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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1, 4-10 and 13-15, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the claims being directed to a specific technological improvement in the operation of an air quality monitoring and management system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-15 are directed to generally determining an air quality value based on data. The determination of the air quality value is not integrated into the practical application of building air quality management because the ventilation is not being adjusted accordingly. Rather, the automatic ventilation adjustment based on the air quality values, as described as the practical application in the Applicant’s remarks on pages 6-7, is being accomplished in claims 11-12. Examiner notes that claims 11-12 are not rejected under 101 for the reasons stated in the remarks with respect to the practical application that improves the building air quality management. In other words, Examiner agrees with Applicant’s arguments that claims 11-12 enable “real-time automated environmental control based on temporal air-quality trends” (page 7 of remarks) and constitute an improvement to air quality monitoring and management system functionality. However, claims 1, 4-10 and 13-15 do not include such real-time automated environmental control. As such, Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to include the ventilation control as described in claims 11-12.
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 1 and 4-15 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.
Claim 1 recites numerous equations with parameters, Sin, Sout, SinMTH, SinSTH, SoutMTH, SoutMTH, and t. The metes and bounds of these parameters are unclear. For example, what is Sin?
Claim 1 recites numerous equations with parameters, X1, X2, Y1, Y2, ROCin, and ROCout. The metes and bounds of these parameters are unclear. For example, what is ROCin?
Claims 4-15 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and are rejected based on their dependency thereto.
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, 4-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite receiving data and determining an air quality value (see claims 1, 8, 9). The claims further recite evaluating the air quality values (see claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 15) and sending an alarm/notification (see claims 10, 13, 14). The receiving, determining, evaluating, and sending, as briefly described above and as recited in claims 1, 4-10 and 13-15, are mathematical concepts (e.g., determining an air quality value as recited in claim 1) and mental processes (e.g., receiving data as recited in claim 1). Accordingly, claims 1, 4-10 and 13-15 recite an abstract idea because the particular limitations, as briefly outlined above, fall into at least two of the groupings of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim limitations are directed to the generality of determining an air quality value (e.g., see claim 1). In other words, the claim limitations are generally determining an air quality value based on data and these generally applicable claim limitations are not particularly tied to a system. Furthermore, the claim limitations are not directed to an application for any particular system and the application is only nominally directed to an application for various systems (e.g., see paragraph 0033 of the specification as filed). In other words, the claim limitations are not providing meaningful limitations to the system. Finally, the system, as recited in independent claim 1, is merely the field of use of the air quality evaluation as the elements are not integrated into the claim limitations. In other words, the system is no more than a general link to the technology environment and do not provide any meaningful limitations to the claims.
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the system, sensors, communication unit, and controller, as recited in claims 1, 4-10 and 13-15, are generic elements. Furthermore, the claim limitations are implemented on these generic elements. In other words, the claim limitations are being implemented on these units and are not specifically liked to these elements.
Accordingly, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0182506 describes controlling multiple indoor air quality parameters.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0356670 describes a ventilation system for improving indoor air quality.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0393152 describes a building ventilation control system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights