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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 12-17 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek (US 2019/0240371), in view of Arts (US 20040146437).
Regarding claim 1, Benedek teaches a system comprising: a filter (130) configured to capture aerosol particles (¶ [0122]), the filter formed of a material that is UVC durable (¶ [0065] disclosing that filter comprises materials that can tolerate exposure to UV light); and a UVC LED (¶ [0017]) configured to emit UVC radiation into the filter. The filter (130) inherently has a thickness.
Benedek does not teach that filter material is at least 90% UVC transmissive.
Arts teaches a device comprising a filter (12) comprising material that translucent to UV light enabling transmission of the UV light into and through the filter 12 (refer [0052] disclosing “filter 12 is also preferably fire resistant. Preferably, the fire resistant material is fiberglass, such as a fiberglass mesh, which is also translucent to ultraviolet ("UV") light. Transmission of the UV light into and through the filter 12 is thereby facilitated. UV light passing into and through the fiberglass mesh irradiates pathogens trapped inside of the mesh of the filter 12”). Arts also teaches that the UV radiation is in UVC spectrum (Refer [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use filter material that is translucent and transmissive to UVC in the system of Benedek to facilitate transmission of the UV light into and through the filter to enhance disinfection as taught by Arts. Merriam-Webster defines “translucent” as “permitting passage of light”. Arts discloses that fiberglass mesh material is translucent to UV light, indicating that it allows passage of UV light. It is also evident from Benedek’s disclosure in paragraph [0052]. Arts also indicates that UV radiation propagates through the thickness of the filter (refer [0052] disclosing “The filter 12 is also preferably fire resistant. Preferably, the fire resistant material is fiberglass, such as a fiberglass mesh, which is also translucent to ultraviolet ("UV") light. Transmission of the UV light into and through the filter 12 is thereby facilitated. UV light passing into and through the fiberglass mesh irradiates pathogens trapped inside of the mesh of the filter 12”).
Regarding the material being 90% UVC transmissive, "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Arts disclosed benefit of filter material being UV light transmissive to iridate pathogens trapped inside of the mesh of the filter (refer [0052]). Selecting a material providing desired amount of transmission would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve maximum/optimum amount of pathogen removal.
Regarding claim 2, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek further teaches that the filter is formed of a plurality of fibers (¶ [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek further teaches that the system comprises a plurality of LEDs configured to emit UVC radiation towards the filter (¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek further teaches that the filter is integrated into an HVAC system (¶ [0002], [0003], [0134]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek discloses that “subject matter described herein relates generally to cleaning air, and more specifically to built-in air cleaning systems that treat air by removing one or more impurities from the air and are controlled with inputs from the operation of components and systems in the built-in environment” (¶ [0002]). Benedek further discloses that the system is integrated into an air cleaning product that is built into a residential kitchen, and/or connected electronically to a range and a ventilation hood, or integrated into and/or within an automobile (¶ [0003]). Therefore, Benedek establishes that the system can be integrated into various applications that require/desire air purification. “Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results” In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952).
Regarding claim 10, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek further teaches that the filter is formed from glass (¶ [0065]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Arts teaches that the filter (12) comprising a material that translucent to UV light enabling transmission of the UV light into and through the filter 12 (refer [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek further teaches that the system comprises a plurality of filters (refer fig. 1 disclosing prefilter 114 and particulate filter 130 and a plurality of catalyst layers 140, 150 and 155).
Regarding claims 14-17, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek discloses that the system comprises an electronic controller and that “the electronic control of the apparatus could be configured to operate a set operating cycle that includes a schedule of operating modes including cleaning air from the room, self-cleaning, and deodorizing the unit itself, and that the duration and elements of the cycle could be customized by the home owner by providing the controller information about the size of kitchen, for example” (¶ [0097]). Claim 1 and 14-17 are directed to an apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Benedek teaches a controller that can be configured to achieve desired control of components of the system to operate for desired duration. Selecting the desired periods of active and non-active cycles would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 28, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek teaches that the filter comprises PTFE (Refer [0065]).
Regarding claim 29, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Arts indicates that UVC light reaches all portions of the filter (Refer [0010] disclosing “The filter may comprise material that is transmissive to ultraviolet radiation, facilitating penetration of the filter by the radiation”, refer [0052] disclosing “The filter 12 is also preferably fire resistant. Preferably, the fire resistant material is fiberglass, such as a fiberglass mesh, which is also translucent to ultraviolet ("UV") light. Transmission of the UV light into and through the filter 12 is thereby facilitated. UV light passing into and through the fiberglass mesh irradiates pathogens trapped inside of the mesh of the filter 12”).
Regarding claim 30, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Arts provides a plurality of sources of UV light (refer 50 in fig. 2) and each of the light source comprises reflectors (refer 56a, 56b). Therefore, Arts suggest that the UV light is provided to the filter from many directions and the filter material comprising fiberglass mesh which facilitate UVC being diffusively reflective.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek, in view of Arts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10946321 (hereinafter referred as “Hamidzai”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Benedek does not teach that the LED is integrated into the filter.
Hamidzai teaches a system comprising a filter comprising array of UV LED (abstract, fig. 2A, 3A, 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter of modified Benedek to integrate UV LEDs into the filter to effectively sterilize and deactivate airborne pathogens as taught by Hamidzai.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek, in view of Arts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0318008 (hereinafter referred as “Szoradi”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Benedek does not teach that the LED is a lidless type LED.
Szoradi teaches air disinfection system comprising: a plurality of LED diodes mounted on an LED strip (Abstract). Szoradi discloses that “The light output of the LED UV-C light without a lens creates the greatest UV dose over lensed configurations, given the increased light levels for irradiation” (¶ [0072]), and “LED strips without lenses yield more light output than strips with lenses, which increase light output, increases irradiation dosage for disinfection, and saves energy, because the LED lights can be run at a lower power, or fewer lights are needed to generate the UV-C dose necessary for disinfection” (¶ [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use lidless LED in the system of modified Benedek because LED strips without lenses yield more light output than strips with lenses, which increase light output, increases irradiation dosage for disinfection, and saves energy, because the LED lights can be run at a lower power, or fewer lights are needed to generate the UV-C dose necessary for disinfection as taught by Szoradi.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 12-17 and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek (US 2019/0240371), in view of Arts (US 20040146437), and Shatalov (US 2018/0243458).
Regarding claim 1, Benedek teaches a system comprising: a filter (130) configured to capture aerosol particles (¶ [0122]), the filter formed of a material that is UVC durable (¶ [0065] disclosing that filter comprises materials that can tolerate exposure to UV light); and a UVC LED (¶ [0017]) configured to emit UVC radiation into the filter.
Benedek does not teach that the material is at least 90% UVC transmissive.
Arts teaches a device comprising a filter (12) comprising material that translucent to UV light enabling transmission of the UV light into and through the filter 12 (refer [0052] disclosing “filter 12 is also preferably fire resistant. Preferably, the fire resistant material is fiberglass, such as a fiberglass mesh, which is also translucent to ultraviolet ("UV") light. Transmission of the UV light into and through the filter 12 is thereby facilitated. UV light passing into and through the fiberglass mesh irradiates pathogens trapped inside of the mesh of the filter 12”). Arts also teaches that the UV radiation is in UVC spectrum (Refer [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use filter material that is translucent and transmissive to UVC in the system of Benedek to facilitate transmission of the UV light into and through the filter to enhance disinfection as taught by Arts. Merriam-Webster defines “translucent” as “permitting passage of light”. Arts discloses that fiberglass mesh material is translucent to UV light, indicating that it allows passage of UV light. It is also evident from Benedek’s disclosure in paragraph [0052]. Arts also indicates that UV radiation propagates through the thickness of the filter (refer [0052] disclosing “The filter 12 is also preferably fire resistant. Preferably, the fire resistant material is fiberglass, such as a fiberglass mesh, which is also translucent to ultraviolet ("UV") light. Transmission of the UV light into and through the filter 12 is thereby facilitated. UV light passing into and through the fiberglass mesh irradiates pathogens trapped inside of the mesh of the filter 12”).
Regarding the material being 90% UVC transmissive, "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Arts disclosed benefit of filter material being UV light transmissive to iridate pathogens trapped inside of the mesh of the filter (refer [0052]). Selecting a material providing desired amount of transmission would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve maximum/optimum amount of pathogen removal.
Additionally, Shatalov teaches disinfection using UV radiation (abstract, [0002]). In fig. 25 and [0134], Shatalov discloses ultraviolet transmission properties of several polymers including polymers having close to or more than 90% transmission.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the filter having at least 90% UVC transmissive in the system of Benedek because Shatalov discloses that use of such materials is known in the art. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 2, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek further teaches that the filter is formed of a plurality of fibers (¶ [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek further teaches that the system comprises a plurality of LEDs configured to emit UVC radiation towards the filter (¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek further teaches that the filter is integrated into an HVAC system (¶ [0002], [0003], [0134]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek discloses that “subject matter described herein relates generally to cleaning air, and more specifically to built-in air cleaning systems that treat air by removing one or more impurities from the air and are controlled with inputs from the operation of components and systems in the built-in environment” (¶ [0002]). Benedek further discloses that the system is integrated into an air cleaning product that is built into a residential kitchen, and/or connected electronically to a range and a ventilation hood, or integrated into and/or within an automobile (¶ [0003]). Therefore, Benedek establishes that the system can be integrated into various applications that require/desire air purification. “Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results” In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952).
Regarding claim 10, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek further teaches that the filter is formed from glass (¶ [0065]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Arts teaches that the filter (12) comprising a material that translucent to UV light enabling transmission of the UV light into and through the filter 12 (refer [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek further teaches that the system comprises a plurality of filters (refer fig. 1 disclosing prefilter 114 and particulate filter 130 and a plurality of catalyst layers 140, 150 and 155).
Regarding claims 14-17, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek discloses that the system comprises an electronic controller and that “the electronic control of the apparatus could be configured to operate a set operating cycle that includes a schedule of operating modes including cleaning air from the room, self-cleaning, and deodorizing the unit itself, and that the duration and elements of the cycle could be customized by the home owner by providing the controller information about the size of kitchen, for example” (¶ [0097]). Claim 1 and 14-17 are directed to an apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Benedek teaches a controller that can be configured to achieve desired control of components of the system to operate for desired duration. Selecting the desired periods of active and non-active cycles would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 28, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Benedek teaches that the filter comprises PTFE (Refer [0065]).
Regarding claim 29, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Arts indicates that UVC light reaches all portions of the filter (Refer [0010] disclosing “The filter may comprise material that is transmissive to ultraviolet radiation, facilitating penetration of the filter by the radiation”, refer [0052] disclosing “The filter 12 is also preferably fire resistant. Preferably, the fire resistant material is fiberglass, such as a fiberglass mesh, which is also translucent to ultraviolet ("UV") light. Transmission of the UV light into and through the filter 12 is thereby facilitated. UV light passing into and through the fiberglass mesh irradiates pathogens trapped inside of the mesh of the filter 12”).
Regarding claim 30, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Arts provides a plurality of sources of UV light (refer 50 in fig. 2) and each of the light source comprises reflectors (refer 56a, 56b). Therefore, Arts suggest that the UV light is provided to the filter from many directions and the filter material comprising fiberglass mesh which facilitate UVC being diffusively reflective.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek, in view of Arts and Shatalov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10946321 (hereinafter referred as “Hamidzai”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Benedek does not teach that the LED is integrated into the filter.
Hamidzai teaches a system comprising a filter comprising array of UV LED (abstract, fig. 2A, 3A, 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter of modified Benedek to integrate UV LEDs into the filter to effectively sterilize and deactivate airborne pathogens as taught by Hamidzai.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek, in view of Arts and Shatalov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0318008 (hereinafter referred as “Szoradi”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Benedek teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Benedek does not teach that the LED is a lidless type LED.
Szoradi teaches air disinfection system comprising: a plurality of LED diodes mounted on an LED strip (Abstract). Szoradi discloses that “The light output of the LED UV-C light without a lens creates the greatest UV dose over lensed configurations, given the increased light levels for irradiation” (¶ [0072]), and “LED strips without lenses yield more light output than strips with lenses, which increase light output, increases irradiation dosage for disinfection, and saves energy, because the LED lights can be run at a lower power, or fewer lights are needed to generate the UV-C dose necessary for disinfection” (¶ [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use lidless LED in the system of modified Benedek because LED strips without lenses yield more light output than strips with lenses, which increase light output, increases irradiation dosage for disinfection, and saves energy, because the LED lights can be run at a lower power, or fewer lights are needed to generate the UV-C dose necessary for disinfection as taught by Szoradi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek (US 2019/0240371), in view of Arts (US 20040146437), applicant argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
116
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
524
1412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because [0052] of Arts indicates/suggest that UV light passes (propagates) through the filter thickness. Refer “The filter 12 is also preferably fire resistant. Preferably, the fire resistant material is fiberglass, such as a fiberglass mesh, which is also translucent to ultraviolet ("UV") light. Transmission of the UV light into and through the filter 12 is thereby facilitated. UV light passing into and through the fiberglass mesh irradiates pathogens trapped inside of the mesh of the filter 12.”
Applicant further argued:
PNG
media_image3.png
466
1436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
510
1416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because Arts discloses and recognizes Transmission of the UV light into and through the filter irradiates pathogens trapped inside of the mesh of the filter (Refer [0052]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0001108A1 to Zhou et al teaches a face mask comprising a membrane and a UV light source.
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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights