Detailed Notice
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
Claims 16-22 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/18/2026.
Claims 1-15 are pending examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The instant claim states the “second purifying potion” which should be corrected to be “portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 is 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. The instant claim states that a second purifying “potion” (understood to be portion) comprises a second purifying portion and a first purifying portion, where a light source is disposed between the first and second portion. This is indefinite as the claim states that the second purifying portion contains itself and another distinct component. For the sake of compact prosecution, it is understood that a light source is disposed after the first purifying portion and before a second purifying portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dardas (US 20110117002 A1) in view of Kim (Referring to the English and original translation of KR 101794749 B1).
Regarding Claim 1-3, 11 and 15 in. Fig. 1 Dardas teaches an apparatus for air purification for the removal of VOCs [0033] comprising a reactor having a hollow rectangular shape (#10), which is understood to be polygonal, which extends in a direction; one or more adsorbent devices (#12) and one or more catalytic reactors (#14) for removing contaminants from an air stream, where both the adsorbent and catalytic elements are understood to be facing perpendicular to the flow of air and positioned in a fixed manner [0032]. Dardas teaches that the absorbent filters may be regenerated by heating [0041]. Dardas teaches that the catalytic reactor (#14) is an ultraviolet photocatalytic oxidation device [0032].
However, Dardas does not teach that a heating portion is directed opposite the first purifying portion and where the heating portion applies heat to a partial area of the first purifying portion and is movable with respect to the first purifying portion on a plane perpendicular to the first direction.
Kim teaches an apparatus for concentrating VOCs from a gas into an absorbent, thus being in the same field of endeavor. Reproduced below is Fig. 4 of Kim. Kim teaches a regeneration device within the VOC filter system that comprises a first head part (161) which transports a heater (167) left and right along a horizontal track (a first slide guide) (165c) and up and down along a vertical track (a second slide guide) (165a) [bottom two paragraphs of Pg. 3 and top paragraph of Pg. 4]. Kim further teaches that a blowing fan (#130, Fig. 1) generates wind pressure required for operation, which is understood to be negative pressure.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that device for regenerating an adsorbent filter using a movable heater that slides vertically and horizontally and has a fan to generate negative pressure in the apparatus for operation, as per Kim, could be incorporated into the base device of an air purification apparatus comprising a photocatalyst, as per Dardas, to obtain the predictable result of an apparatus which can regenerate an adsorbed material laden with VOC. As the directional structure of Claim 1 is not defined by an inlet and an outlet, is understood that fan of Kim and the heating portion of Kim, being in the same direction from outlet to inlet, may be incorporated to Dardas such that the fan is at the rear and the heating portion is facing the adsorbent material as a matter of rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Regarding Claim 4 and 10, Dardas teaches that the adsorbent may be porous graphite [0049]. Further, the adsorbent has a honeycomb like structure [0032].
Regarding Claim 5, Dardas teaches that the catalytic oxidant may be TiO2 [0048].
Regarding Claim 6, Dardas teaches that the adsorbing portion comprises porous graphite [0049] and the catalytic oxidant may be TiO2 [0048], which are taught to be in sequential order [Fig. 1 and 0032].
Regarding Claim 7, Dardas teaches that the absorbent material is in connection with a sensor for sensing the concentration of VOC adsorbed by the adsorbent [0016].
Regarding Claim 12 and 14, Dardas teaches that one or more adsorbent devices (#12) and one or more catalytic reactors (#14) for removing contaminants from an air stream may be placed in the apparatus [0032]. Dardas teaches that the adsorbing portion comprises porous graphite [0049] and the catalytic oxidant may be TiO2 [0048], which are taught to be in sequential order [Fig. 1 and 0032]. The courts have broadly held that the mere duplication of parts is not patentably distinguishable unless a new or unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B). Accordingly, it is understood that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have taken a first purifying portion comprising an adsorbent filter followed by a catalytic oxidation filter, and to duplicate it to create a second purifying portion which would be placed behind the first purifying portion.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dardas (US 20110117002 A1) in view of Kim (Referring to the English and original translation of KR 101794749 B1) further in view of Dahu (US 12343680 B2).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Dardas teaches to Claim 1 as shown above. Dardas does not teach a location for a UV light source.
However, modified Dardas does not teach that a light source is disposed between a first purifying portion and a second purifying portion.
Dahu teaches a system for filtration and photocatalysis in the same field of endeavor as Dardas [abstract]. Dahu teaches a fluid filtration system that comprises more than one filter and the filter may be arranged in any suitable order. Referring to Fig. 7, Dahu teaches that a prefilter (#210) being a sorbent filter is placed upstream of a photocatalytic filter (#220), though the sorbent may also be placed downstream as well [Col. 9, Lines 60-67 and Col. 10, Lines 1-3]. Dahu teaches that the light source and filters can be arranged in any manner, but that the light sources can be arranged to illuminate the photocatalytic filter [Col. 17, lines 48-58].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the light source position facing a photocatalytic filter, as per Dahu, could be incorporated into the base apparatus of modified Dardas to obtain the predictable result of a photocatalytic system that becomes photocatalytically active when irradiated with light which faces the filter. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to duplicate the structure of a sorbent filter + photocatalytic filter + a lamp source, in order that one would arrive at a configuration where a lamp is positioned between a first purifying portion comprising a sorbent filter + a photocatalytic filter by virtue of a mere duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claims 8-9, the prior art does not teach or suggest the use of a sensor which controls the movement of a heater at a front facing portion of an adsorbent material via the sensor responding to a predetermined value of pollutant mobilizing through the adsorbent
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights