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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 52-55 and 59 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.
In regard to claim 52, it is unclear if the limitation of “at least one light source” is referring to one of the “at least two light sources” as recited in claim 40 or to another light source. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as --at least one light source of the at least two light sources--.
Claim 52 recites the limitation "the at least one particle filter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regard to claim 53, the limitation of “on at least one side of at least one particle filter an entire area of the particle filter is illuminated” is unclear as the Examiner cannot determine of the limitation should be interpreted in light of the limitation of “at least two particle filters” recited in the parent claim 40.
Claim 54 recites the limitation "the at least one particle filter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regard to claim 55, the use of the limitation “all light sources” is unclear as it is not clear if “all light sources” is bound by the structural relationships of the “at least two light sources” of claim 40 which are required to be “disposed first in the flow direction (d)” and to not comprise “UVB and UVC light.”
In regard to claim 59, it is unclear if the limitation of “a plurality of types of light sources” is in addition to or including the “one or more light sources” recited in claim 56.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "the at least one particle filter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 56-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virr et al. (US 2012/0174922; hereinafter “Virr”) in view of Sliney (“What is light? The visible spectrum and beyond.” Eye 30, 222–229 (2016)).
In regard to claim 56, Virr discloses a ventilator (breathing apparatus 1), wherein the ventilator comprises a pneumatic system (flow channels 6,7 and impellor 10) for conveying ventilation gas in a flow direction (d) to a patient (see at least Figure 6), at least two particle filters (alternate embodiment of filter assembly 9 as filter assembly 80 comprising pre-filter 85 and HEPA filter 82; see [0162] and Figure 18G) with a pore size respectively decreasing in the flow direction disposed within the pneumatic system. See Figures 1-6 and paragraphs [0096]-[0101]. In the embodiment of Figure 18G, Virr teaches that one or more light sources (LEDs 86) are disposed upstream of the at least two particle filters and light emitted by at least one of the one or more light sources can have a wavelength within a range of from 385 nm to 2000 nm as Virr teaches that the LEDs 86 “can be any standard LEDs or UV LEDs.” See [0168]. The Examiner views “standard” in this context to mean “producing a visible wavelength.” Thus, it is held that the at least one light source can a wavelength within a range of from 385 nm to 780 nm as the recited range encapsulates the entire visible light spectrum and while excluding UVB and UVC light. See [0162] and Figure 18G.
Virr does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one of the one or more light sources has a single emission maximum.
Sliney discloses that visible spectrum LEDs produce very narrow wavelength bands in a single color when not part of multi-chip LEDs. It is well understood that the narrow emission bands only have a single emission maximum as the light produced by a single LED is centered around the emission maximum. See page 223.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the use of a single-color visible LED as described by Sliney with the apparatus of Virr for the purpose of exciting the photocatalyst as one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art in order to find an appropriate standard LED which to incorporate with the apparatus.
In regard to claim 57, Virr discloses that a third filter (coarse filter) can be added before the pre-filter to remove rather large particles. See [0170].
In regard to claim 58, Virr does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one light source is disposed on each side of the at least one particle filter. However, Virr discloses two different embodiments wherein light sources 86 are applied either upstream of the filters (Figure 18G) or downstream of the filters (Figure 18H).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the use of upstream and downstream illumination of photocatalytic elements of the two different embodiments of Virr with the above combined apparatus for the purpose of increasing the amount photocatalytic reactions within the apparatus without creating any new or unexpected results. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 40-51 are allowed.
Claims 52-55 and 59 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In regard to claim 40, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the recited arrangement of at least two light sources wherein light emitted from one of the light sources comprises light having a wavelength within a range of 385 nm to 780 nm and the other comprises light having a wavelength within a range of 780 nm to 2000 nm wherein light emitted by the at least two light sources does not comprise UVB and UVC light in combination with the other recited limitations. It is held that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to include a light source having a wavelength within a range of 780 nm to 2000 nm upstream of the filter in the apparatus of Virr as Virr discloses that “standard LEDs or UV LEDs” are needed for activating photocatalyst material in the filters.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regard to claim 59, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the recited arrangement of a plurality of types of light sources which are directed in a circumferential fashion at a particle filter in an alternating sequence as recited and in combination with the other recited claim limitations of claim 56.
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 TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights