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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-16 in the reply filed on 25 March 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 14 October 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are pending with claims 17-20 being withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 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.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-3, 7, 11-14, and 16 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Kettler (US 5564626 A).
Similarly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 4 and 8-9 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Kettler (US 5564626 A). The 35 U.S.C. rejections of claims 5-6 are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Kettler in view of Dushane (US 20220243947 A1). The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 10 and 15 are withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Kettler in view of JP H0741795 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kettler (US 5564626 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kettler teaches a system for sanitizing air (system for removing pollutants from supply air, abstract), comprising: an air supply unit configured to intake air for man environment (fan directs air through unit, column 6 line 58); a sensor unit configured to receive air from said air supply unit (Figure 1 air quality sensor “74” positioned within unit “10”) and to sense characteristics of the air received from said air supply unit (detectors measure levels of airborne particulate, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide or various VOCs, column 6 lines 30-34); a control unit configured to perform operations (provide a control system for an air conditioning unit, column 2 lines 63-64), 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 (controller determines whether the quality of the air falls below the specification limit, column 8 lines 49-51); and directing the air to an abatement module capable of modifying the composition of the air received from said air supply unit upon activation (if return air is unacceptable air must be filtered by high capacity filtration system, column 8 lines 57-58), or a bypass based upon the air characteristics and based on the comparing of the characteristics to the threshold associated with triggering treatment of the air (if air is acceptable, control device opens upper bypass damper section, column 8 lines 54-56), wherein the abatement module includes at least one treatment (HEPA filters, carbon filters and the like may be utilized alone or in combination, column 5 lines 2-3), and at least one exhaust module (Figure 2 discharge fan “250”), and a filter that is capable of receiving air from the abatement module and the bypass (Figure 1 all airflow through unit “10” passes through filter “38”).
Regarding claim 2, Kettler teaches wherein 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 (if air is acceptable, control device opens upper bypass damper section, column 8 lines 54-56).
Regrading claim 3, Kettler teaches wherein 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 (flow control device is adjusted to close the lower damper in order to bypass the high capacity filtration system, column 7 lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 4, Kettler teaches wherein the operations further comprise facilitating direction of the air from the bypass portion of the system to a filter configured to filter the air (Figure 2 intake chamber “206” directs air to filter “220”).
Regarding claim 7, Kettler teaches wherein the operations further comprise determining that the air requires treatment if the characteristics of the air satisfy the threshold associated with triggering air treatment of the air by the system (controller determines whether the quality of the air falls below the specification limit, column 8 lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 8, Kettler teaches wherein the operations further comprise determining whether the air is capable of being treated after determining that the characteristics of the air satisfy the threshold (if quality of the return air is below minimum acceptable level, controller determines whether cooling coil capacity is capable of reducing enthalpy, column 13 lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 9, Kettler teaches wherein the operations further comprise activating a treatment module for treating the air if the air is capable of being treated (Figure 3A step “130” if capacity is not exceeded proceed to step “132” position O.A. damper to minimum).
Regarding claim 11, Kettler teaches wherein the operations further comprise closing a different air flow path when direction the air along the air flow path (Figure 1 additional inlet/outlet dampers “31” and “32”).
Regarding claim 12, Kettler teaches a system for sanitizing air (system for removing pollutants from supply air, abstract), comprising: an air supply unit configured to intake air for man environment (fan directs air through unit, column 6 line 58); a sensor unit configured to receive air from said air supply unit (Figure 1 air quality sensor “74” positioned within unit “10”) and to sense characteristics of the air received from said air supply unit (detectors measure levels of airborne particulate, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide or various VOCs, column 6 lines 30-34); a control unit configured to perform operations (provide a control system for an air conditioning unit, column 2 lines 63-64), 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 (controller determines whether the quality of the air falls below the specification limit, column 8 lines 49-51); and directing the air to an abatement module capable of modifying the composition of the air received from said air supply unit upon activation (is return air is unacceptable air must be filtered by high capacity filtration system, column 8 lines 57-58), wherein said abatement module includes a plurality of treatment modules (HEPA filters, carbon filters and the like may be utilized alone or in combination, column 5 lines 2-3), activating at least one of said plurality of treatment modules based upon the characteristics associated with the air and based upon the comparison of the characteristics to the threshold (if return air is unacceptable air must be filtered by high capacity filtration system, column 8 lines 57-58).
Regarding claim 13, Kettler teaches wherein the operations further comprise providing the characteristics to a remote system to facilitate evaluation of the characteristics (sensors deliver control signals to controller, column 6 lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 14, Kettler teaches wherein 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 (sensors deliver control signals to controller and controller adjusts the dampers and flow control device to optimize operation of the air conditioning system, column 6 lines 41-47).
Regarding claim 16, Kettler teaches wherein the operations further comprise continuously receiving additional air from the environment over a period of time (controller may operate the fan as a constant flow system, column 6 lines 11-12), 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 (detectors may comprise suitable devices which are capable of continuously sampling supply air, column 6 lines 26-28, and each time controller reaches a return block it waits a preset period of time and repeats the processing sequence, column 7 lines 63-64).
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.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kettler in view of Dushane (US 20220243947 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kettler teaches all aspects of the of the current invention including wherein 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 (Figure 1 air from filter “38” and high capacity air filtration unit “40” supplies air to the downstream processed chamber “35”), but does not teach facilitating direction of the air from the air handling unit to an ultraviolet light-c unit to treat the air. However, Dushane teaches facilitating direction of the air from the air handling unit to an ultraviolet light-c unit to treat the air (activating other air purification devices such as UV light air purifiers, paragraph [0036]).
Kettler and Dushane are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of air purification systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air purification system taught by Kettler with the UV light source taught by Dushane because Dushane teaches the addition of UV light will advantageously reduce air contaminants such as mold (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kettler and Dushane teaches wherein 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 (Figure 2 discharge fan “226”).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kettler in view of JP H0741795 B2.
Regarding claim 10, Kettler teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein 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. However, JP H0741795 B2 teaches wherein 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 (third air passage bypasses the air purification element and exhausts the air to the outside of the vehicle, [embodiment] paragraph 7, and when vehicle temperature drops the air duct switching means is controlled to select the third air duct, [means for solving the problems]).
Kettler and JP H0741795 B2 are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of air purification systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air purification system taught by Kettler with the exhaust system taught by JP H0741795 B2 because JP H0741795 B2 teaches the exhaust advantageously allows for air discharge from the vehicle interior without the pressure loss of the air purification element ([embodiment] paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 15, Kettler teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein 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. However, JP H0741795 B2 teaches wherein 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 (third air passage bypasses the air purification element and exhausts the air to the outside of the vehicle, [embodiment] paragraph 7, and when vehicle temperature drops the air duct switching means is controlled to select the third air duct, [means for solving the problems]).
Kettler and JP H0741795 B2 are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of air purification systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air purification system taught by Kettler with the exhaust system taught by JP H0741795 B2 because JP H0741795 B2 teaches the exhaust advantageously allows for air discharge from the vehicle interior without the pressure loss of the air purification element ([embodiment] paragraph 40).
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 KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights