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
The amendments filed 5/5/2026 are entered.
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, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippert (DE 202004008792 U1) in view of Elms (CA 3014964 A1), Emmons (US 20190376718 A1), and 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 a … 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 that the inlet is a ground inlet, that the ground pit is exterior to the building, an airflow sensor attached to the duct and positioned at least partially within the channel downstream of the ground inlet and upstream of the fan, the airflow sensor configured to detect the flow of air within the channel; and a processor in communication with the airflow sensor and a memory storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive a detected airflow from the airflow sensor; and transmit an alert based upon the detected airflow.
However, Elms teaches that the inlet is a ground inlet (FIG. 1, perforations 30), that the ground pit is exterior to the building (FIG. 1, the displayed pit is beneath the interior of a building).
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 making it so the air system sucks in air from an underground volume that is open to the surrounding earth, as taught by Elms, 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 Elms with the motivation of allowing the system to perform its usual function in addition to clearing harmful substances from the surrounding ground.
Elms fails to teach an airflow sensor attached to the duct and positioned at least partially within the channel downstream of the ground inlet and upstream of the fan, the airflow sensor configured to detect the flow of air within the channel; and a processor in communication with the airflow sensor and a memory storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive a detected airflow from the airflow sensor; and transmit an alert based upon the detected airflow.
However, Emmons teaches an airflow sensor (FIG. 1, equipment interface module 34 may include a flow sensor (paragraph 52) in the duct) attached to the duct and positioned at least partially within the channel downstream of the ground inlet and upstream of the fan (FIG. 1, the module is attached to the duct between the inlet and the fan 22), the airflow sensor configured to detect the flow of air within the channel; and a processor in communication with the airflow sensor and a memory (FIG. 1, the module 34 includes a processor and memory).
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 making it so the air system includes an airflow sensor, as taught by Emmons, 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 Emmons with the motivation of allowing the system to analyze and control the airflow.
Emmons fails to teach the memory storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive a detected airflow from the airflow sensor; and transmit an alert based upon the detected airflow.
However, Davis teaches the memory storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive a detected airflow from the airflow sensor; and transmit an alert based upon the detected airflow (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 and 13, the combination of Lippert, Elms, Emmons, 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, Elms, Emmons, 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, Elms, Emmons, 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 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 a channel (FIG. 1, the channel within the collective exhaust pipe 10), the channel extending between a … inlet (FIG. 1, the inlet of air elements 17); and an outlet (FIG. 1, exhaust air outlet 8).
Lippert fails to teach that the inlet is a ground inlet and is in flow communication with a ground pit exterior to a building; 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, Elms teaches that the inlet is a ground inlet (FIG. 1, perforations 30), in flow communication with a ground pit exterior to a building (FIG. 1, the displayed pit is beneath the interior of a building).
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 making it so the air system sucks in air from an underground volume that is open to the surrounding earth, as taught by Elms, 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 Elms with the motivation of allowing the system to perform its usual function in addition to clearing harmful substances from the surrounding ground.
Elms 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, Emmons teaches an airflow sensor (FIG. 1, equipment interface module 34 may include a flow sensor (paragraph 52) in the duct) attached to the duct and positioned at least partially within the channel downstream of the ground inlet and upstream of the fan (FIG. 1, the module is attached to the duct between the inlet and the fan 22), the airflow sensor configured to detect the flow of air within the channel; and a processor in communication with the airflow sensor and a memory (FIG. 1, the module 34 includes a processor and memory).
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 making it so the air system includes an airflow sensor, as taught by Emmons, 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 Emmons with the motivation of allowing the system to analyze and control the airflow.
Emmons fails to teach the memory storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive a detected airflow from the airflow sensor; and transmit an alert based upon the detected airflow.
However, Davis teaches the memory storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive a detected airflow from the airflow sensor; and transmit an alert based upon the detected airflow (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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippert, Elms, Emmons, and Davis as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of Roh (KR 20180076711 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lippert, Elms, Emmons, 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, Elms, Emmons, 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, Elms, Emmons, 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) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippert, Elms, Emmons, and Davis as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of Lee (WO 2021085720 A1) and Cole (TW I276011 B).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lippert, Elms, Emmons, and Davis fails to teach a probe housing attached to the duct and extending at least partially within the channel; a radioactive gas detector being configured to detect a concentration of radioactive gas in the flow of air; a user-interface for displaying at least one of the detected airflow and the detected concentration of radioactive gas; and a wireless transmitter for transmitting the alert to a remote terminal over a wireless communications network, wherein the airflow sensor, the radioactive gas detector, the user- interface and the wireless transmitter are each received in the probe housing.
However, Lee teaches a probe housing (“the radon measurement sensor using the pulsed ionization chamber method has a structure in which an electrode in the form of a probe is installed in the center of a cylindrical box”); a radioactive gas detector (FIG. 2, indoor radon measurement sensor module 101) being configured to detect a concentration of radioactive gas in the flow of air (the module 101 detects radon (a radioactive gas) in a space with an air flow); a user-interface (FIG. 2, display module 105) for displaying at least one of the detected airflow and the detected concentration of radioactive gas; and a wireless transmitter (FIG. 2, wireless communication module 102) for transmitting the alert to a remote terminal over a wireless communications network, wherein the airflow sensor, the radioactive gas detector, the user- interface and the wireless transmitter are each received in the probe housing (each of the components shown in FIG. 2 are housed in the box containing the indoor radon measuring device 100-1 to 100-N).
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 Lee, 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 Lee with the motivation of allowing the system to notify a user when there is a dangerous amount of radioactive gas.
Lee fails to teach that the probe housing is attached to the duct and extending at least partially within the channel.
However, Cole teaches that the probe housing is attached to the duct and extending at least partially within the channel (FIG. 5, the housing 10 is attached to the duct 27 and extends into it via fasteners of the holes displayed).
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 making it so the sensor housing is attached to the duct, as taught by Cole, 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 Cole with the motivation of ensuring air is tested before it enters a living space.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lippert, Elms, Emmons, Davis, Lee, and Cole teaches that the user-interface is positioned outside of the duct to be visually accessible to a user (Lee, FIG. 2, the display module 105 is visible) and wherein the radioactive gas detector is positioned within the channel (Cole, the probe is in continuity with the duct).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Lippert, Elms, Emmons, Davis, Lee, and Cole teaches that the duct includes an insertion hole (Cole, FIG. 5, opening 30) defined therein and wherein the probe housing is provided as a single-piece unit that is attached to the duct and partially inserted into the channel through the insertion hole (the probe accesses the channel through hole 30).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Lippert, Elms, Emmons, Davis, Lee, and Cole teaches that the airflow sensor is a mass airflow sensor (Emmons, the flow sensor detects how much volume (and therefore mass, since density differences will be negligible in near-room temperature environments) flows through the duct).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Lippert, Elms, Emmons, Davis, Lee, and Cole teaches that operation of the fan assembly causes naturally occurring gases released from surrounding ground soil exterior to the building to be entrained from the surrounding ground soil and into the ground inlet (Elms, the assembly removes harmful gas from the surrounding soil).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11-12, 14-16, 18, and 20-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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
Prosecution Insights