DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to the amendment filed 16 July 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 17 are independent claims. No claims have been cancelled or amended.
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 Remarks
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pgs. 7-8) that the claim recites a forward-looking determination, a predictive determination, i.e. that a safe threshold is predicted as being surpassed. Applicant argues that McConnell teaches determining whether certain conditions meet or exceed thresholds, which correspond to harmful conditions; and thus, McConnell teaches about the present, measured state. McConnell does not teach predicting, forecasting, or extrapolating.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing for functionality that is not yet present in the claims. The claims recite: “determining, by the device, based on the collected information, that at least one safe threshold is predicted as being surpassed”. While the limitation uses the term “prediction”, there is nothing in the claim which assesses a state and makes a forecast/prediction that a safe threshold WILL BE surpassed. A “prediction” is nothing more than a determination based on acquired data. However, Applicant seems to be arguing that actions of “determining” and “executing” all happen prior to the safe threshold being surpassed, i.e. the actions take effect when the prediction is made but before the safe threshold is surpassed. However, the foregoing is not yet described in the claims. The claimed limitation, as presented, is much broader. Further specificity is required.
Applicant further argues (pgs. 8-9) that the term “predicted as being surpassed” carries a meaning distinct from an actual, measured threshold crossing is confirmed by the claim set itself. Applicant refers to claim 6, which states: “determining that the at least one safe threshold is actually exceeded, wherein the execution of the climate-control system is based on the determination of the actual exceeding of the at least one safe threshold”. Applicant argues that claim 6 presents a different function, i.e. actually exceeding a safety threshold. Applicant notes the instant specification which provides an example of determining when surpassing a safe threshold is imminent (e.g. a prediction).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2111 governs by stating that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. However, reading a claim in light of the specification is quite different from reading limitation of the specifications into a claim. Applicant is arguing for a narrow interpretation of the claims. McConnell teaches generating intervention commands based on specific sensor measurements exceeding certain thresholds (UV or IR light) as well as in response to fluctuations and rates and derivatives of fluctuations. The foregoing teaches the limitations in question of claims 1 and 6, as they are currently presented. Further specificity is necessary to distinguish the limitations over McConnell.
Applicant argues (pgs. 9-10) that the combination is presented with impermissible hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument relies on a narrow interpretation of the limitation in question, as discussed above. As provided in the rejection, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine determining a type of an object and determining harmful environmental thresholds associated with the object to further intervene and control the environmental conditions to modify the climate settings. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow properly intervening to protect the artistic works, as suggested by McConnell: ¶[0050].
Applicant argues (pg. 10) that the execution step is not shown, i.e. changing an environmental setting does not disclose adjusting the corresponding real-world attribute to a value within an item-specific safe threshold.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. McConnell teaches generating the intervention commands to cause an intervention to protect the artistic works. The system in McConnell is designed such that the intervention commands are designed to respond to determined sources of harm. Accordingly, McConnell teaches modifying the environment such that the real-world attributes associated with the at least one safe threshold are adjusted to a value within the at least one safe threshold.
The foregoing applies to all independent claims and their dependent claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell (US 2024/0385108 A1) hereinafter known as McConnell.
Regarding independent claim 1, McConnell teaches:
identifying, by a device, information related to an item within a location, the item being a physical object currently located within the location, the item information indicating at least one of a material of the item and a type of the item; (McConnell: ¶[0055] and ¶[0064]-¶[0065]; McConnell teaches an art tracker used for unique identification of an artistic work. ¶[0044] teaches the art work being inside a gallery or museum.)
identifying, by the device, location parameters, the location parameters comprising information indicating real-world attributes of an environment within the location; (McConnell: Fig. 1F and ¶[0043] and ¶[0069]; McConnell teaches sensor 111, which senses temperature, humidity, pressure, etc...)
analyzing, by the device, the item information based on the location parameters; (McConnell: Fig. 5 and ¶[0096]; McConnell teaches analyzing the environmental conditions.)
determining, by the device, a set of safe thresholds for the item, each safe threshold in the set corresponding to a real-world attribute of the environment within the location; (McConnell: ¶[0060], ¶[0063], ¶[0048], and ¶[0120]; McConnell teaches determining whether certain environmental conditions meet or exceed thresholds, which correspond to harmful conditions. Default threshold may be derived from an index of art works, stored in a database.)
monitoring, by the device, over a time period, the environment within the location, the monitoring comprising collecting information related to the environment within the location; (McConnell: ¶[0031], ¶[0042]-¶[0046], and ¶[0050]; McConnell teaches monitoring over time.)
...
...
An embodiment of McConnell does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
determining, by the device, based on the collected information, that at least one safe threshold is predicted as being surpassed; and (McConnell: ¶[0049]-¶[0050]; McConnell teaches generating interventions commands to change environmental settings.)
executing, by the device, a climate-control system at the location to modify the environment such that real-world attributes associated with the at least one safe threshold are adjusted to a value within the at least one safe threshold. (McConnell: ¶[0049]-¶[0050]; McConnell teaches generating interventions commands to change environmental settings.)
McConnell is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to changing environmental conditions based on identified objects in a room. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine determining a type of an object and determining harmful environmental thresholds associated with the object to further intervene and control the environmental conditions to modify the climate settings. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow properly intervening to protect the artistic works, as suggested by McConnell: ¶[0050].
Regarding claim 2, McConnell further teaches the method of claim 1.
wherein the location parameters comprise at least one of temperature, humidity, light, air quality and ultraviolet (UV) light. (McConnell: Fig. 5 and ¶[0096]; McConnell teaches analyzing the environmental conditions, such as temperature.)
Regarding claim 3, McConnell further teaches the method of claim 1.
wherein the item information comprises information indicating a category of the item, the category corresponding to an associated set of location parameters. (McConnell: Fig. 1F and ¶[0043] and ¶[0069]; McConnell teaches sensor 111, which senses temperature, humidity, pressure, etc... Further, Fig. 5 and ¶[0096] teach analyzing the environmental conditions.)
Regarding claim 4, McConnell further teaches the method of claim 1.
wherein the location is a building structure, wherein the building structure comprises a set of rooms, wherein at least a portion of the rooms comprise at least one item. (McConnell: ¶[0028]; McConnell teaches a structure such as a museum and a gallery.)
Regarding claim 5, McConnell further teaches the method of claim 1.
further comprising: analyzing each of the safe thresholds for each item; determining an aggregation of the safe thresholds; and compiling a single set of safe thresholds for the location, the single set comprising the aggregation of the safe thresholds for each item. (McConnell: ¶[0042]-¶[0048]; McConnell teaches placing multiple tracker on artistic works to determine aggregate environmental conditions.)
Regarding claim 6, McConnell further teaches the method of claim 1.
further comprising: determining that the at least one safe threshold is actually exceeded, wherein the execution of the climate-control system is based on the determination of the actual exceeding of the at least one safe threshold. (McConnell: ¶[0048]-¶[0050]; McConnell teaches generating interventions commands to change environmental settings.)
Regarding claim 7, McConnell further teaches the method of claim 1.
further comprising: determining, based on the predicted surpassing of the at least one safe threshold, a value corresponding to a manner the at least one safe threshold is exceeded; determining, based on the value, a type of climate-control system; and executing the type of climate-control system. (McConnell: ¶[0048]-¶[0050]; McConnell teaches generating interventions commands to change environmental settings based on the alerts which are generated, which are based on the set thresholds.)
Regarding claim 8, McConnell further teaches the method of claim 7.
further comprising: determining, based on the determined value, a duration for executing the climate-control system. (McConnell: ¶[0048]-¶[0050]; McConnell teaches generating interventions commands to change environmental settings. Thus, the foregoing may be interpreted as executing the changes to the climate system for the duration necessary to enact the change.)
Regarding claim 9, McConnell further teaches the method of claim 1.
further comprising: determining a manner in which the at least one safe threshold is surpassed; and determining a type of operation mode of the climate-control system, wherein the execution of the climate-control system is based on the type of operation mode. (McConnell: ¶[0048]-¶[0050]; McConnell teaches generating interventions commands based on the type of conditions.)
Regarding claim 10, McConnell further teaches the method of claim 1.
wherein the climate-control system comprises a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system. (McConnell: ¶[0048]-¶[0050]; McConnell teaches generating interventions commands using the HVAC unit.)
Regarding claim 11, McConnell further teaches the method of claim 1.
wherein the climate-control system comprises a ceiling fan operation at the location. (McConnell: ¶[0063]; McConnell a command to adjust a fan setting.)
Regarding claim 12, McConnell further teaches the method of claim 1.
wherein the device is a thermostat. (McConnell: ¶[0049]; McConnell a facility-based control system that causes a change to the environmental condition. The foregoing is interpreted as a thermostat since it changes the HVAC settings.)
Regarding claims 13-20, these claims recite a device a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that performs the method of claims 1, 5, 7, and 9; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
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 ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights