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
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9 June 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 9 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that restriction requirements are optional and that if the search and examination can be made without serious burden, the Examiner must examine it on the merits. Applicant further argues that Applicant should not be require to incur the additional costs associated with the filing of multiple divisional applications. Furthermore, Applicant remarks that a search of subject matter of the claims of group I and group II would likely yield results applicable to the other group.
This is not found persuasive because the standard of whether a restriction is appropriate or not are limited solely to whether a search burden exists when claims are drawn to multiple/patentably distinct inventions. Accordingly, because the claims of group I require only monitoring of particle characteristics of air and monitoring of gas characteristics of air that are time coordinated in to determine air characteristics and parameters whereas the claims of group II instead requires a particle generator that charges an indoor environment with a first charge including a concentration of a plurality of test particles with a test particle size about equal to a first particle size and a gas generator that is configured to charge the indoor environment with a second charge, the test gas having a size less than the test particle size and determining air characteristics based on a test gas characteristic. Accordingly, the examiner respectfully submits that the searches for the inventions as claimed in group I and II are unlikely to overlap and therefore there is a search burden if both were to be examined at the same time. Furthermore, while the Examiner recognizes that there is additional financial responsibility associated with filing multiple divisional applications, the Examiner respectfully submits that because restriction is still considered to be appropriate for the reasons outlined in MPEP § 803, the restriction is still being maintained. Additionally, the Examiner respectfully submits that because the reasons described previously above regarding the differences between the invention as claimed in group I and II is different and not coextensive, a search for the invention as claimed in group I will not necessarily encompass the subject matter of the invention as claimed in group II. Accordingly, a search burden exists and the restriction is still being maintained as proper.
For all of the reasons above, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
As to claim 4: The claim recites that a clean air delivery rate (CADR) for the indoor environment overall is based on combining the mitigation equivalent air change rate (MEACH) for all (emphasis added) particle mitigation system and the air change rate (ACH) for all (emphasis added) ventilation. However, it is unclear from the scope which particle mitigation systems and ventilation is intended to be encompassed by the claim signifier of “all” in the claim. It appears from Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 77 that Applicant may have intended to claim all to refer only to particle mitigation systems or ventilations in a specific room, but because there is also a recitation therein regarding rooms overall, the intended scope of the claim is still rendered unclear.
Due to the above issues, a prior art search for the claimed subject matter of the instant claim was not carried out at this time. The examiner recommends either indicating how Applicant believes the claim scope to be definite, preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claim to obviate the above noted issues. Should Applicant’s reply overcome the instant 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, a prior art search for the claimed subject matter of the instant claim will be carried out at the time of the withdrawal of said 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
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.
As to claim 18: The claim limitations “means for gas generation” and “means for particle generation” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, it appears from Applicant’s as-filed specification ¶ 530 that the recited limitations of “means for gas generation” and “means for particle generation” are generically (emphasis added) linked to any one of examples 90-165 but does not specifically (emphasis added) link any structure which may be equated to the claim means for each of the above noted “means” limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-9, 13, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaufmann et al. US PG-PUB 2014/0000343 A1 (hereafter Kaufmann).
As to claim 1: Kaufmann discloses a method for analysing air of an indoor environment having a plurality of particle mitigation systems (see ¶ 110-112), the method comprising:
monitoring over time a particle characteristic of air having particles generated by a particle generator in the indoor environment (see ¶ 110);
monitoring overtime a gas characteristic of air having gas generated by a gas generator in the indoor environment (see ¶ 111 and 112); and
determining at least one air characteristic of the indoor environment based on both the particle characteristic and the gas characteristic, wherein the monitoring of the particle characteristic and the monitoring of the gas characteristic are time-coordinated (see ¶ 45, 51, and 124).
As to claim 7: Kaufmann discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the amount of gas provided to the indoor environment is a known, measured, or metered amount of gas (see ¶ 114; the gas stream is known because it is analyzed by analyzer 35).
As to claim 8: Kaufmann discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the gas is generated from a container (see ¶ 114; the confines of the sample channel 10 are considered to be a container).
As to claim 9: Kaufmann discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the gas is generated from one or more people present in the indoor environment (see ¶ 74; air is measured and air is generated by any people present in the indoor environment, at least the operator of the device depicted in fig. 1).
As to claim 13: Kaufmann discloses the method of claim 1, comprising passively monitoring the gas characteristic of the air in the indoor environment to identify: initiation of a gas generating event, termination of a gas generation event, achievement of a gas steady state, or any combination thereof (see ¶ 114 in view of further details in ¶ 119).
As to claim 16: Kaufmann discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the particle generator is an occupant or occupant activity (see ¶ 74; particles measured are generated by any people present in the indoor environment via respiration, at least due to the operator of the device depicted in fig. 1).
As to claim 17: Kaufmann discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the gas generator is one or more occupants in the indoor environment (see ¶ 74; the gas measured is generated by any people present in the indoor environment via respiration, at least due to the operator of the device depicted in fig. 1).
As to claim 19: Kaufmann discloses a system for analyzing air of an indoor environment having a plurality of particle mitigation systems (see fig. 10), the system comprising:
a particle monitor (32; see ¶ 108) configured to receive air having particles generated by a particle generator in the indoor environment and monitor a particle characteristic over time (see ¶ 108 and 110);
a gas monitor (35; see ¶ 112) configured to receive air having a gas generated by a gas generator in the indoor environment and monitor a gas characteristic over time (see ¶ 112 and 114); and
a control system operatively coupled to the particle monitor and the gas monitor to determine at least one air characteristic of the indoor environment based on both the particle characteristic and the gas characteristic (not specifically labeled; the processor and control hardware that carries out the functions disclosed in ¶ 108-111 is considered to be a control system).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann et al. US PG-PUB 2014/0000343 A1 (hereafter Kaufmann) in view of Davis et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0014295 A1 (hereafter Davis).
As to claim 3: Kaufmann teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1 including a method comprising a particle characteristic and gas characteristic (see ¶ 45, 51, and 124), but does not explicitly teach:
determining a clean air delivery rate (CADR) for the indoor environment based on both the particle characteristic and the gas characteristic.
However, Davis teaches determining a clean air delivery rate (CADR) for an indoor environment based on both a particle characteristic and a gas characteristic (see ¶ 23 and 25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaufmann’s method to include determining a clean air delivery rate (CADR) for the indoor environment based on both the particle characteristic and the gas characteristic because such determination is useful in automatically controlling an air sanitation device and can thus maintain a desired air quality, such as suggested in Davis ¶ 25 or allow a user to select a specific sanitization mode for a specific area such as further suggested in Davis ¶ 26 and can thus assure a user of a certain level of air quality for the monitored indoor environment.
Claims 5, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann et al. US PG-PUB 2014/0000343 A1 (hereafter Kaufmann) in view of Risbeck et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0250988 A1 (hereafter Risbeck).
As to claim 5: Kaufmann teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a gas (see ¶ 111 and 112), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the gas comprises CO2.
However, Risbeck teaches monitoring a gas characteristic of air having gas in an indoor environment wherein the gas comprises CO2 (see ¶ 351).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaufmann’s method such that monitoring of a gas characteristic of air having gas in an indoor environment wherein the gas comprises CO2 because CO2 is an art recognized metric relevant to air quality and can determine a needed air or gas supply in a specific ventilation space, such as suggested in ¶ 351 of Risbeck. Accordingly, monitoring of CO2 would allow Kaufmann’s method to be applied to improve ventilation and air supply for buildings as well.
As to claim 11: Kaufmann teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a gas (see ¶ 111 and 112), but does not explicitly teach:
using a sensor to determine occupancy or occupant activity in the indoor environment, and occupants or occupant activity in the indoor environment generate the gas and charge the indoor environment.
However, Risbeck teaches using a sensor to determine occupancy or occupant activity in the indoor environment (see ¶ 379), and occupants or occupant activity in the indoor environment generate the gas and charge the indoor environment (see ¶ 379 and 380).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaufmann’s method to include using a sensor to determine occupancy or occupant activity in the indoor environment, and occupants or occupant activity in the indoor environment generate the gas and charge the indoor environment because occupant activity and ventilation are correlated and maintaining proper ventilation is an art recognized metric in achieving a certain number of air changes for a certain amount of activity or number of occupants, such as suggested in ¶ 385 of Risbeck.
As to claim 12: Kaufmann teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including monitoring a particle characteristic of air in an indoor environment (see ¶ 110-112), but does not explicitly teach:
passively monitoring the particle characteristic of the air in the indoor environment to identify a background, a signal-to-background threshold, or both.
However, Risbeck teaches passively monitoring the particle characteristic of the air in the indoor environment to identify a background, a signal-to-background threshold, or both (see ¶ 366 and 367).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaufmann’s method to include passively monitoring the particle characteristic of the air in the indoor environment to identify a background, a signal-to-background threshold, or both, because this monitoring can be used together with airborne infection data to improve indoor air quality such as suggested in ¶ 374 of Risbeck and therefore promotes healthier air for occupants in an indoor environment.
As to claim 14: Kaufmann teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including providing a known, measured, or metered amount of gas to the air of an indoor environment (see ¶ 114; the gas stream is known because it is analyzed by analyzer 35), but does not explicitly teach:
providing a known, measured, or metered amount of gas to the air of the indoor environment and determining a volume of the air of the indoor environment by utilizing a measured concentration of the gas with the known, measured, or metered amount of gas provided.
However, Risbeck teaches providing a known, measured, or metered amount of gas to the air of the indoor environment and determining a volume of the air of the indoor environment by utilizing a measured concentration of the gas with the known, measured, or metered amount of gas provided (see ¶ 373 and 374).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaufmann’s method to include providing a known, measured, or metered amount of gas to the air of the indoor environment and determining a volume of the air of the indoor environment by utilizing a measured concentration of the gas with the known, measured, or metered amount of gas provided because such providing and determination is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of maintaining proper indoor air quality such as suggested in ¶ 374 of Risbeck and thus promotes proper air quality with regard to several metrics such as further suggested in ¶ 376 of Risbeck.
As to claim 15: Kaufmann teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including assessing at least one air characteristic of an indoor environment (see ¶ 45, 51, and 124), but does not explicitly teach:
assessing at least one air characteristic of the indoor environment against an air characteristic criteria; and altering a setting of one or more portion of the plurality of particle mitigation systems, a mechanical air filtration system, an air handling system providing an alert, or any combination thereof. However, Risbeck teaches assessing at least one air characteristic of the indoor environment against an air characteristic criteria (see ¶ 381 and 382); and altering a setting of one or more portion of the plurality of particle mitigation systems, a mechanical air filtration system, an air handling system providing an alert, or any combination thereof (see ¶ 440).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaufmann’s method to include assessing at least one air characteristic of the indoor environment against an air characteristic criteria; and altering a setting of one or more portion of the plurality of particle mitigation systems, a mechanical air filtration system, an air handling system providing an alert, or any combination thereof because this assessment can be used to optimize energy usage while maintaining indoor air quality at the same time and notifying a user in the event that an expected quality or airflow rate is not met such that a user may be alarmed or alerted, such as suggested in ¶ 440 of Risbeck.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann et al. US PG-PUB 2014/0000343 A1 (hereafter Kaufmann) in view of Urban et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0033369 A1 (hereafter Urban).
As to claim 6: Kaufmann teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a gas (see ¶ 111 and 112), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the gas comprises isopropanol.
However, Urban teaches monitoring a gas characteristic of air having gas in an indoor environment wherein the gas comprises isopropanol (see ¶ 47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaufmann’s method such that monitoring of a gas characteristic of air having gas in an indoor environment wherein the gas comprises isopropanol because isopropanol is an art recognized compound that is relevant to air quality and volatile organic compounds for air streams, such as suggested in ¶ 47 of Urban, and accordingly would be a gas of interest for Kaufmann to measure to ensure proper air quality.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann et al. US PG-PUB 2014/0000343 A1 (hereafter Kaufmann) in view of Law et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0330817 A1 (hereafter Law).
As to claim 10: Kaufmann teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including comprising determining at least one air characteristic of the indoor environment (see ¶ 45, 51, and 124), but does not explicitly teach:
comprising determining the at least one air characteristic of the indoor environment based on utilizing occupant number, occupant activity, or both, together with an expected CO2 production rate and a measured gas decay rate determined from recording gas concentration in the indoor environment over time.
However, Law teaches determining at least one air characteristic of an indoor environment based on utilizing occupant number, occupant activity, or both, together with an expected CO2 production rate and a measured gas decay rate determined from recording gas concentration in the indoor environment over time (see ¶ 84).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaufmann’s method to include determining the at least one air characteristic of the indoor environment based on utilizing occupant number, occupant activity, or both, together with an expected CO2 production rate and a measured gas decay rate determined from recording gas concentration in the indoor environment over time because monitoring of such CO2 production and decay rates is an important determining metric in ascertaining whether amount of volatile organic compounds or airborne bacteria levels is acceptable in an indoor environment, such as suggested in Law ¶ 86.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a method wherein the at least one air characteristic of the indoor environment includes a mitigation equivalent air change rate (MEACH) for a portion of the particle mitigation systems based on both (emphasis added) the particle characteristic and the gas characteristic, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights