DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling the application on 6/13/2024.
The application has claims 21-40 present. Claims 1-20 have been canceled with a preliminary amendment. All present claims have been examined.
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) and cited references filed 6/13/2024 have been reviewed by the examiner.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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:
Claim 21: “control server configured to”, “management apparatuses… configured to”, “device configured to”;
Claim 22, 24-34, 36-40: “control server configured to”;
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: page 7 lines 5-12 [device(s)], page 8 lines 5-16 [management apparatuses], page 6 line 29 to page 7 line 4 and page 8 line 17-32 [control server].
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 § 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 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.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28, 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (US 20210239348) in view of Belinsky (US 20150077737).
In regards to claim 21, Morgan teaches an environment management system, the environment management system comprising: a control server configured to analyze an environmental condition of the management area based on environmental information in the set region (see FIG. 12 and at least para 173 teaches: remote server that receives and analyzes environment data on an area. “the remote monitoring system 420 includes a monitoring server 508 that receives data from the IAQ control module 404 and/or the thermostat 208 and maintains and verifies network continuity with the IAQ control module 404 and/or the thermostat 208. The monitoring server 508 executes various algorithms to store setpoints for the building and to store measurements from the thermostat 208 and/or the IAQ sensor module 304 taken over time. Para. 176 teaches in various implementations, minor problems may not be reported to the customer device 524 so as not to alarm the customer or inundate the customer with alerts. The review server 512 (or a technician) may determine whether a problem is minor based on a threshold. For example, an efficiency decrease greater than a predetermined threshold may be reported to the customer device 524, while an efficiency decrease less than the predetermined threshold may not be reported to the customer device 524. Para. 222-225 teaches FIG. 12 provides an example of the thresholds module 1012 adjusting a threshold associated with an IAQ parameter (e.g., RH) when that IAQ parameter becomes greater than the threshold (e.g., first dehumidification RH threshold) due to mitigation of another one of the IAQ parameters (e.g., VOC) to the threshold where the associated mitigation device is turned off. Specifically, FIG. 12 includes example graphs of temperature, RH, particulate, VOCs, and carbon dioxide over time”. Also para 38 teaches environmental data from an area/region (examiner interprets the building as the area to be monitored) “in a feature, an indoor air quality (IAQ) system includes an IAQ sensor configured to measure an IAQ parameter of air within a building, the IAQ sensor being one of: a relative humidity (RH) sensor configured to measure a RH of the air; a particulate sensor configured to measure an amount of particulate of at least a predetermined size present in the air; a volatile organic compound (VOC) sensor configured to measure an amount of VOCs present in the air; and a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air. A mitigation device is configured to, when on, one of increase and decrease the IAQ parameter. A control module is configured to selectively turning the mitigation device on and off based on the IAQ parameter. An alert module is configured to generate an alert indicative of a fault in the mitigation device when a period that the mitigation device is on for a mitigation cycle of the mitigation device is greater than a predetermined fault period of the mitigation device.”); one or more management apparatuses disposed in the management area and configured to manage an environment of the management area based on the analyzing of the control server (see at least para 38: teaches “in a feature, an indoor air quality (IAQ) system includes an IAQ sensor configured to measure an IAQ parameter of air within a building, the IAQ sensor being one of: a relative humidity (RH) sensor configured to measure a RH of the air; a particulate sensor configured to measure an amount of particulate of at least a predetermined size present in the air; a volatile organic compound (VOC) sensor configured to measure an amount of VOCs present in the air; and a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air. A mitigation device is configured to, when on, one of increase and decrease the IAQ parameter. A control module is configured to selectively turning the mitigation device on and off based on the IAQ parameter. An alert module is configured to generate an alert indicative of a fault in the mitigation device when a period that the mitigation device is on for a mitigation cycle of the mitigation device is greater than a predetermined fault period of the mitigation device”); and a device configured to bidirectionally communicate with the control server and configured to receive a selected management information (see at least para 177 and 178: “In various implementations, the technician device 516 may be remote from the remote monitoring system 420 but connected via a wide area network. For example only, the technician device 516 may include a computing device such as a laptop, desktop, smartphone, or tablet.” …“Using the customer device 524 executing an application, the customer can access a customer portal 528, which provides historical and real-time data from the IAQ control module 404 and/or the thermostat 208. The customer portal 528 may also provide setpoints and predetermined ranges for each of the measurements, local outdoor air quality data, statuses of the mitigation devices 424 (e.g., on or off), and other data to the customer device 524. Via the customer device 524, the customer may change the setpoints and predetermined ranges. The monitoring server 508 transmits changed setpoints and predetermined ranges to the thermostat 208 and/or the IAQ control module 404 for use in controlling operation of the mitigation devices 424).
Morgan doesn’t specifically teach a system based on a geofence; a control server configured to set a range of a region comprising a management area as a geofence.
Belinsky teaches a system based on a geofence; a control server configured to set a range of a region comprising a management area as a geofence and configured to analyze an environmental condition of the management area based on environmental information in the set geofence region (see at least para. 75: teaches managing an area that is selected by user and selecting a virtual perimeter and receiving environmental data for that area. “environmental detector may notify a user through their electronic device running the environmental detector software. The server in communication with the environmental detector may broadcast a detection or characterization event. The software may allow the user to manage the alert and may facilitate a conversation between multiple receivers of the notification. A user may be the owner of an environmental detector that has detected a hazard. Additionally, a user may be any other individual who may own an environmental detector and/or who may have downloaded or otherwise obtained the environmental detector user interface software on an electronic device. The additional users that can be notified by the server in response to a detected hazard may be controlled by an owner of an environmental detector. For example, an environmental detector owner may choose to have their spouse, child, neighbor, friend, or parent notified by the server when a hazard is detected by their environmental detector. Additional users that can be notified by the server in response to a detected hazard may also be chosen based on a geographic radius. These users may not be persons familiar to an owner of an environmental detector. The additional users may be anyone within the geographic radius with an electronic device configured to receive information from an environmental detector. The geographic radius may be an area surrounding an environmental defined by a user. The geographic radius may not be round and may not be symmetric around the location of the detector. The geographic radius may be a selected region. A user may specify the geographic radius in the settings feature of a software program in communication with the environmental detector. The radius may be specific to different types of detected hazards. For example, an environmental detector owner may choose to notify all persons in a fixed radius of their environmental detector when a hazard is detected. Notifications may be sent through existing push protocols such as the Apple Push Notification Services (APNS) of iOS devices or the Cloud to Device Messaging (C2DM) framework for Android devices. All persons in the radius may include all persons with the environmental detector user interface software installed on an electronic device, this may include owners of environmental detectors as well as a person who may not own a device but has downloaded the software to receive hazard alerts. A radius may refer to a geofence or other designated geographical area.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Morgan to include the control server is configured to collect geofence information by setting an area range based on the target zone as a geofence to specify a specific area a user wants to be monitored and notify about (see para 75).
In regards to claim 22, Morgan teaches wherein the control server is configured to analyze an environmental condition of at least one of an air quality environment, a water quality environment, a pest control environment, a hygiene environment, and a disease environment in the management area (see at least para 38: teaches in a feature, an indoor air quality (IAQ) system includes an IAQ sensor configured to measure an IAQ parameter of air within a building, the IAQ sensor being one of: a relative humidity (RH) sensor configured to measure a RH of the air; a particulate sensor configured to measure an amount of particulate of at least a predetermined size present in the air; a volatile organic compound (VOC) sensor configured to measure an amount of VOCs present in the air; and a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air).
In regards to claim 23, Morgan doesn’t specifically teach wherein the geofence is set based on a characteristic of the management area, and wherein the characteristic of the management area comprises at least one of a geographical location of the management area, regional information, use, an area, a size of the management area, a purpose of use of the management area, a number of residents in the management area, and information on a number of people entering the management area.
Belinsky teaches wherein the geofence is set based on a characteristic of the management area, and wherein the characteristic of the management area comprises at least one of a geographical location of the management area, regional information, use, an area, a size of the management area, a purpose of use of the management area, a number of residents in the management area, and information on a number of people entering the management area (see at least para. 75 teaches hazard detection by an environmental detector may be communicated to the server directly by the environmental detector or indirectly from an electronic device in communication with the environmental detector. In response to a hazard detection the server may notify one or more users. The environmental detector may notify a user through their electronic device running the environmental detector software. .... Additional users that can be notified by the server in response to a detected hazard may also be chosen based on a geographic radius. These users may not be persons familiar to an owner of an environmental detector. The additional users may be anyone within the geographic radius with an electronic device configured to receive information from an environmental detector. The geographic radius may be an area surrounding an environmental defined by a user. The geographic radius may not be round and may not be symmetric around the location of the detector. The geographic radius may be a selected region. A user may specify the geographic radius in the settings feature of a software program in communication with the environmental detector. The radius may be specific to different types of detected hazards. For example, an environmental detector owner may choose to notify all persons in a fixed radius of their environmental detector when a hazard is detected. …. A radius may refer to a geofence or other designated geographical area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Morgan to include the control server is configured to collect geofence information by setting an area range based on the target zone as a geofence to specify a specific area a user wants to be monitored and notify about (see para 75).
In regards to claim 24, Morgan teaches wherein the control server is configured to collect information on one or more environmental events in the geofence region, wherein the environmental events cause a change in the environmental condition of the management area (collecting air data including carbon dioxide see at least para 173: “The remote monitoring system 420 includes a monitoring server 508 that receives data from the IAQ control module 404 and/or the thermostat 208 and maintains and verifies network continuity with the IAQ control module 404 and/or the thermostat 208. The monitoring server 508 executes various algorithms to store setpoints for the building and to store measurements from the thermostat 208 and/or the IAQ sensor module 304 taken over time.” Also para 179: “The local data includes, for example, air temperature within a predetermined geographical area including the geographical location of the building, RH within the predetermined geographical area, amount of VOCs in the air within the predetermined geographical area, amount of particulate of the predetermined size measured by the particulate sensor 316 within the predetermined geographical area, and amount of carbon dioxide within the predetermined geographical area.”)
In regards to claim 25, Morgan teaches wherein the control server is configured to: generate at least one reference environmental index for the environmental condition of the management area; generate an expected environmental index of the management area by considering an influence of the environmental events occurring in the geofence region on the management area; and select a response action required for the management area by comparing the reference environmental index with the expected environmental index (See para 199-205: examples for using threshold data and taking actions. Also, generating indexes (tables), updating them to respond and take action based on the index data - at least para 211-215: “the thresholds module 1012 may initially set the thresholds to predetermined values by default. FIG. 11 includes a table of example default thresholds for turning on and off the respective mitigation devices. The arrows indicate the directions of change of the respective IAQ parameters when the respective mitigation devices are on.
One or more of the default thresholds, however, may be too high or too low for the building, for example, based on capabilities of mitigation devices, accuracy of IAQ sensors, etc. Thresholds that are too high or too low may cause the mitigation module 1004 to turn on one or more of the mitigation devices 424 more frequently than expected and/or to maintain one or more of the mitigation devices 424 on for longer than expected periods.
The thresholds module 1012 therefore selectively adjusts (increase and/or decrease) one or more of the thresholds. The thresholds module 1012 may however, maintain the thresholds within respective predetermined ranges. Adjusting one or more of the thresholds may increase optimization of mitigation device capabilities and the building environment. For example, the thresholds module 1012 may adjust one or more of the thresholds based on baseline values of the IAQ parameters over the predetermined period after the generation of the trigger signal.
For example, when a baseline value of an IAQ parameter (e.g., particulate, VOCs, carbon dioxide, RH) is greater than a respective (default) threshold where the respective mitigation device is turned on (e.g., the first particulate threshold, the first VOC threshold, the first carbon dioxide threshold, the first dehumidification RH threshold), the thresholds module 1012 may increase the respective threshold. The thresholds module 1012 may increase the respective threshold to a predetermined amount or percentage (of the baseline value) greater than the respective baseline value or may set the respective threshold to the baseline value. The thresholds module 1012 may also increase the respective threshold (e.g., the second particulate threshold, the second VOC threshold, the second carbon dioxide threshold, the second dehumidification RH threshold) where the respective mitigation device is turned off by the same amount.
When a baseline value of an IAQ parameter (e.g., RH) is less than a respective threshold where the respective mitigation device is turned on (e.g., the first humidification RH threshold), the thresholds module 1012 may decrease the respective threshold. The thresholds module 1012 may decrease the respective threshold to a predetermined amount or percentage (of the baseline value) less than the respective baseline value or may set the respective threshold to the baseline value. The thresholds module 1012 may also decrease the respective threshold (e.g., the second humidification RH threshold) where the respective mitigation device is turned off by the same amount”.).
In regards to claim 26, Morgan teaches wherein the control server is configured to generate an expected environmental index over time by considering at least one of a type, a scale, and an occurrence time point of the environmental events, an occurrence time point of the events, and a distance between management areas (see at least para 211-215: “The thresholds module 1012 therefore selectively adjusts (increase and/or decrease) one or more of the thresholds. The thresholds module 1012 may however, maintain the thresholds within respective predetermined ranges. Adjusting one or more of the thresholds may increase optimization of mitigation device capabilities and the building environment. For example, the thresholds module 1012 may adjust one or more of the thresholds based on baseline values of the IAQ parameters over the predetermined period after the generation of the trigger signal).
In regards to claim 28, Morgan teaches wherein the control server is configured to set one or more surveillance zones in the geofence and configured to analyze the environmental condition of the management area through information of the set surveillance zones (see para. 38 teaches “in a feature, an indoor air quality (IAQ) system includes an IAQ sensor configured to measure an IAQ parameter of air within a building, the IAQ sensor being one of: a relative humidity (RH) sensor configured to measure a RH of the air; a particulate sensor configured to measure an amount of particulate of at least a predetermined size present in the air; a volatile organic compound (VOC) sensor configured to measure an amount of VOCs present in the air; and a carbon dioxide sensor configured to measure an amount of carbon dioxide present in the air. A mitigation device is configured to, when on, one of increase and decrease the IAQ parameter. A control module is configured to selectively turning the mitigation device on and off based on the IAQ parameter. An alert module is configured to generate an alert indicative of a fault in the mitigation device when a period that the mitigation device is on for a mitigation cycle of the mitigation device is greater than a predetermined fault period of the mitigation device”. e.g. the building is considered target area.)
In regards to claim 39, Morgan doesn’t specifically teach wherein the control server is configured to generate a plurality of pieces of management information according to a relative location between the management area and the device and configured to transmit management information matching a location of the device to the device.
Belinsky teaches wherein the control server is configured to generate a plurality of pieces of management information according to a relative location between the management area and the device and configured to transmit management information matching a location of the device to the device (teaches sending information according to relative location. See at least para 75: teaches environmental detector may notify a user through their electronic device running the environmental detector software. The server in communication with the environmental detector may broadcast a detection or characterization event. The software may allow the user to manage the alert and may facilitate a conversation between multiple receivers of the notification. A user may be the owner of an environmental detector that has detected a hazard. Additionally, a user may be any other individual who may own an environmental detector and/or who may have downloaded or otherwise obtained the environmental detector user interface software on an electronic device. The additional users that can be notified by the server in response to a detected hazard may be controlled by an owner of an environmental detector. For example, an environmental detector owner may choose to have their spouse, child, neighbor, friend, or parent notified by the server when a hazard is detected by their environmental detector. Additional users that can be notified by the server in response to a detected hazard may also be chosen based on a geographic radius. These users may not be persons familiar to an owner of an environmental detector. The additional users may be anyone within the geographic radius with an electronic device configured to receive information from an environmental detector. The geographic radius may be an area surrounding an environmental defined by a user. The geographic radius may not be round and may not be symmetric around the location of the detector. The geographic radius may be a selected region. A user may specify the geographic radius in the settings feature of a software program in communication with the environmental detector. The radius may be specific to different types of detected hazards. For example, an environmental detector owner may choose to notify all persons in a fixed radius of their environmental detector when a hazard is detected. Notifications may be sent through existing push protocols such as the Apple Push Notification Services (APNS) of iOS devices or the Cloud to Device Messaging (C2DM) framework for Android devices. All persons in the radius may include all persons with the environmental detector user interface software installed on an electronic device, this may include owners of environmental detectors as well as a person who may not own a device but has downloaded the software to receive hazard alerts. A radius may refer to a geofence or other designated geographical area.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Morgan to include the teachings of Belinsky to transmit data based on location, transmit management information matching a location of the device to the device, since it improves the monitoring system to provide the information to the appropriate people.
In regards to claim 40, Morgan doesn’t specifically teach wherein the control server is configured to set a dynamic geofence centered on a location of the device and configured to transmit the management information to the device according to an overlapping state between a dynamic geofence region and the geofence region of a management area.
Belinsky teaches wherein the control server is configured to set a dynamic geofence centered on a location of the device and configured to transmit the management information to the device according to an overlapping state between a dynamic geofence region and the geofence region of a management area (teaches that a geofence can be set so that users that are within a radius of the geofence area receive information. See at least para 75: “For example, an environmental detector owner may choose to have their spouse, child, neighbor, friend, or parent notified by the server when a hazard is detected by their environmental detector. Additional users that can be notified by the server in response to a detected hazard may also be chosen based on a geographic radius. These users may not be persons familiar to an owner of an environmental detector. The additional users may be anyone within the geographic radius with an electronic device configured to receive information from an environmental detector. The geographic radius may be an area surrounding an environmental defined by a user. The geographic radius may not be round and may not be symmetric around the location of the detector. The geographic radius may be a selected region. A user may specify the geographic radius in the settings feature of a software program in communication with the environmental detector. The radius may be specific to different types of detected hazards. For example, an environmental detector owner may choose to notify all persons in a fixed radius of their environmental detector when a hazard is detected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Morgan to include the teachings of Belinsky to transmit data based on location, transmit management information matching a location of the device to the device, since it improves the monitoring system to provide the information to the appropriate people.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan and Belinsky, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Park (US 20190190320).
In regards to claim 27, Morgan teaches generating threshold values and table as taught above, but do not specifically teach wherein the control server is configured to: calculate a slope according to an expected environmental index for each unit time; and determine a level of urgency for each unit time according to magnitude of the slope.
Park teaches wherein the control server is configured to: calculate a slope according to an expected environmental index for each unit time; and determine a level of urgency for each unit time according to magnitude of the slope (teaches that in a process for detecting foreign material, using values to calculate slope and determine quality levels. See at least para 32, 48: “a quality factor slope determination unit configured to calculate a quality factor slope based on the calculated quality factor levels, and a foreign object detection unit configured to determine whether the foreign object is present based on the calculated quality factor slope.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Morgan to include the teachings of Park to calculate and determine quality levels, since it provides more accurate and reliable detection means based on the obtained data.
Claim(s) 29-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan and Belinsky, as applied to claims above, and further in view of KIM SANGHOON et al. (KR101948546B1) - cited on the IDS.
In regards to claim 29, Morgan doesn’t teach wherein the control server is configured to classify the environmental condition of the management area into one environmental grade of a plurality of set reference environmental grades and configured to determine a management order for the management apparatuses according to the classified environmental grade.
Kim teaches wherein the control server is configured to classify the environmental condition of the management area into one environmental grade of a plurality of set reference environmental grades and configured to determine a management order for the management apparatuses according to the classified environmental grade (see at least para 64-67: teaches environmental grading associated to pollution analysis. “the first to fourth environmental standards can be set in the order of first environmental standard < second environmental standard < third environmental standard < fourth environmental standard. For example, the first environmental standard can be set to 3% of the long-term environmental standard, the second environmental standard to 100% of the long-term environmental standard, the third environmental standard to the value obtained by subtracting the long-term environmental standard value from the short-term environmental standard value, and the fourth environmental standard to 100% of the short-term environmental standard”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Morgan to include the teachings of Kim, since it provides means to enhance environment analysis within specific areas and improve determining when pollution/emission are over specified values.
In regards to claim 30, Morgan doesn’t teach wherein the control server is configured to: generate an environmental index quantified by evaluating the environmental condition of the management area; and select an environmental grade matching the generated environmental index from among the plurality of reference environmental grades.
Kim teaches wherein the control server is configured to: generate an environmental index quantified by evaluating the environmental condition of the management area; and select an environmental grade matching the generated environmental index from among the plurality of reference environmental grades (see at least para 64-67 and claim 1: teaches environmental grading associated to pollution analysis on specific areas and examples of grading determination. “the first to fourth environmental standards can be set in the order of first environmental standard < second environmental standard < third environmental standard < fourth environmental standard. For example, the first environmental standard can be set to 3% of the long-term environmental standard, the second environmental standard to 100% of the long-term environmental standard, the third environmental standard to the value obtained by subtracting the long-term environmental standard value from the short-term environmental standard value, and the fourth environmental standard to 100% of the short-term environmental standard.
For example, in the case of sulfur oxides (SOx), the annual average environmental quality target, which is the long-term environmental standard (2nd environmental standard), is 53.3 (μg/Sm_NER99, based on 20℃ and 1 atm), and the short-term environmental standard (4th environmental standard) is 399.8 (μg/Sm_NER100). Therefore, the first environmental standard (3% of the long-term environmental standard) is 1.6 (μg/Sm3), and the third environmental standard (short-term environmental standard minus the long-term environmental standard) is 399.8 53.3 = 346.5 (μg/Sm3< /sup>))
If the long-term additional pollution level (PC장기) is 1.6 (μg/Sm3) or higher than the first environmental standard, the long-term total pollution level (PEC 장기) must be less than 53.3 (μg/Sm3) of the second environmental standard, and the short-term additional pollution level (PC단기) must be less than 346.5 (μg/Sm3) of the third environmental standard or the short-term total pollution level (PEC단기) must be less than 399.8 (μg/Sm3) of the fourth environmental standard, then it may be evaluated as satisfying the permitted emission standards).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Morgan to include the teachings of Kim, since it provides means to enhance environment analysis within specific areas and improve determining when pollution/emission are over specified values.
In regards to claim 31, Morgan doesn’t specifically teach wherein the control server is configured to: generate a basic index for the environmental condition of the management area; generate a correction index by quantifying an influence of an environment in the geofence region on the environmental condition of the management area; and evaluate the environmental index by correcting the basic index through the correction index.
However, Morgan does teach correcting or updating threshold data in association with influence in order to update the values as to have proper responses when correct values appear on the analysis to trigger an action (See para 199-205: examples for using threshold data and taking actions. Also, generating indexes (tables), updating them to respond and take action based on the index data - at least para 211-215: “the thresholds module 1012 may initially set the thresholds to predetermined values by default. FIG. 11 includes a table of example default thresholds for turning on and off the respective mitigation devices. The arrows indicate the directions of change of the respective IAQ parameters when the respective mitigation devices are on.
One or more of the default thresholds, however, may be too high or too low for the building, for example, based on capabilities of mitigation devices, accuracy of IAQ sensors, etc. Thresholds that are too high or too low may cause the mitigation module 1004 to turn on one or more of the mitigation devices 424 more frequently than expected and/or to maintain one or more of the mitigation devices 424 on for longer than expected periods.
The thresholds module 1012 therefore selectively adjusts (increase and/or decrease) one or more of the thresholds. The thresholds module 1012 may however, maintain the thresholds within respective predetermined ranges. Adjusting one or more of the thresholds may increase optimization of mitigation device capabilities and the building environment. For example, the thresholds module 1012 may adjust one or more of the thresholds based on baseline values of the IAQ parameters over the predetermined period after the generation of the trigger signal.
For example, when a baseline value of an IAQ parameter (e.g., particulate, VOCs, carbon dioxide, RH) is greater than a respective (default) threshold where the respective mitigation device is turned on (e.g., the first particulate threshold, the first VOC threshold, the first carbon dioxide threshold, the first dehumidification RH threshold), the thresholds module 1012 may increase the respective threshold. The thresholds module 1012 may increase the respective threshold to a predetermined amount or percentage (of the baseline value) greater than the respective baseline value or may set the respective threshold to the baseline value. The thresholds module 1012 may also increase the respective threshold (e.g., the second particulate threshold, the second VOC threshold, the second carbon dioxide threshold, the second dehumidification RH threshold) where the respective mitigation device is turned off by the same amount.
When a baseline value of an IAQ parameter (e.g., RH) is less than a respective threshold where the respective mitigation device is turned on (e.g., the first humidification RH threshold), the thresholds module 1012 may decrease the respective threshold. The thresholds module 1012 may decrease the respective threshold to a predetermined amount or percentage (of the baseline value) less than the respective baseline value or may set the respective threshold to the baseline value. The thresholds module 1012 may also decrease the respective threshold (e.g., the second humidification RH threshold) where the respective mitigation device is turned off by the same amount”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to use the teachings of Morgan to correct the index values based on environment influence, since it provides means to enhance environment analysis to properly determining when pollution/emission are over specified values, as to have proper responses when correct/updated values appear on the analysis to trigger an action and avoid taking unnecessary action (see para 211-215).
In regards to claim 32, Morgan doesn’t specifically teach, wherein the control server is configured to define management information for each of the plurality of reference environmental grades and create a database and configured to select management information matching the classified environmental grade from the database.
However, Morgan teaches storing and manage information based on real-time data and historical data which is used to adjust and set setpoints for mitigation of the monitored area (see para 197, 233-234: “provide visual information to the user regarding real-time measurements, historical measurements over a period of time, trends, and efficacy of IAQ mitigation and control. The user interfaces also enable the user to adjust setpoints to be used to control the mitigation devices 424 to control comfort and IAQ within the building. The user interfaces also enable the user to adjust prioritization in which IAQ conditions are mitigated. All of the above improves IAQ within the building and user experience regarding IAQ within the building.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to use the teachings of Morgan, since it provides means to enhance environment analysis system to use the database information to properly analysis and set the mitigation and control of the monitored area.
In regards to claim 33, Morgan teaches wherein the control server is configured to receive, from the device, feedback on whether environmental management is performed in the management area, and a environmental analyzer is configured to reanalyze the environmental condition of the management area according to the feedback (teaches using data of operation and reanalyzing environmental conditions. See at least para. 245-250 teaches “At 1420, baseline module 1016 determines the baseline values of the IAQ parameters, respectively. The baseline module 1016 may determine the baseline values of an IAQ parameter, for example, based on an average, a minimum, or a maximum of all of the values of the IAQ parameter measured during the last predetermined period. Control continues with 1332-1340, as discussed above.
While the example of determining and displaying the differences between the respective first and second amounts during periods of non-operation and operation, respectively, of the mitigation devices 424 is provided, the mitigation module 1004 may additionally or alternatively determine and display the differences resulting from adjustments of one or more thresholds. In this example, the differences should reflect relative improvements in the IAQ parameters due to the adjustment of the threshold(s).
FIG. 15 includes an example of determining and displaying differences when one or more of the thresholds are adjusted. One or more thresholds may be adjusted at one or more different times, such as discussed above. Control begins with 1504 where the mitigation module 1004 determines whether the thresholds module 1012 has adjusted one or more of the thresholds (e.g., at 1312 and/or 1340, above). If 1504 is true, control continues with 1508. If 1504 is false, control may remain at 1504.
[0248] At 1508, the mitigation module 1004 determines the first amounts of the predetermined period that the IAQ parameters were between the respective thresholds, as discussed above. At 1512, the mitigation module 1004 resets the timer value, such as to zero. The mitigation module 1004 controls operation of the mitigation devices 424 based on the IAQ parameters and the respective thresholds (including the one or more adjusted thresholds), as discussed above.
At 1516, the mitigation module 1004 determines whether the predetermined period (“the second predetermined period”) has passed since the one or more thresholds were adjusted. For example, the mitigation module 1004 may determine whether the period corresponding to the timer value is greater than or equal to the predetermined period. If 1516 is true, control continues with 1520. If 1516 is false, control remains at 1516 and continues to control operation of the mitigation devices 424 based on the respective IAQ parameters and the respective thresholds.
At 1520, the mitigation module 1004 determines the second amounts of the second predetermined period that the IAQ parameters were between the respective thresholds, as discussed above. One or more of the thresholds were adjusted during the second predetermined period. At 1524, the mitigation module 1418 determines differences between the respective first and second amounts. The differences should therefore reflect relative improvements in the IAQ parameters due to use of the adjustment of the one or more thresholds. The mitigation module 1004 may display the differences on the display of the customer device 524, and control may return to 1504”).
In regards to claim 34, Morgan doesn’t specifically teach wherein the control server is configured to analyze an environmental grade of the management area at a predetermined time, generate an expected environmental grade over time, select a response environmental management order matching the generated expected environmental grade, and transmit the expected environmental management order matching a predetermined time to the management apparatuses, and the management apparatuses are configured to manage the environment of the management area according to the expected environment management order.
Kim teaches wherein the control server is configured to analyze an environmental grade of the management area at a predetermined time, generate an expected environmental grade over time, select a response environmental management order matching the generated expected environmental grade, and transmit the expected environmental management order matching a predetermined time to the management apparatuses, and the management apparatuses are configured to manage the environment of the management area according to the expected environment management order (teaches obtaining and using existing pollution level information of the region in which analysis on the influence of air pollutant emission is to be performed is input; a step in which emission information including exhaust gas temperature, an average exhaust gas flow rate, an exhaust gas flow amount, and a pollutant name is input; and a modeling analysis step in which a modeling module obtains, using an atmospheric diffusion modeling program, a long-term additional pollution level (PC long-term), a long-term total pollution level (PEC long-term). See claim 1 and at least para 60-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Morgan to include the teachings of Kim in order to model and calculate long term data associated in order to apply management order based on the data, since it provides means to enhance environment analysis system to model data ahead of time in order to properly manage corrective actions needed in the future.
In regards to claim 35, Morgan teaches wherein the management information received by the device comprises action guidance for a user of the device or a work order for a manager who manages the environment of the management area (teaches providing advisory, see at least para 174-175: “The monitoring server 508 may notify a review server 512 when one or more predetermined conditions are satisfied. This programmatic assessment may be referred to as an advisory. Some or all advisories may be triaged by a technician to reduce false positives and potentially supplement or modify data corresponding to the advisory. For example, a technician device 516 operated by a technician may be used to review the advisory and to monitor data (in various implementations, in real-time) from the IAQ control module 404 and/or the thermostat 208 via the monitoring server 508”.
Para 175: “A technician using the technician device 516 may review the advisory. If the technician determines that a problem or fault is either already present or impending, the technician instructs the review server 512 to send an alert to a customer device 524 that is associated with the building. The technician may determine that, although a problem or fault is present, the cause is more likely to be something different than specified by the automated advisory. The technician can therefore issue a different alert or modify the advisory before issuing an alert based on the advisory. The technician may also annotate the alert sent to the customer device 524 with additional information that may be helpful in identifying the urgency of addressing the alert and presenting data that may be useful for diagnosis or troubleshooting”).
Claim(s) 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan and Belinsky, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Bassa (US 20200240668).
In regards to claim 36, Morgan doesn’t specifically teach wherein the control server is configured to classify a collected information into a plurality of factors and configured to generate an analysis result for the environment of the management area through a combination of the classified factors.
Bassa teaches wherein the control server is configured to classify a collected information into a plurality of factors and configured to generate an analysis result for the environment of the management area through a combination of the classified factors. (see at least para 17: teaches “the optimization strategy used in the methods provided can be configured to calculate a dynamic threshold value (DTV), which is based on a weighted combination of values of VAP2 during previous ventilation events indicated by VAP3. That value is further operated on based on an estimate of the expected instantaneous energy requirement by the HVAC system in case of ventilation of the multi-storied enclosed structure, with a monotonic decrease of the DTV with that energy requirement. The magnitude of the decrease is determined by the respective weights of the sub-goals within the optimization objective”. On para 22 teaches “furthermore, in certain embodiments the weights of the sub-goals within the optimization objective are adjusted dynamically according to user-defined criteria (for example, lower weight to indoor air quality and higher weight to energy saving when the occupancy is low and the opposite when it is high”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Morgan to classify a collected information into a plurality of factors and configured to generate an analysis result for the environment of the management area through a combination of the classified factors as taught by Bassa since it provides means to enhance the monitoring system to provide data which allows to minimize pollution inside an enclosed structure in an optimal manner and maintaining required levels for environment. (see para 3).
In regards to claim 37, Morgan doesn’t specifically teach wherein the control server is configured to: generate an individual indicator by applying an individual weight to each of the classified factors; and generate the analysis result by extracting some of the plurality of factors based on the individual indicator.
Bassa teaches wherein the control server is configured to: generate an individual indicator by applying an individual weight to each of the classified factors; and generate the analysis result by extracting some of the plurality of factors based on the individual indicator (see at least para 17: teaches “the optimization strategy used in the methods provided can be configured to calculate a dynamic threshold value (DTV), which is based on a weighted combination of values of VAP2 during previous ventilation events indicated by VAP3. That value is further operated on based on an estimate of the expected instantaneous energy requirement by the HVAC system in case of ventilation of the multi-storied enclosed structure, with a monotonic decrease of the DTV with that energy requirement. The magnitude of the decrease is determined by the respective weights of the sub-goals within the optimization objective”. On para 22 teaches “furthermore, in certain embodiments the weights of the sub-goals within the optimization objective are adjusted dynamically according to user-defined criteria (for example, lower weight to indoor air quality and higher weight to energy saving when the occupancy is low and the opposite when it is high”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Morgan to generate an individual indicator by applying an individual weight to each of the classified factors; and generate the analysis result by extracting some of the plurality of factors based on the individual indicator as taught by Bassa since it provides means to enhance the monitoring system to provide data which allows to minimize pollution inside an enclosed structure in an optimal manner and maintaining required levels for environment (see para 3).
In regards to claim 38, Morgan doesn’t specifically teach wherein the control server is configured to set a reference indicator for each of the classified factors and configured to generate the analysis result by extracting, among the plurality of factors, a factor of which the generated individual indicator exceeds the reference indicator (teaches that values can be adjusted based on the desired action/outcome of user defined criteria, so the reference indicator can be set based on different factors. See at least para 17: teaches “the optimization strategy used in the methods provided can be configured to calculate a dynamic threshold value (DTV), which is based on a weighted combination of values of VAP2 during previous ventilation events indicated by VAP3. That value is further operated on based on an estimate of the expected instantaneous energy requirement by the HVAC system in case of ventilation of the multi-storied enclosed structure, with a monotonic decrease of the DTV with that energy requirement. The magnitude of the decrease is determined by the respective weights of the sub-goals within the optimization objective”. On para 22 teaches “furthermore, in certain embodiments the weights of the sub-goals within the optimization objective are adjusted dynamically according to user-defined criteria (for example, lower weight to indoor air quality and higher weight to energy saving when the occupancy is low and the opposite when it is high”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Morgan to the control server is configured to set a reference indicator for each of the classified factors and configured to generate the analysis result by extracting, among the plurality of factors, a factor of which the generated individual indicator exceeds the reference indicator as taught by Bassa since it provides means to enhance the monitoring system to provide data which allows to minimize pollution inside an enclosed structure in an optimal manner and maintaining required levels for environment (see para 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30am-5:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights