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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites functional limitation of “configured to work together to create a required airflow”. This limitation merely states a functional characteristic without providing any indication about how the functional characteristic is provided. The recited functional characteristic does not follow from (is not an inherent property of) the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the claim requires some other structure to be added to the apparatus to achieve the functional characteristic or the functional characteristic is due to a manner of operating the device.
Furthermore, it is known in the art that there are multiple ways to create a required airflow. Therefore, it is not clear which of those ways are encompassed by the claim. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information).
Moreover, it is not clear what “a required airflow” is regarded.
Claims 2, 6, and 17 recite the limitation "the apparatus" in line 1. Claim 1 recites “at least two apparatus”. It is not clear if “the apparatus” in claim 2 is the same as or different from “at least two apparatus” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “the at least two apparatus”.
Claim 3 recites “narrow channel”. The term “narrow” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 recites “a low-power fan”. The term “low-power” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-power” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12 recites “the light device” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites “the material” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites functional limitations “having a static charge as an inherent property … by air friction or an applied electric field”. This limitation merely states a functional characteristic without providing any indication about how the functional characteristic is provided. The recited functional characteristic does not follow from (is not an inherent property of) the structure recited in the claim, so it is unclear whether the claim requires some other structure to be added to the apparatus to achieve the functional characteristic or the functional characteristic is due to a manner of operating the device.
Furthermore, it is known in the art that there are multiple ways to have a static charge. Therefore, it is not clear which of those ways are encompassed by the claim. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information).
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-17 are rejected.
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 1-11, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Say et al (U.S. 5,790,934).
Regarding claim 1, Say et al disclose an air treatment system (ABSTRACT & col. 7, line 13-14). The air treatment system comprises at least two structures/components, including a blower/fan 118, fins 102/502 having photocatalyst, and filters 120/122, for directing sufficient air through the system for the treatment (i.e., at least two apparatus …, Figures 1-6, & 9-11, col. 7, line 12-26).
It should be noted that “at least two apparatus” does not recite any structural limitations and will be interpreted as “at least two structures/member/unit/components working together to create airflow”. Say teaches that the device comprises at least two structures/components, including a blower/fan 118, fins 102/502, and filters 120/122, that work together to direct sufficient air flowing through the system for achieving proper treatment (Figures 1-6, & 9-11, col. 7, line 12-26), reading on “at least two apparatus … to create a required airflow”.
Regarding claim 2, Say teaches fins 102/502 having photocatalyst and/or filters 120/122 for trapping microorganisms in the contaminants within the fluid and a blower/fan 118 for directing air flow(i.e., a trapping component…, an airflow generator …, Figures 1-6, & 9-11, col. 1, line 6-12 & col. 3, line 36-60 & col. 7, line 13-15).
It should be noted that “a trapping component” or “an airflow generator” does not recite any structural limitations and will be interpreted as “a structure/member/unit/component for trapping microorganisms” and “a structure/member/unit/component for moving airflow”, respectively. The fins having photocatalyst and/or filter of Say is fully capable of trapping microorganisms, reading on “a trapping component”. The blower/fan 118 of Say is for directing air flow, reading on “an airflow generator”.
Regarding claim 3, Say teaches that the fins 102 comprises a passage having two open ends and partitions for separating the passage into a plurality of channels or the fins is made of porous material allowing the fluid passing therethrough (i.e., a corridor …, several partitions … several channels, Figures 1-6, & 9-11, col. 3, line 60- col. 4, line 8).
Regarding claim 4, Say teaches that the fins may be pleated, resulting winding channels (Figures 9-10, col. 9, line 31-35). Say also teaches that the fin is made of porous material which may have winding paths through the pores of the porous material (Figures 1-6, & 9-11, col. 3, line 60- col. 4, line 8)
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Say teaches a blower/fan 118 or a small blower within the device (Figure 5, col. 7, line 15-16 & Example 2).
Regarding claim 6, Say teaches a particle filter 120 at one side of the fins 102 (i.e., a dust preventor, Figure 5, col. 22-23) .
It should be noted that “a dust preventor” does not recite any structural limitation and will be interpreted as “a structure/member/unit/component for reducing/removing/preventing dust/particles” . The particles filter 120 of Say is a structure for removing particles, reading on “a dust preventor”.
Regarding claim 7, Say teaches that the fins 102 are coated with photocatalyst which is activated by a light source for treatment (col. 3, line 63-65).
Regarding claim 8, Say teaches that the photocatalytic-coated fins 102 is provided on a light source 104 (Figures 1, 5, 9-10, col, 3, line 50-65).
Regarding claim 9, Say teaches that the surface of fins may be roughened (col. 3, line 64-65).
Regarding claim 10, Say teaches that the fins 102 are coated with photocatalyst (col. 3, line 63-65).
Regarding claim 11, Say teaches that the photocatalyst comprises titanium dioxide (col. 5, line 51-53).
Regarding claim 13, since the device of Say comprises substantially the same or similar structures as claimed, it must have the same or similar property as claimed. Moreover, the limitation of “generated by air friction or an applied electric field” is related to a manner of operating the device. It has been held that manner of operating a device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 14, Say teaches pre-filter and/or post filter (Figure 5, col. 7, line 20-25).
Regarding claim 17, Say teaches inlet port 108 (Figure 1, col. 3, line 53-54).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Say et al (U.S. 5,790,934) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gui et al (PG-PUB US 2007/0181508).
Regarding claim 12, Say teaches that a light source 104 is provided to irradiate the photocatalyst coated on the fins 102 (Figures 1, 5, 9-10, col, 3, line 50-65), but does not teach the light source being as an organic LED. However, Gui et al disclose an air treatment system (ABSTRACT). Gui teaches that the system comprises a photocatalytic material coupled with an organic LED light source (Figures 1-3, paragraphs [0007] & [0018]). Gui further indicates that the organic LED comprises a flexible substrate and provides conformable and lightweight air treatment system with reduced cost and prolonged operating life (paragraphs [0017] & [0033]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a light source having an organic LED as suggested by Gui in order to reduce cost and prolong operating life with conformable and lightweight nature within the device of Say.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143A).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Say et al (U.S. 5,790,934) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sangiovanni et al (PG-PUB US 20060153747).
Regarding claim 15, Say teaches that a blower/fan 118 or an external device is provided through a conduit for facilitating air movement/generation (Figure 5, col. 7, line 12-18), but does not teach an external compressor. However, Sangiovanni et al disclose an air treatment system (ABSTRACT). Sangiovanni teaches that the air treatment system compress an air-moving/generating unit 15 external to an air treatment module 18 having photocatalytic material 52 and a light source 64, wherein an air-moving/generating unit 15 may be a fan or a blower or a compressor (Figures 1-3, paragraphs [0016], & [0022] – [0023]). The teaching of Sangiovanni shows that a compressor is an equivalent air-moving/generating unit for an air treatment system.
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a compressor as an air-moving/generating unit because it is an art-recognized equivalent.
Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143A).
Conclusion
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
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