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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,668 in view of Saravanan (US Pub NO. 2022/0390135).
Regarding claims 21 and 29, US 12,203,668 teaches an air quality monitoring device, the air quality monitoring device comprising:
a housing comprising a chamber and an inlet port, wherein the inlet port is structured
to receive an air flow from outside the housing and provide the air flow to the chamber; a plurality of sensors disposed within the chamber and configured to measure air quality data associated with the air flow; an adapter configured to be connected to the inlet port and a continuous positive airway pressure machine, wherein the inlet port is configured to receive the air flow from the continuous positive airway pressure machine via the adapter; and a controller connected with the plurality of sensors and configured to transmit the air quality data to a computing device, See claim 1.
US 12,203,668 does not teach wherein the computing device determines an air quality as good if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is less than a first particle threshold, wherein the computing device determines the air quality as moderate if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the first particle threshold but less than a second particle threshold, and wherein the computing device determines the air quality as bad if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the second particle threshold.
Saravanan teaches computing device determines an air quality as good if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is less than a first particle threshold, wherein the computing device determines the air quality as moderate if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the first particle threshold but less than a second particle threshold, and wherein the computing device determines the air quality as bad if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the second particle threshold.
Saravanan teaches the computing device determines an air quality as good if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is less than a first particle threshold, wherein the computing device determines the air quality as moderate if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the first particle threshold but less than a second particle threshold, and wherein the computing device determines the air quality as bad if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the second particle threshold.
Saravanan teaches computing device determines an air quality as good if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is less than a first particle threshold, wherein the computing device determines the air quality as moderate if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the first particle threshold but less than a second particle threshold, and wherein the computing device determines the air quality as bad if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the second particle threshold (See [0092]). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use Saravanan teachings on particle thresholds for a more accurate air quality determination.
Claim 22 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 23 of the current application corresponds to claim 3 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 24 of the current application corresponds to claim 4 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 25 of the current application corresponds to claim 1 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 26 of the current application corresponds to claim 5 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 27 of the current application corresponds to claim 6 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 28 of the current application corresponds to claim 7 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 30 of the current application corresponds to claim 9 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 31 of the current application corresponds to claim 10 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 32 of the current application corresponds to claim 11 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 33 of the current application corresponds to claim 8 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 34 of the current application corresponds to claim 12 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim 35 of the current application corresponds to claim 13 of US Pat No. 12,203,668.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 22-28 and 30-35 are 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.
Claims 22-28 and 30-35 are dependent on cancelled claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-23, 26-31, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schatzl et al. (US Pub No. 2009/0020120) and Saravanan (US Pub NO. 2022/0390135).
Regarding claims 21 and 29, Schatzl teaches an air quality monitoring device, the air quality monitoring device comprising:
a housing comprising a chamber and an inlet port, wherein the inlet port is structured to receive an air flow from outside the housing and provide the air flow to the chamber (See abstract, Fig. 1 & 3, and [0011]);
a plurality of sensors disposed within the chamber and configured to measure data associated with the air flow (See Fig. 3, flow sensor and pressure sensor and [0044]);
an adapter configured to be connected to the inlet port and a continuous positive airway pressure machine, wherein the inlet port is configured to receive the air flow from the continuous positive airway pressure machine via the adapter (See Fig. 2, [0033], and [0041]), and
a controller connected with the plurality of sensors and configured to transmit the data to a computing device (See [0015] and [0016]).
Schatzl does not explicitly teach a computing device that determines an air quality as good if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is less than a first particle threshold, wherein the computing device determines the air quality as moderate if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the first particle threshold but less than a second particle threshold, and wherein the computing device determines the air quality as bad if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the second particle threshold (See [0092]).
Saravanan teaches computing device determines an air quality as good if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is less than a first particle threshold, wherein the computing device determines the air quality as moderate if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the first particle threshold but less than a second particle threshold, and wherein the computing device determines the air quality as bad if count of number of times the plurality of sensors detect particles of a particular size in the air flow is greater than the second particle threshold (See [0092]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Schatzl’s device to include Saravanan’s air quality data to better monitor health and environmental air quality to protect individuals who are particularly susceptible to air pollution. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claims 22 and 30, Schatzl teaches the housing further comprises: an outlet port structured to discharge the air flow from the chamber (See Fig. 2 & 3, [0033], and [0041]).
Regarding claims 23 and 31, Schatzl does not teach the plurality of sensors comprise at least one of a particulate matter sensor, a volatile organic compound sensor, a temperature sensor, or a humidity sensor.
Saravanan teaches the plurality of sensors comprise at least one of a particulate matter sensor, a volatile organic compound sensor, a temperature sensor, or a humidity sensor (See [0015]).
Regarding claims 26 and 34, Schatzl does not teach the plurality of air quality measurements include the first air quality measurement.
Saravanan teaches the plurality of air quality measurements include the first air quality measurement (See [0092]).
Regarding claims 27 and 35, Schatzl does not teach a component indicates the air quality in a first color if the air quality data meets a first predetermined threshold.
Saravanan teaches a component indicates the air quality in a first color if the air quality data meets a first predetermined threshold (See [0096]).
Regarding claim 28, Schatzl teaches the adapter is interchangeable with one or more other adapters based on a type of the continuous positive airway pressure machine (See [0056] monitor can be applied to various types of CPAP machines.).
Claims 24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatzl and Saravanan as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Kennedy et al. (US Pub No. 2022/0020488).
Regarding claims 24 and 32, Schatzl does not teach the air quality data indicates a presence of mold in the air flow based on a size of one or more particles in the air flow determined by the particulate matter sensor.
Kennedy teaches determining a presence of mold in the air flow based on a size of one or more particles in the air flow determined by the particulate matter sensor (See [0198]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Schatzl’s device to include Kennedy’s teaching to increase comfort and effectiveness of the CPAP therapy. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/THOMAS S MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686