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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits, claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 05/30/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the IDS is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a system (machine) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1.
A method comprising: obtaining, by a processing system including at least one processor, utilization data of an air filter in an air filtration system;
obtaining, by the processing system, environmental data for at least one location associated with the air filtration system;
determining, by the processing system, at least one filter changing action based upon at least the utilization data and the environmental data;
and transmitting, by the processing system, at least one instruction to implement the at least one filter changing action.
The system in claim 1 (particularly the limitations highlighted above) is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of environmental data for at least one location associated with the air filtration, filter changing action based upon at least the utilization data and the environmental data, and one instruction to implement the at least one filter changing action. These limitations, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, are limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind, and therefore is a mental process. The limitations is equivalent to a person observing the air filter and changing the one filter based on the conditions. information/knowing there is an event happening at a specific location. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘Mental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person observing the air filter and changing the one filter based on the conditions in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1.
A method comprising: obtaining, by a processing system including at least one processor, utilization data of an air filter in an air filtration system;
obtaining, by the processing system, environmental data for at least one location associated with the air filtration system;
determining, by the processing system, at least one filter changing action based upon at least the utilization data and the environmental data;
and transmitting, by the processing system, at least one instruction to implement the at least one filter changing action.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations (particularly the limitations underlined above) that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application (particularly the limitations highlighted above).
The “obtaining…” step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, “transmitting” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post-solution actions, which is a form of extra solution activity.
Still further, the one or more processors and the computer readable medium merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The one or more processors and the computer readable medium are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the aggregating and processing steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Aggregating and processing data are fundamental activities performed by computers/processors. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the aggregating and processing are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are commensurate in scope to claim 1 and are rejected using a similar analysis to claim 1 above.
Dependent claims 2-18, further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, In claim 2, the addition limitations of
“wherein the utilization data comprises at least one of: time of use data; or status data.”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above. The system in claim 2, specifically the limitation above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, and abstract idea. This is equivalate to a person mentally checking the utilization of the air filtration at a certain time.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2,5-6,7-8, 11-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170361259, to Fox et al. (hereinafter Fox).
Regarding claim 1, and commensurate claims 19,and 20 Fox teaches, A method comprising: obtaining, by a processing system including at least one processor, utilization data of an air filter in an air filtration system; (See at least paragraph [0026] “a Total Runtime Value is determined at 152 based upon the obtained outdoor weather data. The Total Runtime Value relates to or is indicative of a total length of time the fan 32 (FIG. 1) has operated.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0027] “The Total Runtime Value is indicative or representative of the total length of time the fan 32 has been “on” or running with the particular air filter 34 in place. The Total Runtime Value can be expressed as a length of time (e.g., estimated actual runtime of the fan 32 in terms of minutes, hours, etc.).”).
obtaining, by the processing system, environmental data for at least one location associated with the air filtration system; (See at least paragraph [0028] “Outdoor weather data is obtained at 202. The outdoor weather data provides weather-related information relevant to the outdoor environment 26 of the dwelling 20 (e.g., at a locale or geographical region of the dwelling 20 and thus of the HVAC system 22), and includes at least outdoor temperature information indicative of temperature at the outdoor environment 26 of the dwelling 20 over a designated period of time (or “Time Interval”), for example 24 hours (or one day). Other weather-related information is optionally also obtained as described below.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0028] “The obtained outdoor temperature information can be an actual outdoor temperature(s) relevant to the outdoor environment 26 over the Time Interval, can be historical outdoor temperature(s) relevant to the outdoor environment 26 over the Time Interval at the same calendar day in a previous year, can be forecasted outdoor temperature(s) relevant to the outdoor environment 26 over the Time Interval, can be heating degree day (HDD) value(s), can be cooling degree day (CDD) value(s), etc. Regardless, the outdoor weather data, and in particular the outdoor temperature information, is obtained by electronically communicating with a data source or provider (e.g., a third party data source) that otherwise records and/or forecasts information indicative of outdoor temperatures (e.g., temperature in degrees, HDD value, CDD value, etc.).”).
determining, by the processing system, at least one filter changing action based upon at least the utilization data and the environmental data; (See at least paragraph [0037] “At 208, a replacement status of the filter 34 is determined or estimated as a function of at least the Total Runtime Value. The determination can, in some embodiments, be based upon, optionally be based solely upon, a comparison of the Total Runtime Value with a Baseline Value. The Baseline Value is indicative of a useful life of the filter 34, and reflects or represents an estimate of the length of time the filter 34 can be exposed to (or handle) forced airflow and continue to perform at an acceptable level (e.g., is unlikely to have become clogged or dirtied to an unacceptable level that otherwise negatively affects performance of the HVAC system 22). The Baseline Value is expressed in the same units as the Total Runtime Value (e.g., hours, minutes, unitless, etc.), and can be pre-determined, ascertained, or derived by the prediction module 130 in various ways as described below.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0040] “The Baseline Value can be determined as a function of, or adjusted in accordance with, one or more pollution-related parameters, examples of which are provided below. In some embodiments, the prediction module 130 is configured or programmed to obtain information from the user and/or other sources (such as electronic online data services (e.g., website) as described above) implicating the particular pollution-related parameter.”).
and transmitting, by the processing system, at least one instruction to implement the at least one filter changing action. (See at least paragraph [0047] “the systems and methods of the present disclosure further include, at 210, providing (or conveying to) a user with information implicated by the determined replacement status. For example, where the determined replacement status indicates that the air filter 34 should be replaced, the prediction module 130 can operate to prompt sending or providing a corresponding warning or message to the user.”).
Regarding claim 2, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Fox further discloses, wherein the utilization data comprises at least one of: time of use data; or status data. (See at least paragraph [0027] “The prediction module 130 can be configured or programmed to perform prediction functions by establishing and tracking certain values including “Total Runtime”. The Total Runtime Value is indicative or representative of the total length of time the fan 32 has been “on” or running with the particular air filter 34 in place.”).
Regarding claim 5, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Fox further discloses, wherein the environmental data comprises air quality data. (See at least paragraph [0040] “Exemplary pollution-related parameters include, but are not limited to: dust levels in the outdoor environment 26 of the dwelling 20 (e.g., the dwelling 20 is near a dirt road); ground ozone levels at the outdoor environment 26 of the dwelling 20 (particularly relevant where the air filter 34 is configured to capture ozone); fine particle levels (PM.sub.2.5) in the outdoor environment 26 of the dwelling (particularly relevant where the air filter 34 is configured to capture fine particles); pollen count levels in the outdoor environment 26 of the dwelling 20; presence and number of pets in the indoor environment 24 of the dwelling 20 (e.g., the air filter 34 may more quickly become dirtied with hair, dander, or other particles typically associate with pets and thus has a reduced useful life); number of people normally within the indoor environment 24 of the dwelling 20; window opening habits or preferences of the user (e.g., outdoor air, often laden with airborne contaminants, enters the indoor environment 24 via an open window and the contaminants are ultimately captured at the air filter 34; thus, where a user prefers to keep windows open for extended periods of time, the air filter 34 may become saturated more quickly); an age of the dwelling 20 (e.g., older homes are more susceptible to mold or other contaminants that may become airborne and are then captured by the air filter 34); regular burning of candles within the indoor environment 24 of the dwelling 20; burning of tobacco products within the indoor environment 24 of the dwelling 20; burning of incense within the indoor environment 24 of the dwelling 20; etc.”).
Regarding claim 6, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Fox further discloses, wherein the environmental data comprises at least one of: historical environmental data; or forecast environmental data. (See at least paragraph [0028] “The obtained outdoor temperature information can be an actual outdoor temperature(s) relevant to the outdoor environment 26 over the Time Interval, can be historical outdoor temperature(s) relevant to the outdoor environment 26 over the Time Interval at the same calendar day in a previous year, can be forecasted outdoor temperature(s) relevant to the outdoor environment 26 over the Time Interval, can be heating degree day (HDD) value(s), can be cooling degree day (CDD) value(s), etc. Regardless, the outdoor weather data, and in particular the outdoor temperature information, is obtained by electronically communicating with a data source or provider (e.g., a third party data source) that otherwise records and/or forecasts information indicative of outdoor temperatures (e.g., temperature in degrees, HDD value, CDD value, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 7, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Fox further discloses, wherein the environmental data is obtained from at least one of: an environmental data feed; the air filtration system; or an endpoint device of a user associated with the air filtration system. (See at least paragraph [0022] “retrieving weather data from a weather-related data source or service.”).
Regarding claim 8, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Fox further discloses, further comprising: obtaining calendar data of a user associated with the air filtration system, wherein the at least one location is identified based upon the calendar data. (See at least paragraph [0028] “Other weather-related information is optionally also obtained as described below. The obtained outdoor temperature information can be an actual outdoor temperature(s) relevant to the outdoor environment 26 over the Time Interval, can be historical outdoor temperature(s) relevant to the outdoor environment 26 over the Time Interval at the same calendar day in a previous year, can be forecasted outdoor temperature(s) relevant to the outdoor environment 26 over the Time Interval, can be heating degree day (HDD) value(s), can be cooling degree day (CDD) value(s), etc. Regardless, the outdoor weather data, and in particular the outdoor temperature information,”).
Regarding claim 11, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Fox further discloses, further comprising: obtaining at least one of: operational data of the air filter or operational data of the air filtration system, wherein the at least one filter changing action is determined further based upon the at least one of: the operational data of the air filter or the operational data of the air filtration system. (See at least paragraph [0041] “the Baseline Value can be determined as a function of, or adjusted in accordance with, one or more HVAC-related parameters, examples of which are provided below. In some embodiments, the prediction module 130 is configured or programmed to obtain information from the user and/or other sources (such as electronic online data services (e.g., website) as described above) implicating the particular HVAC-related parameter. The so-received information can be employed as a variable in one or more Baseline Value determination algorithms and/or can be used to adjust a pre-determined preliminary Baseline Value (e.g., the pre-determined preliminary Baseline Value can be predicated upon an assumed level or value of the particular HVAC-related parameter; where the actual level or value of the HVAC-related parameter varies from the assumed level or value, the pre-determined preliminary Baseline Value can be adjusted accordingly to arrive at the Baseline Value used for comparison with the Total Runtime Value). Exemplary HVAC-related parameters include, but are not limited to: a model or type of the air filter 34 (e.g., the particular air filter 34 may or may not be constructed to capture certain types of contaminants); a dust-holding capacity of the air filter 34; filter change interval recommended by the manufacturer of the air filter 34 (e.g., the manufacturer may recommend filter replacement at an interval differing from the “standard” three-month interval); efficiency of the HVAC system 22 (e.g., cooling efficiency, heating efficiency, or both); capacity of the HVAC system 22 (e.g., cooling capacity, heating capacity, or both); frequency the HVAC system 22 is serviced; an initial pressure drop across the air filter 34; etc.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0041] “the prediction module 130 is configured or programmed to obtain information from the user and/or other sources (such as electronic online data services (e.g., website) as described above) implicating the particular HVAC-related parameter.”).
Regarding claim 12, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 11 and Fox further discloses, wherein the operational data of the air filtration system comprises at least one of: a maximum airflow resistance; a measured airflow resistance; a duration of usage; at least one temperature setting associated with the air filtration system; or at least one humidity setting associated with the air filtration system. (See at least paragraph [0041] “an initial pressure drop across the air filter 34; etc.”). Further (See at least paragraph [0027] “The Total Runtime Value is indicative or representative of the total length of time the fan 32 has been “on” or running with the particular air filter 34 in place.”).
Regarding claim 13, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 11 and Fox further discloses, wherein the operational data of the air filter comprises at least one of: a filter size; a filter thickness; a filter medium; or a filter efficiency class. (See at least paragraph [0041] “a model or type of the air filter 34 (e.g., the particular air filter 34 may or may not be constructed to capture certain types of contaminants);”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0041] “efficiency of the HVAC system 22 (e.g., cooling efficiency, heating efficiency, or both);”).
Regarding claim 14, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Fox further discloses, wherein the at least one filter changing action comprises: replacing the air filter with a new filter at a selected time. (See at least paragraph [0041] “filter change interval recommended by the manufacturer of the air filter 34 (e.g., the manufacturer may recommend filter replacement at an interval differing from the “standard” three-month interval);”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0032] ““predicting future HVAC runtime” so as to recommend a date by which the filter is likely to reach is end of life. This can be done, for example, with combination of historical data and user runtime history.”).
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 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.
Claims 3, and 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170361259, to Fox et al. (hereinafter Fox), and further in view of WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 2018206682, to Su et al (hereinafter Su).
Regarding claim 3, Fox discloses the claimed features of claim 2 Fox fails to explicitly discloses, however Su discloses, wherein the status data comprises: an airflow measure; a coverage measure of materials trapped by the air filter; or an identification of at least one material type of the materials trapped by the air filter. (See [Page 15. Paragraph 3.] “The processor 31 may be adapted to estimate the cumulative degree of fouling by summing the respective degrees of fouling obtained during the respective monitoring periods of the performance of the air purifier 50, which respective monitoring periods typically correspond to respective periods during which the air purifier 50 was switched on. For example, the cumulative degree of fouling may be expressed by equation (1 1) in terms of CCM (i.e. the total mass accumulated on the pollutant removal structure 55), i.e. as the sum of equations (1) and (10): CCM (Ct - Ct + (C.sub.amb - Ct * (1 * V + j C.sub.ti * i/i * Φ * dt (1 1)”). Further, (See [Page 10. Paragraph 3.] “the sensor 21 may be a particulate matter sensor such as a PM 2.5 sensor for detecting particulate matter of a certain diameter in the atmosphere, e.g. PM2.5 or PM10, dust particles, allergens, or the like, a formaldehyde sensor, a toluene sensor, other gas sensors, and so on. T”).
Fox as modified by Su, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, air filtration systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fox to incorporate the teachings of Su because sensing dust particles, allergens, or the like, a formaldehyde sensor will aid in the life time of the HVAC system.
Regarding claim 4, Fox as modified by Su disclose the claimed features of claim 3 Fox fails to explicitly discloses, however Su discloses, wherein the at least one material type is detected via at least one of: a spectrometry module; a fluorescent probing module; a lipopolysaccharide detection module; a particulate sensor; or a volatile organic compound sensor. (See at least paragraph [Page 10. Paragraph 3.] “the sensor 21 may be a particulate matter sensor such as a PM 2.5 sensor for detecting particulate matter of a certain diameter in the atmosphere, e.g. PM2.5 or PM10, dust particles, allergens, or the like, a formaldehyde sensor, a toluene sensor, other gas sensors, and so on. The sensor 23 is a C0 sensor, which function will be explained in more detail below.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [Page 14. Paragraph 2.] “The processor 31 may be adapted to estimate the natural rate of ventilation Q based on changes in the C0 concentration or any other 2 suitable gaseous compound, e.g. volatile organic compounds (VOCs), within the air-filled space housing the air purifier 50 when one or more persons are present in the air-filled space and the air purifier 50 is switched off. Specifically, as such persons exhale CO2, the level of CO2 within the air- filled space should increase in accordance with the number of people within the air- filled space and its volume. Deviations from such expected increase, i.e. a smaller increase in CO2 levels over time than expected, can be attributed to ventilation between the air-filled space and the outside world.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fox to incorporate the teachings of Su for the same motivation reasons in claim 3.
Claims 9-10, 15, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170361259, to Fox et al. (hereinafter Fox), and further in view of WIPO Patent Publication No. WO 2021083759, to Del Fabbro et al (hereinafter Del Fabbro)
Regarding claim 9, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 1 Fox fails to explicitly discloses, however Del Fabbro discloses, wherein the air filtration system is a component of a vehicle. (See at least paragraph [Page 10, Paragraph 14.] “invention is a vehicle comprising a system for managing the quality of the air in a passenger compartment over a predetermined route as defined above”).
Fox as modified by Del Fabbro, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, air filtration systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fox to incorporate the teachings of Del Fabbro because filtering the air quality in a vehicle is essential to human health.
Regarding claim 10, Fox as modified by Del Fabbro disclose the claimed features of claim 9 Fox fails to explicitly discloses, however Del Fabbro discloses, wherein the at least one location associated with the air filtration system comprises at least one of: at least one location frequented by the vehicle; or at least one location that the vehicle is anticipated to be present. (See at least paragraph [Page 8, Paragraph 2.] “FIG. 1 is shown a motor vehicle 1 comprising an air quality management system 2 in the passenger compartment of said vehicle 1. The management system 2 is capable of implementing or stopping the air recycling system of the air conditioning system of the vehicle 1 of conventional and known structure.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fox to incorporate the teachings of Del Fabbro for the same motivation reasons in claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 14 Fox fails to explicitly discloses, however Del Fabbro discloses, wherein the at least one filter changing action comprises: replacing the air filter with a new filter of a second filter type that is different from a first filter type of the filter, wherein the at least one instruction identifies the second filter type. (See at least paragraph [Page 6, Paragraph 6.] “It should be noted that when the second high performance air filter is subjected to the presence of fine particles, it is advantageous to protect it by a third air filter, placed upstream of the highly efficient filter, in order to extend its service life. life.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fox to incorporate the teachings of Del Fabbro for the same motivation reasons in claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 1 Fox fails to explicitly discloses, however Del Fabbro discloses, association with a particular type of forecast air quality condition for the recommended time period. (See [Page 9. Paragraph 3] “when the predictive mapping indicates that one is in a moderately polluted zone and that the level of pollution will be high over a portion of the route to be traveled, the control means 6 open the movable shutter 7 in said moderately polluted zone, activate the first filtering system 8, the second filtering system 9, and the dehumidification means 10. Obviously, the control means 6 can also choose to implement a partial recycling and thus put the inlet flaps 7 in. an intermediate position”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fox to incorporate the teachings of Del Fabbro for the same motivation reasons in claim 9.
Claims 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170361259, to Fox et al. (hereinafter Fox), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140283682, to Hamann et al (hereinafter Hamann)
Regarding claim 16, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 1 Fox fails to explicitly discloses, however Hamann discloses, wherein the at least one filter changing action comprises: replacing the air filter with a different air filter for a recommended time period and reinstalling the air filter in the air filtration system at an end of the recommended time period. (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “if the cost of filtering external air exceeds the cost of the corrosion rate increase, increasing an intake of unfiltered external air.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0011] “A system for increasing filter economy includes a memory configured to receive measurements of contaminants in an internal and an external environment; a cost effectiveness module comprising a processor configured to determine a cost of a corrosion rate increase if unfiltered external air intake is increased for cooling, to determine a cost of increased air pressure to filter external air, and to determine if the cost of filtering external air exceeds the cost of the corrosion rate increase; and an air intake module configured to increase an intake of unfiltered external air if it is determined that the cost of filtering external air exceeds the cost of the corrosion rate increase..”).
Fox as modified by Hamann, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, air filtration systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fox to incorporate the teachings of Hamann because sensing filtering based on external air when it exceeds cost of the corrosion will aid in the life time of the HVAC unit.
Regarding claim 18, Fox disclose the claimed features of claim 1 Fox fails to explicitly discloses, however Hamann discloses, wherein the at least one filter changing action is determined in accordance with an output of at least one forecasting model, wherein the at least one forecasting model provides at least one output comprising a prediction of an air filter functional condition at a future time period. (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “Methods and systems for predicting a filter lifetime include building a filter effectiveness history based on contaminant sensor information associated with a filter; determining a rate of filter consumption with a processor based on the filter effectiveness history; and determining a remaining filter lifetime based on the determined rate of filter consumption.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Fox to incorporate the teachings of Hamann for the same motivation reasons in claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesam Almadhrhi whose telephone number is (571) 270-3844. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESAM NMN ALMADHRHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666