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 1-13 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 “direct proximity next to”, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. What it means to be “direct proximity next to” is not clear from the specification. There are no disclosed or implied limits as to how far they could deviate from contacting each other and still be considered in “direct proximity next to”. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “adjacent to”.
Claim 2 recites “preferably”. The limitation" preferably " is not clear whether the limitations following the language is required. The limitation " preferably " is subjective and therefore makes the claim scope unclear.
Claim 13 contains the trademark/trade name ZigBeeTM, BluetoothTM, DALITM (Digital Addressable Lighting Interface), DSI (Digital Serial Interface), DMX (Digital Multiplex), KNX. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe interface/networks and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-13 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seck (PG-PUB US 2012/0275960, cited in IDS) in view of Joshi et al (PG-PUB US 2006/0130663).
Regarding claim 1, Seck discloses an air purifying apparatus with an illumination device (ABSTRACT & paragraph [0002]). The apparatus comprises
(1) an upper frame 12 (i.e., a support structure, Figures 1-7, paragraph [0043]);
(2) at least one light source 26 coupled to the frame 12 and configured to emitting visible light radiation (i.e., at least one light … visible light radiation, Figures 1-7, paragraph [0043]);
(3) an ionizer 46 coupled to the frame 12 and configured to generating ions in air (i.e., an ion generating source …, Figures 2, 4, & 6-7, paragraph [0056]);
(4) at least one ultraviolet light source 30 coupled to the frame 12 and configured for emitting UV light radiation (i.e., at least one UV light source…, Figures 2-7, paragraph [0066]); and
(5) a housing including the upper frame 12 and a lower frame 12 for enclosing the light source 26, the ionizer 46, and the UV light source 30, wherein the housing includes an exit port/aperture 28 at one end for discharging ionized air and is covered with a filter cover 24 having coating layers to act as a shade (i.e., a housing … an exit window … a UV light radiation opaque material, Figures 4-7, paragraphs [0049], [0058] & [0088] – [0089]).
The limitation of “an exit window” does not recite any structural elements and will be interpreted as “an opening/port/aperture for exiting/discharging components”. Seck teaches that the housing includes an exit port/aperture 28 at one end for discharging ionized air (Figure 4, paragraph [0058]), reading on “an exit window”.
The claim does not define the composition for “a UV light radiation opaque material”. The instant specification discloses that “the UV light radiation opaque material is formed as an UV light radiation absorbing material or as a fluorescent material or a photocatalyst material” (page 10). Seck teaches that the housing is covered with a filter cover 24 having photocatalyst material TiO2 (paragraphs [0043] & [0049]), which is the same as disclosed UV light radiation opaque material in the instant specification.
Seck teaches the UV light source for emitting UV radiation (paragraph [0066]), but does not specifically teach the UV light source having a wavelength for depleting ozone or downstream/adjacent to the ionizer. However, Joshi et al disclose an air sanitizing device (ABSTRACT). Joshi teaches that the apparatus comprises an ionizer 14 and a UV lamp 12 downstream/adjacent to the ionizer 14, wherein the UV lamp 12 emits radiation at a wavelength of 254 nm for maximum germicidal effectiveness and converting accumulated excessive ozone to harmless oxygen before discharging to the atmosphere (Figure 2, paragraphs [0016], [0019], & [0022]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to arrange a UV light source emitting radiation at a wavelength of 254 nm downstream/adjacent to the ionizer as suggested by Joshi in order to effectively kill germs and convert high level of ozone to harmless oxygen before discharging into the atmosphere within the device of Seck.
Regarding claim 2, Joshi teaches the UV lamp 12 emits radiation at a wavelength of 254 nm (Figure 2, paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Joshi teaches that an ozone sensor 22 coupled to a housing 18 is provided for monitoring ozone concentration within a safe range (Figure 2, paragraphs [0016] & [0023]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an ozone sensor coupled to the housing as suggested by Joshi in order to monitor ozone concentration within the device of Seck.
Regarding claim 4, Seck teaches that a controller 50 can have various setting for the operation of system (paragraph [0063]). Joshi teaches that a controller 16 is coupled to the ozone sensor 22 and UV lamps for properly controlling the operation of the system (Figure 2,paragraphs [0017] & [0023]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to couple a controller to the UV light and the ozone sensor as suggested by Joshi in order to properly control the operation of the system based on the ozone concentration within the device of Seck.
Regarding claim 5, Seck teaches that some baffles/barriers are provided at the outlet end, forming a labyrinth exit (Figures 3-4). Joshi teaches that some structural elements are disposed at the outlet end of the housing (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Joshi teaches that the UV lamp 12 is close to the air outlet end 11 (Figure 2, paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, Seck teaches that the filter cover 24 comprises coating layers to act as a shade (Figure 4, paragraph [0049]). The instant specification discloses that “the UV light radiation opaque material is formed as an UV light radiation absorbing material or as a fluorescent material or a photocatalyst material” (page 10). Seck teaches that the housing is covered with a filter cover 24 having photocatalyst material TiO2 (paragraphs [0043] & [0049]), which is the same as disclosed UV light radiation opaque material in the instant specification. The filter cover 24 of Seck is fully capable of transmitting visible light in a range of 400 nm to 700 nm.
Regarding claim 8, Seck teaches that the filter cover 24 comprises photocatalyst TiO2 (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 9, Joshi teaches that the UV lamp 12 emits radiation at a wavelength of 254 nm for maximum germicidal effectiveness (paragraphs [0019] & [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Seck teaches the integrated device for illumination (Figures 3-7, abstract & paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 11, Seck teaches that a controller 50 can have various setting for the operation of system (paragraphs [0063]). Joshi teaches that a controller 16 is coupled to the ozone sensor 22 and UV lamps for properly controlling the operation of the system (Figure 2, paragraphs [0017] & [0023]).
Regarding claim 12, Joshi teaches that the controller 16 is coupled to the components of the system for properly controlling the operation of the system (Figure 2, paragraphs [0017] & [0023]).
Regarding claim 13, Seck teaches the programable controller 50 interfacing with various components of the system (paragraph [0061]). Joshi teaches the controller 16 interfacing with various components of the system and having appropriate programming code for performing air quality management (Figure 2, paragraphs [0017] & [0032]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-13 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