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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-16 in the reply filed on 25 March 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 March 2025
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 3, 7, 11 - 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamane (TW I687631 B).
Regarding claim 1, Yamane discloses A system for sanitizing air, comprising: an air supply unit configured to intake air from an environment (air supply port 2); a sensor unit configured to sense characteristics associated with the air from the environment (sensor 11 or sensor 14); and, a control unit (control unit 13) configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: evaluating the characteristics associated with the air by comparing the characteristics to a threshold associated with triggering treatment of the air by the system (section: (3) HEPA dust collection operation, 3rd paragraph, description of FIG. 4; control unit has two thresholds); and directing the air along an air flow path based upon the air characteristics and based on the comparing of the characteristics to the threshold associated with triggering treatment of the air (section: (3) HEPA dust collection operation, 1st paragraph, bypass ventilation path 7 is controlled with air lock 10).
Regarding claim 2, Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 1 and continues to disclose, the operations further comprise directing the air along the air flow path associated with a bypass portion of the system if the characteristics of the air are determined not to satisfy the threshold associated with triggering treatment of the air by the system (section: (3) HEPA dust collection operation, 1st and 3rd paragraphs).
Regarding claim 3, Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 2 and continues to disclose, the operations further comprise deactivating treatment and exhaust modules of the system when the air is directed along the air flow path associated with the bypass portion of the system (second paragraph embodiment 1. When air lock 10 bypasses HEPA filter 8, this inherently deactivates this treatment and exhaust module therein associated).
Regarding claim 7, Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 1 and continues to disclose, the operations further comprise determining that the air requires treatment if the characteristics of the air satisfy the threshold associated with triggering treatment of the air by the system (section: (3) HEPA dust collection operation, 3rd paragraph, description of FIG. 4; control unit has two thresholds).
Regarding claim 11, Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 1 and continues to disclose, the operations further comprise closing a different air flow path when direction the air along the air flow path (section: (3) HEPA dust collection operation, 1st paragraph, bypass ventilation path 7 is controlled with air lock 10).
Regarding claim 12, Yamane continues to disclose A system for sanitizing air, comprising: an air supply unit configured to intake air from an environment (air supply port 2); a sensor unit configured to sense characteristics associated with the air (sensor 11 or sensor 14); and, a control unit (control unit 13) configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: evaluating the characteristics associated with the air by comparing the characteristics to a threshold associated with triggering treatment of the air by the system (section: (3) HEPA dust collection operation, 3rd paragraph, description of FIG. 4; control unit has two thresholds); and directing treatment of the air based upon the characteristics associated with the air and based upon the comparison of the characteristics to the threshold (section: (3) HEPA dust collection operation, 1st paragraph, bypass ventilation path 7 is controlled with air lock 10).
Regarding claim 13, Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 12 and continues to disclose the operations further comprise providing the characteristics to a remote system to facilitate evaluation of the characteristics (remote controller 11 is in communication with controller 13 through communication line 12).
Regarding claim 14, Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 12 and continues to disclose the operations further comprise receiving a control signal from a device in communication with the system that activates a treatment module for treating the air based on the characteristics of the air (Fig 11, sensor 15 is connected to control unit 13 via signal line (not shown)).
Regarding claim 16, Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 12 and continues to disclose the operations further comprise continuously receiving additional air from the environment over a period of time, and wherein the operations further comprise evaluating characteristics associated with the additional air and comparing the characteristics associated with the additional air to the threshold (embodiment 3, paragraph 4, teaches directly monitoring the dirty conditions of the air, doing so the appropriate operation mode is selected and switched and can perform more accurate and appropriate control of the processing target).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (TW I687631 B) in view of Chen (CN 205579772 U).
Regarding claim 4, Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 3 as indicated above. Yamane does not disclose the operations further comprise facilitating direction of the air from the bypass portion of the system to a filter configured to filter the air.
Chen discloses in the preferred embodiment section: (1) structure of the air purifying system paragraph 5, a third purifying part can be set in the air path or the bypass path RC, doing so provides a final air conditioning air purifying, such as odor removing filter, smoke dust screen, and so on.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamane and provided directing the air from the bypass portion of the system to a filter configured to filter the air as Chen discloses. Doing so provides a final air conditioning and air purifying step.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (TW I687631 B) in view of Chen (CN 205579772 U) as applied to claim4 above, and further in view of Dushane (US 20220243947 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified disclosure of Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 4 as indicated above. Yamane does not disclose the operations further comprise facilitating direction of the air from the filter to an air handling unit configured to handle the air received from the filter and facilitating direction of the air from the air handling unit to an ultraviolet light-c unit to treat the air.
Dushane discloses paragraph 0052 and fig.1, shows air handling unit 10, comprising filters 16, and UV lights 20. Doing so teaches that the air may be purified, abstract.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the modified disclosure of Yamane directing the air from the filter to an air handling unit configured to handle the air received from the filter and facilitating direction of the air from the air handling unit to an ultraviolet light-c unit to treat the air as Dushane disclose. Doing so would provide the air may be purified.
Regarding claim 6, the modified disclosure of Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 5 as indicated above. Yamane does not disclose the operations further comprise facilitating direction of the air from the ultraviolet light-c unit to a diffuser configured to diffuse the air into the environment.
Dushane discloses in paragraph 0038, teaches returning air to the environment by the air supply 30. Doing so the air can be returned to the environment.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the modified disclosure of Yamane with facilitating direction of the air from the ultraviolet light-c unit to a diffuser configured to diffuse the air into the environment as Dushane teaches. Doing so the air can be returned to the environment.
Claim(s) 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (TW I687631 B) in view of Meckler (US 5954577 A).
Regarding claim 8, Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 7 as indicated above. Yamane does not disclose the operations further comprise determining whether the air is capable of being treated after determining that the characteristics of the air satisfy the threshold.
Meckler discloses in paragraph 39, evaluating air pressure and if air pressure is determined to be excessive, air stream is caused to bypass around decontamination step, doing so reduces the excessive pressure in the system.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Yamane with determining whether the air is capable of being treated as Meckler discloses air pressure as determination factor if air is capable of being treated. Doing so reduced the excessive pressure in the system.
Regarding claim 9, the modified disclosure of Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 8 as indicated above. Yamane does not disclose the operations further comprise activating a treatment module for treating the air if the air is capable of being treated.
Meckler discloses in paragraph 18 the contaminant reduction mechanism is activated, doing so provides not introducing unpleasant pressure fluctuations.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the modified disclosure of Yamane with activation of the treatment if it is determined air is capable of being treated as Meckler discloses activating the treatment if the pressure of the air is suitable. Doing so provides not introducing unpleasant pressure fluctuations.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (TW I687631 B) in view of Meckler (US 5954577 A) as applied to claim8 above, and further in view of JP H0741795 B2 referred to as '795'.
Regarding claim 10, the modified disclosure of Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 8 as indicated above. Yamane does not disclose the operations further comprise activating an exhaust module for exhausting the air into a different environment if the air is not capable of being treated.
‘795’ teaches an air purification element regeneration action. claim 1, part (d) teaches a second air path for bypassing the air purification element to exhaust the air in the vehicle interior to the outside of the vehicle. Doing so a large amount of air inside the vehicle is released to the outside.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the modified disclosure of Yamane when Yamane determine the air does not meet the requirements for HEPA filtration to direct the air bypassing the air purification element to exhaust the air in the vehicle interior to the outside of the vehicle, as ‘795’ teaches. Doing so a large amount of air inside the vehicle is released to the outside.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (TW I687631 B) in view of JP H0741795 B2 referred to as '795'.
Regarding claim 15, Yamane discloses all the elements of claim 12 as indicated above. Yamane does not disclose the operations further comprise exhausting the air into a different environment via an exhaust module if the air is unable to be treated so that the characteristics of the air no longer satisfy the threshold. Yamane discloses in section: (3) HEPA dust collection operation, 3rd paragraph, description of FIG. 4; control unit has two thresholds and directing air down a different bypass based on the thresholds.
‘795’ teaches reference teaches an air purification element regeneration action. claim 1, part (d) teaches a second air path for bypassing the air purification element to exhaust the air in the vehicle interior to the outside of the vehicle. Doing so a large amount of air inside the vehicle is released to the outside.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided after Yamane determines the air should go through the bypass with the teachings of ‘795’ to direct air down a second air path for bypassing the air purification element to exhaust the air in the vehicle interior to the outside of the vehicle. Doing so a large amount of air inside the vehicle is released to the outside.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB PAUL STRAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Marcheschi, Michael can be reached on (571) 272-1374. 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.
/JACOB PAUL STRAYER/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights