DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments cancelling claims 4 and 15 and amending claim 18 have overcome the rejection under 112(a) and it is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning limitations drawn to “reflected off of the fume hood” are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the facts of the cited Larson case are not relevant to the present application because the present application does not claim separate parts as integral and instead claim a fume hood that reflects energy. Examiner disagrees, applicant’s specification discloses the fume hood utilizes materials to improve sensor detection of the fume hood including tape, paint, titanium dioxide, metalized foil or other reflective materials (see page 20 lines 11-20) and therefore is being interpreted by examiner as including an integral unit of the fume hood and a reflective material. Applicant ahs further argued that the MPEP further cites the Schenk case and argues that the prior art perceives a need for reflectors that has been eliminated by the instant application. Examiner disagrees and again notes that pages 20 lines 11-20 disclose that the present application utilizes reflective materials applied to the fume hood and therefore is being interpreted by examiner as an integral unit of a fume hood and a reflective material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1, 5, 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McIlhany (US 2014/0094106 A1) in view of Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Mcllhany discloses a system for controlling a fume hood (McIlhany 200)comprising: a sensor (McIlhany 280) for detecting a position of a fume hood opening of the fume hood, the sensor comprising: a source (McIlhany 222a and 222b) for emitting energy toward the fume hood
including toward at least part of the fume hood opening (see McIlhany figure 2C, examiner notes reflectors 240a & 240b are affixed to the sash defining the fume hood opening [0038]); a plurality of sense elements (Mcllhany 282a & 282b) arranged in an array (see McIlhany figure 2C) with each of the plurality of sense elements having a corresponding physical location within the array, each of the plurality of sense elements is configured to provide an output signal (Mcllhany [0043]) that is representative of reflected energy that is emitted by the source (McIlhany 222a & 222b), reflected off of a reflector (Mcllhany 240a & 240b) affixed to the fume hood, and sensed at the corresponding physical location within the array of sense elements; a controller (McIlhany 502) operatively coupled to the sensor (see McIlhany figure 5), the controller is configured to; determine the open area of the fume hood opening (Mcllhany [0065]) based on at least in part the distance output from the sensor; and provide a control signal to a ventilation device (Mcllhany [0066]) to produce a desired airflow in the fume hood based at least in part upon the determined open area of the fume hood opening (Mcllhany [0066]).
Mcllhany is silent regarding the source and sense elements being located within a common sensor housing and the energy being reflected from the fume hood.
However, Fluhrer teaches a sensor system for use with a fume hood comprising an ultrasound emitter (Fluhrer 5A) and an ultrasound sense element (Fluhrer 5b) contained within a sensor housing (Fluhrer column 2 lines 9-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcllhany's system for controlling a fume hood by incorporating Fluhrer's teachings of locating emitter and sense elements in a common sensor housing to produce a predictable result of protecting the emitter and sense element from damage.
Further, a court has held that making one piece construction is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McIlhany’s system by integrating the reflectors into the fume hood to produce a predictable result of reducing the number of parts for assembly thereby increasing assembly speed.
Regarding claim 5, Mcllhany and Fluhrer as applied to claim 1 discloses the use of infrared light emitting devices (Mcllhany [0039]) as the sources which will inherently emit energy confined to the infrared frequency range.
Regarding claim 8, Mcllhany and Fluhrer as applied to claim 1 discloses the emitted energy comprises infrared energy (Mcllhany [0039]) which is a form of optical energy. Examiner notes that applicant's specification has defined optical energy as including visible light, IR light and UV light in page 16 line 27 and therefore Mcllhany's infrared emitter is emitting optical energy.
Regarding claim 9, Mcllhany and Fluhrer as applied to claim 1 discloses the emitted energy comprises infrared energy (McIlhany [0039]) which is a form of electromagnetic energy.
Regarding claim 11, Mcllhany and Fluhrer as applied to claim 1 discloses the sensor (Mcllhany 280) is located within the fume hood (see McIlhany figure 2A).
Claims 2, and 6-7 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McIlhany (US 2014/0094106 A1) and Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simms et al. (US 5,036,754).
Regarding claim 2, Mcllhany and Fluhrer as applied to claim 1 is silent regarding the emitter emitting energy in pulses.
However, in the related field of art of fume extraction exhaust hoods, Simms teaches a fume extraction exhaust hood (Simms 10) comprising an ultrasonic emitter (Simms 36) that emits pulses of ultrasonic energy (Simms column 5 lines 32-34) that are received at sensors (Simms 38, 40, and 42) and utilized to determine distance (Simms column 5 line 48 - column 6 line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcllhany's fume hood system by utilizing Simms teachings of replacing the infrared emitters and sensors with ultrasonic emitters and sensors with pulsed operation to produce a predictable result of reducing energy consumption and increasing sensor/emitter life span by reducing the amount of time the sensors and emitters are energized.
Regarding claim 6, McIlhany and Fluhrer as applied to claim 1 is silent regarding the emitted energy being outside of the visible, infrared, and ultraviolet spectra.
However, in the related field of art of fume extraction exhaust hoods, Simms teaches a fume extraction exhaust hood (Simms 10) comprising an ultrasonic emitter (Simms 36) that emits pulses of ultrasonic energy (Simms column 5 lines 32-34) that are received at sensors (Simms 38, 40, and 42) and utilized to determine distance (Simms column 5 line 48 - column 6 line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcllhany's fume hood system by utilizing Simms teachings by replacing the infrared emitters and sensors with ultrasonic emitters and sensors with pulsed operation and a controller configured to measure timing of the pulses to determine distance to produce a predictable result of producing reliable distance data without a dependence on keeping a reflector element both visible and clean to improve reliability and reduce maintenance for the sensor/emitter system. Examiner notes that ultrasonic energy is outside of the negatively recited frequency range of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Mcllhany and Fluhrer as applied to claim 1 is silent regarding the emitted energy comprising acoustic energy.
However, in the related field of art of fume extraction exhaust hoods, Simms teaches a fume extraction exhaust hood (Simms 10) comprising an ultrasonic emitter (Simms 36) that emits pulses of ultrasonic energy (Simms column 5 lines 32-34) that are received at sensors (Simms 38, 40, and 42) and utilized to determine distance (Simms column 5 line 48 - column 6 line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcllhany's fume hood system by utilizing Simms teachings by replacing the infrared emitters and sensors with ultrasonic emitters and sensors with pulsed operation and a controller configured to measure timing of the pulses to determine distance to produce a predictable result of producing reliable distance data without a dependence on keeping a reflector element both visible and clean to improve reliability and reduce maintenance for the sensor/emitter system.
Claim 10 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McIlhany (US 2014/0094106 A1) and Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (US 2011/0133941 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mcllhany and Fluhrer as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the use of one or more lenses for the source.
However, in the related field of optical sensors, Yao teaches an optical proximity sensor (Yao 10) that utilizes lenses (Yao 27 and 29) for a respective emitter (Yao 16) and sensor (Yao 12) to focus the emitted energy into a beam and focus the energy entering the sensor into a beam to improve detection range and reduce crosstalk to improve sensor accuracy (Yao [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcllhany's system to utilize Yao's teachings of lenses to focus emitted energy into a predetermined beam width and focus received energy on the sensor into a fixed beam width to produce a predictable result of improving sensor's detection range and reducing cross talk to improve accuracy.
Claim 12 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McIlhany (US 2014/0094106 A1) and Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bagwell et al. (US 2013/0213483 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Mcllhany and Fluhrer as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the sensor being located outside the fume hood.
However, in the related field of endeavor of exhaust hoods, Bagwell teaches an exhaust hood system comprising a plurality of sensors that includes video cameras (Bagwell [0132]) for providing visible light images and teaches the cameras can be located in any suitable position (Bagwell [0132]) including a plurality of positions shown in figure 42 that are located outside of the fume hood.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact placement of the sensors is a matter of design choice and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate sensor location outside of the fume hood to maximize the usable space within the fume hood.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McIlhany (US 2014/0094106 A1) in view of Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1), Simms et al. S 5,036,754), and Saito (US 2011/03199768 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Mcllhany discloses a method for controlling a fume hood, the method comprising: emitting via an emitter (Mcllhany 222a & 222b), energy toward the fume hood including toward at least part of a fume hood opening (Mcllhany 210, see Mcllhany figure 2C) of the fume hood (Examiner notes reflectors 240a & 240b are fixed to the sash defining the fume hood opening [0038]); sensing, via a plurality of sense elements (Mcllhany 282a & 282b) arranged in an array (Mcllhany 280) with each of the plurality of sense elements having a corresponding physical location within the array (see McIlhany figure 2C), reflected energy (McIlhany [0038]) that is emitted by the emitter, reflected off at least part of the fume hood (McIlhany 240a&240b) and sensed by the plurality of sense elements at each of the corresponding physical locations within the array; determining the open area of the fume hood opening (McIlhany [0065]) based on at least in part the distance output from the sensor; and providing a control signal to a ventilation device (McIlhany [0066]) to produce a desired airflow in the fume hood based at least in part upon the determined open area of the fume hood opening (Mcllhany [0066]).
McIlhany is silent regarding a sensor housing, the use of lenses, and the reflected energy being reflected off of the fume hood.
However, Fluhrer teaches a sensor system for use with a fume hood comprising an ultrasound emitter (Fluhrer 5A) and an ultrasound sense element (Fluhrer 5b) contained within a sensor housing (Fluhrer column 2 lines 9-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcllhany's method for controlling a fume hood by incorporating Fluhrer's teachings of locating emitter and sense elements in a common sensor housing to produce a predictable result of protecting the emitter and sense element from damage.
However, in the related field of art of fume extraction exhaust hoods, Simms teaches a fume extraction exhaust hood (Simms 10) comprising an ultrasonic emitter (Simms 36) that emits pulses of ultrasonic energy (Simms column 5 lines 32-34) that are received at sensors (Simms 38, 40, and 42) and utilized to determine distance (Simms column 5 line 48 - column 6 line 5).
Further, Saito teaches an ultrasonic transducer system (Saito 10) that utilizes an acoustic lens (Saito 13) to focus the ultrasonic beam into a defined field of view and improve image resolution (Saito [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcllhany's fume hood system by utilizing Simms and Saito's teachings of replacing the infrared emitters and sensors with ultrasonic emitters and sensors with pulsed operation to produce a predictable result of reducing energy consumption and increasing sensor/emitter life span by reducing the amount of time the sensors and emitters are energized and utilize a lens to focus the beam into a fixed field of view with improved resolution to improve accuracy of the sensor readings.
Further, a court has held that making one piece construction is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McIlhany’s method by integrating the reflectors into the fume hood to produce a predictable result of reducing the number of parts for assembly thereby increasing assembly speed.
Regarding claim 14, Mcllhany, Fluhrer, Simms and Saito as applied to claim 13 teach pulses of ultrasonic energy (Simms column 5 lines 32-34) with a predetermined pulse duration.
Regarding claim 16, Mcllhany, Fluhrer, Simms, and Saito as applied to claim 13 teach the emitted energy is ultrasonic energy (Simms column 5 lines 32-34). Examiner notes that ultrasonic energy is outside of the negatively recited frequency range of the claim.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McIlhany (US 2014/0094106 A1) in view of Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1), and Simms et al. (US 5,036,754).
Regarding claim 18, Mcllhany discloses a method for controlling a fume hood, the method comprising: emitting via an emitter (McIlhany 222a & 222b), energy toward the fume hood including toward at least part of a fume hood opening (McIlhany 210, see McIlhany figure 2C) of the fume hood (Examiner notes reflectors 240a & 240b are fixed to the sash defining the fume hood opening [0038]); sensing, via a plurality of sense elements (Mcllhany 282a & 282b) arranged in an array (Mcllhany 280) with each of the plurality of sense elements having a corresponding physical location within the array (see McIlhany figure 2C), reflected energy (Mcllhany [0038]) that is emitted by the emitter, reflected off at least part of the fume hood (McIlhany 240a&240b) and sensed by the plurality of sense elements at each of the corresponding physical locations within the array; determining the open area of the fume hood opening (Mcllhany [0065]) based on at least in part the distance output from the sensor; and providing a control signal to a ventilation device (Mcllhany [0066]) to produce a desired airflow in the fume hood based at least in part upon the determined open area of the fume hood opening (McIlhany [0066]).
McIlhany is silent regarding the emitter emitting energy in pulses, the use of a sensor housing, and energy pulses being reflected off the fume hood.
However, Fluhrer teaches a sensor system for use with a fume hood comprising an ultrasound emitter (Fluhrer 5A) and an ultrasound sense element (Fluhrer 5b) contained within a sensor housing (Fluhrer column 2 lines 9-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcllhany's method for controlling a fume hood by incorporating Fluhrer's teachings of locating emitter and sense elements in a common sensor housing to produce a predictable result of protecting the emitter and sense element from damage.
However, in the related field of art of fume extraction exhaust hoods, Simms teaches a fume extraction exhaust hood (Simms 10) comprising an ultrasonic emitter (Simms 36) that emits pulses of ultrasonic energy (Simms column 5 lines 32-34) that are received at sensors (Simms 38, 40, and 42) and utilized to determine distance (Simms column 5 line 48 - column 6 line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Mcllhany's method by utilizing Simms teachings by replacing the infrared emitters and sensors with ultrasonic emitters and sensors with pulsed operation and a controller configured to measure timing of the pulses to determine distance to produce a predictable result of producing reliable distance data without a dependence on keeping a reflector element both visible and clean to improve reliability and reduce maintenance for the sensor/emitter system.
Further, a court has held that making one piece construction is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McIlhany’s system by integrating the reflectors into the fume hood to produce a predictable result of reducing the number of parts for assembly thereby increasing assembly speed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762