DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirobumi JP2010276904 published 9 Dec. 2010 as translated by EPO (hereafter Hirobumi).
Regarding claim 1, Hirobumi teaches a domestic air purifier system (Fig 2) comprising:
a removable particulate filter (43);
a fan or impeller (41) and which is powered by a motor (where one of ordinary skill would understand that the centrifugal fan would be powered by a motor in order to provide the fan’s rotation); and
an air duct (40) through which air displaced by the fan or impeller passes in an air flow direction (down to up fan 41 to filter 42) towards the removable particulate filter and is purified wherein the air duct comprises a duct wall (40c) and a portion of the duct wall comprises a gas filter (42a) disposed on a side of the air duct wall to remove harmful gases from the air displaced by the fan or impeller as the air displaced by the fan or impeller passes by the gas filter (¶36).
Regarding claim 2, Hirobumi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Hirobumi further teaches wherein the gas filter comprises a duct surface and which is flush with the duct wall (as shown in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 3, Hirobumi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Hirobumi further teaches wherein the air duct is configured such that the air flow direction changes at least once during passage through the air purifier system (as shown in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 4, Hirobumi teaches all the limitations of claim 3. Hirobumi further teaches wherein the particulate filter is disposed such that air passing along the air flow direction passes through the particulate filter (as shown in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, Hirobumi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Hirobumi further teaches wherein the gas filter comprises a foamy filter (¶36).
Regarding claim 6, Hirobumi teaches a method of removing unwanted gases from ambient air (¶36) by passing over a gas filter (42) in the system as described in claim 1 (where Hirobumi teaches all the limitations of claim 1).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirobumi JP2010276904 published 9 Dec. 2010 as translated by EPO (hereafter Hirobumi) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Hirobumi teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Hirobumi does not teach wherein the gas filter includes activated carbon.
Hirobumi further teaches where the gas filter includes polar adsorbents (¶36) and where activated carbon is a non-polar adsorbent (¶37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas filter (42) of Hirobumi by having the gas filter include activated carbon in order to allow the gas filter to also adsorb non-polar substances (¶37).
The modification would allow a portion of the non-polar substances to by adsorbed in the gas filter and reduce the load on the particle filter.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirobumi JP2010276904 published 9 Dec. 2010 as translated by EPO (hereafter Hirobumi) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fogarty CA 2272247 published 25 Nov. 2000 (hereafter Fogarty).
Regarding claim 8, Hirobumi teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Hirobumi does not teach wherein the particle filter is a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter.
Fogarty teaches a domestic air purifying system comprising a particulate filter wherein the particle filter is a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter in order to reduce particle emissions (page 4, page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the removable particulate filter (43) of Hirobumi by having the filter be a hepa filter as taught by Fogarty (page 4, 5) in order to reduce particle emissions (page 4, page 5).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi JP2001248886 published 14 Sep. 2001 as translated by EPO (hereafter Hiroshi) and further in view of Brown US 2005/0204918 (hereafter Brown).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Hiroshi a domestic air purifier system (Figs 1-8) comprising: a fan or impeller (fans shown in Figs 6, 8) and which is powered by a motor (where one of ordinary skill would understand that the fan would be powered by a motor in order to provide the fan’s drive); and an air duct (12) through which air displaced by the fan or impeller passes in an air flow direction towards the duct exit wherein the air duct comprises a duct wall (12a) and a portion of the duct wall comprises a gas filter (14, 13) disposed on a side of the air duct wall to remove harmful gases from the air displaced by the fan or impeller as the air displaced by the fan or impeller passes by the gas filter (¶16-19).
Hiroshi does not teach a removable particulate filter and an air flow direction towards the removable particulate filter and is purified; wherein the particle filter is a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter.
Brown teaches a domestic air purifier system (Figs 1-4) comprising a removable particulate filter (3) and an air flow direction towards the removable particulate filter and is purified (direction from fan to filter) in order to filter air with a high efficiency particular air filter (¶17, ¶30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the domestic air purifier system (Figs 6, 8) of Hiroshi by incorporating the removable particulate filter (3) of Brown in order to filter air with a high efficiency particular air filter (¶17, ¶30).
The modification would have resulted in a removable particulate filter and an air flow direction towards the removable particulate filter and is purified.
Regarding claim 2, Hiroshi in view of Brown teach all the limitations of claim 1. Hiroshi further teaches wherein the gas filter comprises a duct surface and which is flush with the duct wall (as shown in Figs 1-2 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroshi in view of Brown teach all the limitations of claim 1. Hiroshi further teaches wherein the air duct is configured such that the air flow direction changes at least once during passage through the air purifier system (as shown in Figs 6, 8).
Regarding claim 4, Hiroshi in view of Brown teach all the limitations of claim 3. Hiroshi further teaches wherein the particulate filter is disposed such that air passing along the air flow direction passes through the particulate filter (¶17).
Regarding claim 5, Hiroshi in view of Brown teach all the limitations of claim 1. Hiroshi further teaches wherein the gas filter comprises a foamy filter (charcoal, ¶17).
Regarding claim 6, Hiroshi in view of Brown teach a method of removing unwanted gases from ambient air (¶17) by passing over a gas filter (14, 13) in the system as described in claim 1 (where Hiroshi in view of Brown teaches all the limitations of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hiroshi in view of Brown teach all the limitations of claim 1. Hiroshi further teaches wherein the gas filter includes activated carbon (charcoal, ¶17).
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 2 Apr. 2026:
Applicant argues that Hirobumi neither addresses the same problem nor serves the same purpose.
Examiner disagrees. Hirobumi addresses the same problem of cleaning dirty air and serves the same purpose of filtering air.
Regarding filtering particles, Examiner maintains that filter 43 of Hirobumi is fully capable of filtering particles. While the filter 43 would also reduce VOCs in the air, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the filter has some characteristic pore size and would filter particles with a characteristic size greater than the filter’s characteristic pore size.
Regarding being removed, Examiner maintains that the filter 43 is fully capable of being removed. While Hirobumi does not specifically teach the filter being removeable, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the filter, being a separate part from the duct, would be able to be removed. For instance, if the filter were adhered to the duct surface using an adhesive, then the filter could be dislodged from the duct be cutting, scraping, or otherwise removing the filter from the duct. Examiner suggests further structural language of the removable structure to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Applicant argues that Hirobumi is not analogous art.
Examiner disagrees. Hirobumi is within the air filtration art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights