DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 01/12/2026. Claims 1-9, 13-14, 17-18, 20-21, and 24-25 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
4. All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.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 amendments.
Response to Arguments
5. Examiner thanks the Applicant for pointing out in p.8 of the amendment the typographical issue of mislabeling the Lee reference and is thus corrected hereinafter.
In the arguments presented on p.7-8 and 10-11 of the amendment regarding the rejections for claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 under the Lee reference, the Applicant argues that primary reference Lee does not teach the amended claim limitations of producing reactive nitrogen species and positioning the filter after the plasma generating unit.
The argument of the “reactive nitrogen species” limitation amended on claims 1, 8-9, 13, 17, and 21 is not persuasive. Plasma generated in ambient air (as the Lee and Taylor primary references teach) leads to formation of both reactive oxygen species as well as reactive nitrogen species (Schmidt et al., “As the main components of air are nitrogen and oxygen, the reactive species are mainly composed of reactive oxygen species (ROS), involving ozone and hydroxide radicals, and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), involving nitrogen oxides”, see 4th paragraph of “Introduction” section).
The remaining Applicant’s arguments directed towards the filter positioning limitation in claim 1 are found to be persuasive and a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of Taylor, further in view of Lee (WO 2014007497 A1), further in view of Golkowski.
The remaining Applicant’s arguments directed towards the filter positioning limitation in claims 8, 13, 17, and 21 are not persuasive. Golkowski teaches a free radical destroyer ([0307]) positioned fluidly after the free radical/plasma generator (i.e., conduit 44 containing FRD 24 exhausts to atmosphere 56, Fig. 1A) in order to destroy any free radicals before being exhausted into the atmosphere ([0305]), and the incorporation of this feature into Taylor’s deodorizing system (100 of Fig. 2B) having a plasma generator would likewise achieve the same positioning of this filter in view of this modification.
In the arguments presented on p.8-9 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that the Applicant argues that the modification of Lee (KR 101863193 B1), alone or in combination with other references such as Kawachi, teaches away from the improvement stated by Lee. Specifically, in claims 2, the modification of Lee with secondary reference Kawachi would change the principle of operation of Lee, to which the "2-4 times" improvement from prior systems would no longer be applicable.
Applicant's arguments, p.8-9, filed 11/24/2025, are not persuasive. The Examiner utilizes secondary reference Kawachi to substitute the TiO2 filter with a silver impregnated carbon filter to yield the predictable result of removing ozone that may be generated from a plasma generator. Lee teaches a plasma generator, and evidentiary reference Jin teaches that a photocatalytic reaction from a TiO2 filter with ozone-containing air can decompose the ozone (Jin, p.4, 2nd paragraph of English translation).
Likewise, Kawachi teaches a silver impregnated carbon filter that achieves the same functionality by decomposing ozone byproducts downstream of plasma generators ([0006]). Thus, it would have been obvious to have substituted a known material (silver impregnated carbon for TiO2) for the same intended use with respect to the air purifying device of Lee. It is unclear as to where primary reference Lee states that this specific configuration of the TiO2 photocatalytic filter causes a "2 to 4 times" improvement over the prior systems. Airflow is not impeded or altered with Kawachi's filter substitution, so it is completely reasonable for this modification to thus maintain this "2 to 4 times" improvement over prior systems.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. Claims 1, 3-8, 13-14, 17-18, 21, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 20010032544 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Lee et al. (WO 2014007497 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Golkowski et al. (WO 2019084203 A1, cited in prior office action), evidenced by Schmidt et al. (cited in PTO-892 form).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor teaches an animal litter box (Fig. 2B), comprising: a housing having an opening allowing for entry and exit of an animal (104, Fig. 2B);
a sensor to detect a change in an environment of an interior of the housing (ammonia sensor 135, Fig. 2C and [0035]),
an odor removal device (ion generating unit 160, Fig. 2B) operationally connected to the sensor such that the odor removal device is activated in response to a signal from the sensor (“sensor 158 can detect when ammonia (NH.sub.3) adjacent the litter box exceeds a predetermined threshold. When so detected, a signal from sensor 158 can command unit 160 to generate ions, which will reduce the odor”, [0035]), said odor removal device comprising a plasma generating unit (220, Fig. 2C) and a motorized fan sufficient to pass air into the odor removal device (fan, where “[e]lectric motor driven fan blades may be used to create an air flow to air out the animal house or little box”, [0003]); and
wherein the odor removal device is configured to operate in different manners based on respectively different signals from the sensor (triggering ion generation when ammonia levels exceed a threshold, and likewise shutting off when under a threshold, see [0013]).
Taylor fails to teach wherein the sensor is a pH sensor.
Lee teaches a pet toilet (Fig. 2) with a moisture sensor (172, Fig. 5A) in order to detect urine from the animal (abstract) and thus causing a spray of water to clean urine (p.5, 5th paragraph of English translation).
Taylor and Lee ‘497 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of animal excreta sensors that trigger a sterilizing/cleaning system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ammonia sensor of Taylor with the moisture sensor as taught by Lee ‘497 in order to detect urine from the animal (abstract) and thus activate the ion generating unit to deodorize the excreta (Taylor, [0035]).
Modified Taylor teaches exhaust vents (110, Fig. 2B) to exhaust deodorized air containing ozone into the environment, but fails to teach a filter positioned after the plasma generating unit to remove byproducts produced by the plasma generating unit.
Golkowski teaches a sterilization system (Fig. 1A) for medical waste (“The chamber can be in the form of a movable chamber (e.g., a rotating tumbler) to sterilize, disinfect, sanitize, and/or decontaminate items like… medical waste”, [0065]) utilizing an ozone generator (plasma generating unit 30, Fig. 1A and [0185]), with a filter to remove byproducts produced by the plasma generating unit (free radical destroyer 24, Fig. 1A) in order to “destroy any free radicals which might remain before the air is exhausted” ([0305]).
Modified Taylor and Golkowski are analogous references, directed to sterilization systems utilizing ozone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exhaust vent of Taylor by incorporating a free radical destroyer as taught by Golkowski in order to “destroy any free radicals which might remain before the air is exhausted” (Golkowski, [0305]).
Regarding the limitation of a plasma generating unit (220, Fig. 2C) sufficient to generate-reactive nitrogen species, plasma generated in ambient air (as the Taylor reference teaches) leads to formation of both reactive oxygen species as well as reactive nitrogen species (Schmidt et al., “As the main components of air are nitrogen and oxygen, the reactive species are mainly composed of reactive oxygen species (ROS), involving ozone and hydroxide radicals, and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), involving nitrogen oxides”, see 4th paragraph of “Introduction” section).
Regarding claim 3, modified Taylor teaches wherein the motorized fan (fan, [0003]) is configured to operate at different speeds (fan on/off) based on respectively different signals from the sensor (“sensor 158 can detect when ammonia (NH.sub.3) adjacent the litter box exceeds a predetermined threshold. When so detected, a signal from sensor 158 can command unit 160 to generate ions, which will reduce the odor”, [0035])
Regarding claim 4, modified Taylor teaches wherein the plasma generating unit is configured to operate with different power levels (“the sensor output can command the ionizer unit to operate, either for a predetermined time or, using feedback, for as long as it takes for sensed NH.sub.3 to drop below a desired threshold”, implying the ionizer unit can be turned on/off, [0013]) based on respectively different signals from the sensor (“sensor 158 can detect when ammonia (NH.sub.3) adjacent the litter box exceeds a predetermined threshold. When so detected, a signal from sensor 158 can command unit 160 to generate ions, which will reduce the odor”, [0035]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Taylor teaches wherein the plasma generating unit (220, Fig. 2C) generates ozone ([0037]).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “wherein the sensor is configured to provide the respectively different signals based on differentiating characteristics of different animals detected by the sensor” is directed to the function of the sensor. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by modified Taylor and the apparatus of modified Taylor is capable of providing different signals based on differentiating characteristics of different animals. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the ammonia sensor detects ammonia levels regardless of what animal and its differing characteristics are. If the ammonia sensor (158, Fig. 2C) detects an ammonia level that is above a threshold, the sensor will send a signal to activate the ionization unit (160, Fig. 2C), and send a deactivation signal if the detected ammonia is under a threshold ([0035]). The ammonia sensor can detect differentiating characteristics of different animals purely based off of how much ammonia is detected (e.g., animal A could excrete waste having an ammonia level being under the threshold that does not trigger the ionization unit, whereas animal B could excrete waste having an ammonia level higher than the threshold that triggers the ionization unit).
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of “wherein the sensor is configured to provide the respectively different signals based on different types of excreta detected by the sensor” is directed to the function of the sensor. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Taylor and the apparatus of modified Taylor is capable of providing different signals based on different types of excreta. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the ammonia sensor detects ammonia levels regardless of the type of excreta. If the ammonia sensor (158, Fig. 2C) detects an ammonia level that is above a threshold, the sensor will send a signal to activate the ionization unit (160, Fig. 2C), and send a deactivation signal if the detected ammonia is under a threshold ([0035]). The ammonia sensor can detect different types of excreta purely based off of how much ammonia is detected (e.g., urine could have an ammonia level that is different to feces).
Regarding claim 8, Taylor teaches an animal litter box (Fig. 2B), comprising: a housing having an opening allowing for entry and exit of an animal (104, Fig. 2B);
a sensor to detect a change in an environment of an interior of the housing (ammonia sensor 135, Fig. 2C and [0035]), and
an odor removal device (ion generating unit 160, Fig. 2B) operationally connected to the sensor such that at least one component of the odor removal device is activated in response to a signal from the sensor (“sensor 158 can detect when ammonia (NH.sub.3) adjacent the litter box exceeds a predetermined threshold. When so detected, a signal from sensor 158 can command unit 160 to generate ions, which will reduce the odor”, [0035]), said odor removal device comprising a plasma generating unit (220, Fig. 2C) and a motorized fan sufficient to pass air into the odor removal device (fan, [0003]), and expressing air from the filter outside of the housing (OUT air, Fig. 2B).
Taylor fails to teach wherein the sensor is a pH sensor.
Lee teaches a pet toilet (Fig. 2) with a moisture sensor (172, Fig. 5A) in order to detect urine from the animal (abstract) and thus causing a spray of water to clean urine (p.5, 5th paragraph of English translation).
Taylor and Lee ‘497 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of animal excreta sensors that trigger a sterilizing/cleaning system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ammonia sensor of Taylor with the moisture sensor as taught by Lee ‘497 in order to detect urine from the animal (abstract) and thus activate the ion generating unit to deodorize the excreta (Taylor, [0035]).
Modified Taylor teaches exhaust vents (110, Fig. 2B) to exhaust deodorized air containing ozone into the environment, but fails to teach a filter positioned after the plasma generating unit to remove byproducts produced by the plasma generating unit.
Golkowski teaches a sterilization system (Fig. 1A) for medical waste (“The chamber can be in the form of a movable chamber (e.g., a rotating tumbler) to sterilize, disinfect, sanitize, and/or decontaminate items like… medical waste”, [0065]) utilizing an ozone generator (plasma generating unit 30, Fig. 1A and [0185]), with a filter to remove byproducts produced by the plasma generating unit (free radical destroyer 24, Fig. 1A) in order to “destroy any free radicals which might remain before the air is exhausted” ([0305]).
Modified Taylor and Golkowski are analogous references, directed to sterilization systems utilizing ozone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exhaust vent of Taylor by incorporating a free radical destroyer as taught by Golkowski in order to “destroy any free radicals which might remain before the air is exhausted” (Golkowski, [0305]).
Regarding the limitation of a plasma generating unit (220, Fig. 2C) sufficient to generate-reactive nitrogen species, plasma generated in ambient air (as the Taylor reference teaches) leads to formation of both reactive oxygen species as well as reactive nitrogen species (Schmidt et al., “As the main components of air are nitrogen and oxygen, the reactive species are mainly composed of reactive oxygen species (ROS), involving ozone and hydroxide radicals, and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), involving nitrogen oxides”, see 4th paragraph of “Introduction” section).
Regarding claim 13, Taylor teaches an animal litter box (Fig. 2B), comprising: a housing having an opening allowing for entry and exit of an animal (104, Fig. 2B);
a sensor to detect a change in an environment of an interior of the housing (ammonia sensor 135, Fig. 2C and [0035]);
an odor removal device (ion generating unit 160, Fig. 2C), said odor removal device comprising a plasma generating unit (220, Fig. 2C) and a motorized fan sufficient to pass air into the odor removal device (fan, [0003]); and
a timer (circuit 180, Fig. 3 and [0042]) configured with the sensor for activating and periodically reactivating the odor removal device at preset time intervals in response to a signal from the sensor (“When excess NH.sub.3 is detected, the sensor output can command the ionizer unit to operate, either for a predetermined time or, using feedback, for as long as it takes for sensed NH.sub.3 to drop below a desired threshold”, [0013]).
Taylor fails to teach wherein the sensor is a pH sensor.
Lee teaches a pet toilet (Fig. 2) with a moisture sensor (172, Fig. 5A) in order to detect urine from the animal (abstract) and thus causing a spray of water to clean urine (p.5, 5th paragraph of English translation).
Taylor and Lee ‘497 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of animal excreta sensors that trigger a sterilizing/cleaning system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ammonia sensor of Taylor with the moisture sensor as taught by Lee ‘497 in order to detect urine from the animal (abstract) and thus activate the ion generating unit to deodorize the excreta (Taylor, [0035]).
Modified Taylor teaches exhaust vents (110, Fig. 2B) to exhaust deodorized air containing ozone into the environment, but fails to teach a filter positioned after the plasma generating unit to remove byproducts produced by the plasma generating unit.
Golkowski teaches a sterilization system (Fig. 1A) for medical waste (“The chamber can be in the form of a movable chamber (e.g., a rotating tumbler) to sterilize, disinfect, sanitize, and/or decontaminate items like… medical waste”, [0065]) utilizing an ozone generator (plasma generating unit 30, Fig. 1A and [0185]), with a filter to remove byproducts produced by the plasma generating unit (free radical destroyer 24, Fig. 1A) in order to “destroy any free radicals which might remain before the air is exhausted” ([0305]).
Modified Taylor and Golkowski are analogous references, directed to sterilization systems utilizing ozone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exhaust vent of Taylor by incorporating a free radical destroyer as taught by Golkowski in order to “destroy any free radicals which might remain before the air is exhausted” (Golkowski, [0305]).
Regarding the limitation of a plasma generating unit (220, Fig. 2C) sufficient to generate-reactive nitrogen species, plasma generated in ambient air (as the Taylor reference teaches) leads to formation of both reactive oxygen species as well as reactive nitrogen species (Schmidt et al., “As the main components of air are nitrogen and oxygen, the reactive species are mainly composed of reactive oxygen species (ROS), involving ozone and hydroxide radicals, and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), involving nitrogen oxides”, see 4th paragraph of “Introduction” section).
Regarding claim 14, modified Taylor teaches wherein the timer is configured to periodically reactivate the odor removal device at preset time intervals until the sensor detects a new change in the environment (“Unit 160 can be commanded to operate for a predetermined time (e.g., five minutes), or to operate for whatever time is required to bring the level of the detected odor below a desired threshold”, Fig. 3 and [0042], to which the detected odor being lower than the threshold is the new change in the environment).
Regarding claim 17, Taylor teaches an animal litter box (104, Fig. 2B) comprising: a housing having an opening allowing for entry and exit of an animal (litter box having opening for animal entrance/exit, Fig. 2B);
a sensor to detect a change in an environment of an interior of the housing (ammonia sensor 158, [0035] and Fig. 2B);
an odor removal device operationally connected to the sensor (“sensor 158 can detect when ammonia (NH.sub.3) adjacent the litter box exceeds a predetermined threshold. When so detected, a signal from sensor 158 can command unit 160 to generate ions, which will reduce the odor”, [0035]) said odor removal device comprising a plasma generating unit (ion generating unit 160, Fig. 3) and a motorized fan sufficient to pass air into the odor removal device (fan, [0003]), and a timer (circuit 180, Fig. 3 and [0042]).
Taylor mentions that “preferably operating parameters of the present invention are set during manufacture and are not user-adjustable” ([0053]), which fails to teach having user adjustable settings of different durations for which the odor removal device is operated in response to a signal from the sensor.
However, it would have been obvious to make an operating parameter such as the time at which the ion generating unit is activated for to be user-adjustable to prevent hysteresis of the device (described in [0042]).
Modified Taylor teaches exhaust vents (110, Fig. 2B) to exhaust deodorized air containing ozone into the environment, but fails to teach a filter positioned after the plasma generating unit to remove byproducts produced by the plasma generating unit.
Golkowski teaches a sterilization system (Fig. 1A) for medical waste (“The chamber can be in the form of a movable chamber (e.g., a rotating tumbler) to sterilize, disinfect, sanitize, and/or decontaminate items like… medical waste”, [0065]) utilizing an ozone generator (plasma generating unit 30, Fig. 1A and [0185]), with a filter to remove byproducts produced by the plasma generating unit (free radical destroyer 24, Fig. 1A) in order to “destroy any free radicals which might remain before the air is exhausted” ([0305]).
Modified Taylor and Golkowski are analogous references, directed to sterilization systems utilizing ozone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exhaust vent of Taylor by incorporating a free radical destroyer as taught by Golkowski in order to “destroy any free radicals which might remain before the air is exhausted” (Golkowski, [0305]).
Regarding the limitation of a plasma generating unit (220, Fig. 2C) sufficient to generate-reactive nitrogen species, plasma generated in ambient air (as the Taylor reference teaches) leads to formation of both reactive oxygen species as well as reactive nitrogen species (Schmidt et al., “As the main components of air are nitrogen and oxygen, the reactive species are mainly composed of reactive oxygen species (ROS), involving ozone and hydroxide radicals, and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), involving nitrogen oxides”, see 4th paragraph of “Introduction” section).
Regarding claim 18, modified Taylor teaches wherein the user adjustable settings further include different time periods at which operation of the odor removal device is initiated in response to a signal from the sensor (user-adjustable time settings to prevent hysteresis of the device as explained in claim 17 rejection above).
Regarding claim 21, Taylor teaches an animal litter box (104, Fig. 2B) comprising: a housing having an opening allowing for entry and exit of an animal (litter box having opening for animal entrance/exit, Fig. 2B);
a sensor to detect a change in an environment of an interior of the housing (ammonia sensor 158, [0035] and Fig. 2B);
an odor removal device operationally connected to the sensor (“sensor 158 can detect when ammonia (NH.sub.3) adjacent the litter box exceeds a predetermined threshold. When so detected, a signal from sensor 158 can command unit 160 to generate ions, which will reduce the odor”, [0035]) said odor removal device comprising a plasma generating unit (ion generating unit 160, Fig. 3) and a motorized fan sufficient to pass air into the odor removal device (fan, [0003]), and a timer (circuit 180, Fig. 3 and [0042]).
Taylor mentions that “preferably operating parameters of the present invention are set during manufacture and are not user-adjustable” ([0053]), which fails to teach having user adjustable settings Application/Control Number: 17/838,379 Page 13 Art Unit: 1758 of different durations for which the odor removal device is operated in response to a signal from the sensor.
However, it would have been obvious to make an operating parameter such as the time at which the ion generating unit is activated for to be user-adjustable to prevent hysteresis of the device (described in [0042]).
Modified Taylor teaches exhaust vents (110, Fig. 2B) to exhaust deodorized air containing ozone into the environment, but fails to teach a filter positioned after the plasma generating unit to remove byproducts produced by the plasma generating unit.
Golkowski teaches a sterilization system (Fig. 1A) for medical waste (“The chamber can be in the form of a movable chamber (e.g., a rotating tumbler) to sterilize, disinfect, sanitize, and/or decontaminate items like… medical waste”, [0065]) utilizing an ozone generator (plasma generating unit 30, Fig. 1A and [0185]), with an activated carbon filter to remove byproducts produced by the plasma generating unit (free radical destroyer 24 being an activated-carbon filter, Fig. 1A and [0307]) in order to “destroy any free radicals which might remain before the air is exhausted” ([0305]).
Modified Taylor and Golkowski are analogous references, directed to sterilization systems utilizing ozone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exhaust vent of Taylor by incorporating an activated carbon filter functioning as a free radical destroyer as taught by Golkowski in order to “destroy any free radicals which might remain before the air is exhausted” (Golkowski, [0305]).
Regarding the limitation of a plasma generating unit (220, Fig. 2C) sufficient to generate-reactive nitrogen species, plasma generated in ambient air (as the Taylor reference teaches) leads to formation of both reactive oxygen species as well as reactive nitrogen species (Schmidt et al., “As the main components of air are nitrogen and oxygen, the reactive species are mainly composed of reactive oxygen species (ROS), involving ozone and hydroxide radicals, and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), involving nitrogen oxides”, see 4th paragraph of “Introduction” section).
Regarding claim 24, modified Taylor teaches a plasma generating unit (ion generating unit 160, Fig. 2B), but fails to teach a prefilter positioned before the plasma generating unit.
Golkowski teaches a prefilter (filter 50, Fig. 1A) placed before the plasma generating unit (plasma/free radical generator 30, Fig. 1A) in order to “remove particulate matter and/or other materials from the gas being passed from the flow distributor to the free radical generator” ([0164]).
Therefore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ion generating unit of modified Taylor by incorporating a prefilter placed prior as taught by Golkowski in order to “remove particulate matter and/or other materials from the gas being passed from the flow distributor to the free radical generator” (Golkowski, [0164]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Taylor in view of Golkowski teaches wherein the air is expressed outside of the animal litter box after passing through the carbon filter (the exhaust vent of Taylor is modified with the incorporation of the activated carbon filter of Golkowski as stated in claim 21 rejection above).
8. Claims 2, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 20010032544 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Lee et al. (WO 2014007497 A1, cited in prior office action), further in view of Golkowski et al. (WO 2019084203 A1, cited in prior office action), evidenced by Schmidt et al. (cited in PTO-892 form), as applied to claims 1, 8, and 17 above, further in view of Kawachi (JP 2001235201 A, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 2, the Taylor/Lee/Golkowski combination teaches a filter (Golkowski, activated carbon filter free radical destroyer 24, Fig. 1A), but fails to teach wherein the filter of said odor removal device is a silver impregnated carbon filter.
Kawachi teaches an air purifier that utilizes ozone (ozone gas supply 6, [0006] of English translation) and utilizes a silver-containing activated carbon filter (5, Fig. 1) in order to provide an antibacterial effect but also remove ozone before exhausting (p.3, 4th paragraph of English translation).
The Taylor/Lee/Golkowski combination and Kawachi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification through plasma generation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the activated carbon filter free radical destroyer of the Taylor/Lee/Golkowski combination by incorporating silver to the activated carbon filter as taught by Kawachi in order to remove ozone before exhausting (functionally identical to Golkowski’s free radical destroyer) and provide an antibacterial effect (p.3, 4th paragraph of English translation).
Regarding claim 9, the Taylor/Lee/Golkowski combination teaches a filter (Golkowski, activated carbon filter free radical destroyer 24, Fig. 1A), but fails to teach wherein the filter of said odor removal device is a silver impregnated carbon filter.
Kawachi teaches an air purifier that utilizes ozone (ozone gas supply 6, [0006] of English translation) and utilizes a silver-containing activated carbon filter (5, Fig. 1) in order to provide an antibacterial effect but also remove ozone before exhausting (p.3, 4th paragraph of English translation).
The Taylor/Lee/Golkowski combination and Kawachi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification through plasma generation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the activated carbon filter free radical destroyer of the Taylor/Lee/Golkowski combination by incorporating silver to the activated carbon filter as taught by Kawachi in order to remove ozone before exhausting (functionally identical to Golkowski’s free radical destroyer) and provide an antibacterial effect (p.3, 4th paragraph of English translation).
Regarding claim 20, the Taylor/Lee/Golkowski combination teaches a filter (Golkowski, activated carbon filter free radical destroyer 24, Fig. 1A), but fails to teach wherein the filter of said odor removal device is a silver impregnated carbon filter.
Kawachi teaches an air purifier that utilizes ozone (ozone gas supply 6, [0006] of English translation) and utilizes a silver-containing activated carbon filter (5, Fig. 1) in order to provide an antibacterial effect but also remove ozone before exhausting (p.3, 4th paragraph of English translation).
The Taylor/Lee/Golkowski combination and Kawachi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification through plasma generation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the activated carbon filter free radical destroyer of the Taylor/Lee/Golkowski combination by incorporating silver to the activated carbon filter as taught by Kawachi in order to remove ozone before exhausting (functionally identical to Golkowski’s free radical destroyer) and provide an antibacterial effect (p.3, 4th paragraph of English translation).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758