DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 1, 3, and 18 have distinguished over the prior art rejections and after further search and consideration new art rejections have been written in view of Desai (US 2004/0072529 A1) which teaches an alert (Desai [0021]) is generated when a controller loses communication with wireless sensors including a sash position sensor (Desai [0020]).
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 limitation(s) is/are: "configurator" in claim 22 which corresponds to a computer workstation, the controller, a mobile device, laptop, or a tablet in page 7 lines 30-31 & page 8 lines 1-3 of the specification.
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.
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 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, 5-12, and 21-22 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 the limitation "the processor" in line 22 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-12 and 21-22 depend upon claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
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 s 1, 5, 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mcllhany (US 2014/0094106 A1) in view of Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1) and Desai (US 2004/0072529 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mcllhany discloses a system for controlling a fume hood (McIlhany 200) comprising: a sensor (Mcllhany 280) for detecting a position of a fume hood opening of the fume hood, the sensor comprising: a source (Mcllhany 222a and 222b) for emitting energy toward the fume hood including toward at least part of the fume hood opening (see Mcllhany figure 2C, examiner notes reflectors 240a & 240b are affixed to the sash defining the fume hood opening [0038], “The sash panels 208a & 208b each have corresponding reflective markers 240a & 240b. A first reflective marker 240a is attached to a position substantially indicative of an edge of the first sash panel 208a. A second reflective marker 240b is attached to a position substantially indicative of an edge of the second sash panel 208b.”); 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], “The first distance optosensor 282a detects a marker image and generates a signal value based on the distance D.sub.M1 to the first marker 240a. The second distance optosensor 282b detects a marker image and generates a signal value based on the distance D.sub.M2 to the second marker 240b”) 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 (Mcllhany 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], “The open area determining unit 504 determines an area of the sash opening based on the distance D4 determined by the sash position tracking unit 508.”) based on at least in part the distance output from the sensor; and provide a control signal to a ventilation device (Mcllhany [0066], “The ventilation control unit 506 uses the area of the sash opening to control the ventilation in the fume hood so that the face velocity is maintained within a desired range”) 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], “The ventilation control unit 506 uses the area of the sash opening to control the ventilation in the fume hood so that the face velocity is maintained within a desired range”).
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 and is further silent regarding an alert being generated in response to the processor not being able to identify the size of the fume hood opening.
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. (See MPEP § 2144.04 V B)
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.
Further, Desai teaches a fume hood (Desai 1) comprising a sash position indicator (Desai 3a) that comprises a sensor (Desai 31) coupled to a transmitter (Desai 32) and an emitter (Desai 33) and a controller (Desai 5) configured to calculate the size of the fume hood opening and provide a control signal to a damper to control airflow through the fume hood opening (Desai [0028], “For example, the controller 5 may receive a wireless signal that indicates the position of one or more sashes, calculate a size of the hood opening 8, and control a damper 6, a blower or other device to adjust the airflow through a conduit 7 connected to the housing 1, and thus control airflow through the hood opening 8”). Desai further teaches that when communication with the transmitter is interrupted an alarm is triggered (Desai [0021], “The controller may also include safety features to ensure containment in the event that wireless communications are somehow interrupted or otherwise compromised. For example, if the controller does not receive a wireless signal from a particular sensor or group of sensors for a given amount of time, e.g., 0.5 sec, or if a received signal is unintelligible, the controller may take action to ensure that containment is properly maintained. In such situations, the controller may send a request for a retransmission of the signal and/or automatically adjust airflow in the hood to a maximum airflow, may automatically close one or more hood openings, sound an alarm, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McIlhany’s system to incorporate Desai’s teachings of a controller configured to generate an alert to indicate a fault condition when the controller does not receive sensor data to produce a predictable result of warning users of potentially dangerous equipment malfunctions.
Regarding claim 5, Mcllhany, Fluhrer, and Desai as applied to claim 1 teach the use of infrared light emitting devices (Mcllhany [0039], “In example implementations described here without limitation, the first and second emitters 222a & 222b are infrared light emitting devices”) as the sources which will inherently emit energy confined to the infrared frequency range.
Regarding claim 8, Mcllhany, Fluhrer, and Desai as applied to claim 1 teach the emitted energy comprises infrared energy (Mcllhany [0039], “In example implementations described here without limitation, the first and second emitters 222a & 222b are infrared light emitting devices”) 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 being interpreted as emitting optical energy.
Regarding claim 9, Mcllhany, Fluhrer, and Desai as applied to claim 1 discloses the emitted energy comprises infrared energy (Mcllhany [0039], ““In example implementations described here without limitation, the first and second emitters 222a & 222b are infrared light emitting devices””) which is a form of electromagnetic energy.
Regarding claim 11, Mcllhany, Fluhrer, and Desai as applied to claim 1 discloses the sensor (Mcllhany 280) is located within the fume hood (see McIlhany figure 2A).
Regarding claim 21, McIlhany, Fluhrer, and Desai as applied to claim 1 are silent regarding the controller being configured to receive at least one further output signal from a sensor to determine the size of the fume hood during the fault condition.
However, Desai further teaches that during a fault condition the controller can initiate backup communication by signaling another transmitter or sensor (Desai [0021], “The controller may also initiate a backup communication system, e.g., signal another wireless transmitter or sensor to begin detection of a containment condition and sending information regarding the detected condition.”).
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 further incorporating Desai’s teachings of having a backup communication system to provide an additional output signal during a fault condition to provide redundancy and maintain a safe working environment during a sensor/communication fault condition.
Claims 2, and 6-7 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McIlhany (US 2014/0094106 A1), Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1), and Desai (US 2004/0072529 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simms et al. (US 5,036,754).
Regarding claim 2, Mcllhany, Fluhrer, and Desai as applied to claim 1 are 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, Fluhrer, and Desai as applied to claim 1 are 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, Fluhrer, and Desai 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 Mcllhany (US 2014/0094106 A1), Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1), and Desai (US 2004/0072529 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (US 2011/0133941 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Mcllhany, Fluhrer, and Desai 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], “The advantageous and efficacious lens configurations shown in FIGS. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have been discovered to provide surprisingly good results with respect to crosstalk suppression and increasing detection distance”).
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 Mcllhany (US 2014/0094106 A1), Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1), and Desai (US 2004/0072529 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bagwell et al. (US 2013/0213483 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Mcllhany, Fluhrer, and Desai 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 example, a controller 950 may receive input signals from one or more input devices including one or more video cameras 961, infrared video cameras 962, opacity sensors 963, temperature sensors 964, audio transducers 965 (e.g., microphones), manual switches 966, flow rate sensors 967, motion sensors 968, and proximity sensors 969”) for providing visible light images and teaches the cameras can be located in any suitable position (Bagwell [0132], “Video or IR cameras may be located at any desired position, examples being indicated at 920 and 935 and as discussed later in connection with FIG. 42”) 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 without altering the functionality of the cameras.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mcllhany (US 2014/0094106 A1) in view of Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1), Simms et al. S 5,036,754), Saito (US 2011/03199768 A1), and Desai (US 2004/0072529 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], “The first and second reflective markers 240a & 240b may be attached to the sash panel edges by an adhesive, or by any other suitable attachment material or device.”); 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 Mcllhany figure 2C), reflected energy (McIlhany [0038], “The first and second reflective markers 240a & 240b may be made of any material that reflects the light emitted by the first and second light emitters 222a & 222b”) 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], “The open area determining unit 504 determines an area of the sash opening based on the distance D4 determined by the sash position tracking unit 508”) based on at least in part the distance output from the sensor; and providing a control signal to a ventilation device (Mcllhany [0066], “The ventilation control unit 506 uses the area of the sash opening to control the ventilation in the fume hood so that the face velocity is maintained within a desired range”) 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], “The ventilation control unit 506 uses the area of the sash opening to control the ventilation in the fume hood so that the face velocity is maintained within a desired range”).
McIlhany is silent regarding a sensor housing, the use of lenses, the reflected energy being reflected off of the fume hood, and generating an alert to indicate a fault condition when the controller cannot identify the size of the fume hood opening.
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], “Acoustic lens 13 is installed so as to focus an ultrasonic beam and consequently to improve the resolution of a tomographic image”).
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. (See MPEP § 2144.04 V B)
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.
Further, Desai teaches a fume hood (Desai 1) comprising a sash position indicator (Desai 3a) that comprises a sensor (Desai 31) coupled to a transmitter (Desai 32) and an emitter (Desai 33) and a controller (Desai 5) configured to calculate the size of the fume hood opening and provide a control signal to a damper to control airflow through the fume hood opening (Desai [0028], “For example, the controller 5 may receive a wireless signal that indicates the position of one or more sashes, calculate a size of the hood opening 8, and control a damper 6, a blower or other device to adjust the airflow through a conduit 7 connected to the housing 1, and thus control airflow through the hood opening 8”). Desai further teaches that when communication with the transmitter is interrupted an alarm is triggered (Desai [0021], “The controller may also include safety features to ensure containment in the event that wireless communications are somehow interrupted or otherwise compromised. For example, if the controller does not receive a wireless signal from a particular sensor or group of sensors for a given amount of time, e.g., 0.5 sec, or if a received signal is unintelligible, the controller may take action to ensure that containment is properly maintained. In such situations, the controller may send a request for a retransmission of the signal and/or automatically adjust airflow in the hood to a maximum airflow, may automatically close one or more hood openings, sound an alarm, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McIlhany’s method to incorporate Desai’s teachings of a controller configured to generate an alert to indicate a fault condition when the controller does not receive sensor data to produce a predictable result of warning users of potentially dangerous equipment malfunctions.
Regarding claim 14, Mcllhany, Fluhrer, Simms, Saito, and Desai 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, Saito, and Desai 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 Mcllhany (US 2014/0094106 A1) in view of Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1), Simms et al. (US 5,036,754) ), and Desai (US 2004/0072529 A1).
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], “The first and second reflective markers 240a & 240b may be attached to the sash panel edges by an adhesive, or by any other suitable attachment material or device”); 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], “The first and second reflective markers 240a & 240b may be made of any material that reflects the light emitted by the first and second light emitters 222a & 222b”) 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 by the controller the open area of the fume hood opening (Mcllhany [0065], “The open area determining unit 504 determines an area of the sash opening based on the distance D4 determined by the sash position tracking unit 508”) based on at least in part the distance output from the sensor which determines distance based on the reflected energy from the emitter (McIlhany [0054], “ Distance D4 may be determined by measuring a signal value output of the distance optosensor 282”); and providing a control signal to a ventilation device (Mcllhany [0066], “The ventilation control unit 506 uses the area of the sash opening to control the ventilation in the fume hood so that the face velocity is maintained within a desired range. The ventilation control unit 506 may communicate with ventilation/exhaust equipment through a ventilation/exhaust equipment interface 530 to adjust fans and dampers as determined by the ventilation control unit 506”) 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], “The ventilation control unit 506 uses the area of the sash opening to control the ventilation in the fume hood so that the face velocity is maintained within a desired range”).
McIlhany is silent regarding the emitter emitting energy in pulses, the use of a sensor housing, energy pulses being reflected off the fume hood, and generating an alert to indicate a fault condition when the controller is not able to identify the size of the fume hood opening.
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. (See MPEP § 2144.04 V B)
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.
Further, Desai teaches a fume hood (Desai 1) comprising a sash position indicator (Desai 3a) that comprises a sensor (Desai 31) coupled to a transmitter (Desai 32) and an emitter (Desai 33) and a controller (Desai 5) configured to calculate the size of the fume hood opening and provide a control signal to a damper to control airflow through the fume hood opening (Desai [0028], “For example, the controller 5 may receive a wireless signal that indicates the position of one or more sashes, calculate a size of the hood opening 8, and control a damper 6, a blower or other device to adjust the airflow through a conduit 7 connected to the housing 1, and thus control airflow through the hood opening 8”). Desai further teaches that when communication with the transmitter is interrupted an alarm is triggered (Desai [0021], “The controller may also include safety features to ensure containment in the event that wireless communications are somehow interrupted or otherwise compromised. For example, if the controller does not receive a wireless signal from a particular sensor or group of sensors for a given amount of time, e.g., 0.5 sec, or if a received signal is unintelligible, the controller may take action to ensure that containment is properly maintained. In such situations, the controller may send a request for a retransmission of the signal and/or automatically adjust airflow in the hood to a maximum airflow, may automatically close one or more hood openings, sound an alarm, etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McIlhany’s method to incorporate Desai’s teachings of a controller configured to generate an alert to indicate a fault condition when the controller does not receive sensor data to produce a predictable result of warning users of potentially dangerous equipment malfunctions.
Claim 22 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mcllhany (US 2014/0094106 A1), Fluhrer (US 6,324,889 B1), and Desai (US 2004/0072529 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahmed et al. (US 5,115,728).
Regarding claim 22, McIlhany, Fluhrer, and Desai as applied to claim 1 above are silent regarding a configurator configured to store configuration information for two or more different fume hood models and a user interface configured to receive a selection of a fume hood configuration from the stored configuration information via a user input, the controller configured to determine the size of the fume hood opening using the selected fume hood configuration.
However, Ahmed teaches a system for controlling fume hoods wherein a laptop can be used by a user to input data defining the characteristics of the fume hood (Ahmed column 10 line55 – column 11 line 4). Examiner notes that a laptop falls within applicant’s definition of a configurator on page 7 lines 30-31 & page 8 lines 1-3 of the specification and a laptop also includes a user interface for a user to input data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McIlhany’s system to incorporate Ahmed’s teachings of utilizing a laptop as a configurator to allow a user to input information about the characteristics of the fume hood into the controller to produce a predictable result of allowing the controller to work for various different fume hoods.
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.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights