Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/646,086

AIR PURIFYING SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 27, 2021
Examiner
TURNER, SONJI
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
NuWave, LLC
OA Round
3 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
469 granted / 635 resolved
+8.9% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
677
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
27.4%
-12.6% vs TC avg
§112
29.3%
-10.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 635 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Response to Arguments In light of amendments to specification, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn. In light of amendments to claims 1-6, the rejection under 35 USC § 102 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knuth (US 5997619 A) taken with Moon (US 20200094177 A1) in view of Omohundro (US 3217470 A). For claim 1, Knuth discloses an air purifying system comprising: an outer housing having a control panel (Fig. 1), a plurality of air inlets disposed on a side surface of the outer housing (Fig. 4), and an air outlet disposed on a top surface of the outer housing (Figs. 2-5), wherein the plurality of air inlets and the air outlet define an air passage (Figs. 3-4); a filter chamber positioned within the outer housing between the plurality of air inlets and the air outlet chamber (Figs. 3-4), wherein the filter chamber includes; a first series of filters positioned adjacent one of the plurality of air inlets and a second series of filters positioned adjacent another one of the plurality of air inlets (Figs. 6-7; col. 9, ll. 1-49), and a cylindrical filter (a round HEPA 78; Figs. 6-7) positioned between the first series of filters and the second series of filters (Figs. 3, 4; col. 9, ll. 1-49); and a fan positioned within the outer housing (fan subsystem 52; Figs. 5; col. 9, l. 63 - col. 10, l. 43), electrically coupled to the control panel (col. 10, ll. 43-54), and configured to draw air into the plurality air inlets, through the filter chamber, and then push the air upwards and out through the air outlet (Figs.3-4). Knuth teaches prefilters for removal of larger particles and an intermediate filter for removal of pollutants, an inner HEPA filter. Knuth teach that the first and second filters are coaxial (rounded) and does not appear to disclose that said plurality of filters for said first and second series of filters that are planar. It is noted that the filters of Knuth are to protect the HEPA filter 78 from becoming clogged with large particles and are to extend the life of the filter as is the function of the pending invention. The mere change in shape is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence the shape provides significantly different results. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Moon also discloses an air purifying system (Figs. 2-6; pars [0009], [0039] ) comprising a plurality of filters, a first series of planar filters disposed within the filter chamber adjacent to the first air intake (Fig. 1; par [0039]), and a second series of planar filters disposed within the filter chamber adjacent to the second air intake (Fig. 1; par [0039]). Moon teaches various filter types of filters that are prefilters upstream to a HEPA used to remove large particles that may pose a threat to the other filters and a cold catalyst filter for removing pollutants and harmful compounds (pars [0041][0042]). Additionally, Omohundro teaches an air purification suited for use in locations where space is a problem. Omohundro discloses the basic components of an air purifier are a fan, a motor, a filtering arrangement, and optionally an air purifying or ion producing source where components are arranged to provide a maximum output of purified air from a convenient shape to fit within a desired space. The primary object is to provide an air purifier which has a large filter area within a compact space and which is capable of maximizing purified air output. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the prefilters that are planar filters disclosed in Moon for the curved prefilter and intermediate filters of Knuth with the benefit of removing large particles that may pose a threat to the other filters and a cold catalyst filter for removing pollutants and harmful compounds (as taught in Moon); whereas, the prefilters are arranged in a convenient shape to fit within the space (as taught by Omohundro ) provided in the housing of Knuth to maximize the purified air output. For claim 2, the combined teaching of the prior art is set forth above. Moon further discloses wherein the first series of planar filters comprises at least two filters selected from a group of filters consisting of a pre-filter, an activated carbon filter, a cold catalyst filter, and an electrostatic filter (Abstract; pars [0009], [0010], [0041]-[0043]). For claim 3, the combined teaching of the prior art is set forth above. Moon discloses wherein the second series of planar filters comprises at least two filters selected from a group of filters consisting of a pre-filter, an activated carbon filter, a cold catalyst filter, and an electrostatic filter (Abstract; pars [0009], [0010], [0041]-[0043]). For claim 4, the combined teaching of the prior art is set forth above. Knuth discloses further wherein the selected filters are arranged vertically in the filter chamber (Fig. 3). Regarding claims 5 and 6, the combined teaching of the prior art is set forth above. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Furthermore, clean air delivery rate is obvious design choice and depends upon the requirements for which the system is designed. For claim 7, the combined teaching of the prior art is set forth above. Moon does disclose wherein the air inlet comprises air openings for about 360° about a base of the housing (air intake vents 30 comprise air openings in a 360° circumference about a base of the housing; pars [0010], [0039]). At the time of the current invention, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary expertise in the art to enhance the combined teaching of the purification system of the prior art by incorporating Moon’s concept, wherein the air inlet features openings spanning approximately 360 degrees around the base of the housing. This modification allows the system to draw in air from all directions, thereby accelerating the cleaning process by increasing the volume of air purified. For claims 9 and 10, the combined teaching of the prior art is set forth above. Knuth discloses a horizontal filter within the filter chamber, positioned adjacent to the cylindrical filter (Fig. 3; col. 5, ll. 50-57); whereas, said horizontal filter is a carbon filter 14B, wherein the horizontal filter is positioned above the cylindrical filter before the air outlet (claim 10). For claims 11 and 12, Knuth discloses an air purifying system (Figs. 1-5) comprising: a housing including a first air intake disposed on a first side of the housing (Fig. 4), a second air intake disposed on a second side of the housing opposite the first side (Fig. 4), and an air outlet on a top surface of the housing (Figs. 2-5), and wherein the housing defines a filter chamber (Figs. 3-4); a plurality of filters (Figs. 6-7; col. 9, ll. 1-49) including: a first series of filters disposed within the filter chamber adjacent to and vertically aligned with the first air intake (Fig. 4; col. 9, ll. 1-49); a second of filters disposed within the filter chamber adjacent to and vertically aligned with the second air intake (Fig. 4; col. 9, ll. 1-49); a cylindrical filter disposed centrally within the filter chamber (Figs. 3, 4; col. 9, ll. 1-49) between the first series of filters and the second series of filters (Figs. 6, 7; col. 9, ll. 1-49), wherein the cylindrical filter is coaxial to a longitudinal axis of the housing (Figs. 3, 4; col. 9, ll. 1-49); and fan (fan subsystem 52) disposed within the housing, wherein the fan is configured to draw air into the filter chamber through the first air intake and the second air intake (Figs. 5; col. 9, l. 63 - col. 10, l. 43), and through the plurality of filters, and wherein fan is configured to expel the air upwards and through the air outlet (Figs. 2-4). Knuth teaches prefilters for removal of larger particles and an intermediate filter for removal of pollutants, an inner HEPA filter. Knuth does not appear to disclose that said plurality of filters for said first and second series of filters that are planar. It is noted that the filters of Knuth are to protect the HEPA filter 78 from becoming clogged with large particles and are to extend the life of the filter as is the function of the pending invention. The mere change in shape is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence the shape provides significantly different results. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Moon does disclose an air purifying system (Figs. 2-6; pars [0009], [0039] ) comprising a plurality of filters, a first series of planar filters disposed within the filter chamber adjacent to the first air intake (Fig. 1; par [0039]), and a second series of planar filters disposed within the filter chamber adjacent to the second air intake (Fig. 1; par [0039]). Moon teaches various filter types of filters that are prefilters upstream to a HEPA used to remove large particles that may pose a threat to the other filters and a cold catalyst filter for removing pollutants and harmful compounds (pars [0041][0042]). Additionally, Omohundro teaches an air purification suited for use in locations where space is a problem. Omohundro discloses the basic components of an air purifier are a fan, a motor, a filtering arrangement, and optionally an air purifying or ion producing source where components are arranged to provide a maximum output of purified air from a convenient shape to fit within a desired space. The primary object is to provide an air purifier which has a large filter area within a compact space and which is capable of maximizing purified air output. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute/change the shape of the curved prefilters in Knuth for the planar filters disclosed in Moon for the prefilter and intermediate filters of Knuth with the benefit of the ability to remove large particles that may pose a threat to the other filters and a cold catalyst filter for removing pollutants and harmful compounds (as taught in Moon); whereas, the prefilters are arranged in a convenient shape to fit within the space (as taught by Omohundro ) provided in the housing of Knuth to maximize the purified air output. 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 SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (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. /SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 September 20, 2025 /Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2021
Application Filed
Mar 24, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 29, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 31, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 05, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12576409
Particulate Collecting Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569798
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PASSIVE COLLECTION OF ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE WITH ELECTRO-SWING MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12544770
Method and Apparatus for Cleaning an Electrostatic Precipitator Gas Scrubbing Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528090
SPARK TOLERANT ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12516836
SELF-CLEANING DEVICE FOR GENERATING IONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+22.2%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 635 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month