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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed 19 March 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-22 are presently pending, with claims 19-20 withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-18 and 21-22 being examined herein.
4. All rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, the limitation “wherein the plurality of LED modules,” is hanging without the rest of its clause and should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. During examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. There are several limitations that refer to locations “above” or “below” in relation to claimed features, which the Specification requests to be treated in a non-limiting way (par 0051). Accordingly, these spatial terms are treated broadly; for example, the limitation of claim 1 wherein “the reflectors are located below at least one of the LED modules” is interpreted as to require only a portion of the plurality of reflectors to be located below or beneath at least one of the LED modules with respect to a reference orientation. This broadest reasonable interpretation is important for the definiteness of claim 6, wherein the reflectors are further limited to be positioned both above and below the second LED module. Further, the limitations wherein elements are “in parallel” are interpreted broadly herein, as the term parallel can refer to geometric orientation (e.g., parallel lines), being at the same position in the airflow (i.e., not in series), or operating in the same time frame (i.e., operating in parallel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-13, 15, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al (US 20150352242 A1) in view of Mathur et al (US 20210260970 A1).
10. Regarding claim 1, Ando teaches an air purification device (Abstract, FIG. 1). The limitation for purifying a vehicle cabin represents an intended use of the device, which carries no patentable weight. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See MPEP 2111.02(II). Ando teaches the device comprising:
a housing (FIG. 1, vent body 12, pars 0024-0026);
a plurality of light emitting diode modules (FIG. 1, ultraviolet lamps 22a-e and 24, pars 0028-0030) each containing an LED (LEDs are used as the ultraviolet lamps 22 for example, par 0027), wherein the plurality of LED modules comprises a first LED module (ultraviolet lamps 22c-e, pars 0028-0029), a second LED module (ozone lamp 24, pars 0027 and 0030), and a third LED module (ultraviolet lamps 22a-b, pars 0028-0029), the plurality of LED modules being positioned at least partially within the housing (FIG. 1, LED modules 22-24 disposed within vent body 12);
a catalytic target structure (photocatalyst of photocatalyst filters, par 0027);
a fan (fan module 20, par 0026) located at least partially within the housing (FIG. 1, fan module 20);
a plurality of photocatalyst filters (photocatalyst filters 26a-c, par 0025) positioned at least partially within the housing (FIG. 1), wherein the plurality of photocatalyst filters comprises at least a first photocatalytic filter (FIG. 1, photocatalyst filter 26c) and a second photocatalytic filter (FIG. 1, photocatalyst filter 26b), wherein
(i) the first LED module is positioned between the first photocatalytic filter and the second photocatalytic filter (FIG. 1, ultraviolet lamps 22c-e between photocatalyst filters 26c and 26b),
(ii) the catalytic target structure is positioned between the first photocatalytic filter and the second photocatalytic filter (photocatalyst coating layer on whole surface of photocatalyst filter substrates, pars 0042-0043, i.e. positioned between all the photocatalytic filters), and
(iv) the second LED module is positioned between the second photocatalytic filter and the fan (FIG. 1, ozone lamp 24 between photocatalyst filters 26c and fan 20); and
Ando does not specifically teach a plurality of fans in its teaching of the fan 20, though contemplates a prior art device having a plurality of fans (par 0004). The courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a plurality of fans instead of a single fan as suggested by Ando, as a plurality of fans would be expected to similarly move the airflow through the device.
Ando suggests a reflective surface to reflect the ultraviolet light (par 0004) but does not teach a plurality of reflectors, wherein the plurality of reflectors comprises a first reflector located at least partially within the housing and positioned between the first photocatalytic filter and the second photocatalytic filter.
Mathur teaches an analogous air purification system for a vehicle (pars 0075-0077) wherein interior surfaces of at least one of the housing and the back plate may be coated with a reflective coating configured to reflect UV light generated by the purification assembly and prevent radiation of the UV light outside of the air purification system (par 0123), the housing comprising a plurality of flat interior surfaces (FIG. 55, housing 660) surrounding the UV light sources and photocatalysts (pars 0123-0124; FIGS. 55-58, blower assembly 670 includes photocatalysts and purification assembly 665 includes UV sources) to read upon the reflector(s) being positioned between the first and second photocatalytic filters with respect to the direction of airflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include on the interior of the housing of Ando a plurality of reflectors with at least a first reflector positioned between the first photocatalytic filter and the second photocatalytic filter as taught by Mathur, because the reflective surfaces would predictably reflect UV light to the photocatalyst and prevent radiation to the outside in the same manner and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Ando does not teach a control unit located at least partially within the housing, wherein the control unit is operatively connected to, and configured to control, at least one of the plurality of LED modules, the plurality of fans, and/or the catalytic target structure.
Mathur further teaches that the air purification system may be communicatively coupled to one or more controllers, which may be configured to control at least one of a runtime, an air circulation rate, or an intensity of the one or more UV-tune LEDs contained therein (par 0122), reading upon wherein the control unit is operatively connected to and configured to control the LED modules by controlling LED intensity, the plurality of fans by controlling an air circulation rate, and the catalytic target structure by controlling UV intensity/runtime.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the air purification system of Ando by using a control unit operatively connected to and configured to control at least one of the plurality of LED modules, the plurality of fans, and/or the catalytic target structure as taught by Mathur, because such a controller would predictably enable automatic control of the system components in the same manner and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
11. Regarding claim 2, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the first LED module emits ultraviolet light at a first wavelength (ultraviolet lamps 22c-e irradiate the ultraviolet light which wavelength is 380 nm or less, more specifically, 351±2 nm or 368±2 nm, Ando pars 0027-0029), the second LED module emits ultraviolet light at a second wavelength (lamp 24 irradiating an ultraviolet light which wavelength is 185 nm or less, Ando par 0030), and the third LED module emits ultraviolet light at a third wavelength (ultraviolet lamps 22a-b irradiate the ultraviolet light which wavelength is 380 nm or less, more specifically, 351±2 nm or 368±2 nm, Ando pars 0027-0029).
12. Regarding claim 5, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 2, wherein the catalytic target structure is located below the first LED module (photocatalyst coating layer on whole surface of photocatalyst filter substrates, pars 0042-0043, i.e. positioned on 26a-26b below first LED module 22c-e, FIG. 1).
13. Regarding claim 6, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of reflectors comprises: the first reflector located above the first LED module; and a second reflector located below the first LED module (Mathur FIG. 55, housing 660 coated with a reflective coating configured to reflect UV light [thus reflectors located above and below the first LED module], Mathur pars 0123-0124).
14. Regarding claim 7, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of reflectors is a flat surface comprising a highly UV reflective material (UV reflective coating on interior surfaces of housing, Mathur par 0123; housing comprises flat surfaces per Ando FIG. 1 and Mathur FIG. 55).
15. Regarding claim 9, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 6, wherein the second reflector is located above the first LED module (UV reflective coating on housing, Mathur par 0123), the catalytic target structure is located below the first LED module (photocatalyst coating layer on whole surface of photocatalyst filter substrates, Ando pars 0042-0043, i.e. positioned above and below all LED modules) and the first reflector is located below the catalytic target structure (UV reflective coating on housing, Mathur par 0123).
16. Regarding claim 10, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 2, wherein the third LED module is in parallel with the first photocatalyst filter and the second LED module is in parallel with the second photocatalyst filter (Ando FIG. 1, all photocatalyst filters 26a-c parallel with LED modules 22a-e, 24).
17. Regarding claim 11, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to control the plurality of LED modules (controller is configured to control intensity of the UV-A and UV-C light sources, Mathur par 0006), the plurality of fans (air flow may be controlled by varying speed of fan and/or blower, Mathur pars 0095-0096), and the catalytic target structure (photocatalyst excited when ultraviolet lamps irradiate an ultraviolet light, Ando par 0027).
18. Regarding claim 12, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the control unit is configured to control ambient conditions within the housing (controller can modify runtime, UV light intensities, and airflow, Mathur par 0145).
18. Regarding claim 13, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 12, wherein the one or more ambient conditions are selected from a group consisting of humidity, temperature, selective gases, noise level, and air quality (runtime of at least one of the air purification assembly or the air circulation unit is adjusted to target neutralization of one or more impurities, Mathur par 0008; photocatalytic filter is configured to neutralize volatile organic compounds (VOCs) within the air when activated, Mathur par 0009).
19. Regarding claim 15, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 1, and Ando further teaches that ozone generated with the lamp 24 can be restricted (Ando par 0039). Though Ando motivates limiting ozone emission from the device, Ando does not sufficiently teach wherein the device emits zero to near zero ozone.
Mathur further teaches using the control configuration of the analogous air purification device that use of the air purification system 655 produced trace ozone levels that were scarcely detectable (Mathur par 0144).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the control unit of Ando to operate the device to emit zero to near zero ozone as taught by Mathur because the operation of UV-C and UV-A lamps using the control configuration of Mathur would predictably limit ozone in a similar manner with a reasonable expectation of success, and advantageously poses little to no risk to surrounding users (Mathur par 0144). See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
20. Regarding claim 18, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of photocatalyst filters is composed of a material selected from a group consisting of aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, magnesium oxide, and titanium oxide (photocatalyst filters 26 include substrates which are formed of porous ceramic and a photocatalyst layer formed on the surfaces of the substrates and including titanium oxide, Ando par 0034).
21. Regarding claim 21, Ando discloses a purification device (air purification device 10, pars 0024 and 0038, FIG. 1) configured to receive an air product (fan 20 draws the air from the opening 14a, par 0024) and output processed air (purification of air and suppression of ozone, pars 0011-0013; FIG. 1, outlet 14b), the device comprising:
a housing (FIG. 1, vent body 12, pars 0024-0026);
a plurality of light emitting diode modules (FIG. 1, ultraviolet lamps 22a-e and 24, pars 0028-0030) each containing an LED (LEDs are used as the ultraviolet lamps 22 for example, par 0027), wherein the plurality of LED modules comprises a first LED module (ultraviolet lamps 22c-e, pars 0028-0029), a second LED module (ozone lamp 24, pars 0027 and 0030), and a third LED module (ultraviolet lamps 22a-b, pars 0028-0029), the plurality of LED modules being positioned at least partially within the housing (FIG. 1, LED modules 22-24 disposed within vent body 12);
a catalytic target structure (photocatalyst of photocatalyst filters, par 0027);
a fan (fan module 20, par 0026) located at least partially within the housing (FIG. 1, fan module 20);
a plurality of photocatalyst filters (photocatalyst filters 26a-c, par 0025) positioned at least partially within the housing (FIG. 1), wherein the plurality of photocatalyst filters comprises at least a first photocatalytic filter (FIG. 1, photocatalyst filter 26c) and a second photocatalytic filter (FIG. 1, photocatalyst filter 26b), wherein
(i) the first LED module is positioned between the first photocatalytic filter and the second photocatalytic filter (FIG. 1, ultraviolet lamps 22c-e between photocatalyst filters 26c and 26b),
(ii) the catalytic target structure is positioned between the first photocatalytic filter and the second photocatalytic filter (photocatalyst coating layer on whole surface of photocatalyst filter substrates, pars 0042-0043, i.e. positioned between all the photocatalytic filters), and
(iv) the second LED module is positioned between the second photocatalytic filter and the fan (FIG. 1, ozone lamp 24 between photocatalyst filters 26c and fan 20); and
Ando does not specifically teach a plurality of fans in its teaching of the fan 20, though contemplates a prior art device having a plurality of fans (par 0004). The courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a plurality of fans instead of a single fan as suggested by Ando, as a plurality of fans would be expected to similarly move the airflow through the device.
Ando teaches an air supply that supplies an air product, necessarily, in that air is drawn into the device through an opening 14a (FIG. 1, par 0026). However, Ando does not teach a vehicle cabin that receives the processed air output from the purification device thus also does not specifically teach a system for purifying a vehicle cabin.
Mathur teaches an analogous air purification system for a vehicle (pars 0075-0077) employing a plurality of LEDs tuned to a UV-A wavelength and one or more LEDs tuned to a UV-C wavelength in conjunction with photocatalysts to remove contaminants from air flowing through the system (par 0075), the system that may be retrofit to vehicles existing air circulation system to purify air entering or exiting the HVAC system within a vehicle (par 0076), reading upon purifying the cabin by drawing in air from an air supply in the cabin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the air purification device of Ando into a cabin of a vehicle to purify air therein as taught by Mathur because the air purification device of Ando would predictably purify air within a vehicle in a similar manner and simply involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Ando suggests a reflective surface to reflect the ultraviolet light (par 0004) but does not teach a plurality of reflectors, wherein the plurality of reflectors comprises a first reflector located at least partially within the housing and positioned between the first photocatalytic filter and the second photocatalytic filter.
Mathur teaches wherein interior surfaces of at least one of the housing and the back plate in the analogous air purification system may be coated with a reflective coating configured to reflect UV light generated by the purification assembly and prevent radiation of the UV light outside of the air purification system (par 0123), the housing comprising a plurality of flat interior surfaces (FIG. 55, housing 660) surrounding the UV light sources and photocatalysts (pars 0123-0124; FIGS. 55-58, blower assembly 670 includes photocatalysts and purification assembly 665 includes UV sources) to read upon the reflector(s) being positioned between the first and second photocatalytic filters with respect to the direction of airflow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include on the interior of the housing of Ando a plurality of reflectors with at least a first reflector positioned between the first photocatalytic filter and the second photocatalytic filter as taught by Mathur, because the reflective surfaces would predictably reflect UV light to the photocatalyst and prevent radiation to the outside in the same manner and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Ando does not teach a control unit located at least partially within the housing, wherein the control unit is operatively connected to, and configured to control, at least one of the plurality of LED modules, the plurality of fans, and/or the catalytic target structure.
Mathur further teaches that the air purification system may be communicatively coupled to one or more controllers, which may be configured to control at least one of a runtime, an air circulation rate, or an intensity of the one or more UV-tune LEDs contained therein (par 0122), reading upon wherein the control unit is operatively connected to and configured to control the LED modules by controlling LED intensity, the plurality of fans by controlling an air circulation rate, and the catalytic target structure by controlling UV intensity/runtime.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the air purification system of Ando by using a control unit operatively connected to and configured to control at least one of the plurality of LED modules, the plurality of fans, and/or the catalytic target structure as taught by Mathur, because such a controller would predictably enable automatic control of the system components in the same manner and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
22. Regarding claim 22, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the system according to claim 21, wherein the purification device is disposed in at least one of a vehicle air conditioning system and a vehicle cabin (system may be configured as a standalone unit that may be retrofit to a vehicle's existing air circulation or HVAC system, Mathur par 0076).
23. Claims 3-4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando and Mathur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al (KR 20190054955 A, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
24. Regarding claim 3, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 2, wherein the first LED module and the third LED module emit ultraviolet light at a wavelength between 300 and 400 nm (ultraviolet lamps 22a-e irradiate the ultraviolet light which wavelength is 380 nm or less, more specifically, 351±2 nm or 368±2 nm, Ando pars 0027-0029). Ando teaches the ozone lamp 24 emits ultraviolet light at a wavelength of 185 nm or less (Ando par 0030) and Mathur teaches a broader overlapping range of UV-C radiation (Mathur par 0086, UV-C understood in the context of Ando to refer to a range of 100-280 nm), thus the combination does not specifically teach that the second LED module emits at a wavelength between 200 and 300 nm.
Park teaches an analogous photocatalytic air cleaning system for a vehicle (par 0001) including UV-C type LEDs emitting from 270 nm to 280 nm for activating the photocatalytic and sterilizing reactions (par 0032) along with UV-A LEDs at 365 nm having photocatalytic function (par 0036).
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 second LED module of modified Ando to emit light in the range of 200-300 nm as taught by Park because this wavelength choice would predictably provide the appropriate photocatalytic and sterilizing properties as Park demonstrates in an analogous photocatalytic air purifier with a reasonable expectation of success based on Park pars 0036-0037 while further minimizing ozone and other side products as shown desirable by Mathur par 0144, Ando pars 0013-0014. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
25. Regarding claim 4, Ando as modified by Mathur and Park teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein the first LED module and the third LED module emit ultraviolet-A light at 368±2 nm, (Ando pars 0027-0029) and the second LED module emits UV-C light from 270 nm to 280 nm (Park par 0032). The combination does not specifically teach wherein this UV-A light is at a wavelength of 365 nm or wherein this UV-C light is at a wavelength of 265-275 nm.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)) and where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). See MPEP 2144.05(I). The ranges of wavelengths either overlap (UV-C) or are so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges is expected to be negligible (UV-A) absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose wavelength ranges of 365 nm for the UV-A light and 265-275 nm for the UV-C light, as these wavelengths would predictably provide the photocatalytic activation and sterilization effects in the same manner as taught by the references combined for claim 3, since the wavelengths are not considered critical on such a small deviation from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
26. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando and Mathur as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 20180104374 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 7, but the combination is silent regarding the composition of the reflective material thus does not teach wherein the reflective material is selected from a group consisting of aluminum, aluminum foil, stainless steel, and polytetrafluoroethylene.
Kim teaches an analogous photocatalyst filter and air conditioner (Title, par 0130, FIG. 8) wherein the photocatalytic air filtration is achieved using either a single photocatalytic filter or a plurality of photocatalytic filters (pars 0130 and 0140-0143) wherein the surfaces of walls surrounding the photocatalytic filter medium are depicted to be flat (FIG. 4, walls 11-14) and may include a material having a high reflectivity, for example a metal such as aluminum (par 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the UV reflective coated inner housing surface of modified Ando a flat surface of aluminum as taught by Kim because this aluminum surface would predictably provide high UV reflectivity so that the photocatalyst is thoroughly irradiated in a similar manner as taught by Kim (pars 0080-0082 and 0122) as involves simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
27. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grin et al (RU 201410 U1, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 14, Mathur as modified by Kim teaches the device according to claim 1, but the combination is silent regarding the orientation of the plurality of fans (Ando pars 0004 and 0025-0026, Mathur par 0133). Thus, the combination does not teach wherein the plurality of fans are positioned in a series.
Grin teaches an analogous air disinfection device using UV (Abstract) wherein the fan unit is made in the form of three small-sized fans arranged transversely to the housing in a row i.e. series (par 0032), describing the practical advantages of reducing the power consumption and eliminating unsatisfactory noise as compared to a single fan (par 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the fans within the air circulation unit of modified Ando in a series as taught by Grin because doing so would predictably provide the same advantages disclosed by Grin, providing a low power and quiet means for moving air through the purification system with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
28. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando and Mathur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wenger et al (US 20220305438 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 1, and Mathur teaches that photocatalysis generates at least hydroxyl radicals (Mathur par 0132). The combination is silent regarding the level of reactive oxygen species generated by the air purification device.
Wenger teaches a method for improving air cleaning and sanitizing efficacy in an HVACR system (pars 0045-0046) wherein a dry hydrogen peroxide generator needs to continuously replenish the supply of hydrogen peroxide in the environment at concentrations below 25 ppb or even below 5 ppb. This approach supplements photocatalytic oxidation, which produces stronger oxidants at higher rates (par 0051), such that the two mechanisms together can oxidize high concentrations of pollutants (par 0051). With the teaching of Wenger that around 5 ppb up to 25 ppb of hydrogen peroxide combined with some higher rate of other reactive oxygen species is effective for breaking down airborne contamination, the production of reactive oxygen species in claimed range of 10-70 ppb can be reasonably obtained through routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the photocatalytic device of modified Ando to generate 10-70 parts per billion of reactive oxygen species as reasonably taught by Wenger. Doing so would predictably provide the same capability to break down high concentrations of pollutants (Wenger par 0051) while circulating hydrogen peroxide through the vehicle cabin (Wenger par 0048), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
29. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando and Mathur as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 20180104374 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ando as modified by Mathur teaches the device according to claim 7, and Ando teaches that the photocatalyst filter is advantageously high porosity with a large surface area (Ando pars 0034-0035). The combination does not teach wherein at least one of the photocatalyst filters is in a honeycomb configuration.
Kim teaches an analogous photocatalyst filter and air conditioner (Title, par 0130, FIG. 8) wherein the photocatalytic air filtration is achieved using either a single photocatalytic filter or a plurality of photocatalytic filters (pars 0130 and 0140-0143) wherein the photocatalytic filtration medium of the photocatalytic filter is supported by a structure with walls defining internal spaces (Kim pars 0053-0059, FIG. 1, base 110 depicted to have square openings like honeycomb structure defined in present Specification par 0073) that may have various shapes such as a honeycomb structure (Kim par 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the porous base structure of the photocatalyst filter of Ando with a honeycomb structure as taught by Kim, because this honeycomb structure would predictably provide the same support for photocatalytic filtration media while allowing for air to pass through the filter and be purified (Kim pars 0053-0054) and involves simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Response to Arguments
30. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 19 March 2026 pages 9-11, with respect to claim 1 and dependents 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. Examiner respects Applicant’s emphasis on the order and position of LED modules and filters, citing Ando (particularly FIGS. 1-2) as a reference to teach the alternating setup of photocatalyst filters and LED modules most nearly reflective of the FIG. 2 embodiment of the present application. Therefore, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are detailed above.
Conclusion
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights