DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 6, 12, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 12 and 18, “the cavity” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 3, 4, 14 and 19 are rejected for depending on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukunaga USPN 6,379,435 B1.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Fukunaga discloses a gas control device comprising a sorption box (column 4, lines 55-64: “in a container”, sorption units capable of neutralizing gases (column 4, lines 55-64: each pellet or tablet can be considered a sorption unit), a ventilation system (figures: fan), a sensor system, and a control system; the ventilation system being in electrical communication with the control system (column 6, lines 6-26: fan is controlled based on sensor), the control system being in informational communication with the sensor system (column 6, lines 6-26); the sorption box being an enclosure (see figures; column 4, lines 55-64); the sorption units made of material capable of adsorbing or absorbing gases (column 4, lines 55-64); the sensor system comprising one or more gas sensors configured to detect gases and transmit gas detection signals to the control system (column 6, lines 6-26); the ventilation system oriented to suck air through or toward the sorption box (figures: fan); the control system comprising a processor programmed to receive gas detection signals from the sensor system and control ventilation (column 6, lines 6-26).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Fukunaga discloses a sorption chamber, the sorption chamber configured to hold the sorption units in place while permitting airflow from the cavity into the sorption units (see figure 7: chambers created by 43).
Regarding claim 3, Fukunaga discloses that the sorption chamber is attached to a wall of the sorption box (figure 7: the sorbent chamber includes the walls of the box).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Fukunaga discloses that the ventilation system configured to transfer airflow from the cavity into the sorption units via ducts (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 5, Fukunaga discloses that the sorption box is an enclosure against an atmosphere surrounding the sorption box (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, Fukunaga discloses that the sorption box comprises passage walls, the passage walls comprising one or more sorption openings, the one or more sorption openings providing access into the cavity (figure 6: openings at 26; also figure 6: passage walls created by 43).
Regarding claim 7, Fukunaga is structurally capable of being connected to tubing, piping, vents, or other HVAC components; therefore the limitation is met. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 9, Fukunaga discloses that the one or more gas sensors disposed inside the sorption box and configured to detect contaminant gas levels inside the sorption box and transmit internal contaminant gas signals to the control system (column 6, lines 6-26).
Regarding claim 10, Fukunaga discloses that the control system configured to receive contaminant gas signals from the sensor system and control the one or more fans based on the contaminant gas signals (column 6, lines 6-26).
Regarding claim 11, Fukunaga discloses that the one or more gas sensors configured to detect a first threshold of gas contaminants and a second threshold of gas contaminants, with the first threshold of gas being less dense than the second threshold of gas; and upon detecting the first threshold of gas contaminants, transmit a first contaminant threshold signal to the control system, and upon detecting the second threshold of gas contaminants, transmit a second contaminant threshold signal to the control system; the control system configured to receive a first and second contaminant threshold signals from the sensor system (column 6, lines 6-26 and 39-46).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Fukunaga discloses one or more fans, with the one or more fans configured to suck air from the cavity and blow air in and then out of the sorption box (see figures: fans and depicted gas flow).
Regarding claim 20, Fukunaga discloses that the ventilation system is oriented to blow air out of the sorption box based on the gas detection signals (figures: fans; column 6, lines 6-26).
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, 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 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga USPN 6,379,435 B1.
Fukunaga is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 8, Fukunaga discloses one or more dust filters (column 5, lines 54-55), but does not disclose that the one or more dust filters is configured to filter particles smaller than 1 mm in diameter contained within the airflow suctioned by the ventilation system. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the particle size of the dust removed by the filter is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal dust removal, as is well-known in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Fukunaga does not disclose that the control system configured to record gas detection data and to send gas detection data to a mobile device. Nevertheless, recording data for a user to be able to examine, and sending the data to a mobile device, is generally well-known in the art and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of allowing a user to examine the data. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga USPN 6,379,435 B1 in view of Enyedy USPA 2016/0297025 A1.
Fukunaga is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 14, Fukunaga does not disclose that the control system is configured to determine if the contaminant gas levels are too high using the contaminant gas signals, and if so, increase rotation speeds of one or more fans in an inlet orientation. Enyedy discloses increasing fan speeds when contaminant levels are high, in order to clear contaminants from the area. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukunaga so that the control system is configured to determine if the contaminant gas levels are too high using the contaminant gas signals, and if so, increase rotation speeds of one or more fans in an inlet orientation, as generally disclosed by Enyedy, for the purpose of removing more contaminants when needed, as is also generally well-known in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776