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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to amendment filed 04/08/2026. Applicant's arguments have been carefully and fully considered but they are not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-11, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AirTest (Datasheet: “CN7232 Advanced Garage Ventilation Controller” [online]. April 27, 2013– hereinafter AirTest) in view of Scholten (US20100063641A1 -hereinafter Scholten).
Regarding claim 1, AirTest teaches:
A parking garage having a ventilation control system operating ventilation fans to control ambient gases within the parking garage (see page 2; AirTest teaches the smart controller CN7232 controls enclosed vehicle facilities to maximize savings for operating energy (kWh) and peak energy (kW demand) particularly for fans using VFDs (Variable Speed Drives)), the parking garage comprising:
a plurality of gas concentration measuring sensor devices located in specific gas measurement zones in a parking garage; (see page 2 and CN7232-VFD Controller Configuration section of page 7; AirTest teaches selecting gases to be measured and number of sensors required: CO (TR2000), NO2 (TR3210-NO2), Combustibles (TR5200), CO2 (TR9293). All gases will be measured in the same locations. Each gas location should cover 5,000 to 7000 sq ft, to a max of 10,000 sq ft. Up to 32 sensors can be accommodated in one CN7232.)
a measurement timing system configured to divide a measurement time into equal intervals (see page 7, step E; AirTest teaches about setting Measurement Time Averaging period in minutes (default is 2 minutes) by using the CN7332. Since Measurement Time Averaging (defining a predetermined gas measurement time) obtains by adding together several equal time intervals and then dividing this total by the number of time intervals, it corresponds to ‘dividing said gas measurement time into equal time intervals B’. Therefore, the CN7332 corresponds to ‘a predetermined measurement timing device’);
a fan speed controller operably associated with a plurality of ventilation fans disposed throughout the parking garage for controlling ambient gases within the parking garage (see page 5, right column; AirTest: “Variable Speed Drives were installed on all fans with control provided by an AirTest CN7232 controller with 25 AirTest TR2000 CO sensors used to detect automobile activity.”), the fan speed controller configured for setting base fan speed at a minimum base speed value (see page 7, step C; AirTest teaches about setting Base Setting Operating Mode (the minimum base) by using CN7332 controller. A base fan speed is selected that operates whenever the space is occupied and below gas set point level. The minimum base speed should be 25%);
a controller operably associated with the sensor devices, the fan speed controller, and the measurement timing system (see page 8, CN7232-On/Off Controller Configuration section, first paragraph; AirTest: “Each gas location should cover 5,000 to 7000 sq ft, to a max of 10,000 sq ft. Up to 32 sensors can be accommodated in one CN7232.”), the controller configured for setting minimum and maximum gas concentration values… (see step C and the chart of page 7; AirTest teaches setting Base Setting Operating Mode. A gas set point level for the Base Setting is selected (e.g. 10 ppm). See step D and the chart of page 7; AirTest teaches the upper gas ppm level is the maximum gas concentration. The maximum gas concentration can be set at 35 ppm or 50ppm. All set uses the Controller keypad and display of CN7332 controller)
the controller configured to receive gas concentration value data from the plurality of gas concentration sensors (see CN7232-VFD Controller Configuration section of page 7; AirTest teaches selecting gases to be measured and number of sensors required: CO (TR2000), NO2 (TR3210-NO2), Combustibles (TR5200), CO2 (TR9293). Default assumption is that all gases will be measured in the same locations. Each gas location should cover 5,000 to 7000 sq ft, to a max of 10,000 sq ft. Up to 32 sensors can be accommodated in one CN7232. Therefore, CN7232 can receive input data (gas concentration value) from gas sensors to control the gas sensors located in gas measurement zones (gas locations) at the Measurement Time Averaging period in minutes (including equal time intervals)) and for calculating average gas concentration values of the data received from the plurality of gas sensors; (see step D of page 7; AirTest teaches the control signal will be based on the average high concentration measured over X minutes (default is 2 minutes). Since the control signal uses the average high concentration measured in Measurement Time Averaging ((including equal time intervals), it corresponds to ‘calculating average gas concentration values’ to choose the average high concentration measured’)
the controller configured for comparing average gas concentration values calculated at each time interval (see step D of page 7; AirTest teaches the control signal will be based on the average high concentration measured over X minutes (default is 2 minutes). Since the control signal uses the average high concentration measured in Measurement Time Averaging ((including equal time intervals), it corresponds to ‘comparing the average gas concentration values’ to select the average high concentration) and for setting the highest value of the average gas concentration values as a high-average gas concentration value (see step D of page 7; AirTest teaches the control signal will be based on the average high concentration measured over X minutes (default is 2 minutes). Therefore, ‘the average high concentration’ corresponds to ‘high-average gas concentration value’), and for comparing the minimum gas concentration value with the high-average gas concentration value; (see steps C and the chart of page 7; AirTest teaches ‘comparing the minimum gas concentration value (gas set point level for the Base Setting) with the high-average gas concentration value (gas/Carbon Monoxide (CO) concentration)
the controller further configured for maintaining the fan speed at the minimum base speed when the high-average concentration value is less than or equal to the minimum gas concentration value (see the chart of page 7; AirTest teaches three different settings for the two operational modes above are shown in the chart. When the high-average gas concentration value (CO Concentration) equal to greater than the maximum gas concentration threshold value (the upper gas ppm level), the VFD Fan Speed operates 100 percent of full motor capacity), and for adjusting fan speed from the minimum base speed value by increasing the fan speed for gas concentration values exceeding the high-average gas concentration value until the high-average gas concentration value reaches the maximum gas concentration value (see page 7, step D; AirTest teaches once the base gas set point level is exceeded the fans will proportionately ramp up to a user defined maximum fan speed and target maximum gas level (maximum gas concentration value)); and
the controller configured for operating the fan units at a constant speed when the high-average gas concentration value is equal to or greater than the maximum gas concentration threshold value (see the chart of page 7; AirTest teaches three different settings for the two operational modes above are shown in the chart. When the high-average gas concentration value (CO Concentration) equal to greater than the maximum gas concentration threshold value (the upper gas ppm level), the VFD Fan Speed operates 100 percent of full motor capacity);
However, AirTest does not explicitly teach:
… taking into account occupancy and use of the parking garage;
and the controller configured for measuring and storing a record of actual energy use during a selected energy monitoring time frame.
Scholten from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
… taking into account occupancy and use of the parking garage; (see [0039]; Scholten: “CO2 management—American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards require CO2 management of occupied spaces to ensure sufficient fresh air is maintained for the number of occupants in the space. Typically, this is provided by CO2 sensors that measure total CO2 in the space and adjusts the fresh air systems accordingly. The lag in these control systems causes significant energy wastage. ASHRAE provides alternative strategies based on actual occupancy. Asset aware network systems may be used to provide accurate occupancy numbers based on strategically positioned cameras and people counting algorithms within the AAN-S.” See [0042]: “actual occupancy data of parking garages can be used to modulate parking lighting to further reduce energy.”)
and the controller configured for measuring and storing a record of actual energy use during a selected energy monitoring time frame. (see [0055]; Scholten: “Historical usage information of a particular person or an area of the building or facility may be stored in one or more databases 74. Such historical information may be used to predict expected energy demands and/or optimize the energy utilization of various devices of the building or facility. Artificial intelligence (genetic algorithms and fuzzy logic) using the historical information allows the ADR (68, 70 and/or 72) to become smarter over time and to improve the overall energy costs of the building or facility.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of AirTest to include Scholten’s features of taking into account occupancy and use of the parking garage; and the controller configured for measuring and storing a record of actual energy use during a selected energy monitoring time frame. Doing so would improve energy utilization of a large building or facility. (Scholten, [0002])
Regarding to Claim 2, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 1, AirTest further teaches wherein the controller is configured for increasing the fan speed based upon a selected speed adjustment function. (see page 7, step D; AirTest teaches once the base gas set point level is exceeded the fans will proportionately ramp up to a user defined maximum fan speed and target maximum gas level (maximum gas concentration value))
Regarding to Claim 4, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 1, Scholten further teaches wherein the controller is configured for calculating and predicting energy savings for the parking garage. (see [0055]; Scholten: “Historical usage information of a particular person or an area of the building or facility may be stored in one or more databases 74. Such historical information may be used to predict expected energy demands and/or optimize the energy utilization of various devices of the building or facility. Artificial intelligence (genetic algorithms and fuzzy logic) using the historical information allows the ADR (68, 70 and/or 72) to become smarter over time and to improve the overall energy costs of the building or facility.”)
The same motivation to combine AirTest and Scholten a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 4.
Regarding to Claim 6, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 1, AirTest further teaches wherein the controller is configured for selecting minimum and maximum ambient gas concentration values for at least one of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. (see CN7232-VFD Controller Configuration section of page 7; AirTest teaches selecting gases to be measured and number of sensors required: CO (TR2000), NO2 (TR3210-NO2), Combustibles (TR5200), CO2 (TR9293). See the step C and the chart of page 7; AirTest teaches the low gas concentration is set at 10 ppm. See the chart of the page 7; AirTest teaches the upper gas ppm level (the maximum gas concentration) is set at 35 ppm. See page 3; AirTest teaches the NO2 transmitters electrochemical can measure from 0 ppm to 10 ppm.)
Regarding to Claim 7, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 6, AirTest further teaches wherein the controller is configured for selecting the maximum gas concentration value of between 25.00 ppm and 45.00 ppm for carbon monoxide (see the chart of the page 7; AirTest teaches the upper gas ppm level (the maximum gas concentration) is set at 35 ppm) and between 5.0 ppm and 10.0 ppm for nitrogen dioxide (see page 3; AirTest teaches the NO2 transmitters electrochemical can measure from 0 ppm to 10 ppm. Therefore, the maximum value of the NO2 transmitters electrochemical (10 ppm) is between 5.0 ppm and 10.0 ppm).
Regarding to Claim 8, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 1, AirTest further teaches wherein the measurement timing system is configured so that the gas measurement time is set at a value of between 60 seconds and 180 seconds. (see step E of page 7; AirTest teaches the Measurement Time Averaging period in 2 minutes (120 seconds))
Regarding to Claim 9, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 1, AirTest further teaches wherein the controller is configured for setting the base fan motor speed at between 14% and 38% of fan full capacity. (see Step C and the chart of page 7; AirTest teaches the minimum base speed value should be 25%)
Regarding to Claim 10, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 6, AirTest further teaches wherein the controller is configured for selecting minimum and maximum gas concentration values of both carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. (see CN7232-VFD Controller Configuration section of page 7; AirTest teaches selecting gases to be measured and number of sensors required: CO (TR2000), NO2 (TR3210-NO2), Combustibles (TR5200), CO2 (TR9293). See the step C and the chart of page 7; AirTest teaches the low gas concentration is set at 10 ppm. See the chart of the page 7; AirTest teaches the upper gas ppm level (the maximum gas concentration) is set at 35 ppm. See page 3; AirTest teaches the NO2 transmitters electrochemical can measure from 0 ppm to 10 ppm.)
Regarding to Claim 11, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 7, AirTest further teaches wherein the controller is configured to adjust fan speed for every additional 1 ppm of high-average gas concentration value above the minimum gas concentration value. (see page 7, step D; AirTest teaches once the base gas set point level is exceeded the fans will proportionately ramp up to a user defined maximum fan speed and target maximum gas level (maximum gas concentration value))
Regarding to Claim 13, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 1, AirTest further teaches wherein the controller is configured to continuously operate the fans. (see page 7, step 3 of Sequence of Operation section; AirTest: “VFD runs continuously at Base fan speed (C) unless levels exceed the Base CO level (C).”)
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of AirTest and Scholten as discussed connection with claim 1.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over AirTest in view of Scholten further in view of Chang (US 20100219784 A1 -hereinafter Chang).
Regarding to Claim 3, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 2; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the speed selection function is one of a linear function, a non-linear function, or combination of a linear function and a non-linear function.
Chang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the speed selection function is one of a linear function, a non-linear function, or combination of a linear function and a non-linear function (see Abstract; Chang: “When the ambient temperature is higher than the higher temperature, the rotation speed of the motor is a linear function of the temperature and varies between the higher temperature and a maximum temperature corresponding to the full rotation speed of the motor.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of AirTest and Scholten to include Chang’s features of adjusting fan speed based upon a linear function. Doing so would easily control the rotation speed of the motor in order to save energy and reduce annoying noise. (Chang, [0005])
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of AirTest, Scholten, and Chang as discussed connection with claim 3.
Claims 5, 16, and 18 is rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over AirTest in view of Scholten further in view of Graham et al. (NPL: “Contribution of Vehicle Emissions from an Attached Garage to Residential Indoor Air Pollution Levels” (2004) – hereinafter Graham).
Regarding to Claim 5, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 4, Scholten further teaches wherein the controller is configured for calculating and predicting the energy savings (see [0055]; Scholten: “Such historical information may be used to predict expected energy demands and/or optimize the energy utilization of various devices of the building or facility. Artificial intelligence (genetic algorithms and fuzzy logic) using the historical information allows the ADR (68, 70 and/or 72) to become smarter over time and to improve the overall energy costs of the building or facility.”) …length of time taken to exit the parking garage (see [0035]; Scholten: “This data may include information such as a person count into and out of an area, the number of people assembling in certain areas, periods of time people stay assembled in certain areas, number of cars entering and leaving parking facilities, and the like.”) …
However, it does not explicitly teach: …taking into account vehicle mixes for warm and cold start conditions (see page 564, right column; Graham: “The vehicle emission profiles and emission rates and the in-house concentration profiles were then used in two different computer modeling activities (1) to estimate the magnitude of the vehicle emission contribution to observed indoor concentrations using chemical mass balance (CMB) modeling and (2) to predict indoor concentrations based on the physical and airflow characteristics of the home, the vehicle emission rates, and the prevailing meteorological conditions using CONTAM96”. See page 564, right column; Graham: “the cold-start and hot-start tailpipe emissions and hot-soak evaporative emissions were of interest.”), and ambient temperature. (See page 566, left column; Graham: “All of the vehicle exhaust was collected and mixed with ambient air in a constant volume sampling system as described in the FTP to determine mass emission rates.”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of AirTest and Scholten to include Graham’s features of taking into account predicted vehicle mixes for warm and cold start conditions and ambient temperature. Doing so would determine potential harm of toxic substances to human health in order to control potential infiltration from the attached garage. (Graham, page 564, left column)
Claims 16 contain similar limitations to those in claims 1 and 5 are rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of AirTest, Scholten, and Graham as discussed connection with claim 5.
Claims 12 is rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over AirTest in view of Scholten further in view of Dumicich et al. (AU 2013101580 A4– hereinafter Dumicich).
Regarding to Claim 12, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 1, AirTest further teaches wherein the controller is configured to control fan speed wherein the fans comprise primary …fan motor units and secondary fan motor units. (see page 8, CN7232-On/Off Controller Configuration section; AirTest teaches a garage can operate up to 6 zones. For each zone we can provide single stage or dual stage relays. The dual can be used with 2 speed fans. Therefore, one of different zones with speed fans corresponds to ‘secondary fan motor units’).
However, it does not explicitly teach exhaust and supply fan motor units.
Dumicich from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches exhaust and supply fan motor units (see page 2, lines 29-30; Dumicich teaches about one or more of the supply, exhaust and/or impulse ventilation fans).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of AirTest and Scholten with the above teachings of Dumicich to substitute the types of fans to another to achieve the predictable result of providing a ventilation system for an enclosed space. (Dumicich, page 2, lines 12-13)
Claims 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over AirTest in view of Scholten in view of Graham further in view of Cho et al. (NPL: "Energy Saving Potentials of Ventilation Controls Based on Real-time Vehicle Detection in Underground Parking Facilities." (2013) -hereinafter Cho).
Regarding to Claim 14, the combination of AirTest, Scholten, and Graham teaches the limitations as described in claim 5; however, it does not explicitly teach further comprising a display operatively associated with the controller for displaying energy savings of the parking garage as compared to predicted energy savings.
Cho from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising a display operatively associated with the controller for displaying energy savings of the parking garage as compared to predicted energy savings. (see page 338, left column, second paragraph; Cho: “Fan energy was reduced 33~37% in continuous operation mode of DCV compared to the constant volume control-CVC operation by controlling the ventilation air flow according to the traffic load, the indoor contaminant source (Fig. 6.2).” See page 338, right column, second paragraph: “ASHRAE Handbook 2007 forecasts different vehicle CO emissions for summer and winter. Simulations were carries out regarding fan energy savings by nation and average indoor CO concentration based upon ASHRAE manual according to the DCV application in underground parking facilities.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of AirTest and Scholten to include Cho’s features of comprising a display operatively associated with the controller for displaying energy savings of the parking garage as compared to predicted energy savings. Doing so would achieve energy savings and good indoor air quality simultaneously. (Cho, page 339, right column, first paragraph)
Regarding to Claim 15, the combination of AirTest and Scholten teaches the limitations as described in claim 1, Scholten further teaches wherein the controller is configured to predict, optimize, record… (see [0055]; Scholten: “Historical usage information of a particular person or an area of the building or facility may be stored in one or more databases 74. Such historical information may be used to predict expected energy demands and/or optimize the energy utilization of various devices of the building or facility. Artificial intelligence (genetic algorithms and fuzzy logic) using the historical information allows the ADR (68, 70 and/or 72) to become smarter over time and to improve the overall energy costs of the building or facility.”)
However, it does not explicitly teach …and display energy savings based upon continuous operation of the fans.
Cho from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches…and display energy savings based upon continuous operation of the fans. (see Abstract; Cho: “the main topic of this paper is to show a possibility of indoor air quality enhancement and the fan energy savings in underground parking facilities by applying the demand-controlled ventilation (DCV) strategy based on the real-time variation of the traffic load”.)
The same motivation to combine AirTest, Scholten, and Cho a set forth for Claim 14 equally applies to Claim 15.
Claims 19 contain similar limitations to those in claims 14 and 15 are rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on page 5 of the Amendment:
“A. AirTest Does Not Teach the Claimed "High-Average Gas Concentration Value" Methodology”
The Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. The Office respectfully reminds the Appellant that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, when construing the scope of the claims, the Office is bound to consider the features being recited in the claims, but cannot incorporate the description of the Specification into the claims. Moreover, paragraph 70 lists that this is an embodiment of the invention while paragraph 136 explicitly discloses “spirit and scope of the claims should not be limited to the description of the preferred version contained therein”. This statement means that the disclosure in paragraphs 69-70 should not be read into the claims by the specifications own admission.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on pages 6 and 8 of the Amendment:
“B. Scholten Teaches Away from Gas Concentration-Based Control and Addresses a Fundamentally Different Problem
“C. Scholten Is Not Analogous Art “
In response to applicant's argument that Scholten is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The understanding of the problem, based on applicant’s description, is setting a gas concentration range considering occupancy and the use of parking garage. Airtest disclose setting the base/minimum and maximum gas concentration while Scholten discloses maintaining required CO2 for the actual occupancy data of parking garages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the maintaining the required CO2 of Scholten in the system of Airtest to improve energy utilization of a large building or facility. In turn, because the maintaining required CO2 based on actual occupancy data of parking garages when used in the system of Airtest has predicted expected energy demands and/or optimize the energy utilization of various devices of the building or facility, it would have been obvious.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on pages 8 and 10 of the Amendment:
“D. Scholten Does Not Disclose the Limitations the Office Action Relies Upon It to Maintain an Obviousness Rejection under KSR
E. A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Not Have Combined AirTest and Scholten”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As the explained in the above response, Airtest disclose setting the base/minimum and maximum gas concentration while Scholten discloses maintaining required CO2 for the actual occupancy data of parking garages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the maintaining the required CO2 of Scholten in the system of Airtest to improve energy utilization of a large building or facility. In turn, because the maintaining required CO2 based on actual occupancy data of parking garages when used in the system of Airtest has predicted expected energy demands and/or optimize the energy utilization of various devices of the building or facility, it would have been obvious.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on page 11 of the Amendment:
“A. Chang Is Not Analogous Art”
In response to applicant's argument that Scholten is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The understanding of the problem, based on applicant’s description, is selecting speed function from a linear function, a non-linear function, or both. Airtest discloses increasing the fan speed based upon a selected speed adjustment function while Chang teaches the rotation speed of the motor is a linear function when the motor operates at the second/cooling mode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the linear function of Chang in the system of Airtest to easily control the speed in order to save energy and reduce annoying noise.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on pages 12-13 of the Amendment:
“A. Dumicich Discloses Impulse Ventilation, Not Ducted Exhaust and Supply Systems.
B. AirTest's "Dual-Stage Relays" Are Not Fan Motor Units”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner interpreted speed fans of 6 zones of AirTest read on ‘primary fan motor units and secondary fan motor units.’ Then, Dumicich teaches about one or more of the supply, exhaust and/or ventilation fans. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the linear function of Dumicich in the system of Airtest to substitute the supply, exhaust and/or ventilation fans to another to achieve the predictable result of providing a ventilation system for an enclosed space.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on pages 13-15 of the Amendment:
“A. Graham Is Not Analogous Art
B. Graham Does Not Teach the Claimed Vehicle Mix and Ambient Temperature Modeling Factors
C. The Motivation to Combine AirTest, Scholten, and Graham Is Not Articulated”
In response to applicant's argument that Graham is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Scholten discloses calculating and predicting, and optimizing the energy demands and the energy utilization of various devices by using information such as period of time people stay assembled in certain areas, number of cars entering and leaving parking facilities, and the like. Besides, Graham discloses predicting indoor concentrations based on the cold-start and hot-start tailpipe emissions and hot-soak evaporative emissions. Graham further discloses collects and mix the vehicle exhaust with ambient air. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of AirTest to calculating and predicting, and optimizing the energy demands and the energy utilization of various devices by using information of Scholten and predicting indoor concentrations based on the cold-start and hot-start tailpipe emissions and hot-soak evaporative emissions and collects and mix the vehicle exhaust with ambient air to determine potential harm of toxic substances to human health and control potential infiltration from the attached garage as taught by Graham.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on pages 16-17 of the Amendment:
“A. Cho Does Not Teach a Controller-Integrated Display of Actual Versus Predicted Energy Savings
B. Cho's Own Findings Reinforce the Teaching-Away Argument Against the Combination
C. The Motivation to Combine Is Inadequate”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The understanding of the problem, based on applicant’s description, is displaying the energy savings of the parking garage and comparing the energy savings of the parking garage to predicted energy savings. Cho comparing the fan energy saving of the garage while Cho discloses simulation regarding fan energy savings and average indoor CO concentration based upon ASHRAE manual. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try the comparing and simulating the energy savings of Cho in the system of Airtest to easily control the speed in order to achieve energy savings and good indoor air quality simultaneously.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saunders (US11079126B2) discloses controlling the fan so as deliver air in compliance to ASHRAE Standards and allows for the owner/occupant to have control over the indoor environment
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 VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights