DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed September 1st, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One – Claim 1 recites the mental process of predicting a remaining life of a filter. This limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mental process and covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no additional claim elements that preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – The claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to include any limitations describing how the predicted remaining life of the filter is used. Also, it is noted that claim 1 describes the steps of transmitting a light toward the filter, taking a measurement of light reflected from the filter, adding the measurement to a database, and displaying the remaining life of the filter. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant, extra-solution activity as representing mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05 (I)(A).
Step 2B – The claim fails to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of transmitting a light toward the filter, taking a measurement of light reflected from the filter, adding the measurement to a database, and displaying the remaining life of the filter are well-understood, routine, and conventional within the art, as demonstrated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2016/0121251 A1 to Baek et al. (hereinafter referred to as Baek) The claim is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein transmitting light toward the filter comprises transmitting infrared light toward the filter.
This additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, transmitting infrared light toward a filter for the purpose of data collection is well-understood, routine, and conventional within the art as demonstrated by Baek. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the database includes at least a current measurement and a previous measurement. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not a particular practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein predicting the remaining life of the filter comprises determining a slope between the current measurement and the previous measurement.
The limitation of predicting the remaining life of the filter is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no additional claim elements that preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein predicting the remaining life of the filter comprises determining the remaining life based on the slope.
The limitation of predicting the remaining life of the filter based on the slope, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no additional claim elements that preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above, as well as the limitations of wherein taking the measurement is performed periodically, and further including updating a period at which the measurement is taken based on the slope. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not a particular practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the database includes at least a first measurement, a second measurement, and a current measurement. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not a particular practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein predicting the remaining life of the filter comprises determining a first slope between the first measurement and the second measurement and a second slope between the second measurement and the current measurement.
The limitation of predicting the remaining life of the filter using a first slope and a second slope, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no additional claim elements that preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein predicting the remaining life of the filter comprises determining the remaining life based on a difference between the first slope and the second slope.
The limitation of predicting the remaining life of the filter using a difference between the first slope and the second slope, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no additional claim elements that preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above, as well as the limitations of wherein taking the measurement is performed periodically, and further comprising updating a period at which the measurement is taken based on a difference between the first slope and the second slope. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not a particular practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitations of comparing the measurement of the reflected light with an alarm limit and providing an alarm IF the measurement of the reflected light is above the alarm limit.
The limitation of comparing the measurement of the reflecting light with an alarm limit, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no additional claim elements that preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
There is no additional information provided regarding the conditional IF statement and what will occur when the measurement of the reflected light is not above the alarm limit. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above, as well as the limitations of comparing the measurement of the reflected light with a warning limit and providing a warning IF the measurement of the reflected light is above the warning limit and below the alarm limit.
The limitation of comparing the measurement of the reflecting light with a warning limit, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no additional claim elements that preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
There is no additional information provided regarding the conditional IF statement and what will occur when the measurement of the reflected light is not above the warning limit. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of comparing the measurement of the reflected light with a previous measurement of the reflected light stored in the database.
The limitation of comparing the measurement of the reflected light with a previous measurement, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no additional claim elements that preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above, as well as the limitations of prompting a user to indicate whether the filter has been changed and receiving an indication of whether the filter has been changed.
These additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of logging, if the filter has been changed, a change date in the database. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not a particular practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above, as well as the limitations of if the filter has been changed, logging a change time in the database; evaluating the accuracy of the remaining life of the filter; and resetting the remaining life of the filter.
The limitation of logging a change time in the database represents mere data gathering. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not a particular practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The limitation of evaluating the accuracy of the remaining life of the filter, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no additional claim elements that preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of resetting the remaining life of the filter does not integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of revising, IF the filter has been changed, a prediction model based upon a difference between the remaining life of the filter and an actual in-service life of the filter. There is no additional information provided regarding the conditional IF statement and what will occur if the filter has not been changed. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2016/0121251 A1 to Baek et al. (hereinafter referred to as Baek).
Regarding claim 1, Baek teaches a method of predicting a remaining life of a filter (¶00025 “and more particularly, to a contamination sensor configured to determine contamination level, an air purifier having the same, and a control method thereof.”), the method comprising: transmitting light toward the filter (¶0010 “The light emitter can project infrared light, ultraviolet light, or a visible light towards the filter.”); taking a measurement of light reflected from the filter (¶0013 “a light receiver disposed in the housing to receive the light reflected from the filter. The light receiver outputs different signals corresponding to the contamination level of the filter, based on an amount of light received at the light receiver”); adding the measurement to a database (¶0086 “upon receiving the information of the amount of light from the light receiver 312, 412, 512, the controller 600 stores the information”); predicting the remaining life of the filter using the database (¶0060 “Further, the controller 600 determines the contamination level of the filter 200 by comparing the signal delivered from the contamination sensor 300, 400, 500 with a boundary value of each contamination stage as stored at a memory provided in the controller 600.”); and displaying the remaining life of the filter (¶0060 “The controller 600 then delivers the information about the determination on the contamination level to the contamination checker 700”).
Regarding claim 2, Baek teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, wherein transmitting light toward the filter comprises transmitting infrared light toward the filter (¶0010 “The light emitter can project infrared light, ultraviolet light, or a visible light towards the filter.”).
Regarding claim 3, Baek teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the database includes at least a current measurement and a previous measurement (¶0060 “Further, the controller 600 determines the contamination level of the filter 200 by comparing the signal delivered from the contamination sensor 300, 400, 500 with a boundary value of each contamination stage as stored at a memory provided in the controller 600.”).
Regarding claim 7, Baek teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the database includes at least a first measurement, a second measurement, and a current measurement (¶0072 “The operation at S400 is performed periodically according to a preset time cycle, which is preferably one-hour cycle, for example.” ; ¶0072-0085 describe use of the controller 600 to determine the contamination level of the filter through comparison on “low”, “middle”, and “high” boundary values indicating that the database holds at least a first, second, and current measurement).
Regarding claim 11, Baek teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, further comprising comparing the measurement of the reflected light with an alarm limit and providing an alarm if the measurement of the reflected light is above the alarm limit (Fig. 11 depicts how the contamination level is determined between “high”, “middle”, and “low” ; ¶0062 “the contamination checker 700 notifies the user of the contamination level of the filter 200 in both visual and auditory manners.”).
Regarding claim 12, Baek teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above, further comprising comparing the measurement of the reflected light with a warning limit and providing a warning if the measurement of the reflected light is above the warning limit and below the alarm limit (Fig. 11 depicts how the contamination level is determined between “high”, “middle”, and “low” ; ¶0062 “the contamination checker 700 notifies the user of the contamination level of the filter 200 in both visual and auditory manners.”).
Regarding claim 13, Baek teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, further comprising comparing the measurement of the reflected light with a previous measurement of the reflected light stored in the database (¶0086 “upon receiving the information of the amount of light from the light receiver 312, 412, 512, the controller 600 stores the information, while concurrently measuring variance in the received amount of light at the light receiver 312, 412, 512 based on a difference in the delivered amount of light, at S511.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2020/0271561 A1 to Lavrovsky et al. (hereinafter referred to as Lavrovsky).
Regarding claim 4, Baek teaches the method as applied to claim 3 above. Baek does not teach wherein predicting the remaining life of the filter comprises determining a slope between the current measurement and the previous measurement.
However, Lavrovsky teaches a method for determining the contamination level of a filter and predicting the remaining life of the filter (¶0005 “The present invention generally provides a system, apparatus, and method for detecting and measuring particles entrained in fluid streams … and comparing characteristics or properties of the particles in the multiple fluid streams, and filter life based on these properties.”) using a calculated slope between measurements (¶0056 “The observed slope is extrapolated to find the time in the future when the filter has been loaded sufficiently that it has a negative impact on the performance of the fluid handling system and replacement is warranted.”).
Baek and Lavrovsky are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filter life prediction models. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method as taught by Baek could be modified to incorporate the slope calculations and predictions as taught by Lavrovsky. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (insert predictable results) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 5, Baek and Lavrovsky teach the method as applied to claim 4 above. Lavrovsky further teaches wherein predicting the remaining life of the filter comprises determining the remaining life based on the slope (¶0056 “The observed slope is extrapolated to find the time in the future when the filter has been loaded sufficiently that it has a negative impact on the performance of the fluid handling system and replacement is warranted.”).
Regarding claim 6, Baek and Lavrovsky teach the method as applied to claim 4 above. Baek further teaches wherein taking the measurement is performed periodically (¶0015 “The contamination level measuring step can include measuring the contamination level of the filter periodically according to a preset time cycle.”). As to the limitation of updating a period at which the measurement is taken based on the slope, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). That is to say, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the period at which the measurements are taken through routine experimentation.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek, and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 117968199 A to Ren et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ren).
Regarding claim 8, Baek teaches the method as applied to claim 7 above. Baek does not teach wherein predicting the remaining life of the filter comprises determining a first slope between the first measurement and the second measurement and a second slope between the second measurement and the current measurement.
, Ren teaches a method for predicting the life of a filter (Pg. 1 “The present invention relates to the technical field of fresh air blowers, and in particular to a method for predicting the life of a fresh air filter”) wherein predicting the remaining life of the filter comprises determining a first slope between a first measurement and a second measurement and a second slope between a second measurement and a current measurement (Pg. 2 “Calculate the rate of change of the purification rate of the fresh air filter for a preset time period; calculating a purification rate difference between the initial purification rate and the final purification rate … The remaining life of the fresh air filter is obtained by multiplying the ratio of the purification rate difference and the change rate by the preset time length.”).
Baek and Ren are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filter life predictions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method as taught by Baek could be modified to incorporate the slope calculations as taught by Ren to predict the remaining life of the filter. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (insert predictable results) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 9, Baek and Ren teach the method as applied to claim 8 above. Ren further teaches wherein predicting the remaining life of the filter comprises determining the remaining life based on a difference between the first slope and the second slope (Pg. 2 “The remaining life of the fresh air filter is obtained by multiplying the ratio of the purification rate difference and the change rate by the preset time length.”).
Regarding claim 10, Baek and Ren teach the method as applied to claim 8 above. Baek further teaches wherein taking the measurement is performed periodically (¶0015 “The contamination level measuring step can include measuring the contamination level of the filter periodically according to a preset time cycle.”). As to the limitation of updating a period at which the measurement is taken based on the slope, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). That is to say, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the period at which the measurements are taken through routine experimentation.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2017/0361259 A1 to Fox et al. (hereinafter referred to as Fox).
Regarding claim 14, Baek teaches the method as applied to claim 13 above. Baek does not teach prompting a user to indicate whether the filter has been changed and receiving an indication of whether the filter has been changed.
However, Fox teaches a method for predicting the replacement status of a filter in an HVAC system (Abstract) wherein a user is prompted to indicate whether a filter has been changed (¶0046-0047 “the filter prediction operation for a particular air filter is terminated or ends once the replacement status indicates that the air filter 34 should be replaced. A notification is optionally delivered to the user as described below … In some embodiments, the user/homeowner can also indicate to the system when a filter has been replaced (to reset the total runtime).”).
Baek and Fox are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filter life prediction models. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Baek to further include the filter reset steps as taught by Fox to ensure that the time of use of a filter is accurately tracked. Additionally, Baek teaches a “reset” point at which the system recognizes that the filter has been replaced (Claim 16 of Baek), further indicating that alert systems regarding the status of a filter is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Baek and Fox teach the method as applied to claim 14 above. Fox further teaches logging, if the filter has been changed, a change date in the database (Figs. 8A-8B).
Regarding claim 16, Baek and Fox teach the method as applied to claim 14 above. Fox further teaches if the filter has been changed, logging a change time in the database; evaluating the accuracy of the remaining life of the filter; and resetting the remaining life of the filter (¶0050 ; ¶0055 “The systems and methods of the present disclosure optionally calibrate or adjust one or more of the algorithms described above based on feedback information … To measure the accuracy, feedback can be beneficial to gauge the difference between the predictions and the actual parameters.”).
Regarding claim 17, Baek and Fox teach the method as applied to claim 14 above. Fox further teaches revising, if the filter has been changed, a prediction model based upon a difference between the remaining life of the filter and an actual in-service life of the filter (¶0055 “The systems and methods of the present disclosure optionally calibrate or adjust one or more of the algorithms described above based on feedback information … To measure the accuracy, feedback can be beneficial to gauge the difference between the predictions and the actual parameters.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights