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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16-32are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowles (US 20140216257) in view of Himanen et al (US 20120108156; hereinafter Himanen).
As regarding claim 16, Knowles discloses the claimed invention for an air conditioning and filtration system (10) comprising: a pre-treatment system (32) for initially filtering air drawn from an external environment.
Knowles does not disclose pressurisation means downstream of said pre-treatment system and configured for positively pressurising air filtered by the pre-treatment system. Himanen teaches pressurisation means downstream of said pre-treatment system and configured for positively pressurising air filtered by the pre-treatment system. Both Knowles and Himanen are directed to utility vehicle ventilation sytem. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide pressurisation means downstream of said pre-treatment system and configured for positively pressurising air filtered by the pre-treatment system as taught by Himanen in order to stabilized flow into the HEPA.
Knowles as modified discloses at least one circulation means; each circulation means operable to draw air from the external environment through the pre-treatment system and pressurisation means and air from at least one enclosed area (12), and to combine the air drawn from the external environment through the pre-treatment system and pressurisation means and air drawn from at least one enclosed area to generated a combined air stream (24); an air treatment set, each element of the air treatment set comprising a filtration means (38) and an air conditioning means; and wherein the combined air stream is directed to the air treatment set before being conveyed to at least one of the at least one enclosed areas.
As regarding claim 17, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention for an at least one additional filtration means (28), the at least one additional filtration means operable to filter positively pressurised air before the positively pressurised air reaches the at least one circulation means.
As regarding claim 18, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one additional filtration means includes one or more filtration cartridges ([0017]; 32, 38), each filtration cartridge operable to filter out a specific contaminant.
As regarding claim 19, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the filtration cartridge is operable to filter out one of the group of contaminants consisting of: sulphur dioxide; ammonia; methane; and diesel particulate ([0017], [0041]-[0049], [0057], [0067] and [0070]).
As regarding claim 20, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein each filtration cartridge is removably installed in a third chamber ([0017], [0041]-[0049], [0057], [0067] and [0070]).
As regarding claim 21, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one additional filtration means includes at least one downstream filter, each downstream filter operable to further filter the positively pressurized air after the positively pressurized air has been filtered by one or more filtration cartridges ([0017], [0041]-[0049], [0057], [0067] and [0070]).
As regarding claim 22, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein each downstream filter is one of the group consisting of: an active carbon filter; an ultra low penetration air filter; and a coarse liner filter ([0017], [0041]-[0049], [0057], [0067], [0070] and claim 10).
As regarding claim 30, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the pressurisation means system comprises either a pressurisation fan or a pressurisation filter (26).
As regarding claim 31, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the circulation means comprises at least one circulation fan (36, 40).
As regarding claim 32, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein each element of the air treatment set is housed in a stackable housing and where, when stacked, the stackable units are in fluid communication with a head housing by way of a common air conduit, the head housing operable to house at least the pre-treatment system and the pressurisation means (fig. 4).
As regarding claim 23, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each downstream filter is a drum filter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein each downstream filter is a drum filter in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Dietz (US 8597391; abstract).
As regarding claim 24, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention except for at least one leveraging means for facilitating removal of the drum filter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide at least one leveraging means for facilitating removal of the drum filter in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Sakuragi et al (US 20130074460; hereinafter Sakuragi; [0024]).
As regarding claim 25, Knowles as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one leveraging means comprises a leveraging slot (Sakuragi – [0024]).
Claims 26-28 are likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those outlined with respect to claims 23-25 above.
As regarding claim 29, Knowles discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Knowles discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the pre-treatment system comprises at least one cyclonic particle separator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the pre-treatment system comprises at least one cyclonic particle separator in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Meirav et al (US 20190299154; hereinafter Meirav; [0030]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark argues that Knowles fails to disclose, teach or suggest the internal and external air streams are combined by the circulation means.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Knowles discloses a circulation fan (36) that draws external air that has passed through a pre-treatment system and also draws recirculated air from the enclosed area. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these airflows are mixed at or within the fan inlet or housing as part of the normal operation of such devices. The mixing of incoming streams within the circulation fan structure is an inherent characteristic of multi-inlet fan system.
Thus, under 112(f), Knowles discloses a structure that performs the same function – drawing two air streams and delivering them downstream as a combination airflow.
Even if Knowles were interpreted as not expressly combining the flows inside the flower itself, it would have been obvious design choice to modify the fan or housing to accept multiple inlet systems and combine them to improve airflow uniformity and pressure stability. Combining inlet flows at or near the fan inlet is a well-known, routine HVAC design configuration that yields predictable results.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to configure Knowles’ circulation fan to combine external and internal air streams during operation, resulting in the arrangement recited in the claim.
Applicant’s remark argues that Knowles fails to disclose, teach or suggest air treatment set comprising a filtration chamber and an air conditioning chamber.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim recites both a “filtration chamber” (filtration means) and a “conditioning chamber” (conditioning means). However, the claim does not provide any structural distinctions between these two chambers beyond their stated functions – filtration and conditioning. Merely assigning different intended functions to structures does not impart patentable structural differences.
Because the claim fails to identify how the “filtration chamber” is structurally different from the “conditioning chamber,” a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret these terms as referring to the same physical region or sequential portions of the same internal pathway. In particular, any downstream region of the filter media through which the conditioned airflow passes could inherently serve as a “conditioning chamber,” making the distinction between the claimed chambers ambiguous or nonexistent.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “filtration chamber” and “conditioning chamber” to be: (1) the same physical chamber, merely assigned different functional labels; or (2) structurally indistinguishable contiguous regions, where any downstream cavity following the filer media could be interpreted as the “conditioning chamber.”
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 DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, Bobbly 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773