DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, encompassing claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 12/8/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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, 8-10, 12-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Mathur et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0260970).
Regarding claim 1, Mathur et al disclose an air purification device for a vehicle (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a HVAC system in a vehicle (i.e., a vehicle body…, a climate-control system …, paragraph [0076]);
(2) an air purification system for the vehicle, wherein the air purification system may be a separate standalone unit provided within the vehicle (i.e., a modular air treatment unit independent to the climate-control system, paragraphs [0076] – [0078]) and comprises
(i) a main body 150 having a winding passageway between an inlet 105 and an outlet 110 (i.e., a housing … a circuitous passageway … an inlet … and an outlet, Figure 1, paragraphs [0084] –[0085]);
(ii) a filter 130 provided within the main body 150 (i.e., an air filter…, Figure 1, paragraph [0084]);
(iii) a fan 135 for moving air from the inlet 105 to the outlet 110 (i.e., a fan …, Figure 1, paragraphs [0084] – [0085]); and
(iv) at least one UV light source 125 for removing bacterial and virus (i.e., an ultraviolet light source …, Figure 1, paragraphs [0075] & [0084]).
Mathur teaches that the air purification system is coupled to air circulation system within heating/cooling, ventilation, air conditioning system (HVAC) in the vehicle (paragraphs [0003], [0076], [0081], & [0120]), wherein the HVAC system comprises heating/cooling elements, an air circulating mechanism, and ventilation elements with vents for delivering conditioned air to the vehicle.
As further evidence by the teaching of Gutowski et al (PG-PUB US 2022/0118822), the HVAC system in a vehicle is configured to provide climate-controlled air to the cabinet space and comprises heating/cooling components, a blower, and a plurality of vents for delivering the conditioned air (Figure 2, paragraphs [0040] & [0051]).
Thus, Mathur inherently teaches a climate-control system having heating/cooling components, a blower, and a plurality of vents.
Regarding claim 8, Mathur teaches that the air purification system is powered by 12 V power outlet from the vehicle (Figure 1, paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 9, Mathur teaches that the UV light source are in the form of tubes and comprises a plurality of LEDs (paragraphs [0075] & [0083]).
Regarding claim 10, Mathur teaches UV-C light source (paragraphs [0075] & 0086]).
Regarding claim 12, Mathur teaches that the removable filter 750 is received in a fixture 762 having a slot (Figure 63, paragraph [0131]).
Regarding claim 13, Mathur et al disclose an air purification device for a vehicle (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises
(1) a housing 800 having a winding passageway between an inlet 805 and an outlet 810, wherein the air purification device is used as a separate standalone unit in the vehicle (i.e., a housing … a circuitous passageway … an inlet … and an outlet, Figures 66-69, paragraphs [0076] –[0077], & [0138]);
(2) a fan 840 for moving air from the inlet 805 to the outlet 810 (i.e., a fan …, Figures 66-68, paragraphs [0133] & [0139]);
(3) at least one UV light source 845/850 for removing bacterial and virus (i.e., an ultraviolet light source …, Figures 66-69, paragraph [0138]);and
(4) a covering 830 at the inlet 805 and a covering 825 at the outlet 810, wherein each of the covering 825 and 830 is coated with UV-reflective coating to prevent UV exposure outside of the air purification system (i.e., light barriers …, Figures 66-68, paragraphs [0136] & [0138]).
Regarding claim 16, since the device of Mathur comprises substantially the same structure as claimed, it must have the same outcome (e.g., retaining 85% UV light within the housing) unless some limitations are not currently claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Mathur teaches a filter 855 (Figures 68, paragraph [0139]).
Regarding claim 18, Mathur teaches that the filter 855 is provided near the inlet 805 and blocks the UV light (Figure 68, paragraph [0139]).
Regarding claim 19, Mathur teaches that the fan 840 is provided near the outlet 810 and blocks the UV light (Figure 68, paragraph [0139]).
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.
Claims 2, 4-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0260970) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Mathur teaches that inside surface of the device is coated with UV-reflective coating to reflect UV light back and to prevent the UV light exposure to the outside of the device (paragraphs [0008], [0123], [0136]). Although Mathur does not specifically disclose the reflectivity of the coating, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized to utilize the reflective coating having higher reflectivity, such as at least 80%, in order to reflect more UV light back and to further avoid leakage of UV light to outside within the device of Mathur.
Regarding claim 4, Mathur teaches that a covering 830 is provided at the inlet 805 and a covering 825 is provided at the outlet 810, wherein each of the covering 825 and 830 is coated with UV-reflective coating to prevent UV exposure outside of the air purification system (Figures 66-68, paragraphs [0136] & [0138]).
Regarding claim 5, since the modified device of Mathur comprises substantially the same structure as claimed, it must have the same outcome (e.g., retaining 85% UV light within the housing) unless some limitations are not currently claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Mathur teaches that the filter 855 is provided near the inlet 805 and blocks the UV light (Figures 5 & 68, paragraphs [0092] & [0139]).
Regarding claim 7, Mathur teaches that the fan 840 is provided near the outlet 810 and blocks the UV light (Figures 5 & 68, paragraphs [0092] & [0139]).
Claims 3, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur et al (PG-PUB US 2021/0260970) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 13 above, and further in view of Krosney (PG-PUB US 2022/0120454).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Mathur teaches that inside surface of the device is coated with UV-reflective coating to reflect UV light back and to prevent the UV light exposure to the outside of the device (paragraphs [0008], [0123], [0136]), but does not teach an exterior surface having less reflectivity than that of the inner surface. However, Krosney discloses an air sterilization system (ABSTRACT). Krosney teaches that a screen having a UV absorbent material is provided at an outlet on an external surface of device to contain the UV radiation within the device and to prevent the escape of any harmful UV radiation outside (Figure 2, paragraphs [0034] & [0032]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a UV absorbent material on the external surface of the device as suggested by Krosney in order to prevent the escape of harmful UV radiation outside the device of Mathur.
As such, the absorbent material on the external surface has less reflectivity that that of the reflective material on the inner surface.
Regarding claim 11, Mathur teaches that a control switch to control the operation of the air purification system (paragraph [0128]), but does not teach a status indicator for displaying the active operation of the system. However, Krosney discloses an air sterilization system (ABSTRACT). Krosney teaches that a visible indicator 220/422 is provided to display the status of device (paragraph [0064]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to include a visible light indicator of status as suggested by Krosney in order to display the operating status within the device of Mathur.
Conclusion
Claims 1-19 are rejected. Claim 20 is withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights