Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 12-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippert (DE 202004008792 U1) in view of Davis (US 10229394 B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Lippert teaches a gas mitigation system (the system of FIG. 1) for reducing a concentration of a gas within a building, the gas mitigation system comprising: a duct (FIG. 1, collective exhaust pipe 10) defining a channel (FIG. 1, the channel within the collective exhaust pipe 10) therein, the channel extending between an inlet (FIG. 1, the inlet of air elements 17) and an outlet (FIG. 1, exhaust air outlet 8), the inlet being positioned in flow communication with a ground pit (FIG. 1, room 16) positioned at least partially beneath the building, the outlet being positioned above the inlet and outside of the building; a fan assembly (FIG. 1, fan 4) for inducing a flow of air through the inlet into the channel, and exhausting the flow of air out of the outlet, the fan assembly comprising a fan (FIG. 1, fan 4) coupled in flow communication with the channel and a motor (FIG. 1, fan motor 5) operably coupled to the fan.
Lippert fails to teach a sensor configured to detect an operating parameter of the fan assembly, the detected operating parameter including at least one of the flow of air within the channel and vibrations generated by operation of the fan assembly; and a processor in communication with the sensor and a memory storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive the operating parameter detected by the sensor; and transmit an alert based upon the operating parameter.
However, Davis teaches a sensor (col. 4, l. 39, the flow rate sensor) configured to detect an operating parameter of the fan assembly, the detected operating parameter including at least one of the flow of air within the channel and vibrations generated by operation of the fan assembly; and a processor in communication with the sensor and a memory storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive the operating parameter detected by the sensor; and transmit an alert based upon the operating parameter (FIG. 5, steps 502 and 518 detail a process where sensor data is used to make a determination, after which an alert is sent to a user).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lippert by including an airflow sensor and other sensors of Davis and an alert system, as taught by Davis, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lippert with these aforementioned teachings of Davis with the motivation of allowing the system to notify a user when there is a malfunction.
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 19, the combination of Lippert and Davis teaches that the sensor is an airflow sensor positioned at least partially within the duct, the airflow sensor being configured to detect the flow of air within the channel (Davis, col. 4, the airflow sensor is placed in an airflow section (e.g., a duct)).
Regarding claims 3, 14, and 20, the combination of Lippert and Davis teaches that executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: compare the detected airflow to a predetermined airflow threshold; determine, based upon the comparison, that the detected airflow is less than the predetermined airflow threshold; and transmit the alert in response to the determination (Davis, FIG. 5, 506, the determination is made by comparing sensor data to a threshold).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the combination of Lippert and Davis teaches that the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to transmit the alert over a wireless communications network to a remote terminal, wherein the alert causes at least one of an auditory, visual, and haptic notification at the remote terminal indicating that the fan assembly is not operational (Davis, FIG. 5, step 518, col. 23, ll. 36-56, a visual notification including data is sent over a network).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lippert and Davis teaches that the sensor is a motion sensor coupled to the fan assembly, the motion sensor being configured to detect vibrations generated by operation of the fan assembly (Davis, col. 5, ll. 41-50, vibration sensors may pick up motor vibration (e.g., a fan motor)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lippert and Davis teaches that the instructions, when, executed by the processor, further cause the processor to perform a condition monitoring analysis of the vibrations detected by the motion sensor, wherein the alert is transmitted based upon the condition monitoring analysis (Davis, FIG. 5, the steps, in the combination above, may be used to send alerts based on the detected vibrations).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lippert and Davis teaches that the fan assembly includes a housing defining an internal cavity, the fan and motor being positioned within the internal cavity (Lippert, FIG. 1, fan 4 and motor 5 are contained in a shell), and wherein the motion sensor is attached to the housing (in the combination above, the vibration sensor of Davis is attached to the motor, and therefore to its shell as part of the assembly).
Regarding claim 12, Lippert teaches a sensor assembly for use with a gas mitigation system (the system of FIG. 1) that includes a fan assembly (FIG. 1, fan 4) for inducing a flow of air through the gas mitigation system.
Lippert fails to teach the sensor assembly comprising: a sensor configured to detect an operating parameter of the fan assembly, the detected operating parameter including at least one of the flow of air through the gas mitigation system and vibrations generated by operation of the fan assembly; and a processor in communication with the sensor and a memory storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive the operating parameter detected by the sensor; and transmit an alert based upon the operating parameter.
However, Davis teaches the sensor assembly comprising: a sensor (col. 4, l. 39, the flow rate sensor) configured to detect an operating parameter of the fan assembly, the detected operating parameter including at least one of the flow of air through the gas mitigation system and vibrations generated by operation of the fan assembly; and a processor in communication with the sensor and a memory storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive the operating parameter detected by the sensor; and transmit an alert based upon the operating parameter (FIG. 5, steps 502 and 518 detail a process where sensor data is used to make a determination, after which an alert is sent to a user).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lippert by including an airflow sensor and other sensors of Davis and an alert system, as taught by Davis, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lippert with these aforementioned teachings of Davis with the motivation of allowing the system to notify a user when there is a malfunction.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lippert and Davis teaches that the sensor is a motion sensor coupled to the fan assembly, the motion sensor being configured to detect vibrations generated by operation of the fan assembly (Davis, col. 5, ll. 41-50, vibration sensors may pick up motor vibration (e.g., a fan motor)), and the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to perform a condition monitoring analysis of the vibrations detected by the motion sensor, wherein the alert is transmitted based upon the condition monitoring analysis (Davis, FIG. 5, the steps, in the combination above, may be used to send alerts based on the detected vibrations).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippert and Davis as applied to claims 1-4, 7-9, 12-15, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Roh (KR 20180076711 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lippert and Davis fails to teach a radioactive gas detector positioned within the channel, the radioactive gas detector being configured to detect a concentration of radioactive gas in the flow of air within the channel.
However, Roh teaches a radioactive gas detector positioned within the channel, the radioactive gas detector being configured to detect a concentration of radioactive gas in the flow of air within the channel (abstract, a sensor detects radioactive gas in the system).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lippert by including a radioactive gas sensor and an alert system, as taught by Roh, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lippert with these aforementioned teachings of Roh with the motivation of allowing the system to notify a user when there is a dangerous amount of radioactive gas.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lippert, Davis, and Roh teaches that the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: receive the detected concentration of radioactive gas in the airflow from the radioactive gas detector; compare the detected concentration to a predetermined radioactive gas concentration threshold; and generate an additional alert based upon the determination (Davis, FIG. 5, the steps, in the combination above, may be used to send alerts based on the presence of radioactive gas).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, the combination of Lippert and Davis teaches a probe housing attached to the duct and extending at least partially within the channel (Davis, col. 4, l. 39, the airflow sensor is placed within a duct and has an exterior structure (i.e., a housing)); wherein the sensor is an airflow sensor configured to detect the flow of air within the channel, and wherein the airflow sensor…and the wireless transmitter are each received in the probe housing.
The combination of Lippert and Davis fails to teach a radioactive gas detector being configured to detect a concentration of radioactive gas in the flow of air; and a wireless transmitter for transmitting the alert to a remote terminal over a wireless communications network
However, Roh teaches a radioactive gas detector being configured to detect a concentration of radioactive gas in the flow of air (abstract, a sensor detects radioactive gas in the system); and a wireless transmitter for transmitting the alert to a remote terminal over a wireless communications network (Davis, FIG. 5, the steps, in the combination above, may be used to send alerts based on the presence of radioactive gas).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lippert by including a radioactive gas sensor and an alert system, as taught by Roh, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lippert with these aforementioned teachings of Roh with the motivation of allowing the system to notify a user when there is a dangerous amount of radioactive gas.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippert and Davis as applied to claims 1-4, 7-9, 12-15, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Berg (US 20180202679 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lippert and Davis fails to teach that the motion sensor is an accelerometer.
However, Berg teaches that the motion sensor is an accelerometer (paragraph 22, the accelerometer 127(a) measures vibration).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lippert by having the vibration sensor be an accelerometer, as taught by Berg, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lippert with these aforementioned teachings of Berg with the motivation of utilizing an inexpensive, versatile, and easily replaceable part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762