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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 reads “static air treatment units” it should read “ a static air treatment units”.
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 equivalent’s 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 equivalent’s 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:
“an extractor that draws air in from the enclosed space” in claim 1.
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 equivalent’s thereof.
An extractor examiner will intercept as an air intake.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-12, 14, and 23, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirements. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 10, claim 11 recites “air decontamination system integrates with a forced ventilation system” is unclear how the system integrates
Regarding Claim 11, claim 11 recites “the enclosed space air decontamination system accounts for outdoor air quality, temperature, humidity”. The specification does not mention how the apparatus measures the outsides air quality or how it accounts for it.
Regarding Claim 12, claim 12 recites “static air treatment units located within the enclosed space integrate with the system controller.” Unclear what static air treatment units are and how they integrate with the system controller.
Regarding Claim 14, claim 14 recites “the air decontamination apparatus comprises an inlet which is configurable to selectively draw air into the one or more decontamination devices” it is unclear how the air inlet selectively draw air.
Regarding Claim 23, it is unclear how the system identifies aerosol generation sources. Specification does not illuminate how system does this functionality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear and hard to understand the difference between air decontamination apparatus, decontamination device and air decontamination system. For the purpose of examinations, the air decontamination system is the air decontamination apparatus with communications with a computer, the air decontamination apparatus is the whole robot, and decontamination device is the individual part such as the filter and extractor. Furthermore. it’s unclear if the air quality sensors is a part of apparatus or the room as a whole, for the purpose of examination, its it the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 10, claim 10 recites “air decontamination system integrates with a forced ventilation system” is unclear how the system integrates
Regarding Claim 11, claim 11 recites “the enclosed space air decontamination system accounts for outdoor air quality, temperature, humidity”. The specification does not mention how the apparatus measures the outsides air quality or how it accounts for it.
Regarding Claim 12, claim 12 recites “static air treatment units located within the enclosed space integrate with the system controller.” Unclear what static air treatment units are and how they integrate with the system controller. For the purpose of examination, a static air treatment units will be interpreted as filter that control by a computer.
Regarding Claim 14, claim 14 recites “the air decontamination apparatus comprises an inlet which is configurable to selectively draw air into the one or more decontamination devices” it is unclear what selectively means in this context. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpreted claim language as “the space to draw air from can be determined by input from the sensors in the environment”
Regarding Claim 16, claim 16 recites “outlet is controllable to set a direction in which the treated air is expelled from the one or more decontamination devices.” However, in claim 1, outlet is a part of apparatus not the device. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “outlet is controllable to set a direction in which the treated air is expelled from the one or more decontamination apparatus”. Furthermore, it’s unclear what structural features make the apparatus capable of directing the treated air. For the purpose of examination, the outlet is near the bottom of the apparatus as shown in applicant drawings.
Regarding Claim 17, it is unclear where the mechanical filter is in the decontamination system.
Regarding Claim 18-19, it is unclear where the radiations source is in the decontamination system.
Regarding Claim 23, it is unclear how the system identifies aerosol generation sources. Specification does not illuminate how system does this functionality. For the purpose of examination, the system can measure aerosol.
Regarding Claim 30, unclear what is a “robotic system”. Not understood what makes said system a robotic system. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted as system being controlled by a computer.
All claims that are dependent on claim 1 are rejected for indefiniteness due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 13, 14, 16-21, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (CN 105972705 A, hereinafter Qiu).
Regarding Claim 1, Qiu teaches an air decontamination system (Fig 1) that treats air containing contaminants, in one or more enclosed spaces, the air decontamination system comprising: an enclosed space air decontamination system comprising one or more air quality sensors (detection sensor 7 Page 6) in the an enclosed space of said one or more enclosed spaces; one or more decontamination devices treating that treat air in the enclosed space (claim 3); and a communications interface which is operatively connectable to an air decontamination apparatus and the one or more air quality sensors wherein the air decontamination apparatus comprises a treatment system which comprises (claim 1 “control system”), an extractor for that draws air in from the enclosed space and a decontamination system which receives the air from the extractor (air inlet on the lower part of shell (1)), the decontamination system being adapted to one or more of remove and neutralize contaminant aerosols in the air (claim 1 and claim 3); an outlet for that expels treated air from the one or more decontamination devices (claim 2); a moveable support to which the treatment system is attached (page 3 section 3 “Furthermore, the driving device…”), which is moveable across a surface in an autonomous or manual manner (abstract); and wherein the air decontamination system further comprises a system controller that controls operation of the air decontamination apparatus and the enclosed space air
PNG
media_image1.png
598
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
decontamination system (control system claim 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, the system controller is located upon the air decontamination apparatus (Fig 1, 9).
Regarding Claim 4, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein the air decontamination apparatus operates in a series of enclosed
spaces by connecting to the communications interface in the enclosed space such that the system controller, when in communication with the communications interface adapts the air decontamination apparatus it in response to information received from the communications interface (Page 6 section 2 “bottom of the shell (1) is...”).
Regarding Claim 5, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, the one or more air quality sensors comprise a network of sensors
positioned in the enclosed space (Page 6 section 2 “four detection sensors 7” ).
Regarding Claim 6, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, the system controller uses a model of the enclosed space based on one or more of dimension of a room; air vent location; air flow; and time of day to provide optimized air decontamination for the room while accounting for quality and energy efficiency (Page 6 section 2 “The detection sensor 7 along the casing 1 is evenly distributed in circumference for the irritant gas concentration in air and suspended particle content and other information is collected, and by detecting the sensor at different position”).
Regarding Claim 7, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein the one or more air quality sensors comprise sensors which measure one or more of CO2, particulate matter, Nitrous oxide, volatile organic compounds, bioburden, detection of specific pathogens, temperature or humidity (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, the enclosed space air decontamination system includes stationary air purifiers which comprise one or more of blower, air filter, UV decontaminator and chemical air disinfector (claim 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, the air decontamination apparatus comprises at least one sensor that is configured to determine a position of the one or more decontamination devices in the enclosed space (four avoidance sensor 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, the air decontamination apparatus comprises an inlet which is configurable to selectively draw air into the one or more decontamination devices from a predetermined specific space around the one or more decontamination devices (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein the outlet is controllable to set a direction in which the treated air is expelled from the one or more decontamination device (claim 1).
The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. (In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP §2114; and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP §2173.05g).
Regarding Claim 17, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, the decontamination system comprises a mechanical filter (claim 3).
Regarding Claim 18, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, the decontamination system further comprises a radiation source (claim 3).
Regarding Claim 19, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 18, wherein, the radiation source is a UV source (claim 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, the system controller comprises computing means that control the one or more air quality sensors and receives sensor data (Page 3 “detecting sensor is connected with the control system”).
Regarding Claim 21, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1 wherein, the system controller comprises computer software that controls the air decontamination system (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 27, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, the system controller controls a movement of the air decontamination apparatus in response to inputs from the one or more air quality sensors, occupancy sensors, activity sensors or navigation sensors (Page 6).
Regarding Claim 28, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein the moveable support comprises a base. (Fig 1)
Regarding Claim 29, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein the moveable support comprises wheels mounted to contact with a surface across which the air decontamination apparatus can travel (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 30, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein the air decontamination apparatus comprises a robotic system (claim 1).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Filipovic (US 20210207843 A1)
Regarding Claim 31, Filipovic teaches an air decontamination apparatus that treats air containing contaminant aerosols (abstract), in an enclosed space (¶[0012]), the air decontamination apparatus comprising: a treatment system that comprises an extractor that draws air in from the enclosed space and a decontamination system which receives the air from the extractor (Fig 1, 12), the decontamination system being adapted to one or more of remove and neutralize the contaminant aerosols in the air (¶[0049]) ; an outlet that expels treated air from the decontamination system (Fig 1, 4); a moveable support to which the treatment system is attached, which is moveable across a surface (Fig 1, 20); and a system controller that controls operation of the treatment system (¶[0062]) and the moveable support wherein the air decontamination apparatus is operable with an enclosed space decontamination system wherein the decontamination system comprises one or more air quality sensors in the enclosed space (¶[0062]); one or more decontamination devices that treat air in the enclosed space; and a communications interface which is operatively connectable to the air decontamination apparatus and the one or more air quality sensors. (¶[0062])
PNG
media_image2.png
394
290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 15, 22, 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu.
Regarding Claim 3, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, but Qiu fails to teach the system controller is located within the enclosed space air decontamination system. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the system controller could be separate from the apparatus. (See MPEP 2144.V.C)
Regarding Claim 8, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, but fails Qiu to teach the one or more air quality sensors comprise sensors which measure one or more of occupancy, activity or other environmental parameters that influence a need for air replenishment due to their effect on air quality. However, measuring occupancy is well known in the art, (see US-2020023482-A1)
Regarding Claim 15, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 14, but Qiu fails to teach wherein the inlet is extended from a mobile air decontamination device by means of a flexible tube, duct, or vanes and orientated to efficiently capture contaminated air from an aerosol generator. However, the inlet being flexible tube is well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 22, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 21, wherein, but Qiu fails to explicit teach the computer software is configured to determine an optimal position of the air decontamination apparatus or multiple apparatuses in the enclosed space.
However, it would be obvious to optimize Qiu apparatus in order to filter the more contaminated air first (See MPEP 2144.05.II). Furthermore, automating a manual activity is obvious (MPEP 2144.04.III)
Regarding Claim 23, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 21, wherein, the computer software is configured to identify one or more aerosol generating sources in the enclosed space (claim 1).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 23, wherein, the computer software is configured to plan and execute a navigation path from a current location of the one or more decontamination devices to a location adjacent to the one or more aerosol generating sources (Page 4 “Compared with the existing technology…”).
Regarding Claim 25, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 21, wherein, but Qiu fails to explicitly teach the computer software is configured to determine an optimal position in a room to position the system controller and direct a flow of exhaust air to optimize airflow/air circulation. However, it would be obvious to optimize Qiu apparatus in order to filter the more contaminated air first and direct the clean air out (See MPEP 2144.05.II).
Regarding Claim 26, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 21, wherein, but fails to teach the computer software is configured to estimate a level of replenishment and provide a notification to an operator when a desired air replenishment has been obtained. However, it is well known to notify the operator when air quality has reached a desire quality .
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krosney et al. (US 20220080065 A1, hereinafter Krosney).
Regarding Claim 10, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, but Qiu fails to explicitly teach the air decontamination system integrates with a forced ventilation system in a building within which the one or more enclosed spaces are located to coordinate an effective means to maintain air quality. However, Krosney teaches the air decontamination system integrates with a forced ventilation system in a building within which the one or more enclosed spaces are located to coordinate an effective means to maintain air quality ¶([0032]). Qiu and Krosney are considered analogous to the claimed invention as both are in the same field of air cleaning robots. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filling date of the claimed inventions would use the teaching of Krosney with the air filtering robot of Qiu in order to more effectively clean the larger rooms.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Filipovic (US 20210207843 A1)
Regarding Claim 11, Qiu teaches air decontamination system of claim 1, wherein, but Qiu fails to teach the enclosed space air decontamination system accounts for outdoor air quality, temperature, humidity. However, Filipovic teaches the enclosed space air decontamination system accounts for outdoor air quality, temperature, humidity ([0060]) Qiu and Filipovic are considered analogous to the claimed invention as both are in the same field of air filtering apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effect filling date of the claimed inventions would use the teaching of Filipovic with the air filtering robot of Qiu in order to more effectively clean the rooms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1771 /KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
