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 Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 02/03/2026. Claims 7-14 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the Applicant’s arguments.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20060024197 A1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS of 11/01/2023) in view of Kim (US 20180361009 A1) and Martin (US 5730781 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches a method for sterilizing filter media in an air purifier (Fig. 6, [abstract] method for sterilizing air purifier 10, see Figs. 1-4) comprising steps:
(A) subjecting a filter media to an airflow (Fig. 6, 31, air blast fan 15 exposes filter media 14 to an air flow, [0041])
(B) subjecting a filter media to an ion cloud (Fig. 5, steps 33-39, ion generator 17 is operated independently of fan 15 and outlet channel 16 is closed = Fig. 4, ions and ozone generated from the ion generator understood to descend downwardly and removes the bacteria remaining in the filter unit, para [0042], [0049]);
where steps (A) and (B) are, in no particular order, and are carried out exclusively (Fig. 6, steps 31 and steps 33-39 are carried out exclusively)
Park teaches closing the discharge channel (Fig. 4, 16) with a damper (Fig. 4, 18) so that the ozone generated from the ion generator remains within the air purifier.
However, Park does not teach wherein sterilizing the filter media comprises subjecting said filter media to a sterilization air flow with a speed of from 0.1 to 2.5 cm/s which correlates with sterilization of the filter media, since the air blast fan is turned off during the filter sterilization step.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with improving the circulation of ozone within the air purifier motivating one to turn towards Kim. Kim teaches an indoor air purification apparatus [abstract] comprising a filter unit (Fig. 1, 200), a discharge electrode unit (300) positioned upstream of the filter, and an inductive electrode unit (400) positioned downstream of the filter. Kim teaches the discharge electrode unit to generate ions that move through the pores of the filter towards the inductive discharge unit and generate ozone that sterilizes the filter [0027-0030], wherein the ions and ozone are propelled towards the filter via an air stream (Fig. 1, see air vector) provided by a fan ([0037] = understood to expose filter to a sterilizing air flow).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifier as taught by Park to include the electrode discharge unit upstream of a filter media and an inductive as taught by Kim since Kim teaches the discharge unit to generate ions and ozone that sterilize a filter media and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to actuate the air blast fan as taught by Park during the actuation of the electrode discharge unit upstream of the filter media and the inductive electrode unit downstream of the filter unit as taught by Kim to circulate the ozone within the air purifier and increase the contact time with the filter and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Modified Park teaches step (A): subjecting said filter media to a sterilization air flow (Kim, [0027-0030], [0037]) but does not teach wherein the air flow is within a speed of 0.1 to 2.5 cm/s. One having ordinary skill in the art would contemplate optimal flow rates to discharge contaminants entrained within the filter media, motivating one to turn towards Martin.
Martin teaches a regeneration process for an absorbent media [abstract] comprising flowing a carrier gas through filtering media 14 to absorb contaminants [col 4, lines 34-42] and regenerating the filer media by flowing a regeneration gas through the filtering media [col 4, lines 39-44] wherein the regeneration gas is flowed at a rate between 0.5 and 2 cm/s [col 7, lines 5-10].
Martin is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to methods for removing contaminants from a filter media. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter sterilization air flow as taught by Modified Park to include a regeneration flow rate between 0.5-2 cm/s as taught by Martin since Martin teaches this flowrate as effective for unclogging accumulated contaminants on a filter media [col 7, lines 1-10] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the sterilization air flow rate to be a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) proportional to the contamination of the filter media (a dirtier filter would result in a higher flow rate due to the pressure drop across the media).Since this particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sterilization air flow rate as taught by Modified Park to be within 0.1 to 2.5 cm/s.
Claims 8, 11, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20060024197 A1) in view of Kim (US 20180361009 A1) and Martin (US 5730781 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Adair (US 20070034082) (cited in Applicant’s IDS of 08/25/2023).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Park teaches the method according to claim 7 wherein the speed of the air flow during step (A) measured at the filter media is from 0.1 to 1.2 cm/s (Martin, col 7, lines 5-10) but does not teach wherein the air purifier comprises removable filter media. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining how many times the filter can be regenerated before needing to be replaced to optimize performance, motivating one to turn towards Adair.
Adair teaches an air purifier (Fig. 1, 100) with a fan (Fig. 3, 216), an ionizing assembly (Fig. 3, 170), and a filter (Fig. 4, filter 162 housed inside tray 154 which is downstream of ionizing assembly 170, para 0046) wherein the filter comprises removable filter media (Fig. 4, filter 162 is removable from tray 154, paras 0047-0048) based on contamination or airflow data from a sensor [0048].
Adair is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air sterilization devices and methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifier as taught by Modified Park with the sensors and removable filter media as taught by Adair since Adair teaches the sensor to indicate when the filter needs changing based on air flow/contamination data detected by the sensor and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Park teaches the method according to claim 7 wherein the air purifier comprises a particulate or gas filter (Park, Fig. 1, 14), an air flow generator (Park, Fig. 1, 15), a means for controlling said air flow generator (Park, controller 19, [0046]), a first air flow setting with a first air filtration air flow speed (Park, air sterilization mode, Fig. 5, S33, [0048]) and a second air flow setting with a speed of from 0.1 to 2.5 cm/s (Martin, col 7, lines 5-10) which correlates with sterilization of an internal surface of the air purifier and/or a particulate or gas filter (Kim, [0027-0030], [0037]). Modified Park does not teach wherein the air purifier comprises removable filter media. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining how many times the filter can be regenerated before needing to be replaced to optimize performance, motivating one to turn towards Adair.
Adair teaches an air purifier (Fig. 1, 100) with a fan (Fig. 3, 216), an ionizing assembly (Fig. 3, 170), and a filter (Fig. 4, filter 162 housed inside tray 154 which is downstream of ionizing assembly 170, para 0046) wherein the filter comprises removable filter media (Fig. 4, filter 162 is removable from tray 154, paras 0047-0048) based on contamination or airflow data from a sensor [0048].
Adair is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air sterilization devices and methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifier as taught by Modified Park with the sensors and removable filter media as taught by Adair since Adair teaches the sensor to indicate when the filter needs changing based on air flow/contamination data detected by the sensor and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Park teaches the method of claim 7 comprising an air purifier (Park, Fig. 1,) but does not wherein the air purifier contains removable filter media. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining how many times the filter can be regenerated before needing to be replaced to optimize performance, motivating one to turn towards Adair.
Adair teaches an air purifier (Fig. 1, 100) with a fan (Fig. 3, 216), an ionizing assembly (Fig. 3, 170), and a filter (Fig. 4, filter 162 housed inside tray 154 which is downstream of ionizing assembly 170, para 0046) wherein the filter comprises removable filter media (Fig. 4, filter 162 is removable from tray 154, paras 0047-0048) based on contamination or airflow data from a sensor [0048].
Adair is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air sterilization devices and methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifier as taught by Modified Park with the sensors and removable filter media as taught by Adair since Adair teaches the sensor to indicate when the filter needs changing based on air flow/contamination data detected by the sensor and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Park teaches the method according to claim 7 wherein the speed of the air flow during step (A) measured at the filter media is from 0.8 to 1.2 cm/s (Martin, col 7, lines 5-10). Modified Park also teaches an air purifier (Park, Fig. 1,) but does not wherein the air purifier contains removable filter media. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining how many times the filter can be regenerated before needing to be replaced to optimize performance, motivating one to turn towards Adair.
Adair teaches an air purifier (Fig. 1, 100) with a fan (Fig. 3, 216), an ionizing assembly (Fig. 3, 170), and a filter (Fig. 4, filter 162 housed inside tray 154 which is downstream of ionizing assembly 170, para 0046) wherein the filter comprises removable filter media (Fig. 4, filter 162 is removable from tray 154, paras 0047-0048) based on contamination or airflow data from a sensor [0048].
Adair is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air sterilization devices and methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifier as taught by Modified Park with the sensors and removable filter media as taught by Adair since Adair teaches the sensor to indicate when the filter needs changing based on air flow/contamination data detected by the sensor and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20060024197 A1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS of 11/01/2023) in view of Kim (US 20180361009 A1) and Martin (US 5730781 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Fresnet (US 20090308057).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Park teaches the method according to claim 7 including step (A): subjecting said filter media to a sterilization air flow (Kim, [0027-0030], [0037]) but does not teach wherein step (A) has a duration from 1 minute to 10 hours.
Fresnet teaches a method for purifying an exhaust stream [abstract] comprising flowing exhaust through a particulate filter 8 [0030] and regenerating the filter by injecting a reforming stream [0010] through the particle filter for 20 minutes [0033].
Fresnet is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to methods for regenerating a filter media. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the duration of the filter sterilization step as taught by Modified Park to be 20 minutes as taught by Fresnet to allow for adequate contact time between the filter media and the regenerating gas and promote desorption of contaminants from the filter and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20060024197 A1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS of 11/01/2023) in view of Kim (US 20180361009 A1) and Martin (US 5730781 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Takeda (US 20030072675).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Park teaches the method according to claim 7 including step (B) subjecting said filter media to an ion cloud (Park, [0041]) but does not teach wherein step (B) has a duration from 1 minute to 10 hours.
Takeda teaches a sterilization method for air (para 0006), including an experiment in a test space wherein an air purifier (300) comprising an ion generating device (201) was operated for thirty minutes, ions were generated in the space, and the concentration of contaminants in the air were tested (para 0285).
Takeda is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to apparatuses and methods for sterilizing air and filters. Therefore, it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step (B), subjecting the media filter to an ion cloud, as taught by Modified Park to be carried out for a duration of 30 minutes as taught by Takeda to achieve the result of a desired air filter sterilization threshold and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20060024197 A1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS of 11/01/2023) in view of Kim (US 20180361009 A1) and Martin (US 5730781 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Fox (US 20050031503) and Furuhashi (US 20060233660) (cited in Applicant’s IDS of 11/01/2023).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Park teaches the method according to claim 7 including a controller configured to automatically operate a fan (Park, 0048-0049]) but does not teach wherein the method further comprises sending an alert by way of an electronic signal to a mobile device to alert a user that conditions are favorable to micro-organisms and permitting an option for the user to actuate a fan in the air purifier; recommending to the user to actuate the fan or an impeller, or ionizer in the air purifier. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with knowing when conditions inside the air purifier would promote the growth of micro-organisms, which would motivate one to turn to Fox.
Fox discloses an air ionizer control system (para 0015) with an ionization device (200) and a control unit (212) that receives air quality data from a plurality of sensors and displays the data on an operator interface (216), wherein the operator interface allows an operator to control ionization intensity and airflow volumes (para 0029). Fox further teaches the control unit to allow the ionization device (200) to be remotely monitored and controlled via a network, wherein the control unit can send information over the network regarding system detection data (para 0033, understood to be capable of sending electric signal to mobile device). Accordingly, Fox teaches the claimed elements of alerting a user by way of an electronic signal to a mobile device and permitting an option for the user to actuate a fan in the air purifier.
Fox does not teach wherein the alert by electronic signal would alert a user that conditions are favorable to micro-organisms and recommend to the user to actuate the fan or an impeller, or ionizer in the air purifier.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with knowing when the potential for microbial growth inside the filter is high and automatically actuating the filter sterilizing process which would motivate one to turn to Furuhashi.
Furuhashi teaches an ion generating air conditioning apparatus for sterilizing air (para 0001), wherein the apparatus comprises a control unit 150 (Fig. 6, para 0101) connected to a humidity sensor 152, temperature sensor 15, and an ion generator (10) that senses conditions favorable to microorganism growth (para 0187, 0189-0190) and alerts a user to select an operational mode (understood to be a warning, Fig. 19, illustrates operational mode and process steps, user is notified and manipulates process, para 0191-0192) to adjust ions generated by said ionizer (understood to be recommending user to actuate ionizer, para 0196, 0198).
One having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize the controllers of Modified Park, Fox, and Furuhashi could be combined through electrical coupling as well as the humidity and temperature sensors as taught by Furuhasi. Further, the controllers could be electrically connected to a mobile device via larger network as disclosed Fox by the network interface (Fox, network interface 218 para 0033).
Both Fox and Furuhashi are considered analogous to the claimed invention as both are drawn to methods and apparatuses for air sterilization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the controller as disclosed by Modified Park with the controller disclosed by Fox, and the controller and humidity/temperature sensors disclosed by Furuhashi to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The combination above would yield the results of alerting a user by way of an electronic signal to a mobile device that conditions are favorable to micro-organisms, warning the user that micro-organism growth is likely, permitting an option for the user to actuate a fan in the air purifier, and recommending to the user to actuate the fan or an impeller, or ionizer in the air purifier would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 5-6 of the amendment, filed 02/03/2026, the Applicant argues that Taylor discloses the thermal desorption of a carbon fabric via circulating heated air with a non-thermal plasma but does not teach subjecting a filter media to a sterilization air flow with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant' s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new rejection. See above.
In the arguments presented on pages 6-7 of the amendment, filed 02/03/2026, the Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not consider Martin to be an analogous art nor reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention because it neither addresses the same problem nor serves the same purpose as the method as claimed with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) states that “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” Regarding the determination of whether a reference is “reasonably pertinent,” the MPEP also states that “the examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the specification. In order for a reference to be "reasonably pertinent" to the problem, it must "logically [] have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem."
The Examiner respectfully assert that in the instant case, Martin’s disclosure is considered reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor since Martin discusses methods to removes contaminants from air purification filters via a regenerating air flow [col 4, lines 39-44].
The instant specification discloses that the “air flow” as recited in claim 7 must be “commensurate with sterilization of an internal surface of the air purifier” and that the method teaches wherein the filter media “is first subjected to an air draft and then where the air draft is stopped, the surface is exposed to a burst of ionization” on page 4, lines 25-31. The disclosure does not describe what exactly makes this air draft a commensurate with sterilization, especially since the air flow is deployed independent of the sterilization mechanism (the ion generator). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully asserts that under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the spec, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the “sterilization air flow” to be an ordinary burst of air, identify the primary problem faced by the inventor to be the removal of contaminants from the filter media through mechanical/chemical means (i.e. adsorption) in conjunction with the biological removal of contaminants (via the ion cloud), and consider the disclosure of Martin reasonably pertinent to the aforementioned problem.
However, the rejection has been withdrawn and a new ground of rejection has been made in view of Kim (US 20180361009 A1) and Martin (US 5730781 A1). See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 7-8 of the amendment, filed 02/03/2026, the Applicant argues that Martin does not teach subjecting a filter media to a sterilization air flow with a speed of 0.1-2.5 cm/s with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. However, the rejection has been withdrawn and a new ground of rejection has been made in view of Kim (US 20180361009 A1) and Martin (US 5730781 A1). See rejection above.
Conclusion
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 NEBYATE S SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights