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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 6/23/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are (nonstructural term underlined for clarity):
“Air guiding device guides the air pollution” in claim 1.
“a cloud computing service device, receiving the air pollution data detected in the indoor field unit, storing the air pollution data in an air pollution database, implementing an artificial intelligence calculation to determine the location of the air pollution, and issuing a control command to the air guiding device to control an activation operation of the air guiding device”
A decomposition unit, … to sterilize the air pollution in chemical means”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Looking to the specification, the corresponding structure appears to be:
An air purifier (including a circulating fan purifier), a fan 12, a range hood 13, an exhaust fan 14 or a fresh air fan 15 and equivalents thereof as set forth in par. 38 as filed.
A computing service module, a service unit, a device management unit and an application program unit and equivalents thereof as set forth in par. 41 as filed.
A negative ion unit or a plasma ion unit as set forth in par. 46 as filed.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 recite “the indoor field unit” and should read “the at least one indoor field unit” for the best antecedent basis. All references to the indoor field unit in claim 1 and the remaining claims should similarly recite “at least one” for the best antecedent basis.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 16 recite “the filter screen” and should read “the at least one filter screen” for the best antecedent basis. All references to the filter screen in claim 1 and the remaining claims should similarly recite “at least one” for the best antecedent basis.
Claims 1 and 4-10 recite “the air guiding device” and should read “the at least one air guiding device” for the best antecedent basis. All references in claim 1 and the remaining claims should similarly refer to the guiding device for the best antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected for reciting the limitation “a cloud computing service device, receiving the air pollution data detected in the indoor field unit, storing the air pollution data in an air pollution database, implementing an artificial intelligence calculation to determine the location of the air pollution, and issuing a control command to the air guiding device to control an activation operation of the air guiding device”. Specifically, the disclosure as filed fails to provide proper written description for the limitations directed towards “implementing an artificial intelligence calculation to determine the location of the air pollution, and issuing a control command to the air guiding device to control an activation operation of the air guiding device”.
There is no corresponding algorithm including the necessary steps and/or flowcharts hat perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). The specification only refers broadly and nonspecifically to “implementing” an artificial intelligence but there are no specific steps or flowcharts associated with how this function is implemented. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
This step of implementing of an artificial intelligence calculation to determine a location of air pollution is not considered to be well known enough in the art to be plainly understood how the inventor intended the function to be performed without explanation. See MPEP 2161.01 for more details.
The remaining claims are rejected for depending on claim 1.
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 1-10 and 16-20 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.
The term “quickly guided” in claims 1, 7, and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quickly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim nor the specification makes clear how fast the guiding must be in order to necessarily satisfy the claim limitation of “quickly”. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted the air pollution is guided at some pace.
The term “state of complete purification” in claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 render the claims indefinite. The scope of what is required by the state of “complete” purification cannot be determined and the specification provides no standard by which the term “complete” can be defined. It is not clear how purified the air must be in order to necessarily satisfy the claim limitation of “complete purification” and therefore the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claims are indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted the air is brought to a state of purification.
The term “intelligently calculates” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “intelligently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It cannot be determined what calculation is specifically “intelligently” being performed as opposed to a calculation that is not intelligent. The scope of what is required by the intelligent calculation cannot be determined and the specification provides no definition for this term. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that there is some calculation.
The term “intelligently selected” in claims 4, 7, and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “intelligently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the same reasons as the rejection of “intelligently calculated” above, the scope of the term “intelligently” cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, it is interpreted that there is some selection.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on one of the claims above.
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 (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 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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mou (US 2024/0027090).
The applied reference has a common assignee and joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Mou (US 2024/0027090) teaches –
An indoor air pollution prevention system (title) comprising:
at least one indoor field unit, wherein the indoor field unit is a space surrounded and isolated by a plurality of partitions, and a plurality of gas detectors (Figs. 1-11, indoor space with gas detection devices, par. 36),
at least one filter screen (filtering device B) and at least one air guiding device are disposed inside the indoor field unit (blowers 1, par. 35), wherein each of the plurality of gas detectors detects a characteristic, a concentration and a location of an air pollution, and outputs to form air pollution data (pars. 35-36 and 39), the filter screen filters the air pollution in air passing therethrough, and the air guiding device guides the air pollution to pass through the filter screen for filtering and removal (par. 37 the filtering device filters); and
a cloud computing service device, receiving the air pollution data detected in the indoor field unit, storing the air pollution data in an air pollution database, implementing an artificial intelligence calculation to determine the location of the air pollution (pars. 34-35, the cloud device E uses AI to determine a location of the pollution), and
issuing a control command to the air guiding device to control an activation operation of the air guiding device, whereby a directional airflow is generated, and the air containing the air pollution is guided quickly to the filter screen for filtering and removal to reach a gas state of complete purification (par. 35 the determined location is used to initiate operation of the blowers 1).
Regarding claim 2, Mou further teaches the air pollution is at least one selected from the group consisting of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, total volatile organic compounds (TVOC), formaldehyde, bacteria, fungi, virus and a combination thereof (par. 40).
Regarding claim 3, Mou further teaches (see fig. 11) the cloud computing service device comprises a wireless network cloud computing service module (connection device 3), a cloud control service unit (processing device 4), a device management unit (microprocessor 13) and an application program unit (par. 40 discloses a mobile device for control).
Regarding claim 5, Mou further teaches the air guiding device is one selected from the group consisting of an air purifier, a circulating fan purifier, an electric fan and a combination thereof (par. 37 discloses the guiding device is a circulating blower 1).
Regarding claim 6, Mou further teaches the filter screen is disposed within the air guiding device to filter the air pollution. (see fig. 1 showing blower 1 and filtering unit 2)
Regarding claim 8, Mou further teaches the air guiding device is one selected from the group consisting of a range hood, an exhaust fan and a combination thereof (fig. 1 shows blower 1 expelling air from the space, reading on an exhaust fan).
Regarding claim 9, Mou further teaches the gas detector is disposed on the air guiding device (fig. 1 shows detection device A on blower 1).
Regarding claim 16, Mou further teaches the filter screen is a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter screen to clean the air pollution through a physical way of blocking and absorbing, and the high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter screen is combined with a decomposition layer to clean the air pollution through a chemical way (par. 45).
Regarding claim 17, Mou further teaches the decomposition layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an activated carbon, a cleansing factor containing chlorine dioxide layer, an herbal protective layer extracted from ginkgo and Japanese rhus chinensis, a silver ion, a zeolite and a combination thereof (par. 45).
Regarding claim 18, Mou further teaches the filter screen is combined with one selected form the group consisting of a light irradiation element, a decomposition unit and a combination thereof to sterilize the air pollution in chemical means (par. 45).
Regarding claim 19, Mou further teaches the light irradiation element is at least one selected from the group consisting of a photo-catalyst unit comprising a photo catalyst and an ultraviolet lamp, a photo-plasma unit comprising a nanometer irradiation tube and a combination thereof (par. 45 teaches UV light and photocatalyst).
Regarding claim 20, Mou further teaches the decomposition unit is at least one selected from the group consisting of a negative ion unit, a plasma ion unit and a combination thereof (par. 45 teaches negative ions).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou (US 2022/0196269) in view of Malik (US 2023/0194115).
Regarding claim 1, Mou (US 2022/0196269) teaches –
An indoor air pollution prevention system (title) comprising:
at least one indoor field unit (Figs. 2A-B indoor space A), wherein the indoor field unit is a space surrounded and isolated by a plurality of partitions (Figs. 2A-B, par. 36), and
a plurality of gas detectors (gas detection modules in fig. 2A-B, par. 40),
at least one filter screen (filtering unit 2 in fig. 2A-B, par. 54) and
at least one air guiding device are disposed inside the indoor field unit (gas processing devices 1a-e, par. 60), wherein
each of the plurality of gas detectors detects a characteristic, a concentration and a location of an air pollution (par. 53 discloses the determination of size and concentration of an air pollution by the particulate sensor 125, par. 38 discloses the determination of a location of the air pollutant B), and outputs to form air pollution data (par. 39 discloses the formation of gas detection data),
the filter screen filters the air pollution in air passing therethrough (par. 54 discloses the filtering function of filter unit 2), and the air guiding device guides the air pollution to pass through the filter screen for filtering and removal (par. 60 discloses the gas processing devices 1a-e directing the pollutant to the filter device 2); and
a cloud computing service device, receiving the air pollution data detected in the indoor field unit, storing the air pollution data in an air pollution database (par. 6 and 40 disclose the cloud computing service device and the transmission and storage of the gas detection data),
determine the location of the air pollution (par. 35 determining a convection path of pollutant B), and
issuing a control command to the air guiding device to control an activation operation of the air guiding device, whereby a directional airflow is generated (pars. 35-36 a corresponding adjacent gas processing device is driven to drive the pollutant), and
the air containing the air pollution is guided quickly to the filter screen for filtering and removal to reach a gas state of complete purification (par. 36 the pollutant is driven to the nearest gas processing device). Mou appears to be silent with regards to AI.
Malik (US 2023/0194115) teaches an environmental adjustment system (title, abstract) where the system uses artificial intelligence to determine a location of an air pollutant (pars. 10 and 104-105, sensor data is gathered and then correlated to measure and predict for example carbon dioxide pollution detected within the space using AI). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Mou such that artificial intelligence is used to determine the location of the air pollution as taught by Malik to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to more accurately and predictively locate the air pollution to arrive at an improved air pollution system.
Regarding claim 2, modified Mou further teaches the air pollution is at least one selected from the group consisting of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, total volatile organic compounds (TVOC), formaldehyde, bacteria, fungi, virus and a combination thereof (par. 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Mou further teaches (see fig. 11) the cloud computing service device comprises a wireless network cloud computing service module (connection device 3), a cloud control service unit (processing device 4), a device management unit (microprocessor 13) and an application program unit (par. 40 discloses a mobile device for control).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mou further teaches the air guiding device includes a cleaning unit which reads on the limitation of an air purifier as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, modified Mou further teaches the filter screen is disposed within the air guiding device to filter the air pollution (fig. 2b shows the filter unit 2 being disposed in the guiding devices 1a-e).
Regarding claim 8, modified Mou further teaches the air guiding device is one selected from the group consisting of a range hood, an exhaust fan and a combination thereof (par. 34 discloses the gas processing device is an exhauster, 1d).
Regarding claim 9, modified Mou further teaches the gas detector is disposed on the air guiding device (gas detection module 1 is disposed on the guiding devices 1a-e, fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 16, modified Mou further teaches the filter screen is a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter screen to clean the air pollution through a physical way of blocking and absorbing, and the high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter screen is combined with a decomposition layer to clean the air pollution through a chemical way (par. 54 discloses the filter unit 2 a HEPA filter including a herbal protective layer to destroy viruses).
Regarding claim 17, modified Mou further teaches the decomposition layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an activated carbon, a cleansing factor containing chlorine dioxide layer, an herbal protective layer extracted from ginkgo and Japanese rhus chinensis, a silver ion, a zeolite and a combination thereof (par. 54 discloses a Japanese rhus chinensis layer).
Regarding claim 18, modified Mou further teaches the filter screen is combined with one selected form the group consisting of a light irradiation element, a decomposition unit and a combination thereof to sterilize the air pollution in chemical means (par. 55 discloses a UV lamp 212b for irradiation and sterilization of the air).
Regarding claim 19, modified Mou further teaches the light irradiation element is at least one selected from the group consisting of a photo-catalyst unit comprising a photo catalyst and an ultraviolet lamp, a photo-plasma unit comprising a nanometer irradiation tube and a combination thereof (par. 55 discloses a lamp 212b and photocatalyst 211b).
Regarding claim 20, modified Mou further teaches the decomposition unit is at least one selected from the group consisting of a negative ion unit, a plasma ion unit and a combination thereof (par. 57 discloses a negative ionizer 21d).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou (US 2022/0196269) in view of Malik (US 2023/0194115) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mou, Wu, Han, Huang (US 2024/0003563).
Regarding claim 4, modified Mou further teaches the indoor field unit is one selected from the group consisting of a living room, a bedroom, a family room, an office, a conference room, a tea room, a dressing room, a gymnasium, a concert hall, a theater, an exhibition space, a hospital space, an airport space, a station space and a combination thereof (par. 99 discloses the application being in a conference room), but appears to be silent with regards to the comparison and activation.
Mou, Wu, Han, Huang (US 2024/0003563) (hereinafter referred to as Han for clarity) teaches the cloud computing service device receives and compares at least two or more of the air pollution data detected by the plurality of gas detectors in the indoor field unit, intelligently calculates to position the location of the air pollution in the indoor field unit, and intelligently selects to issue the control command to the air guiding device, wherein the air guiding device closest to the location of the air pollution is enabled for the activation operation firstly, then other air guiding devices are enabled for the activation operation, and the directional airflow is generated to guide the air pollution to the filter screen for filtering and removal, thereby the air pollution in the indoor field unit is cleaned quickly to reach the gas state of complete purification (par. 34 discloses the activation of a closest fan and filtration device and then a subsequent activation of other fans and filtration devices). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Mou such that the closest air guiding device is activated first and then subsequent devices are activated afterwards as taught by Han to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to initiate the movement of air as directly and effectively as possible relative to the position of the detected pollutant to arrive at an improved air pollution system.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou (US 2022/0196269) in view of Malik (US 2023/0194115) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mou (US 2022/0194182).
Regarding claim 7, modified Mou further teaches the indoor field unit is a kitchen field unit (par. 57 of Malik discloses a cafeteria which includes some kitchen component), but appears to be silent with regards to receiving and comparing air pollution data to a safety detection value.
Mou (US 2022/0194182) (hereinafter referred to as Mou’) teaches an air pollution prevention system (title) including a wireless connection device 4 (see fig. 2C and 13) that receives and compares air pollution data to a safety detection value (par. 45) and then selects and activates an air cleaning step to guide air to a filter screen to achieve air purification (pars. 45-48 describe controlling the activation of the device and including the purification device 3 and gas exchanger 2 to remove pollution to maintain the air pollution under a target value by comparison via artificial intelligence). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Mou such that the device includes the detection and comparison of air pollution data to a safety detection value and the subsequent activation of the guiding device to filter the air pollution to reach a state of purification as taught by Mou’ to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to more efficiently and automatically control the air pollution to arrive at an improved air pollution controls system.
Regarding claim 10, modified Mou further teaches the indoor unit is a bathroom field unit (par. 99 of Malik discloses the use of the device air pollution control in a bathroom) but appears to be silent with regards to receiving and comparing air pollution data to a safety detection value and temperature and humidity being controlled.
Mou’ (US 2022/0194182) teaches an air pollution prevention system (title) including a wireless connection device 4 (see fig. 2C and 13) that receives and compares air pollution data to a safety detection value (par. 45) and then selects and activates an air cleaning step to guide air to a filter screen to achieve air purification (pars. 45-48 describe controlling the activation of the device and including the purification device 3 and gas exchanger 2 to remove pollution to maintain the air pollution under a target value by comparison via artificial intelligence), and wherein the temperature and humidity of the unit is controlled (par. 41 discloses the adjusting of air temperature and humidity within the space). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Mou such that the device includes the detection and comparison of air pollution data to a safety detection value and the subsequent activation of the guiding device to filter the air pollution to reach a state of purification and such that the temperature and humidity are controlled as taught by Mou’ to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to more efficiently and automatically control the air pollution to arrive at an improved air pollution controls system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights