DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 09/12/2025. Claims 1, 3-4, and 9-19 are pending in the application. Claims 16-18 have been withdrawn and claims 1, 3-4, 9-15, and 19 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
4. On p.8-13 of the remarks filed 09/12/2025, Applicant argues that no single prior-art reference or a combination of the references used in the prior office action teaches or suggests the full scope of amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.8-13, filed 09/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rosenorn et al. (US 20230233726 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Yi et al. (US 20150064069 A1), Gao et al. (CN 108700314 A, cited in prior office action), Wang (CN 205579807 U), and Larsen (US 20150258234 A1).
On p.14 of the remarks, Applicant further argues that as an example, attaching Cheng's motion sensor to Rosenorn's ozone generator or swapping Rosenorn's fan for Gao's is hindsight, because the Examiner is cherry-picking individual solutions to separate problems from unrelated references.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While Applicant is correct in that the modification of Rosenorn in view of the secondary references such as switching out the fan for Gao’s and incorporating Cheng’s motion sensor do not cure a problem cited by Rosenorn, a 103 rejection does not require a problem to be stated and thus solved via a secondary reference; but rather a motivation/benefit/valid reasoning for the modification that does not teach away from the primary reference is sufficient.
In the case of Gao’s fan, as shown in the prior office action, Rosenorn teaches a generic fan, and there is no description of what the structure of the fans are. Rosenorn simply utilizes the fans to create an air current to draw in and expel air (Apol and treated air arrows, Fig. 1 and [0066]). Gao teaches an air purifier utilizing a filter and a fan/blower (abstract), where the fan is a double-air centrifugal blower that achieves the same functionality as Rosenorn’s fan (i.e., moving air into, through, and out of the disinfection device). Knowing that Rosenorn and Gao are analogous due to the air purification and fan commonalities, it would have been obvious to try and thus substitute the generic fan of Rosenorn with a fan having Gao’s particular fan structure, as the functionality of Gao’s fan when incorporated to Rosenorn’s device would not have changed the operation of the now-modified Rosenorn device, and thus the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
In the case of Cheng’s motion sensor, as shown in the prior office action, the incorporation of the motion sensor to Rosenorn’s air purification apparatus has a motivation of detecting human motion, which can thus be translated to trigger the buzzer to prevent the exposure of the harmful UV light. Rosenorn is already concerned with harmful ozone exposure to humans and subsequently utilizes an ozone sensor and buzzer/alarm system to warn the user or people in vicinity to Rosenorn’s ozone generating device of high/harmful ozone concentration ([0059-0062]). Cheng teaches a presence sensor to detect motion (i.e., people) in the vicinity of the air purifier and further teaches the automatic reduction or shutoff of the air purifier when a person is detected ([0020]). Because Rosenorn fully teaches an ozone sensor with an audible alarm ([0062]) in view of the aforementioned problem, modifying Rosenorn’s sensor and buzzer system for a different set of sensor parameters (i.e., presence detection as taught by Cheng instead of ozone concentration by Rosenorn in order to alert harmful exposure to humans) and the automatic shutoff of the device when a person is detected (an improvement over Rosenorn’s sensor/alarm system) would have been obvious and thus not unrealistic/unexpected nor hindsight.
Furthermore, a secondary reference relevant to a modification of one missing feature from Rosenorn’s air purifying apparatus does not necessarily have to be related to another secondary reference’s modification of another unrelated missing feature in all aspects.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mounting means” in claim 4. Examiner interprets the mounting means to be a mount.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claim 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “a mounting means that enables the apparatus to be mounted at a height of at least two meters on a wall”, which is new matter. This limitation is not described as to what the mounting means structurally entails neither in the specification nor drawings. The device is stated to be mounted in public transport (Example 7 in the specification), but does not state the mounting means/mount. Therefore the specification does not contain support for the limitation “a mounting means…”. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in reply to this office action.
9. 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.
10. Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “a mounting means that enables the apparatus to be mounted at a height of at least two meters on a wall”. This limitation is not described as to what the mounting means structurally entails neither in the specification nor drawings. The limitation will be hereinafter interpreted as a wall-mountable bracket that can hold the air purification device in the specific orientation and height. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
12. Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 13-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenorn et al. (US 20230233726 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Yi et al. (US 20150064069 A1), Gao et al. (CN 108700314 A, cited in prior office action), Wang (CN 205579807 U), and Larsen (US 20150258234 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rosenorn teaches a dual device for environments disinfection and sterilization of air and surfaces (air treatment system 1, Fig. 1), comprising:
an inlet (inlets 6a-b, Fig. 1);
at least one air outlet (outlets 7a-b, Fig. 1);
at least one HEPA filter (first air particle filter 10, Fig. 1, where “the first air particle filter may be any kind of suitable filter device arranged for removing particulate material from the air flow, e.g. particulate air (HEPA) filters”, [0042]);
at least one UV lamp (UV lamps 9’’ and 11’, Fig. 1 and [0084-0086]);
an ionizer (UV lamp 11’’ generates OH radicals, Fig. 1 and [0086]);
an ozonizer (UV lamp 9’ generates ozone, Fig. 1 and [0084]);
a buzzer (audible alarm, [0062]); and
a control unit (control unit 4, Fig. 1).
Rosenorn teaches an external casing (housings 5a-b, Fig. 1), but fails to teach an external casing with mirrored inner surfaces.
Yi teaches an air purifier (100, Fig. 1-2) utilizing UV rays (UV light source 210, Fig. 1-2) having a housing (casing 110, Fig. 1-2), where “at least a part of the inner wall of the case 110 can be coated with a light reflecting material” ([0042]) in order to “to additionally increase the frequency at which the air flowing through the case 110 along the flow path comes in contact with the UV rays” ([0042]).
Rosenorn and Yi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification systems utilizing UV rays to disinfect the airstream.
Therefore, 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 inner walls/surfaces of the housings of Rosenorn by incorporating a light-reflective material on the inner walls/surfaces as taught by Yi in order to “additionally increase the frequency at which the air flowing through the cas[ing] along the flow path comes in contact with the UV rays” (Yi, [0042]).
Modified Rosenorn further teaches a blower (fans 8a-b, Fig. 1), but fails to teach wherein the blower is a double-blade centrifugal fan comprising an isolating housing that houses its blades and motor, the fan having two fan inlets on opposite sides of the isolating housing and at least one fan outlet oriented substantially perpendicular to said fan inlets.
Gao teaches an air purifier (10, Fig. 3) that has a double-blade centrifugal fan (fan 208, Fig. 3) comprising an isolating housing that houses its blades and motor (“the fan is a double-blade centrifugal fan, the double-blade centrifugal fan comprises a separate housing to contain the blade and/or the motor”, see p.2, 2nd to last paragraph of English translation), the fan having two fan inlets on opposite sides of the isolating housing (two fan inlets 205, Fig. 3) and at least one fan outlet oriented substantially perpendicular to said fan inlets (air outlet 220, Fig. 3), where the centrifugal fan directs air from “partially cleaned to the clean air vertical section” for further purification, see p.2, 8th paragraph of English translation.
Modified Rosenorn and Gao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification utilizing fans to direct airflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fans of modified Rosenorn with the double-blade centrifugal fan as taught by Gao because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of directing/moving air from the external environment through the interior of the air purification device.
Modified Rosenorn teaches a HEPA filter (filter 10, Fig. 1) in order to “arrest very fine particles such as microorganisms and vira” ([0042]), but fails to teach an activated carbon filter.
Wang teaches an air purification device (Fig. 1) utilizing UV light to sterilize the airstream (UV lamp 13, Fig. 1) having a powdered activated carbon filter (first filter element 10, Fig. 1) for the purpose of “removing formaldehyde, of volatile organic compound contaminants in toluene, hydrogen sulphide, chlorobenzene and air” (see p.5, 1st paragraph of English translation), and subsequently after, a HEPA filter (second filter element 11, Fig. 1) for the purpose of filtering “smoke, dust and bacteria and other pollutants” (see p.5, 2nd paragraph of English translation).
Modified Rosenorn and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification devices utilizing filters to remove contaminants from the incoming airflow.
Therefore, 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 HEPA filter of Rosenorn by incorporating a powdered activated carbon filter in conjunction with the HEPA filter in order to further filter the incoming airflow via the removal of VOC contaminants in the air (Wang, see p.5, 1st paragraph of English translation).
Modified Rosenorn teaches wherein the control unit is configured to operate the device in an air purification mode and in a sterilization mode (second and first operational modes, respectively, [0073-0074]), the ozonizer being activated only in the sterilization mode (sterilization unit 2 producing ozone, see abstract and [0073]), but fails to teach a presence sensor configured to detect the absence of living beings in a room, wherein the presence sensor enables operation of the ozonizer in the sterilization mode only when no person is detected in the room, and triggers the buzzer to emit an alarm if a person is detected during the sterilization mode.
It is important to note that modified Rosenorn is aware of the harmful effects of excessive ozone levels, and further utilizes a sensor/buzzer system (ozone sensor 14, Fig. 1 and [0059-0062]) to prevent harm to individual in the proximity of the device. Modified Rosenorn’s device is intended to be controlled by a user that can select operational modes by a remote ([0058-0059]).
Larsen teaches a method of sterilizing air via the generation of ozone from UV radiation (abstract and Fig. 1-2) having a presence sensor configured to detect the absence of living beings in a room (motion sensors to detect a person, [0028]); wherein the control unit ([0036]) is configured to operate the device in an air purification mode (termination of ozone generation, [0028] and Fig. 1) and in a sterilization mode (ozone generation mode, [0028] and Fig. 2), the ozonizer being activated only in the sterilization mode (Fig. 2, UV lamps generating ozone are only activated during the ozone generation mode), and wherein the presence sensor enables operation of the ozonizer in the sterilization mode only when no person is detected in the room (“the generation of ozone is terminated until it is detected that the person has left the isolation or is not present in the isolation, e.g. by having motions sensors or other similar means, present in or in the vicinity of the isolation”, [0028]), and triggers the buzzer to emit an alarm if a person is detected during the sterilization mode (“in case of trespassing it can also be advantageous that the apparatus gives a warning alarm… preferred alarms comprises one or more of audio, visual or electronic alarms”, [0028]).
Modified Rosenorn and Larsen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification methods that utilize UV lamps to generate ozone and preventing individuals from harmful ozone exposure.
Therefore, 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 sensor/buzzer/control unit system within the air purification device of modified Rosenorn by incorporating the following modifications as taught by Larsen: one, a motion/presence sensor in order to detect people within the vicinity of the ozone generation (Larsen, [0028]), two, a feature that triggers the buzzer when someone is detected in order to warn the person of danger (Larsen, [0028]), and three, subsequently switch the ozone generation off and evacuate the current ozone in the environment in order to prevent harm to the person in the vicinity (Larsen, [0028]).
Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to automate the apparatus of Rosenorn with the method stated by Larsen above, because “providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art” (see MPEP 2144.04,III).
Regarding claim 3, modified Rosenorn teaches a photocatalytic air filter (catalyst 13, Fig. 1, where “although various photocatalysts may be used in the photocatalytic unit, titanium dioxide is preferred”, [0054]), wherein the at least one UV lamp irradiates said photocatalytic filter comprising titanium dioxide ([0054]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Rosenorn in view of Wang teaches wherein the at least one activated carbon filter is granular activated carbon, fibrous activated carbon, or powdered activated carbon (Wang, first filter element 10, Fig. 1, for the modification purposes stated in claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Rosenorn teaches wherein said ionizer is a plasma ionizer (UV lamp 11’’ producing OH radicals, Fig. 1, see [0086]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Rosenorn in view of Yi teaches wherein said casing with mirrored inner surfaces comprises polished metal at least on its inner surface (Yi, “at least a part of the inner wall of the case 110 can be coated with a light reflecting material”, [0042], for the modification purposes stated in claim 1 rejection above). The term “polished metal” is inherently implied by , as the metal enclosure would not have the capacity of reflecting back UV light to the interior airstream if it was not polished.
Regarding claim 14, modified Rosenorn teaches wherein said UV lamps are: UVA/UVC lamps or UV-C FAR lamps (UV lamps 9, Fig. 1, see [0084]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Rosenorn teaches wherein said UV lamps: LED technology lamps or mercury vapor lamps (“the UV-light sources in the two units are LED-lamps (or a combination of LEDs and excimer lamps)… in such embodiments the LED-lamps are arranged for emitting the wavelengths disclosed for the excimer lamps”, [0069]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Rosenorn in view of Gao teaches a blower (Rosenorn’s fans 8a, 8b of Fig. 1 each substituted for Gao’s fan 208 of Fig. 3) having two centrifugal turbines commanded by a single electric motor (Gao, “the fan is a double-blade centrifugal fan, the double-blade centrifugal fan comprises a separate housing to contain the blade and/or the motor”, see p.2, 2nd to last paragraph of English translation, for the modification purposes stated in claim 1 rejection above), but is silent on the RPM of the volume of air displaced per hour of the blower/fan.
However, modified Rosenorn mentions that “the speed of the fans 8a, 8b may be adjusted such that the air flow through the respective unit 2, 3 can be adapted depending on the area/room to be treated”, ([0092] and Fig. 1). Because Rosenorn mentions the adjustability of the speed/RPM and thus the volume of air displaced per hour of the fans based on the area/room to be treated (the area could be minimal or massive), it would have been obvious to arrive at the claimed ranges of 2800 RPM and 2000 cubic feet per hour through routine optimization. Per MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
13. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenorn et al. (US 20230233726 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Yi et al. (US 20150064069 A1), Gao et al. (CN 108700314 A, cited in prior office action), Wang (CN 205579807 U), and Larsen (US 20150258234 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of LaFerriere et al. (US 20040020363 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Rosenorn teaches the purification of air within rooms/areas of buildings, but fails to teach mounting means that enables the apparatus to be mounted at a height of at least two meters on a wall, wherein when mounted at said height and operated in the sterilization mode, the at least one air inlet draws air from an upper part of the apparatus and the at least one air outlet directs purified air downward so that ozone emitted in the sterilization mode reaches surfaces of furniture and objects below two meters in height, thereby sterilizing said surfaces.
LaFerriere teaches an air purification system (1, Fig. 1) with a wall mount (200, Fig. 8-9) for attachment of the air purifier to various wall height positions ([0023] and Fig. 10), where the inlet is positioned so that the air inlet draws air from an upper part of the apparatus and the at least one air outlet directs purified air downward (Fig. 3 and 10), so that purified air emitted reaches surfaces of furniture and objects below two meters in height, thereby sterilizing said surfaces (“the lower horizontal rows of louvers 33, 35, 39 can be angled to exhaust air in a downward angled direction toward the floor and away from the apparatus”, Fig. 3 and [0044]).
Modified Rosenorn and LaFerriere are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification systems intended to purify air in rooms/enclosures.
Therefore, 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 air purification device of modified Rosenorn by incorporating LaFerriere’s teachings of: one, a wall-mounting means in order to mount the device on the wall of a room at various heights (LaFerriere, [0023]), and two, orienting the air purification device so that the air inlet is above the air outlets in order to “exhaust air in a downward angled direction toward the floor” (LaFerriere, [0044]) and inherently ensuring that purified air emitted reaches surfaces of furniture and objects below, thereby sterilizing said surfaces (this modification when applied to Rosenorn would result in ozone generated during Rosenorn’s sterilization mode to be directed downward, thereby sterilizing everything below the device).
Consequently it would have been obvious to have selected a mounting height of at least two meters on a wall given the number of finite placement points on a wall provided by the wall-mount modification of LaFerriere.
14. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenorn et al. (US 20230233726 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Yi et al. (US 20150064069 A1), Gao et al. (CN 108700314 A, cited in prior office action), Wang (CN 205579807 U), and Larsen (US 20150258234 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Haji (US 20220184539 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Rosenorn teaches a HEPA filter (first filter 10, Fig. 1), but is silent on the grade/class of the filter, specifically H11, H13, or H14. Haji teaches an air purification apparatus (100, Fig. 1) having a HEPA filter (107, Fig. 1) “with a filter class H13, preferably H14 or Class 100 or higher” ([0015]) in order to “achieve a separation efficiency of 99.95% for the entire air flow, whereby locally at least 99.75% deposition rate of particles of 0.1 μm to 0.3 μm can be achieved” ([0015]).
Modified Rosenorn and Haji are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification systems utilizing HEPA filters for airstream filtration.
Therefore, 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 HEPA filter of modified Rosenorn by incorporating a class H13 or H14 HEPA filter instead as taught by Haji in order to “achieve a separation efficiency of 99.95% for the entire air flow” (Haji, [0015]).
Assuming arguendo, it would have also been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the HEPA filter of modified Rosenorn with a HEPA filter of class 13 or 14, because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of filtering contaminants from the air (see Rosenorn, [0042] and Haji, [0015]).
15. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenorn et al. (US 20230233726 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Yi et al. (US 20150064069 A1), Gao et al. (CN 108700314 A, cited in prior office action), Wang (CN 205579807 U), and Larsen (US 20150258234 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Morito et al. (US 20120121470 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Rosenorn teaches wherein the photocatalytic filter is coated by TiO2 which is illuminated by UV lamps, (catalyst 13, Fig. 1 and [0054]), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the photocatalytic filter comprises a mesh structure.
Morito teaches an air purification system (1, Fig. 1) utilizing a plasma generator (electrodes 5A-B, Fig. 1) and a titanium-dioxide-mesh photocatalytic air filter (filter F having filter element E comprising titanium mesh 14 impregnated with anatase titanium dioxide, abstract and Fig. 1 and 3), in order to increase surface area and thus increase in purification performance ([0051]).
Modified Rosenorn and Morito are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification systems utilizing titanium-dioxide photocatalytic air filters.
Therefore, 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 titanium dioxide photocatalyst of modified Rosenorn by incorporating a mesh-structure of titanium coated with titanium dioxide in order to increase the surface area and thus increase in purification performance (Morito, [0051]).
Conclusion
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 PM EST.
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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758