DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Application
Claims 18-19, 21-27 & 31-32 are pending and have been examined in this application. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 01/21/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 18-19, 21-26 & 31-32 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102b as being anticipated by US Patent Publication Number 2011/0010014 A1 to Oexman.
A) As per Claim 18, Oexman teaches a system for controlling the thermal comfort of a person (Oexman: Figure 1), comprising:
a sensor for sensing a physiological condition of the person (Oexman: Figure 1, Item 117; Paragraph 0050-0051 & 0053) and
a ceiling fan (Oexman: Figure 1, Item 140) adapted for being controlled based on the sensed physiological condition (Oexman: Paragraph 0060 & 0065, fan and other items controlled based on algorithms of controller after receiving environmental data and physiological data [Paragraph 0054]).
B) As per Claim 19, Oexman teaches that the sensor is selected from the group consisting of a wristband (Oexman: Figure 1, Item 117; Paragraph 0050-0051 & 0053), armband, belt, watch, glasses, clothing accessory, an object adapted for being ingested by or embedded in the person, and any combination thereof.
C) As per Claim 21, Oexman teaches that the physiological condition is selected from the group consisting of metabolic equivalent of task (MET), heart rate, pulse, blood pressure, body temperature (Oexman: Figure 1, Item 117; Paragraph 0050-0051 & 0053), respiration, weight, perspiration, blood oxygen level, galvanic skin response, and combinations thereof.
D) As per Claim 22, Oexman teaches that the sensor is adapted for transmitting data about the physiological condition directly to a controller (Oexman: Figure 1, Items 117 & 110; Paragraph 0055) or via an intermediate device.
E) As per Claim 23, Oexman teaches that the controller is adapted to determine a comfort control setting based a condition selected from the group consisting of external temperature, room occupancy, and/or time of day (Oexman: Comfort controlled based on at least partially the time of night; Paragraph 0071).
F) As per Claim 24, Oexman teaches that the controller includes control settings selected from the group consisting of occupied heating (Oexman: Figure 1, Item 203 & 120, occupied cooling and heating), unoccupied heating, occupied cooling, and unoccupied cooling.
G) As per Claim 25, Oexman teaches that each control setting comprises a programmable temperature set range and/or an option to operate the fan as a part of a sequence of operations of an HVAC system in response to the temperature being outside the set range (Oexman: Figure 6, Paragraph 0065, comparing environmental readings with threshold, if deviates [being outside a set range], then any of the listed actions may be taken).
H) As per Claim 26, Oexman teaches that communication between the sensor and the controller is a wireless communication (Oexman: Figure 1, Item 117; Paragraph 0050).
I) As per Claim 31, Oexman teaches that the ceiling fan is controlled based on a combination of the sensed physiological condition and a sensed occupancy of a space in which the ceiling fan is located (Oexman: Paragraph 0040, detects presence of partner through weight and other sensors within 201 itself in addition to physiological sensing of main person cited above).
J) As per Claim 32, Oexman teaches a speed of the ceiling fan is directly adjusted as a function of the sensed physiological condition of the person (Oexman: Paragraph 0060 & 0065, fan and other items controlled based on algorithms of controller after receiving environmental data and physiological data [Paragraph 0054]; therefore the fan is directly controlled based in part on the physiological data provided to the controller).
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 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.
Claim 27 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oexman in view of US Patent Number 8,204,786 B2 to LeBoeuf.
A) As per Claim 27, Oexman teaches all the limitations except that the sensor is adapted for transmitting data about the physiological condition to the controller via the intermediate device, and wherein the intermediate device comprises a computer, a tablet, or a smartphone.
However, LeBoeuf teaches the sensor is adapted for transmitting data about the physiological condition to the controller via the intermediate device, and wherein the intermediate device comprises a computer, a tablet, or a smartphone (LeBoeuf: Figure 2, intermediate device Item 22; Col. 18, lines 57-67).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Oexman by having the sensor communicate with a portable device, as taught by LeBoeuf, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Oexman with these aforementioned teachings of LeBoeuf since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the communication pathway of LeBoeuf for the communication pathway of Oexman.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Response to Arguments
Some of Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18-19, 21-27 & 31-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Other of Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) The Applicant asserts that the fan is not controlled based on the physiological sensors of Oexman, specifically the wristband example cited [Item 117]. The Applicant asserts that the sensor merely computes a score but does not act on that score immediately, instead acting on information from the environmental sensors using the physiological data to trigger the environmental sensing. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Oexman specifically states that the data from Item 117 is relayed to the controller and control adjustments are made to the bedroom environment (including the fan 140 in Figure 1) from that relayed data (Paragraph 0050-0055, specifically last sentence of Paragraph 0054 provides one example, though the Examiner notes that other combinations are taught by Oexman as well). In addition, even if Applicant assertions are correct (which Examiner does not concede), the physiological data is still used as part of the information that the controller uses to change the various items in the room, including the fan 140).
B) The Applicant asserts that because the fan 140 is only listed in “generic, non-operative enumeration lists” of what could theoretically be adjusted based on the data, there is no specific teaching that the fan specifically is controlled based on the data from the sensors. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fan 140 is not just a theoretical in the invention, but is specifically noted in both the specifications and drawings as being controlled by the controller, whose algorithms are based on sensor data, some of the sensor data being the physiological sensors mentioned. This is not merely another item on a laundry list but specifically stating the fan in the figures is controlled based on the sensors disclosed. Therefore, the fan must be controlled at least partially based on the data from the physiological sensors.
C) In response to applicant's argument that LeBoeuf is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, LeBoeuf is in the same field of endeavor by being directed toward physiological sensors data collection and transmission. In addition, the particular problem of providing that data to a central computer/controller is certainly the same between LaBeouf and applicant’s invention.
D) The Applicant asserts that LeBeouf does not teach a controller, but teaches a middle relay between the sensor and a database. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The teaching of a middle relay from the sensor to the final destination (regardless of what that data is then used for) is certainly taught by LeBeouf and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement in the system of Oexman to connect the sensors and the final destination (the database within the controller).
E) The Applicant asserts that a simple substitution of the intermediate relay for a direct relay connection because the result is not predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The teachings of LeBouef show that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect a sensor to a final destination (regardless of what the data is used for at that final destination) using an intermediate relay instead of a direct connection. In summary, both a direct and indirect connection to the final destination from the sensor are shown to be known in the art so substituting one of the connection types for another of the connection types would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
F) The Examiner notes that with respect to arguments regarding Claims 31-32, the relevant Examiner statements and citations are written in the above rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights