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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-19, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 16-17 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by EILER et al. (US 20080015794 A1) and any remaining corresponding rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the need to modify applied art.
EILER clearly at minimum suggests a bioaerosol including biological chemicals, such as nerve or blood agents for air circulating inside the building [0008, 0032, 0068]. However, another reference is added to fully address and provide explicit support that a bioaerosol including biological material is detected.
Regarding CLAYTON and any arguments for claims previously rejected under CLAYTON, such as claims 12 and 19, none of the arguments presented are convincing. CLAYTON clearly teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify any air circulation system, with protection from biological materials. See below.
[0005] A class of aerosols of special interest is bioaerosols. Bioaerosols include bio-particles such as fungus spores, bacteria spores, bacteria, viruses, and biologically derived particles (skin cells, detritus, etc.). Some bioaerosols cause chronic and/or acute health effects, for example certain strains of black mold or Bacillus anthraces (causative bacteria of anthrax). Bioaerosol concentrations are important in maintaining safe hospitals, clean food processing, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing, and air quality. Airborne spread of diseases is of particularly concern from a public health perspective. Aerosolized bioagents can also be used by terrorists to harm civilian or military populations.
[0006] Measurement (sensing) of aerosol and bioaerosol concentration is typically accomplished with optical techniques. Aerosol (e.g., solid and liquid particles ≤10 μm dispersed in air) concentration measurement is readily achieved by various light scattering measurements. The most accurate method entails the use of a single particle counter that focuses a stream of aerosol into a detection cavity where light scattering from a long wavelength (>650 nm) laser is measured. Precision optics are required to collect and focus the scattered light (while excluding the source light) onto a photon detector. The photon detectors are made from silicon or photocathode materials (e.g., indium gallium arsenide) that undergo the photoelectric effect (convert photons to electrons). These materials are packaged into detectors that offer high amplification of the signal from the photons, such as photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) and avalanche photodiodes (APDs). These detectors have active detection areas that are small (less than 25 mm.sup.2) and limited to planar geometries. Moreover, these detectors cost $100 or more, often exceeding $1,000 in the case of a high sensitivity PMT.
[0007] Autofluorescence (or intrinsic fluorescence) excited by ultraviolet (UV) and blue light is well-developed for detection of bioaerosols. See Hairston et al., “Design of an instrument for real-time detection of bioaerosols using simultaneous measurement of particle aerodynamic size and intrinsic fluorescence,” Journal of Aerosol Science 28(3): 471-482 (1997); Ho, “Future of biological aerosol detection,” Analytical Chimica Acta 457(1): 125-148 (2002); Agranovski et al., “Real-time measurement of bacterial aerosols with the UVAPS: Performance evaluation,” Journal of Aerosol Science 34(3): 301-317 (2003); Ammor, “Recent advances in the use of intrinsic fluorescence for bacterial identification and characterization,” Journal of Fluorescence 17(5): 455-459 (2007); Ho et al., “Feasability of using real-time optical methods for detecting the presence of viable bacteria aerosols at low concentrations in clean room environments,” Aerobiologia 27(2): 163-172 (2011). Exploiting autofluorescence of microbes is widely viewed as one of the most cost-effective means to detect a potential biological threat. Bioaerosol detectors typically use a combination of light scattering (measurement of general aerosol concentration and properties) and autofluorescence (detection of emitted photons). Bioaerosol detectors based on autofluorescence rely on fluorescence from molecular fluorophores that reside within the bio-particle. For clean bio-particles, this fluorescence can be primarily attributed to biochemicals such as tryptophan and tyrosine (amino acids), nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH), and riboflavin. NADH and riboflavin absorb and emit longer wavelengths than the amino acids. See Jeys et al., “Advanced trigger development,” Lincon Laboratory Journal 17(1): 29-62 (2007); Hill et al., “Fluorescence of bioaerosols: mathematical model including primary fluorescing and absorbing molecules in bacteria,” Optics Express 21(19): 22285-22313 (2013). The ability to use longer wavelength excitation sources such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs, excitation wavelength λ.sub.exc>360 nm) or lasers (λ.sub.exc>400 nm) may reduce the cost of such instruments.
[0008] Traditional bioaerosol particle detectors rely on three main components: (1) an excitation source of appropriate wavelength to excite a targeted fluorophore or collection of fluorophores; (2) precision optics (lenses and mirrors) on both the excitation and emission side to focus the source onto the narrow air stream and to enhance the collection of emitted photons from biological particles; and (3) a high gain detector such as a PMT or APD. Elastic light scattering from visible or long wavelengths is utilized to count and sometimes size the particles. Autofluorescence of biomolecules is utilized to detect microorganisms. The typical bioaerosol detector utilizes a small detection cavity, with fluorescence active volumes on the order of 1×10.sup.−4 cm.sup.3, making the window for detection of each bioaerosol particle exceedingly small. At typical flow rates, a bioaerosol particle resides within the excitation volume for 1-10 μs on average. See Hairston et al. (1997). As a result, emitted and scattered light from each bioaerosol particle is collected virtually on an individual basis, and the signal is weak. See Greenwood et al., “Optical Techniques for Detecting and Identifying Biological Warfare Agents,” Proceedings of the IEEE 97(6): 971-989 (2009). This weak signal thus requires the use of precision lenses and mirrors to collect the weak signal and focus it onto the high gain detector (e.g., PMT or APD).
[0009] Measurement of aerosol and bioaerosol concentration and changes in concentration is possible via a variety of commercially available instruments such as the Laser Aerosol Spectrometer for aerosols (TSI Incorporated, Shoreview, Minn., USA), the Ultraviolet Aerodynamic Particle Sizer for bioaerosols (TSI Incorporated), the Wideband Integrated Bioaerosol Sensor (WIBS-4) for bioaerosols (Droplet Measurement Technologies, Boulder, Colo., USA), and the instantaneous biological analyzer and collector (FLIR Systems, Inc., Wilsonville, Oreg., USA). However, such instruments can exceed $10,000 in cost making wide spread use cost prohibitive. Furthermore, having a sufficiently dense sensor network of aerosol/bioaerosol sensors (i.e., multiples of these instruments in communication with a central network) is cost prohibitive. The high cost of a sensor network also means that capitalizing on responsive systems is challenging. For example, it would be desirable to provide several bioaerosol sensors positioned throughout a hospital or other building and networked with the building's control systems to maintain a safe environment and respond to a change in bioaerosol concentration, such as by diverting airflow or indicating the need for maintenance of filters and air handlers.
Description
[0026] As used herein, the term “bioaerosol” generally refers to an aerosol in which one or more bio-particles are suspended or carried. The term “bio-particle” generally refers to a biological material, or the combination of a biological material and a non-biological particle on which the biological material is carried. That is, a biological material may itself be a particle freely suspended in an aerosol, or may be carried on a non-biological particle such that the biological material and the non-biological particle are suspended together in the aerosol. The biological material may be carried on the non-biological particle by any mechanism such as, for example, entrapment, embedment, adhesion, adsorption, attractive force, affinity, etc. Examples of biological materials include, but are not limited to, spores (e.g., fungal spores, bacterial spores, etc.), fungi, molds, bacteria, viruses, biological cells or intracellular components, biologically derived particles (e.g., skin cells, detritus, etc.), etc.
[0027] As used herein, for convenience the term “aerosol” generally encompasses the term “bioaerosol” and the term “particle” generally encompasses the term “bio-particle,” unless indicated otherwise or the context dictates otherwise.
[0029] As used herein, the term “sample” may encompass the terms aerosol, bioaerosol, gas, or fluid.
The evidence of CLAYTON’s teachings is clear. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret any bioaerosol to include biological material of different kinds to be harmful in certain instances. EILER is clearly directed to preventing further air circulation which could be contaminated with such biological materials, not limited to any specific type of biological material by detecting such biological material using sensors. CLAYTON is clearly directed to preventing contamination by using a more specific types of mitigation such as by using sensors to detect bioaerosols and controlling airflow [0009]. The concept of diverting airflow as taught by CLAYTON is a teaching which overlaps with controlling of air dampers to prevent further contaminated airflow as taught by EILER.
The claims as amended do not further specify the type of biological material.
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.
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) 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EILER et al. (US 20080015794 A1) in view of CLAYTON et al. (US 20190257737 A1).
Re claim 1. EILER discloses (abstract – claim 1) a building automation system (building protection system 50) for controlling air quality [0013] of an environment inside a building (FIG.1-2) including air circulating (air circulated inside building is passed thru duct 24 and thru chemical/gas sensor 56 which detects biological elements [0068] for the air circulating inside, while another sensor 56 detects biological elements from the outside as seen in FIG.1) inside the building [0028], comprising:
at least one bioaerosol detector (i.e. chemical/gas sensor system(s) 52/56 (i.e. biological agent) and nuclear/radiation sensor system(s) 53/57) disposed in at least one location inside the building for detection of bioaerosols circulating inside the building (FIG.1); and [0027]
a processor (i.e. implicitly the building control system 50 requires at least on processor) in communication with the at least one bioaerosol detector [0020], and configured to:
determine when one or more thresholds of a bioaerosol has been detected [0040], and
activate building mitigation resources (i.e. closing dampers and turning off fans, including closing damper 36 to close interior airflow from circulating inside) to reduce a level of the detected bioaerosol circulating inside the building by elimination of the bioaerosols from the air circulating inside the building. [0067]
However, EILER fails to explicitly disclose:
which detects bioaerosols including biological material.
CLAYTON teaches (abstract) in the similar field of invention [0005] the concept of detecting bioaerosols including biological material [0006-0008] which are defined as a biological material or combination of biological material and non-biological particle on which the biological material is carried. [0026] Bioaerosols according the CLAYTON include fungus spores, bacteria spores, bacteria, viruses.
[0005] A class of aerosols of special interest is bioaerosols. Bioaerosols include bio-particles such as fungus spores, bacteria spores, bacteria, viruses, and biologically derived particles (skin cells, detritus, etc.). Some bioaerosols cause chronic and/or acute health effects, for example certain strains of black mold or Bacillus anthraces (causative bacteria of anthrax). Bioaerosol concentrations are important in maintaining safe hospitals, clean food processing, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing, and air quality. Airborne spread of diseases is of particularly concern from a public health perspective. Aerosolized bioagents can also be used by terrorists to harm civilian or military populations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a further definition and function to prevent contamination by biological material such as taught by CLAYTON in order to prevent biological hazards inside a building, by way of closing damper to prevent further airflow and limit spread of biological material for instance.
3. The system of claim 1, the processor is configured to activate, when the threshold alarm level is reached, an alarm for evacuating the building. [0051]
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the building mitigation resources comprise at least one or more of air filtration, outside air ventilation, and bioaerosol elimination. (FIG.1) [0029]
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the air filtration comprises HEPA air filtration for filtering aerosols from air circulating in the building. [0029]
8. The system of claim 6, wherein the outside air ventilation introduces non-contaminated air into the building. (FIG.1)
However, EILER fails to explicitly disclose:
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the radiation detector comprises an autofluorescence-based sensor.
CLAYTON teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, using bioaerosol detectors based on autofluorescence for an improved detection of bioaerosols [0007].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of trying an exterior bioaerosol detector based on autofluorescence. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to add an autofluorescence-based sensor for an exterior bioaerosol detector to detect potentially harmful biological gases from the exterior.
16. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one bioaerosol detector is disposed in an interior of the building. (FIG.1)
17. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one bioaerosol detector is disposed in a ventilation duct of the building. (FIG.1)
19. However, EILER fails to explicitly disclose:
the system of claim 18, wherein the exterior bioaerosol detector comprises an autofluorescence-based sensor.
CLAYTON teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, using bioaerosol detectors based on autofluorescence for an improved detection of bioaerosols [0007].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known options of trying an exterior bioaerosol detector based on autofluorescence. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to add an autofluorescence-based sensor for an exterior bioaerosol detector to detect potentially harmful biological gases from the exterior.
Re claim 20. EILER discloses (as applied for claim 1) A building automation system for controlling air quality of an environment inside a building including air circulating inside the building, comprising: at least one bioaerosol detector disposed in at least one location inside the building for detection of bioaerosols circulating inside the building (FIG.1); and a processor in communication with the at least one bioaerosol detector and configured to: activate building mitigation resources to reduce a level of a detected bioaerosol circulating inside the building by elimination of the bioaerosols from the air circulating inside the building.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EILER et al. (US 20080015794 A1) in view of CLAYTON et al. (US 20190257737 A1) further in view of SLOO et al. (US 20150100167 A1).
However, EILER and CLAYTON fails to explicitly disclose:
2. The system of claim 1, the processor is configured to:
receive data from the at least one bioaerosol sensor, analyze the data and determine if the aerosols are at a threshold alarm level, and if below the threshold alarm level, receive a subsequent data from the bioaerosol sensor and analyze the subsequent data and determine if the bioaerosols are at the threshold alarm level.
4 The system of claim 1, the processor is configured to activate, when an threshold alarm level is reached, safe zone lighting in areas in the building with a safe level of the bioaerosols.
5. The system of claim 1, the processor is configured to activate, when an threshold alarm level is reached, egress lightning.
SLOO teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention (FIG.1) a system to receive and analyze data (FIG.17-18B) [0209-0217] to determine if aerosols are at a threshold alarm levels 2610 and receive subsequent data 2615 from sensors for analyzation to determine 2620 if bioaerosols are at the threshold alarm level 2625. Furthermore, SLOO teaches activating an alarm [0141] and safe zone lighting/egress lighting in the building, once threshold alarm level is reached [0072, 0179] to assist in evacuation efforts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try adapting the receiving, analyzing and determining data for aerosols threshold alarm level and lighting functions as taught by SLOO, in order to properly activate an alarm function as needed, and provide lighting assistance during an evacuation.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EILER et al. (US 20080015794 A1) in view of CLAYTON et al. (US 20190257737 A1) further in view of MARRA (US 20080092742 A1).
However, EILER and CLAYTON fails to explicitly disclose:
9. The system of claim 6, wherein the bioaerosol elimination comprises one or more of an electret filter and an electrostatic precipitator.
10. The system of claim 6, wherein the bioaerosol elimination comprises a germicidal ultraviolet radiation.
MARRA teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention [0047, 0072] the concept of using different means of reducing air pollution as part of air pollution sensor system (FIG.1), wherein an electret filter and/or UV radiation is used.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using either of the taught means of bioaerosol elimination as taught by MARRA in order to further mitigate bioaerosols for instance.
11. EILER discloses (FIG.1) The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one bioaerosol detector comprises:
a detection chamber 21/24 for introduction of a fluid stream containing the bioaerosols.
However, EILER and CLAYTON fails to explicitly disclose:
11. a radiation source configured to irradiate the bioaerosols in the detection chamber; a radiation detector configured to detect fluorescent radiation emitted from the bioaerosols.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the radiation source is configured to irradiate the bioaerosols across a two-dimensional plane in the detection chamber.
As discussed above, MARRA teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention [0047, 0072] the concept of using different means of reducing air pollution as part of air pollution sensor system (FIG.1), wherein an electret filter and/or UV radiation is used. Furthermore, MARRA teaches (FIG.6) a radiation source 213 configured to irradiate the bioaerosols in the detection chamber [0050] and a radiation detector configured to detect fluorescent radiation emitted from the bioaerosols [0050, 0053-0054] and wherein the radiation source is configured to irradiate the bioaerosols across a two-dimensional plane in the detection chamber. (FIG.1-6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using either of the taught means of bioaerosol elimination as taught by MARRA in order to further mitigate bioaerosols for instance.
14. EILER discloses (FIG.1) The system of claim 11, wherein the detection chamber comprises an inlet for a fluid stream of the bioaerosols and an exit for the fluid stream.
15. EILER discloses (FIG.1) The system of claim 14, wherein the inlet and the outlet are disposed on opposite sides of the detection chamber and define a flow direction of the fluid stream.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EILER et al. (US 20080015794 A1) in view of CLAYTON et al. (US 20190257737 A1) further in view of NAKAYAMA (WO 2023175837 A1).
18. However, EILER and CLAYTON fails to explicitly disclose:
the system of claim 1, further comprising an exterior bioaerosol detector disposed outside the building.
NAKAYAMA teaches (abstract) [0007] in a similar field of invention an exterior detector disposed outside the building (“a biological information detection unit may be placed either inside or outside the facility”).
The prior art of NAKAYAMA also teaches the known technique of using biological detectors placed inside or outside a facility. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of placing an exterior detector as well as an interior detector, would have yielded predictable results and would have improved the ability for the system to protect against more bioaerosols whether these are internal or external to the building.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 4/6/2026