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
In light of the amendments filed on 15 August 2025, the claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. It is acknowledged that claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 13-14 are amended, and claim 9 is cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US-20190178510-A1; hereinafter Lin).
Regarding Claim 1, Lin discloses a multifunctional air pollution reduction device (apparatus capable of air pollution reduction; see e.g. [0012]), comprising: an operating tool (operating tool; see e.g. [0013]); and a multifunctional pollutant remover (airflow device, [0013]; ionizer [0017]) disposed adjacent to the tool (airflow device is located adjacent to the operating tool; see e.g. [0013] and [0017]); wherein the multifunctional pollutant remover is a removable device that can be attached and removed from the tool (shell of the airflow device is a removable body; see e.g. [0032]); wherein the multifunctional air pollution reduction device is connected to an air source (airflow generator connected to the airflow device; see [0018]), the air source supplies air to the multifunctional pollutant remover (airflow generator is… an air blower configured to blow air into the airflow device; see [0018]); wherein the multifunctional air pollution reduction device further comprises one or more small holes (having small opening holes 132; see [0086]), wherein the multifunctional air pollution reduction device further comprises an outlet nozzle (inlet for air to flow in or out; see [0083] and Figs. 3-4; even though Lin calls this an inlet, it acts as both an inlet and an outlet as air is capable of flowing in and out. Further, Figs. 3 and 4 clearly show this part in the shape of a nozzle), wherein the one or more small holes are adjacent to the narrow air outlet (see Fig. 4 Part 132). Regarding the limitation claiming “the outlet nozzle has at least a wide air inlet and at least a narrow air outlet”, Lin discloses that the “airflow generator 21 may also be an air blower configured to blow air into the airflow device 13” (see [0063]). This scenario would correspond to the situation in which the “inlet for air to flow out” is acting as an outlet, and the air is travelling from the generator 21 through the airflow device 13, and out of the device at the inlet acting as an outlet, as shown in Fig. 4 annotated below. With the air travelling in such a direction, the inlet acting as an outlet is clearly the outlet of the nozzle, and the space in which the nozzle begins to taper is considered the air inlet of the nozzle. As shown in annotated Fig. 4 below, the nozzle contains a wide air inlet and a narrow air outlet.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
1099
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitations claiming, “to form an air curtain surrounding a terminal of the multifunctional pollutant remover”, “to let a part of the air supplied from the air source form a downward suppression air within the air curtain, and the downward airflow is guided toward a bur of the tool, so as to help a user see the view around a bur of the tool”, and “to accelerate the air exiting from the outlet nozzle to form an air curtain”, these are functional limitations that do not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely set forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Regarding Claim 2, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 1, wherein air pollution is generated during an operation of the tool (see e.g. [0014]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 1, wherein the tool is a hand-held tool or a machine-held tool (see e.g. [0015]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 1, wherein the tool is a dental handpiece, an air driven handpiece, an electric handpiece, an ultrasonic dental scalar, an ultrasonic dental scaling tip, an electrosurgical pencil, a polishing tool, or a tool that generates air pollution and/or noise and/or vibration while the operation (see e.g. [0016], [0014]).
Regarding Claim 5, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 1, wherein the multifunctional pollutant remover is an ionizer adjacent to the tool and configured to emit ions (see e.g. [0017]).
Regarding Claim 8, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 1, wherein the multifunctional pollutant remover is connected to a vacuum pump (see e.g. [0018]), wherein the vacuum pump is used to extract air at a pollution source (extract air from the airflow device; see [0063]).
Regarding the limitations claiming, “the vacuum pump is used to extract air…”, this is a functional limitation that does not further define the structure of the vacuum pump or apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating such. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Further, as explained in the rejection of claim 1, the formation of an air curtain is a functional limitation and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Therefore, the limitation claiming that “a shape of the air curtain is cylindrical, conical, or any shape helpful to confine the air pollutants within the air curtain” does not further define the structure because the air curtain is not actually a structural limitation of the device.
Regarding Claim 10, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 8, further comprising an ionizer adjacent to the tool (see e.g. [0059]), wherein a release point of the ionizer is within the air curtain to help reduce the air pollution concentration within the air curtain (outlet of the ionizer 12 is adjacent to a tip of the operating tool 11; see e.g. [0059] and Fig. 3 Parts 11 and 12). As previously explained, the formation of the air curtain is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the device, and the air curtain is therefore not a structural limitation. With this in mind, claim 1 described the air curtain as being formed so as to “surround a terminal of the multifunctional pollutant remover”. Therefore, when considering positions relative to an air curtain, a terminal or tip of the device will be analogous to the physical position of the air curtain.
Regarding Claim 11, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 8, further comprising an ionizer adjacent to the tool (see e.g. [0059]), wherein the ionizer releases ions inside and/or outside the air curtain (see e.g. [0059] and Fig. 3 Parts 11 and 12).
Regarding Claim 12, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 8, wherein the component of the air supplied from the air source comprises: (i) particle-free air (airflow generator is equipped with a high efficiency particulate air filter; see [0019]); or (ii) compressed air; or (iii) positive or negative ions (the airflow generator is equipped with an ozone generator; see [0021]); or (iv) reactive oxygen species (the airflow generator is equipped with an ozone generator; see [0021]); or (v) gas; or (vi) particles; or (vii) water vapor; or (vii) any combination above.
Regarding Claim 14, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 1, wherein the multifunctional pollutant remover is within the tool (see Fig. 4 Parts 11, 13, and 13). As explained in the rejection of claim 1, the formation of an air curtain is a functional limitation and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Therefore, the limitation claiming that “a shape of the air curtain is cylindrical, conical, or any shape helpful to confine the air pollutants within the air curtain” does not further define the structure because the air curtain is not actually a structural limitation of the device.
Regarding Claim 16, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 1, further comprising a charged deposition surface (see e.g. [0028]), wherein the charged deposition surface is placed under the multifunctional pollutant remover (see e.g. Fig. 1, Parts 12 and 40).
Regarding Claim 17, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 1, further comprising a power supply connected to the multifunctional pollutant remover and/or the tool (see e.g. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 18, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 1, further comprising a sensor configured to detect an operation of the tool and send a control signal to turn on the multifunctional air pollution reduction device (see e.g. [0038]).
Regarding Claim 19, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 1, further comprising a control unit configured to control an ion generation rate of an ionizer, an airflow of an airflow generator, an ROS generation rate of a photocatalytic purifier, and/or a power output of a power supply (see e.g. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 20, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 19, wherein the control unit is controlled by a computer, a tablet, a plate panel, a smart phone, a remote controller, and/or Internet of things (IOT) (see e.g. [0066]).
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.
Claims 6-7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US-20190178510-A1) in view of Koizumi (JP-2009160324-A).
Regarding Claim 6, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 5, wherein the ionizer further comprises a wire or power cable (see e.g. [0065]) that is at least partially enclosed (see e.g. Fig. 3, Part 32).
Lin does not explicitly teach an anti-slip or anti-vibration surface. However, Koizumi discloses an anti-slip and/or anti-vibration surface (gripping portion is covered with the porous elastic body… vibration generated in the instrument can be absorbed; see [0009]) to reduce slipping, noise and/or vibration, making the handling of the tool more comfortable (vibration generated in the instrument can be absorbed; see [0009]).
Lin and Koizumi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental scaling tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lin by incorporating the teachings of Koizumi to provide an anti-vibrational grip around the surface enclosing the wire taught by Lin Doing so would make it easier to grip the instrument and absorb vibrations (see e.g. Koizumi [0009]).
Regarding Claim 7, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 5.
Lin fails to teach a vibration control device. However, Koizumi discloses a passive vibration control device (gripping portion is covered with the porous elastic body… vibration generated in the instrument can be absorbed; see [0009]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because doing so would incorporate the vibration control device in order to reduce the burden on the user’s hands and prevent the occurrence of tendonitis (see e.g. Koizumi [0024]).
Regarding Claim 13, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 8, wherein the ionizer further comprises a wire or power cable (see e.g. [0065]) that is at least partially enclosed (see e.g. Fig. 3, Part 32).
Lin does not explicitly teach an anti-slip or anti-vibration surface. However, Koizumi discloses an anti-slip and/or anti-vibration surface (see e.g. [0009]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose an anti-vibration surface around the surface enclosing the wire taught by Lin in order to make it easier to grip the instrument and absorb vibrations (see e.g. Koizumi [0009]).
Regarding Claim 15, Lin discloses the multifunctional air pollution reduction device of claim 1.
Lin does not explicitly teach a vibration control device. However, Koizumi discloses a passive vibration control device (see e.g. [0009]) located outside the tool (see e.g. Fig. 1, Part 22). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vibration control device in order to reduce the burden on the user’s hands and prevent the occurrence of tendonitis (see e.g. Koizumi [0024]).
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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774