DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 15 December 2025. Claims 2-6 and 8-10 have been cancelled, claims 1 and 7 have been amended, and claims 11-16 have been added. Therefore, claims 1, 7, and 11-16 are pending and presented for examination.
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 Amendment
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the rejection(s).
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC §§ 102 and/or 103; therefore, the Examiner places new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes that a receiving module, computation module, and warning module are recited at the claims, but the description appears to indicate these as hardware devices (see, e.g., Applicant ¶ 0014 “a portable detector for assessment of a virus infection risk is provided. The portable detector comprises a receiving module, a computation module, and a warning module. The receiving module includes a CO.sub.2 sensor, a PM2.5 sensor, a temperature sensor and a humidity sensor”); therefore, these “modules” are interpreted as strictly being hardware components, and not software modules. As such, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not considered as invoked; however, any traversal of this interpretation will need to be made at the first available response so that rejection can be made regarding this issue, and it is noted that if such a rejection were required based on Applicant’s response, it would appear to be necessitated by Applicant and not the Examiner’s new grounds of rejection.
It is further noted that the terms “PM2.5”, “PM10”, and “CO2” are terms of art that refer to Particulate Matter equal to, or less than, 2.5 microns or 10 microns respectively (for “PM2.5” and “PM10”), and CO2 is carbon dioxide.
The claims indicate a determination that there is a low, medium, and/or high virus infection risk; however, there is no apparent indication of ever detecting or determining the presence of any virus presence or source. Nor is there any apparent detection or determination related to other logical, reasonable, or even more-heavily-weighted factors that may impact infection risk, such as the presence of persons or sources, the relative locations (i.e., distance or distancing) of a source, the timing of possible sources (e.g., after a source presence in an environment, or length of time of exposure from a source), or other potential factors. Although it appears incongruous to determine and/or warn of high virus infection risk when there is no known or identified source of virus infection, the Examiner is considering this a breadth issue rather than indefiniteness since the claims apparently only determine whether there is an appropriate media for transmission (e.g., particulates, gases such as CO2, moisture, temperature, etc.) and NOT an actual risk of infection.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1, 7, and 11-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 7 each indicate obtaining test environment and control environment values for PM2.5, PM 10, and CO2, as well as test environment temperature and humidity, where the “impact value” for PM2.5, PM 10, and CO2 is the difference between the respective test and control values – the control being an “open outdoor space”, the test being a different environment.
For claim 1
To attempt to simplify this explanation, the Examiner has sequentially numbered the claim elements for claim 1 – elements 1, 2, and 4 as “obtaining …”, element 3 as “analyzing …”, element 5 as “further obtaining …”, and elements 6-9 as “wherein …” phrasing or clauses.
Element 3 recites “analyzing the CO2 impact value and PM2.5 impact value through the computation module to obtain at least one risk factor”; however, there is no explanation, reasoning, or formula for determining (i.e., obtaining, calculating, etc.) a/the risk factor. The impact values are the difference between control and test values for CO2 and PM2.5, but the Examiner merely presumes that the risk factor is obtained or determined by the PM2.5 and CO2 impact values being compared to “a set value” – not that the risk factor is compared to the set value (as at the claims). If the impact values are not what is compared to the set value, then the risk factor itself (i.e., what it is and/or how it is obtained or arrived at) is indefinite. However, if the impact values are being compared to arrive at the risk factor and the risk factor is compared to the set value – and it appears to be the most likely or applicable interpretation, there are two ranges indicated at the claims: one “less than [the] set value” and one “greater than the set value” (with no explanation regarding when the compared value is equal to the set value), to arrive at a “low virus infection risk” or a “high virus infection risk”.
However, then elements 7 and 8 indicate three ranges being used – a first range of “low impact”, a second range of “medium impact”, and a third range of “high impact” for the impact value of both/either of PM2.5 and CO2. Element 7 is related to CO2, and element 8 is related to PM2.5.
So both elements 3 and 7-8 are apparently comparing the impact value to determine if it is in a range, where element 3 labels that resulting range as “low” or “high”, but elements 7-8 labels a resulting range as “low”, “medium”, or “high”. Element 9, as the final element, indicates that “the risk factor represents the high virus infection risk” – the same terminology of “virus infection risk” as at element 3, but possibly using the “medium” classification as at elements 7-8.
None of elements 3, 7, or 8 indicate what happens (if anything), or what determination of risk factor is made when the impact values are equal to the set value (at element 3) or the limit values (at elements 7-8).
Dependent claims 11 and 14 recite range numbers that appear to be a “set value” for the ranges (like at element 3), but apparently only for the low, medium, high ranges of elements 7-8. And claims 11 and 14 also do not indicate what happens when the CO2 value is exactly 400 or 1200, or when the PM2.5 value is 20 or 40 – those particular reading values are not in any listed range.
Element 4 of claim 1 recites “a warning module issues a warning about the high virus infection risk”, but this ostensibly refers to element 3 analysis using only 2 ranges since immediately following that analysis; however, this could also refer to the analysis and results indicated at elements 7-9. But element 9 does not account for, or consider, temperature or humidity – the high virus infection risk is only claimed at the independent claims as being based on the impact value and/or risk factor (which apparently is a difference in test/control values, i.e., impact value).
For claim 7
Claim 7 has the element 1 (“a receiving module …”), element 2 (“a computation module …”), element 3 (“a warning module …”), element 4 (“wherein …” related to CO2), element 5 (“wherein …” related to PM2.5), and element 6 (“wherein …” relating impact values to infection risk level).
Element 2 of claim 7 indicates “analyzing the CO2 impact value and the PM2.5 impact value to obtain at least one risk factor”, but gives no indication as to why or how to analyze the impact values so as to arrive at any risk factor – the same or similar to claim 1 above. Element 3 “issue[s] a warning about the virus species that is assessed as the high virus infection risk”, but also only considers impact values and NOT temperature and/or humidity readings/measurements – the same or similar to element 4 of claim 1 above. Elements 4-5 are the same or similar to elements 7-8 of claim 1 above and do not indicate what determination or result is produced when the difference value (i.e., impact value) is equal to the range limits.
In summary, at least: A) it is indefinite what the “risk factor” is based on – it may be obtained any way someone may/would want, or it could be based on the impact value being in a range, B) there are two separate, distinct classification criteria used, one having two ranges (i.e., high and/or low, at element 3 of claim 1) and the other having three ranges (i.e., high, medium, and low, at elements 7-8), so it is indefinite (at claim 1) which criteria is used, C) the ranges do not include a value equal to the set value, so it is indefinite as to what happens at a value equal to the set value, and/or D) the warning module may be based on the two-range criteria or the three-range criteria (at claim 1), and if the three-range criteria is used (as at claim 7, apparently) it is indefinite whether temperature and humidity are considered or used (and therefore whether there is any weight to having obtained temperature or humidity data).
For examination purposes, as far as the Examiner has been able to guess, the claims are to A) the risk factor (low, medium, or high) IS the impact value being within a range with the range defined by a set value (e.g., using the values as at claims 11 and 14), but the last part of claim element 3 (at claim 1) is to be ignored (i.e., the three-range criteria is to be used, NOT the two-range criteria),
Claims 11-16 depend from claims 1 and 7, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore claims 11-16 are also indefinite.
Claims 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 12-13 and 15-16 recite temperature and humidity requirements for issuing a warning, but parent independent claims 1 and 7 recite “when the computation module determines that the risk factor is the high virus infection risk, and a virus species suitable for transmission at the test environment temperature and the test environment humidity is assessed, a warning module issues a warning about the high virus infection risk” (at claim 1) and “a warning module, connected to the computation module, the warning module issuing a warning about the virus species that is assessed as the high virus infection risk by the computation module” (at claim 7). Therefore, at independent claims 1 and 7 the warning is provided when there is an assessment or analysis that there is a high virus infection risk (without concern of, or regardless of, temperature and/or humidity requirements), whereas dependent claims 12-13 and 15-16 supplant or replace that triggering of a warning by requiring all three of a high virus infection risk, a temperature lower than either 30° C or 22° C, and also a humidity greater than 90% or lower than 50%.
Therefore, claims 12-13 and 15-16 fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As a remedy, the Examiner suggests amending the independent claims to recite that the warning module is invoked “based at least in part” on the assessment or analysis that there is a high virus infection risk.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 7, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a method (claims 1 and 11-13) and a detector (claims 7 and 14-16), which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a method for assessment of a virus infection risk, comprising the following steps: obtaining at least one control CO2 value and at least one test CO2 value through a receiving module, and analyzing the control CO2 value and the test CO2 value through a computation module to obtain at least one CO2 impact value; wherein, the CO2 impact value is assessed by a difference value between the control CO2 value and the test CO2 value: the control CO2 value is a preset value measured in a first environment, and the test CO2 value is measured in a second environment: obtaining at least one control PM2.5 value and at least one test PM2.5 value through the receiving module, and analyzing the control PM2.5 value and the test PM2.5 value through the computation module to obtain at least one PM2.5 impact value; wherein, the PM2.5 impact value is assessed by a difference value between the control PM2.5 value and the test PM2.5 value: the control PM2.5 value is a preset value measured in the first environment, and the test PM2.5 value is measured in the second environment: analyzing the CO2 impact value and PM2.5 impact value through the computation module to obtain at least one risk factor, wherein when the risk factor is less than a set value, it is determined as a low virus infection risk; when the risk factor is greater than the set value, it is determined as a high virus infection risk, and obtaining at least one test environment temperature and at least one test environment humidity through the receiving module, wherein when the computation module determines that the risk factor is the high virus infection risk, and a virus species suitable for transmission at the test environment temperature and the test environment humidity is assessed, a warning module issues a warning about the high virus infection risk of the virus species suitable for transmission and further obtaining at least one control PM10 value and at least one test PM10 value through the receiving module, and analyzing the control PM10 value and the test PM10 value through the computation module to obtain a PM10 impact value, wherein when the PM2.5 impact value is greater than the PM10 impact value, it is determined as data distortion, and the PM10 impact value replaces the PM2.5 impact value to be used to in the analysis of the risk factor wherein, the first environment is an open outdoor space, and the second environment is different from the first environment wherein, when the difference value of CO2 belongs to a first CO2 range, the CO2 impact value is determined as low impact; when the difference value of CO2 belongs to a second CO2range, the CO2 impact value is determined as medium impact; and when the difference value of CO2 belongs to a third CO2 range, the CO2 impact value is determined as high impact; a difference value of the first CO2 range is lower than a difference value of the second CO2 range, and a difference value of the second CO2 range is lower than a difference value of the third CO2 range: wherein, when the difference value of PM2.5 belongs to a first PM2.5 range, the PM2.5 impact value is determined as low impact; when the difference value of PM2.5 belongs to a second PM2.5 range, the PM2.5 impact value is determined as is medium impact; and when the difference value of PM2.5 belongs to a third PM2.5 range, the PM2.5 impact value is determined as high impact; a difference value of the first PM2.5 range is lower than a difference value of the second PM2.5 range, and a difference value of the second PM2.5 range is lower than a difference value of the third PM2.5 range wherein, when one of the C02 impact value and the PM2.5 impact value is determined as high impact, or when both of the C02 impact value and the PM2.5 impact value are determined as medium impact, the risk factor represents the high virus infection risk.
Independent claim 7 is analyzed in the same manner as claim 1, being directed to a portable detector for assessment of a virus infection risk, comprising: a receiving module, including a CO2 sensor, a PM2.5 sensor, a temperature sensor and a humidity sensor for performing the same or similar activities as at claim 1.
The dependent claims (claims 11-16) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate the environments the range values for CO2 and PM2.5 (claims 11 and 14), and temperature and humidity criteria for either Covid-19 or Influenza viruses (claims 12-13 and 15-16).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of classifying an environment as capable of being a high virus infection risk by using measured values (or measuring values); however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the following grouping(s) of subject matter:
Mathematical concepts (e.g., relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations) as based on comparing the test and control values, and comparing the values to ranges; and
Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) as based on the capability to observe and/or evaluate the values so as to form and provide an opinion or judgment regarding risk of virus transmission for infection.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are obtaining … through a receiving module, analyzing … through a computation module, and warning through a warning module (at claim 1), a portable detector … comprising: a receiving module, including a CO2 sensor, a PM2.5 sensor, a temperature sensor and a humidity sensor [and] a computation module, connected to the receiving module, the computation module to perform the functions (at claim 7). These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility. In fact, there appears to be no description or illustration related to any computers, sensors, detectors, etc. that may be used – there is only mention of a “portable detector” as claimed, but without any further description or indication of invention. The only indication the Examiner finds is Fig. 1 described as “the structure of a portable device” (Applicant ¶ 0020, as submitted), but merely reciting the receiving, computation, and warning modules – the receiving module indicated as including the sensors and a wireless receiver. The only change or advantage indicated is that the portable detector has “the advantage of easy portability” (Applicant ¶¶ 0002, 0018, and 0044) and may be “easy to carry” (Applicant ¶ 0018); however, “portable” is not necessarily synonymous with the term handheld or similar concepts related to “easy portability” or “easy to carry” – a semi tractor-trailer, for example, is portable but not very easy to carry. The claims encompass all “portable” detectors, regardless how hard they may be to move.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 7, and 11-16 are indicated as allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Gamroth et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0010693, hereinafter Gamroth) is considered the closest prior art of record, disclosing the monitoring of control and test environment air parameters (“including: carbon dioxide (CO2), particle pollution (e.g., PM10-2.5, PM2.5, etc.), … temperature, …, humidity, or any combination thereof” and including “outside air sensors 512, supply air sensors 522, building zone sensors 524” – Gamroth at 0083, see also 0084) as well as thresholds for the air characteristics (Gamroth at 0113). However, Gamroth discusses air quality in general rather than as part of a virus infection risk analysis, and the air quality analysis of Gamroth is apparently regarding absolute values rather than the impact values now indicated to be the difference between the control and test values for CO2 and PM2.5. Where Gamroth does mention comparing control (outside) air characteristics to indoor/stored air (Gamroth at 0102), the mention is only theoretical and no actual calculation of a comparison is made.
Schoch (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0136730, hereinafter Schoch) teaches “analyzing real-time measurements of a plurality of air quality sensors to calculate an overall airborne virus infection risk score” (Schoch at 0008) to indicate a low, medium, and high risk, based CO2 and PM 2.5 (Schoch at 0058) as well as providing warnings (Schoch at 0067-0068).
Aliakseyeu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0154517, hereinafter Aliakseyeu) teaches that it “enables advice to be provided based on the difference between indoor and outdoor air quality” (Aliakseyeu at 0019), where a remote terminal can be provided “actual pollution levels or other quality information (temperature, humidity, CO2 levels etc.)” (Aliakseyeu at 0037), and perhaps using sensors, where “different types of sensor are needed depending on the particular pollutants that may be experienced. Such sensors are also used by air purifiers, which aim to reduce particles (e.g. PM10, PM2.5) and some chemical substances (CO, SO2)” (Aliakseyeu at 0124), but generally to a “system … able to provide advice to a user about whether or not to open or close a door or window” (Aliakseyeu at 0014) and does not appear to discuss disease or virus infection.
The Examiner notes that the instant claims apparently only determine infection risk based on the comparison (i.e., difference in readings) of control air characteristics (i.e., outdoor air) to test air – such that, when or if the outdoor/control quality is poor, the test environment air may also be quite poor quality and still be determined as low infection risk. Conversely, it also appears that rather pure/clean control/outdoor air may indicate fairly “normal” test air quality to register as high infection risk. This to say that the instant claims do not appear to calculate risk of infection based on absolute air quality in the test environment. As such, it seems that in many instances of prior art it appears unreasonable to combine references to arrive at the claimed invention. Based on the number of references that would be required, and the specific claim requirements of only considering the difference in air quality of control and test environments, it appears unreasonable to combine the prior art of record to arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues support and the 112 rejections (Remarks at 8-13); however, the amendment appears to overcome the previous 112 rejections. Therefore, the previous 112 rejections are withdrawn (noting the new rejections based on the current claim phrasing), and the arguments are considered moot and not persuasive.
Applicant then argues the 101 rejection (Id. at 13-15), alleging that since the specification indicates or “defines” certain terms (0007 indicating virus infection, 0027 defining risk factor, 0039 defining ranges, 0040 defining levels of risk factor, 0041 indicating a “high or medium” risk factor means a high risk of virus infection, and 0042-0044 defining conditions for spreading Covid-19 or Influenza), “this claimed invention integrates the claimed features into a practical application” (Id. at 13-14, emphasis omitted). However, merely defining terms and alleging support does not indicate a practical application. A practical application may possibly be established through the elements additional to the abstract idea itself, but in the instant case, those elements are not related to the indicated terms and/or support – the additional elements are merely applying the abstract idea via the use of computers that are apparently merely generic in nature.
Applicant then argues that “definite definition[s] … [are] not well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements” (Id. at 14); however, the terms and whether they are “definite” or not are part of the abstract idea and not additional elements that are considered for WURC (well-understood, routine, conventional) analysis. The claims literally designate data to be obtained (CO2, PM2.5, temperature, humidity, and PM10 measurements at claim 1, elements 1, 2, 4, and 5), analyze that data by performing various calculations (at claim 1, elements 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8), designate a label or name based on the range the analysis result falls into (at claim 1, elements 3, 7, 8, and 9), and if the result is “high” final result a warning is issued (at claim 1, elements 4 and 9). Applicant appears to be arguing prior art analysis should be applied – that since others have not claimed or discussed the particular data in particular ranges, that the general mathematical calculations performed are somehow (magically) eligible. However, prior art analysis is distinct and separate from eligibility analysis.
Applicant then argues that “amended claims 1 and 7 further recite a calibration mechanism” in using PM10 values in place of PM2.5 values under certain conditions (Remarks at 14, emphasis omitted). However, this does not appear to calibrate anything – it merely replaces one set of data with another set of data when Applicant has (for some reason) decided that the replacement data (i.e., PM10 data) is “better” – designating the PM2.5 data as having “data distortion” regardless of whether there is any distortion of any form in any data. In fact, if there is a data sensor failure (as Applicant alleges at p. 14) in the control environment PM10 sensor, then that sensor would apparently measure zero for the control, inherently increasing the PM10 impact value and either enable or force the use of the distorted PM10 rather than the correct data for PM2.5. Applicant’s argument is not believable.
Applicant finally argues that “the claimed invention is applied in a limited field/environment as evaluating the infection risk for virus” (Id. at 15). However, this is not true. First, in order for there to be any risk of infection, there apparently would need to be some presence or source of infection, such as a presence or source of a virus. The claims do NOT indicate ever detecting or determining whether there is any presence or source of virus. Second, the claims do not measure virus infection or transmission – the claims only measure various other air quality metrics (CO2, PM2.5, temperature, humidity, and PM10 measurements). These metrics may (or may not) have correlation, or statistically significant correlation, to some capability or risk for transmission or infection related to viruses in general, but the claims merely measure the indicated metrics and LABEL the result as “virus infection risk” without actually measuring any risk of virus infection.
Applicant then argues the prior art rejections (Remarks at 15-18); however, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are considered moot and not persuasive.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10), California Air Resources Board, downloaded from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health on 4 March 2025, indicating that PM2.5 is particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, and similarly PM10 is particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less.
Woodbury, et al., "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Feedlot Surface Materials as Affected by Diet, Moisture, Temperature, and Time" (2018). Biological Systems Engineering: Papers and Publications. Transactions of the ASABE 571 Vol. 61(2): 571-582. ISSN 2151-0032. Downloaded 6 March 2025 from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1566&context=biosysengfacpub, indicating significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including CO2, at beef cattle feedlots.
Carbon Dioxide Levels Chart, from CO2 Meter, dated 30 June 2025, downloaded from https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/carbon-dioxide-indoor-levels-chart?srsltid=AfmBOop2niUZxPF3EiuU435ChbWeaLrmHeROlI74mfH-LDiUr4J2o0qq on14 January 2026, indicating common and/or acceptable CO2 levels for indoor and outdoor spaces.
What are safe levels of CO and CO2 in rooms? From Kane Co., dated 24 March 2016, downloaded 14 January 2026 via the Archive.org WayBack Machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20160324053534/https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms, indicating safe levels of CO2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 571-272-6702. 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685