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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is dependent upon cancelled claim 6. It will be assumed to depend on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1, 2, 8-17, 21, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meirav (US20190299154A1) in view of Wright (US20100231196) in view of Meirav2 (US20110198055).
Claim 1: Meirav teaches a capture reaction vessel for processing an air supply (abstract teaches indoor air cleaning apparatus) comprising: a housing comprising a hollow container (Figure 1A and 1B shows the housing 100 with the different pieces inside.), wherein the hollow container includes an access door transitionable between a closed state forming a boundary to contain and direct a flow of a portion of the air supply and an open state exposing an internal compartment of the hollow container ([0056] and figures 1A and 1B teaches the movable access panel 102 that can be opened to allow access into the internal container.); a housing inlet arranged on the housing and configured to receive a portion of the air supply of an external area of the housing; a filter arranged within the internal compartment of the housing at the housing inlet and configured to remove particular matter or a particular gas from the portion of the air supply entering the housing inlet, wherein the filter is positioned within the internal compartment directly at the housing inlet such that all incoming air entering the housing inlet passes through the filter prior to contacting other internal elements (Figure 7A and [0059] teach particle filters 220 which appear to be adjacent to the inlet 120 and the air would pass through the filters first before anything else inside 10.); a reaction media arranged within the internal compartment of the housing, the reaction media configured to receive the filtered portion of the air supply and capture a portion of a constituent gas from the filtered portion of the air supply, wherein the reaction media is inside a reaction media container supported by a support frame in the internal compartment of the hollow container (Figure 4A and 4B shows the sorbent cartridges. [0041] teaches that the sorbents capture acidic gases and CO2. [0055]-[0056] teaches that these cartridge banks are removable from the inside of the device 10. It can be seen from the figures that the sorbent cartridge is supported inside the internal compartment by the bottom frame.); a housing outlet arranged on the housing and configured to return the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media back to the external area of the housing (Outlet 130 or 140.); a fan arranged within the internal compartment of the housing and configured to influence the portion of the air supply from the housing inlet, through the reaction media, and through the housing outlet ([0040] teaches the fan 110 performs this function.).
Meirav does not explicitly state a first gas sensor physically arranged within the internal compartment proximal to the housing inlet, and a second gas sensor physically arranged within the internal compartment proximal to the housing outlet; and a controller configured to receive concentration signals from the first gas sensor and the second gas sensor. Meirav does teach in [0077] there are various sensor for detecting air quality metrics.
Wright teaches a method for determining the useful service life of a gas filtration and purification system (abstract). Wright teaches in figure 1 and [0008] there are two sensors 50 with a sorbent in between them to measure the end of service life. [0018]-[0020] teaches that the sensor detects the undesirable chemical in the air as once the downstream filter detects that the undesirable chemical has penetrated the filter, it would indicate that the filter needs to be replaced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a first concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply entering the housing inlet and determine a second concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media of Meirav as Wright teaches that this allows for making sure that the air treatment is properly working in case of a filter failure or end of service life.
Meirav and Wright do not explicitly state in response to a first concentration of the constituent gas detected at the first gas sensor being below a threshold concentration of constituent gas, trigger an upstream isolation valve to transition to a closed position to prevent air flow from entering the housing inlet. Meirav teaches in [0082] that the console 252 can send signals to each scrubber 10 to turn it on or off depending on sensor readings or external signals received by the console. Meirav2 teaches an analogous device for removing contaminants from indoor air. Meirav2 teaches in [0006] that valves are used in order to control the amount of air that flows into the system. [0054]-[0056] teaches that the valves can be closed to any gas when it requires maintenance or repair. When the sorbent stops working, it would require replacement or repair of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the controller turn off an upstream valve in order to prevent air from entering the system during maintenance or repair as taught by Meirav2 as this would allow for unfiltered air to enter and leave the system.
The limitation “wherein the controller is configured to estimate a constituent gas absorption rate by the reaction media based on a difference between the first concentration of the constituent gas detected at the first gas sensor for the portion of the air supply entering the reaction media and a second concentration of the constituent gas detected at the second gas sensor for the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media” does not impart any limitations to the claim. Merely determining a value does not contribute to the limitation. In this case Wright would teach this limitation as the difference between the two sensors would show there is an issue with the filter itself as taught in [0021].
Claim 2: Meirav teaches the filter is arranged in series with the reaction media (Figure 7a shows the filter is in series).
Claim 8: Meirav teaches the housing inlet is configured to receive the portion of the air supply which is characterized by a first carbon dioxide concentration; wherein the reaction media absorbs carbon dioxide from the filtered portion of the air supply to capture the portion of the constituent gas; and wherein the housing outlet is configured to return the portion of the air supply back to the external area of the housing, the portion of the air supply returned characterized by a second carbon dioxide concentration less than the first carbon dioxide concentration ([0015] teaches that the system can remove CO2, which reads upon this limitation.).
Claim 9: Meirav teaches a first access tap to couple the housing inlet to an exhaust stack to receive the portion of the air supply; and a second access tap to couple the housing outlet to the exhaust stack to return the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media (Meirav teaches inlet 120 and outlet 140 shown in the figures. The exhaust stack can be read upon by the space in which device 10 occupies.).
Claim 10: Meirav and Meirav2 teaches the housing inlet receives the portion of the air supply from a heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system (Meirav teaches that this system can be used with the buildings HVAC system, which means the air from the HVAC can feed into this device. Meirav2 in [0004] teaches that the invention makes the system easily integrated with existing HVAC systems in order to not replace existing infrastructure.).
Claim 11: Meirav teaches the housing inlet receives the portion of the air supply from ambient indoor air ([0007] teaches cleaning indoor air.).
Claim 12: Meirav teaches a reaction media container housing the reaction media (See the sorbent cartridges in figure 4). Examiner also notes this limitation appears very similar or the same as the limitation in newly amended claim 1.
Claim 13: Meirav teaches a set of sensors ([0077] teaches various sensors); and the controller is configured to execute a processing cycle to filter the portion of the air supply and to capture the portion of the constituent gas from the filtered portion of the air supply ([0078] teaches the operation of scrubber 10 includes an adsorption mode.); wherein during a first segment of the processing cycle, the controller triggers the fan to draw the portion of the air supply into the housing inlet; wherein during a second segment of the processing cycle, the reaction media captures the portion of the constituent gas from the filtered portion of the air supply; wherein during a third segment of the processing cycle, the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media is returned back to the external area of the housing (This is read upon by the adsorption cycle of 10. [0079] teaches this process.).
The limitation “upon termination of the processing cycle, the controller receives outputs from the first gas sensor and the second gas sensor and calculates set of sensors to calculate one or more of an amount of the constituent gas captured by the reaction media, a gas flow rate, and a gas concentration difference” does not impart any limitations to the claim. Merely determining a value does not contribute to the limitation. This limitation is also not adding any kind of additional structure to the claims. Just calculating or determining a value does not impart any structure to the claim. Meirav teaches that the sensors can detect air quality metrics.
Claim 14: Meirav teaches during the second processing cycle, the controller triggers the fan to draw a next portion of the air supply into the housing inlet (Since the fan is continuously operating while the device is in the active adsorption mode, this limitation is read upon by the prior art. If the device is in active adsorption mode, then the fan would continue to operate the draw air in. This limitation is also considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.).
Claim 15: Meirav teaches a method for processing an air supply (abstract) comprising: receiving, at a housing inlet arranged on a housing comprising a hollow container, a portion of the air supply of an external area of the housing (Inlet 120), wherein the hollow container includes an access door transitionable between a closed state forming a boundary to contain and direct a flow of a portion of the air supply and an open state exposing an internal compartment of the hollow container (Access panel 102); filtering particular matter or a particular gas from the portion of the air supply entering the housing inlet by a filter arranged within the internal compartment of the housing at the housing inlet (claim 3 teaches a filter to remove particulate matter); capturing a portion of a constituent gas from the filtered portion of the air supply by a reaction media arranged within the housing, wherein the reaction media is inside a reaction media container supported by a support frame in the internal compartment of the hollow container (Figure 4A and 4B shows the sorbent cartridges. [0041] teaches that the sorbents capture acidic gases and CO2. [0055]-[0056] teaches that these cartridge banks are removable from the inside of the device 10. It can be seen from the figures that the sorbent cartridge is supported inside the internal compartment by the bottom frame.); and returning the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media back to the external area of the housing via a housing outlet arranged on the housing (See outlets 130 and 140.);
Meirav does not explicitly teach sensing a first concentration of the constituent gas by a first gas sensor physically arranged within the internal compartment proximal to the housing inlet; sensing a second concentration of the constituent gas by a second gas sensor physically arranged within the internal compartment proximal to the housing outlet.
Wright teaches a method for determining the useful service life of a gas filtration and purification system (abstract). Wright teaches in figure 1 and [0008] there are two sensors 50 with a sorbent in between them to measure the end of service life. [0018]-[0020] teaches that the sensor detects the undesirable chemical in the air as once the downstream filter detects that the undesirable chemical has penetrated the filter, it would indicate that the filter needs to be replaced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a first concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply entering the housing inlet and determine a second concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media of Meirav as Wright teaches that this allows for making sure that the air treatment is properly working in case of a filter failure or end of service life.
Meirav and Wright do not explicitly state triggering an upstream isolation valve to transition to a closed position to prevent air flow from entering the housing inlet based on the first concentration of the constituent gas detected at the first gas sensor being below a threshold concentration of constituent gas. Meirav teaches in [0082] that the console 252 can send signals to each scrubber 10 to turn it on or off depending on sensor readings or external signals received by the console. Meirav2 teaches an analogous device for removing contaminants from indoor air. Meirav2 teaches in [0006] that valves are used in order to control the amount of air that flows into the system. [0054]-[0056] teaches that the valves can be closed to any gas when it requires maintenance or repair. When the sorbent stops working, it would require replacement or repair of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the controller turn off an upstream valve in order to prevent air from entering the system during maintenance or repair as taught by Meirav2 as this would allow for unfiltered air to enter and leave the system.
The limitation “estimating a constituent gas absorption rate by the reaction media based on a difference between the first concentration of the constituent gas detected at the first gas sensor for the portion of the air supply entering the reaction media and the second concentration of the constituent gas detected at the second gas sensor for the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media” does not impart any limitations to the claim. Merely determining a value does not contribute to the limitation. In this case Wright would teach this limitation as the difference between the two sensors would show there is an issue with the filter itself as taught in [0021].
Claim 16: Meirav teaches influencing the portion of the air supply from the housing inlet, through the reaction media, and through the housing outlet by a fan arranged within the housing ([0040] teaches the fan 110 performs this function).
Claim 17: Meirav teaches arranging the filter in series with the reaction media (Figure 7a shows the filter is in series).
Claim 21: Meirav teaches the reaction media removes a carbon product ([0041] teaches removal of CO2). Wright teaches the controller is configured to generate and transmit a notification to replace the reaction media based on the constituent gas absorption rate ([0018]-[0020]).
The limitation of “converts the portion of constituent gas into a carbon product during a processing cycle for sequestration of the carbon product combined with the reaction media” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 22: Meirav teaches the reaction media removes a carbon product ([0041] teaches removal of CO2). Wright teaches the controller is configured to generate and transmit a notification to replace the reaction media based on the constituent gas absorption rate ([0018]-[0020]). Meirav does not explicitly state the controller is configured to generate and transmit a notification to replace the reaction media based on the amount of constituent gas captured by the reaction media. Meirav teaches in [0061] the system can have sensors including CO2 sensors that monitor system functionality and trigger automatic switching between modes of operation.
The limitation of “converts the portion of constituent gas into a carbon product during a processing cycle for sequestration of the carbon product combined with the reaction media” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 24: Meirav teaches the filter is coupled to an interior wall of the housing adjacent to the housing inlet (See figure 7a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 8-17, 21, 22, and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 07/13/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights