Detailed Notice
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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 10/02/2025 has entered prosecution.
Claims 1, 3, 8-11, 14-15, 21-23 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant incorporates the limitation that there be a flow path “free of a recirculation loop”. However, applicant has no support to incorporate this limitation as is. Specifically, as it is difficult to conceive of a way in which this deceive could operate while not recirculating air. That is, the cleaned air expelled from the device inevitably mixes with contaminated air in the ambient air to which the clean air was ejected, and this contaminated + cleaned air combination re-enters through the air entrance to be cleaned and processed again. Accordingly, it is understood that the applicant is attempting to require that the air purification apparatus operates along a linear flow path from the junction of the air entrance (the region near element 130, Fig. 1) through to the abated air exit (element 183, Fig. 1). Attention is required.
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 1, 9-11, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obee (US6358374B1) in view of Lentz (US6849234B2) in view of Jagers (US5257958A) in view of Taghipour (US 20150114912 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 10-11, Obee teaches an air purification system according to embodiment 2 shown in the annotated Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
701
1176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Obee teaches that the apparatus comprises a 2nd embodiment with similar elements to the first embodiment [Col. 8, Lines 1-64], but in a linear configuration (that is, wherein the doors of 46 are set to the “first” position in the figure shown, where the doors are up [Col. 4, lines 5-10]) of the following elements:
An air entrance for drawing in contaminated air (element 14, Fig 2; [Col. 4, lines 5-10])
more than one fan inside the main body downstream of the air entrance (element 102 and 104, Fig. 2; and Col. 4, lines 25-41). Obee teaches that the number and location of the fans within the compartment is not critical (Col. 8, Lines 17-21). Accordingly, it is understood that, barring a demonstration of criticality, the location of the fan being downstream of the contaminant sensor (as in the instant claim) as opposed to upstream, does not produce a patentably distinct result (see MPEP 2144.04 IV C).
a contaminant detector (element 27, see Fig 2; and Col. 3, lines 59-63 and Col. 4, lines 25-41)
A first UV light system downstream of the photocatalyst panel (element 36, Fig. 2; and [Col. 4, lines 1-5]
An air exit (understood to be inclusive of an egress for the abated air) (element 16; [Col. 4, lines 5-10])
A control panel for turning on the lamps (element 29) (see Fig 2; and Col. 4, lines 25-41 + Col. 4, Lines 62-65)
However, Obee does not teach a damper associated with the air entrance, nor that there is a second UV light panel upstream of the photocatalyst media, nor that there is a second contaminant sensor near the entrance of the apparatus.
Jagers teaches an air treatment unit in a similar field of endeavor.
Jagers teaches that an air treatment system provides for air from a space to mixed with outdoor air before entering the space in which the mixed air is treated. Jagers teaches that an inlet damper (element 28, Fig. 1.) allows for outdoor air to be mixed, by means of a connected inlet damper (element 32, Fig. 1), with returned air to mix in a space to be treated (Col. 3, Lines 15-34). Jagers teaches that the dampers can be used in conjunction with a pressure control panel and a damper control in order to control the amount of outside air to be introduced to the return air through the inlet dampers in order to optimize internal building air pressure (Col. 1, lines 48-61 and Col. 4, Lines 3-30).
Lentz teaches a UV air treatment system for a return air duct system.
Lentz teaches that a sensor (element 50, Fig. 2) is secured within the return air duct (Col. 6, Lines 54-67) and is located near the return air entrance shown in Fig. 2 of Lentz below. Lentz teaches that the sensors generates the operational state of the air handling system, and that any sensor is applicable (Col. 6, Lines 54-67 and Col. 7, Lines -5).
PNG
media_image2.png
397
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Taghipour teaches a collimated UV-LED photoreactor for generating photo-initiated reactions in a fluid flow system (abstract).
Taghipour teaches a configuration for a UV-LED based photoreactor wherein UV-LED mounted boards (elements 155 and 156) are placed on either side of a photocatalyst structure (element 157), as this configuration causes photocatalytic reactions in a fluid [0066].
PNG
media_image3.png
122
387
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the system of Obee was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the dual structure UV-light source on either side of a photocatalyst structure in a linear fluid flow treatment system, as per Taghipour, as well as by the incorporation of the sensor near the inlet, as per Lentz, and the damper system of Jagers, in order that one would arrive at an air treatment apparatus with: improved operational instruction performance; the capacity to introduce varying proportions of outdoor air to be mixed with return air from a space to which treated air is being provided with improved pressure control; and improved photo reactivity and consequential air treatment capacity.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Obee teaches to Claim 1 as shown above.
However, Obee does not teach explicitly that a plurality of constant speed fans are used.
However, the courts have held broadly that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144 VI B). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to multiply the number of fans which control the air flow as controlled by a contaminant detector in order to control air flow in the air purifier.
Regarding Claim 21, Obee teaches that the air treatment apparatus has a UV lamp with UV radiation of 250 nm (Claim 8), understood to be within the UVC to UVA range. As the present claim is directed to an apparatus, limitations directed to the air being treated are not given patentable weight, as the air to be treated is not a structural element of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 23, Obee teaches that the apparatus may comprise a heater (element 38, Fig. 1).
Claims 8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obee (US6358374B1) in view of Lentz (US6849234B2) in view of Jagers (US5257958A) in view of Taghipour (US 20150114912 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goswami (US5835840A).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Obee teaches to Claim 7 as shown above.
However, Obee does not teach that the fan speed is variable.
Goswami teaches an air purification for a duct-based air transport system using photocatalysis of titania (abstract).
Goswami teaches that the air purification system disclosed only functions effectively if the air flow and humidity are controlled correctly (Col. 5, Lines 33-35). Consequently, Goswami teaches that the air speed or volume flow rate is sensed by a detector in relation to a microprocessor (Col. 5, Lines 5-18). In turn, the microprocessor will control the speed of the fan to provide the required residence time (Col. 5, Lines 5-18). Goswami teaches that the air speed can be adjusted for a maximum instruction of deleterious matter by controlling the duration that the air is retained over the catalyst surface (Col. 5, Lines 1-4).
Prior to the effective filing date of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the air treatment apparatus of modified Obee was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the airflow control system, as per Goswami, in order that one would arrive at an air treatment apparatus with air speeds configured to optimize performance of the catalyst structure (see MPEP 2143 I D).
Regarding Claim 14, Obee teaches to Claim 1 as shown above.
However, Obee does not teach that a filter is disposed downstream of the air entrance and upstream of the inside fan system.
Goswami teaches an air purification for a duct-based air transport system using photocatalysis of titania (abstract).
As shown in Fig. 1 of Goswami below, the beginning of the duct system for handling the intake of air which merge into a singular collector duct each contain a filter unit (element 12) which is downstream of the air intake and upstream of the fan system (Col. 2, Lines 41-52). Goswami teaches that the filter elements in the varying disclosed embodiments, pre-screen the air, vis-à-vis in order that the photocatalytic filters do not get clogged by large particulate matter (Col. 6, line 38-40). Examiner notes that while the previous sentence refers to the arrangement of the pre-filter disclosed in a separate embodiment, the rationale for the placement of the filter units in all embodiments is understood to occur for identical reasons.
Prior to the filing of the present invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the modified teaching of Obee was ready for improvement by the incorporation of a filter unit downstream of the air intake and upstream of the fan system, as per Goswami, in order that one would arrive at an air treatment apparatus which pre-treats the air prior to the air to be treated reaching the photocatalytic reactor region (see MPEP 2143 I D).
Regarding Claim 15, Obee teaches to Claim 1 as shown above. Claim 9 of Obee discloses that the humidity level according to the method of air purification taught is between 0.0 and 100% (Claim 9).
However, Obee does not teach the use of a humidity sensor configured to sense the humidity. Obee does not teach that the humidity sensor indicates to a control panel which is configured to regulate the humidity of the air.
Goswami teaches an air purification for a duct-based air transport system using photocatalysis of titania (abstract).
Goswami teaches that disposed along the length of the duct is a humidifier/dehumidifier unit which is controlled by a detector (Col. 5, Lines 19-22). The detector senses the humidity levels and either increases moisture with an atomizer unit or removes water with a cooling coil (Col. 5, Lines 22-30). Goswami teaches that the system only functions if the air flow and humidity are controlled correctly (Col. 5, Lines 33-35). Goswami further demonstrates, as per Fig. 1. of Goswami shown below, that the humidifier unit (element 50 of Fig. 1.) is disposed downstream of the fan (element 65) and upstream of the reactor units for treating the air, as the humidity control is critical to the reactor units performance (Col. 5, lines 19-35).
PNG
media_image4.png
541
558
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Prior to the effective filing date of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the air purification system taught by Obee was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the humidity detector and related humidifier/dehumidifying regulator in communication with the humidity detector, located upstream of the reactor and downstream of a fan, in order that one would arrive at an air purification device with improved humidity regulation (see MPEP 2143 I D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 3 and 22 are directed to the ability of the apparatus to generate UVA and UVC light at different power states, whereby the power states are generated by a control panel in conjunction with the contaminant sensors when a first and a second threshold level of contaminant are detected. The prior art does not teach or suggest the use of UVA and UVC in varying power states as a function of contaminant levels senses by predetermined thresholds. Accordingly, Claims 3 and 22 would be allowable if written in independent form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provides that the amendments to the claim set overcome the rejection set out in the previous office action, by the incorporation of the limitation that there is a flow path “free of a recirculation loop”. This is not persuasive, as has been detailed in the above office action, as applicant has no support for the incorporation of such a limitation into the claim set.
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 NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759