pressure sensor, 0004 e.g. “To measure differential pressure between the inside building and outside air pressure the industry standard employs the use of tubed pressure sensors. Currently in big buildings, systems are set up to a specific flow rate, so that, for example, when a storm goes through and outside pressure drops quickly, the building is over pressurized and problems such as those mentioned above result,” see also 0025 for managing air quality of a building in association with differential pressures)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Peterson, namely providing a differential pressure sensor in part for improving air quality of a building, to the teachings of He, namely providing a sensor array for managing air quality based on threshold comparisons for activating ventilation, would achieve an expected and predictable result via adapting the sensor array to comprise at least a pressure differential sensor for remedying air quality. He expressly describes a problem of “crossover of air pollutants from one zone to another due to pressure,” 0153 while Peterson accounts for pressure differentials for managing air quality, ABSTRACT, Title. Accordingly, the application of Peterson provides an improved invention by employing pressure differential sensors commendable to the “cross-over of pollutants” of He. Peterson is not only in the same field of endeavor but also is reasonably pertinent to a problem of maintaining air quality, see Peterson, ABSTRACT, summary, 0007 e.g. “The derived differential pressures can then be communicated to air handling equipment or a building automation system to manage building exhaust and air supply systems based on information from an individual space location in the building. In some embodiments, this differential pressure measurement system may include an easy-to-see display that depicts on-going air movement (positive or negative) and CO2 levels within the space. Understanding the number of molecules in a room combined with room pressurization can provide an “at-a-glance” understanding of the health of the air in that occupied space.”)
He, as modified by Peterson, teaches:
wherein both sensors are connected to a microcontroller configured to perform the pre-processing and aggregation of the data obtained by said sensors (0011-12 e.g. see pre-processing and aggregation as sensor data collection and threshold comparison analysis for determining air quality levels, see “The central controller is communicatively coupled to the sensor array and the air handling unit and is configured to receive from the sensor array a first signal indicative of a measurement of a first air parameter in the space; determine if the measurement of the first air parameter is above a first threshold value for a first duration; if the measurement of the first air parameter is above the first threshold value for the first duration, determine if air within the space is currently being remediated; and if the air within the space is not currently being remediated, cause the air handling unit to remediate the air within the space until a measurement of the first air parameter is lower than a second value for a second duration. In some embodiments, a sensor array may be or include one or more environmental parameter measuring devices or other sensors.”)
trigger at least one physical actuator (e.g. control circuit 200, 0111) to activate at least one ventilation device (window and/or vents, 0111) for reducing the radon concentration in an indoor environment (0011-12 e.g. “The central controller is communicatively coupled to the sensor array and the air handling unit and is configured to receive from the sensor array a first signal indicative of a measurement of a first air parameter in the space; determine if the measurement of the first air parameter is above a first threshold value for a first duration; if the measurement of the first air parameter is above the first threshold value for the first duration, determine if air within the space is currently being remediated; and if the air within the space is not currently being remediated, cause the air handling unit to remediate the air within the space until a measurement of the first air parameter is lower than a second value for a second duration. In some embodiments, a sensor array may be or include one or more environmental parameter measuring devices or other sensors.:)
if the indoor concentration is above a first predetermined threshold (0011-12 e.g. “The central controller is communicatively coupled to the sensor array and the air handling unit and is configured to receive from the sensor array a first signal indicative of a measurement of a first air parameter in the space; determine if the measurement of the first air parameter is above a first threshold value for a first duration; if the measurement of the first air parameter is above the first threshold value for the first duration, determine if air within the space is currently being remediated; and if the air within the space is not currently being remediated, cause the air handling unit to remediate the air within the space until a measurement of the first air parameter is lower than a second value for a second duration. In some embodiments, a sensor array may be or include one or more environmental parameter measuring devices or other sensors.”)
or if the indoor radon concentration is above a second predetermined threshold and the differential pressure is negative (e.g. as interpreted, the “or” limitation represents an alternative limitation)
Claim 2.
The device according to the previous claim 1, further comprising at least one sensor selected from a list consisting of temperature sensor, relative humidity sensor, carbon dioxide sensor, total volatile organic compound sensor, and combinations thereof (Di, supra claim 10018 e.g. “In an embodiment, the device can further comprise at least one sensor selected from a list consisting of a temperature sensor, relative humidity sensor, carbon dioxide sensor, total volatile organic compound sensor, or any combinations thereof.”)
Claim 6.
The device according to the previous claim 1, further comprising a communication module (Di, 0112, 0248, Figure 1-248)
Claim 7. The device according to the previous claim 6, wherein the communication module uses Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy, Low Power Wide Area Network Protocol, Zigbee, Wi-Fi communication, or combinations thereof, for connection (Di, 0112, 0248)
Claim 9. The device according to the previous claim 1, wherein the ventilation device for reducing radon gas risk exposure comprises a forced air system (Di, 0071, 0101)
Claim 10. The device according to the previous claim 1, further comprising a motion detection sensor (Di, 0017, 0044)
Claim 14. The device according to the previous claim 1, wherein such device is configured to be activated at a predetermined time (Di, supra claim 1, 0011-12 e.g. see thresholds as reading on activated at a predetermined time)
Claim 17.
Use of the device for detecting and reducing radon concentration in an indoor environment as described in claim 1, for reducing radon risk exposure, namely inside service buildings, offices, homes, and shopping centers (Di, ABSTRACT, supra claim 1)
Claim(s) 3 and 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di et al. (PG/PUB 20220042694) in view over Peterson (PG/PUB 20240210068) in view over NASIS (PG/PUB 20210018210)
Claim 3.
The device according to the previous claim 1 but does not teach the visual alert limitations described below. NASIS teaches the visual alert limitations described below,
comprising at least one visual alert element selected from a list consisting of a light-emitting diode, an electroluminescent light-emitting diode, an organic light-emitting diode, or combinations thereof (0050, 0056, supra claim 1)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of NASIS, namely providing an LED alert responsive to air quality, to the teachings of Di, as modified supra claim 1, namely determining radon levels, would achieve an expected and predictable result. NASIS is in the same field of endeavor and pertinent to a problem of alerting users to potentially danger air quality conditions, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Claim 11. The device according to the previous claim 1, further comprising a battery (NASIS, 0004, 0061)
Claim 12. The device according to the previous claim 1, further comprising a port for charging (NASIS 0004, 0061)
Claim 13. The device according to the previous claim 1, further comprising a power supply (NASIS 0004, 0061)
Claims 11-13 are rejected under the same rationale and applied prior art as claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di et al. (PG/PUB 20220042694) in view over Peterson (PG/PUB 20240210068) in view over LIN et al. (PG/PUB 20180017273)
Claim 4.
The device according to the previous claim 1 but does not teach the AC voltage regulator. LIN teaches wherein the physical actuator for activating the ventilation device comprises a module with at least one AC voltage regulator (0027)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of LIN, namely providing an AC voltage regulator to control ventilation, to the teachings of Di, as modified supra claim 1, namely determining radon levels for controlling ventilation, would achieve an expected and predictable result via adapting the ventilation system to comprise the AC voltage regulator for controlling the position. LIN is in the same field of endeavor and pertinent to a problem of controlling ventilation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di et al. (PG/PUB 20220042694) in view over Peterson (PG/PUB 20240210068) in view over Wheeler (USPN 5334876)
Claim 5. The device according to the previous claim 1 but does not teach the pulse width modulator. Wheeler teaches wherein the physical actuator activating the ventilation device comprises at least one pulse-width modulation control motor (Col 2 lines 36-50)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Wheeler, namely providing an pulse width motor to control ventilation, to the teachings of Di, as modified supra claim 1, namely determining radon levels for controlling ventilation, would achieve an expected and predictable result via adapting the ventilation system to comprise the pulse width motor for controlling the position. Wheeler is in the same field of endeavor and pertinent to a problem of controlling ventilation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di et al. (PG/PUB 20220042694) in view over Peterson (PG/PUB 20240210068) in view over Sundal (PG/PUB 20230384463)
Claim 8.
The device according to the previous claim but does not teach the chamber or diode limitations described below. Sundal wherein the radon sensor comprises an ionization chamber or a photodiode for detecting alpha particles (ABSTRACT)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Sundal, namely providing a radon sensor, to the teachings of Di, as modified supra claim 1, namely determining radon levels for controlling ventilation, would achieve an expected and predictable result via adapting the ventilation system to comprise the radon sensor for controlling the position. Sundal is in the same field of endeavor and pertinent to a problem of alerting users to radon levels.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di et al. (PG/PUB 20220042694) in view over Peterson (PG/PUB 20240210068) in view over Vandenburgh (USPN 4859865)
Claim 15.
Di does not teach the door limitations. Vandenburgh teaches a building door comprising at least one device as described in claim 1 (ABSTRACT, Figure 1)
Claim 16.
Do does not teach the window limitation. Vandenburg teaches a building window comprising at least one device as described in claim 1 (ABSTRACT, Figure 1)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Vandenburgh, namely providing a radon sensor per door and window, to the teachings of Di, as modified supra claim 1, namely determining radon levels for controlling ventilation, would achieve an expected and predictable result via adapting the ventilation system to comprise the radon sensor per window and door for radon detection. Vandenburgh is reasonably pertinent to a problem of radon detection and would commend itself to the teachings of Di for expanding radon detection at points of entry, as described, ABSTRACT.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 3 relevancy
20240035697 20230089131 20230034481 20220231718 20210018210
Claim 15 relevancy
20240003860 20180051509 4859865
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117