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 .
Claims 36-62 have been presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 36, 48 and 54 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite “comprising—” which is improper. Please correct the claims to properly recite “comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 48-53 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, claims 48-49 have the following issues:
Claim 48, line 15 of the claim recites “lighting element” and it is unclear if it refers to the lighting element found in line 12 or intends to claim another lighting element.
Claim 49, lines 2-3 refers to “one or both of the plurality of appliance hubs” while in claim 48, it recites that there is a plurality of appliance hubs, not necessarily limited to two (i.e., both).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 36-42 and 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spero US Pat No 11651258, in view of Panasonic, INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS: Ventilating Fan Model No. FV-0511VQL1, FV-1115VQL1, FV-0511VQCL1 [Panasonic]..
Referring to claim 36, Spiro teaches the appliance hub comprising:
a substrate having a first face and a second face opposite the first face, wherein the substrate is configured to be mounted to a surface within an enclosure with the first face positioned between the surface and the second face, and wherein the substrate has a polygonal cross section when observed from a direction normal to the second face [Fig. 13, col. 6 lines 49-59, col. 32 lines 20-24, col. 53 lines 4-11], the substrate comprising
a first substrate portion [col. 32 lines 20-24].
a second substrate coupled to the first substrate portion and including a lighting element configured to provide light within the enclosure [col. 13 lines 36-37, col. 32 lines 20-24].
one or more electrical connections connected to the substrate and configured to provide electrical power and/or data to the lighting element [col. 25 lines 40-58, col. 27 lines 31-32, col. 32 lines 24-27].
In summary, Spero teaches a docking station (i.e., appliance hub) which mounts to a ceiling (i.e., surface of an enclosure) and can take any practical shape, including a ceiling lighting fixture and can also include a cover. This segment above is interpreted as teaching applicant’s substrate including a first portion and second portion which is releasably coupled to the first portion. Because the docking station can take any practical shape including a circular shape as shown in Fig. 13, it can be seen that it can have a polygonal cross section. Lastly, we see that the docking station receives utility power to power the attached components, including a lighting system.
While Spero teaches the docking station as comprising a chassis (i.e., first substrate portion) with a cover (i.e., second substrate portion), it is not explicitly taught that the two are releasably coupled or that the cover includes a lighting element. Spero does though teach that the docking station is expandable wherein devices can be added in the future [col. 25 lines 35-37, col. 28 lines 39-44]. Panasonic teaches a chassis which includes a removable cover that wherein the cover includes an integrated lighting unit [Fig. 8, pgs. 4, 6]. It would have been obvious to try including the teachings of Panasonic into Spero because including a removable cover with an integrated light would provide two functionalities in that 1) access to the chassis to add devices in the future while also 2) providing a source of lighting to the room as is intended in Spero. While the examiner acknowledges that Panasonic is directed to a ventilation fan, the concept of a removable cover to access internals is universally applicable as well as integrated lighting so long as both access and lighting would be desirable features.
Referring to claim 37, the chassis in Spero is interpreted as the first panel while the cover with integrated lighting is interpreted as the second panel.
Referring to claim 38, Spero teaches including a USB hub to provide power and data to support additional devices in the future [col. 28 lines 37-44].
Referring to claim 39, Spero implies the docking station including conduit. Fragrances are either stored in container (107) or piped in via tubing (108) [Fig. 4, col. 32 lines 35-38]. In addition, dispensing device (109) is located on the other end of where the fragrances are stored or piped in [Fig. 4]. Dispensing device (109) is taught as including a fragrance generating and dispensing device [col. 32 lines 39-42]. Naturally, the liquid responsible for generating the fragrance needs to travel from its origin (i.e., container/piping 107/109) to the dispensing device (109). Since piping/tubing is used to transport the fragrance to the docking station, it would naturally be used to pipe it to the dispensing device as well.
Referring to claim 40, Spero teaches including fire suppression and includes valves for flow control [cols. 18-19 lines 57-3 and 44-46].
Referring to claim 41, Spero teaches a communication system circuitry (i.e., wireless signal generator) for providing wireless communication with the docking station [col. 48 lines 4-33, col. 63 lines 1-14].
Referring to claim 42, Spero teaches including sensors for detecting things such as thermal imaging, air temperature, humidity, smoke and motion [col. 7 lines 42-58].
Referring to claim 45-46, Spero teaches mounting to the ceiling [Fig. 4, col. 6 lines 55-56, col. 31-32 lines 52-19].
Referring to claim 47, Spero illustrates a variant wherein the docking station is substantially planar [260 Fig. 13].
Claim(s) 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spero and Panasonic as applied to claims 36-42 and 45-47 above and further in view of Adimute.com: WHAT ARE ACOUSTIC CEILING CLOUDS [Adimute].
Referring to claims 43-44, while the Spero-Panasonic combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to include sound absorbing material to the docking station. Spero does teach including a cover that can be used for aesthetic purposes [col. 32 lines 21-24]. Adimute teaches Acoustical ceiling clouds that suspend from the ceiling and can be used to provide “superior aesthetics… and visual interest” [pg. 1]. It would have been obvious to try incorporating an acoustical ceiling cloud as the cover in Spero because it provides the improves aesthetic goal of Spero while also providing a secondary benefit of noise reduction as taught by Adimute [pg. 1]. Because the acoustical ceiling cloud captures sound from both sides, it naturally would provide some sound absorption from sound traveling up towards the ceiling as well as from devices within the docking station such as from pump 42 [Fig. 3, col. 24 lines 16-44] which would send sound towards the floor.
Claim(s) 48-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spero and Panasonic as applied to claims 36-42 and 45-47 above and further in view of Wilker et al [Wilker] US Pat No 9351060.
Referring to claim 48, this is rejected substantially on the same basis as set forth hereinabove with respect to claim 36. In addition, Spero further teaches that the docking station can include internet connectivity to allow for connectivity to Apple and Google voice assistants [col. 63 lines 3-6] and query weather data [col. 56 lines 24-25]. Accessing the internet and communicating with Apple, Google and weather services are interpreted as bilateral communication with a network of servers. While Spero teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to include a plurality of appliance hubs (i.e., docking stations). Wilker teaches a modular docking station which support for a variety of different components and wherein multiple docking stations can be used together [col. 18 lines 23-43, col. 22 lines 24]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try including the teaching of Wilker into Spero to allow for multiple docking stations to be connected together because doing so would allow for greater configurability as taught by Wilker [col. 22 lines 17-19].
Referring to claim 49, Spero and Wilker both teach a processor (206) and hub for providing internet connectivity respectively [Spero: col. 28 lines 19-23; Wilker: col. 15 lines 40-43].
Referring to claims 50-51, Spero teaches that a user may control to turn off the lights but over time, machine learning will begin to automatically perform such tasks [col. 36-37 lines 61-16]. Machine learning is taught to include a cloud-based database to store the lookup information for the machine learning experience [col. 28 lines 19-30].
Referring to claims 52-53, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove with respect to claims 46-47.
Claim(s) 54-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spero, Panasonic and Wilker as applied to claims 36-53 above and further in view of Adimute.
Referring to claim 54, this is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove with respect to claims 36, 48 and 43. Specifically, Spero teaches the docking station that can provide climate control [col. 32 lines 39-60]. Wilker teaches a substructure, which is equivalent to a docking station, in which panels can be attached representing the different components to be controlled by the docking station as described above. The panels are interpreted as the claimed first and second panel portions. Finally, Adimute teaches including an acoustic cloud as an aesthetic cover which would absorb sound from any pumps or other unwanted noise generating component.
Referring to claim 55, Wilker teaches the ability to swap panels for others with different functionality [col. 17 lines 10-16]. While the example in Wilker teaches swapping speaker panels, Wilker also teaches other panel types including tose for lighting, displays, projectors, etc… [col. 22 lines 11-17]. In the Spero-Wilker combination, the components are interpreted as being any from the possible components taught in Spero.
Referring to claims 56-62, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth herein above with respect to claims 36, 42, 44 and 46-47 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 1/30/26