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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 24th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims has overcome each and every objection as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 8th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 1 in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 8th, 2025 merely cherry picks the Fiedler reference without articulating a reasonable argument as to how the combination may work. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant asserts that, in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 8th, 2025, it was stated that the Obee device could be modified with the Fiedler tube device to teach the limitations of claim 1. It appears as though the Applicant has misinterpreted the rejection, as it was not proposed that the entirety of the Fiedler device be incorporated into the Obee device. Rather, the suggested modification relied only upon the photocatalytic regions as taught by Fiedler and not the device itself. As previously established in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 8th, 2025 the adsorbent filter as taught by Obee could be modified to include the photocatalytic regions as taught by Fiedler, wherein a duplicate light source could be added to activate said photocatalytic region. The modification of Obee to further include the photocatalytic regions as taught by Fiedler would allow for removal of VOCs along with other air contaminants that may otherwise not be adsorbed by the filter material. Such a modification of Obee would result in an increased filter efficiency of the apparatus as a whole. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how such a modification may be accomplished.
Applicant argues that the combination of Obee and Fiedler would result in a secondary light source and “not the one required by the claims.” (See Pg. 6 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed February 24th, 2026)
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single light source) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, claim 1 requires one or more light sources.
Applicant argues that the Obee device is already arranged to purify the air of VOCs and the incorporation of the photocatalytic regions as taught by Fiedler would be redundant, adding complexity and cost without any benefit, as it is of Applicant’s opinion that the modification would not work. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to the argument that the Obee device is already arranged to purify the air of VOCs, Obee explicitly states that the adsorbent materials are selected such that they do not remove highly volatile contaminants (Col. 8, lines 28-30 “The adsorbent materials are selected such that they do not remove the highly volatile contaminants” emphasis added). Even in the event that Obee does remove VOCs, Fiedler discloses the use of the photocatalytic regions to remove not only VOCs but also other hazardous substances and unpleasant odors (¶0011). Additionally, Applicant asserts that the modification of Obee to include the device of Fiedler would not actually work, yet provides no evidence as to why it is believed that such a modification would not work. As previously stated, the proposed modification of Obee was to incorporate the photocatalytic regions of Fiedler and not the device in its entirety. Applicant additionally asserts that the device of Obee is arranged to purify the air in a building space while the device of Fiedler is arranged to purify the interior of a motor vehicle, yet provides no explanation as to why these differences would supposedly result in a non-functional device. Finally, as to the argument that the modification of Obee would add additional cost, the fact that a combination would not be made for economic reasons does not mean that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not make the combination. See MPEP § 2145(VII). ‘
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obee, and further in view of Fiedler as established in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 8th, 2025 has been maintained.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 6358374 B1 to Obee et al. (hereinafter referred to as Obee), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2019/0001015 A1 to Fiedler et al. (hereinafter referred to as Fiedler).
Regarding claim 1, Obee teaches an air treatment device comprising: an airflow generator for generating an airflow (Fig. 1, fan 28); an adsorbent material for adsorbing one or more airborne contaminants, the adsorbent material being arranged such that at least a portion of the airflow passes through the adsorbent material (Fig. 1, adsorbent bed 26); a heater arranged to heat at least a portion of the adsorbent material to desorb adsorbed contaminants (Fig. 1, heater 38 ; Col. 4, lines 48-50 “The heater 38 and ultraviolet lamps 36 heat the circulating air and thus the adsorbent bed. As the temperature of the adsorbent bed increases, it gives up captured contaminants;”); and a photocatalytic reactor arranged to receive the contaminants desorbed from the heated portion of the adsorbent material (Fig. 1, catalyst bed 34 ; Col. 4, lines 52-54 “As the contaminants pass through the catalyst bed of the air purifier they are photocatalytically oxidized.”); wherein the photocatalytic reactor comprises a photo-catalyst for photocatalytic degradation of one or more of the contaminants (Fig. 1, catalyst bed 34), and one or more light sources for illuminating the photo-catalyst to facilitate photocatalytic degradation (Fig. 1, ultraviolet lamps 36). Obee does not teach wherein the air-treatment device is arranged such that at least a portion of the air flow that has not passed through the heated portion of the adsorbent material contacts the one or more light sources.
However, Fiedler teaches an air purification device (Fig. 1) that comprises an air purifying unit (Fig. 1, air purifying unit 5) that contains a photocatalytically active region (Fig. 1, photocatalytically active region 7) which is activated by a light source (Fig. 1, lighting unit 6) in order to reduce air contaminants that are hazardous to humans and eliminate unpleasant odors (¶0011 “It is therefore an object of the present invention to eliminate the disadvantages of the prior art and to indicate an air purification device which selectively reduces volatile organic substances and substances hazardous to health as well as other air contaminants in the air in the vehicle interior space and additionally also avoids and eliminates unpleasant odors.”).
Obee and Fiedler are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filtration systems using photocatalytic materials. 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 air treatment device as taught by Obee to include the photocatalytic regions as taught by Fiedler. The use of a photocatalytic region with an adsorbent, as opposed to a typical adsorbent filter, would allow for the removal of VOCs along with other air contaminants that may otherwise not be adsorbed by the filter material. The adsorbent filter as taught by Obee (Fig. 1, adsorbent bed 26) could be modified to include a photocatalytically active region and a light source in order to active the photocatalyst, and said light source would be in the “on” position even when the device is not in regenerative mode. With such a modification, the air-treatment device would be arranged such that at least a portion of the air flow that has not passed through the heated portion of the adsorbent material would contact the one or more light sources.
Regarding claim 2, Obee and Fiedler teach the air treatment device as applied to claim 1 above. Obee and Fiedler further teach wherein the air treatment device is configured to provide at least one airflow path that allows air from outside the air treatment device to contact at least one of the one or more light sources, which airflow path does not pass through the heated portion of the adsorbent material. With the modification of the adsorbent bed 26 of Obee with the photocatalytically active region of Fiedler, a light source would be present in a top compartment of Obee (see annotated figure below) and an airstream from outside the air treatment device (Fig. 1, solid arrows 44 represent the airstream) would contact at least one of the one or more light sources without passing through the heated portion of the adsorbent material (the adsorbent is only heated during regeneration and the combination of Obee and Fiedler would therefore read on the limitations of claim 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
908
1503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Obee and Fiedler teach the air treatment device as applied to claim 2 above. The combination of Obee and Fiedler further teach wherein the airflow path is arranged to allow air from outside the air treatment device to pass through an unheated portion of the adsorbent material (Fig. 1, solid arrows 44 represent an airstream from outside the air treatment device which will pass through an unheated portion of the adsorbent bed 26 as the bed is only heated during regeneration).
Regarding claim 4, Obee and Fiedler teach the air treatment device as applied to claim 1 above. Obee further teaches wherein the photocatalytic reactor comprises a first portion containing the photo-catalyst (Fig. 1, catalyst bed 34 in the bottom of the air treatment device is the “first portion”) and a second portion containing the one or more light sources (with the modification of Obee to include the photocatalyst and light source as taught by Fiedler within the adsorbent bed 26 of Obee, said light source in the top section of the air treatment device reads on the “second portion”), the first portion being arranged to receive the contaminants desorbed from the heated portion of the adsorbent material (Col. 4, lines 48-50 “The heater 38 and ultraviolet lamps 36 heat the circulating air and thus the adsorbent bed. As the temperature of the adsorbent bed increases, it gives up captured contaminants;” ; Col. 4, lines 52-54 “As the contaminants pass through the catalyst bed of the air purifier they are photocatalytically oxidized.”) and the second portion being arranged to receive at least a portion of the air flow that has not passed through the heated portion of the adsorbent material (Fig. 1, solid arrows 44 represent an airstream which will pass through an unheated portion of the adsorbent bed 26 as the bed is only heated during regeneration).
Regarding claim 6, Obee and Fiedler teach the air treatment device as applied to claim 1 above. Obee further teaches wherein the treatment device comprises a desorption chamber arranged to surround a portion of the adsorbent material (Fig. 1, doors 18 and 20 are in positions 18a and 20a during regeneration creating a “desorption chamber” which surrounds adsorbent bed 26) and the heater is arranged to heat the portion of the adsorbent material that is surrounded by the desorption chamber (Col. 4, lines 48-50 “The heater 38 and ultraviolet lamps 36 heat the circulating air and thus the adsorbent bed. As the temperature of the adsorbent bed increases, it gives up captured contaminants;”).
Regarding claim 7, Obee and Fiedler teach the air treatment device as applied to claim 6 above. Obee further teaches wherein an unheated portion of adsorbent material is located outside the desorption chamber and is not exposed to heat generated by the heater (Fig. 1, when doors 18 and 20 are in their initial positions (i.e., not in 18a and 20a position) the adsorbent bed 26 is no loner in the desorption chamber and is not exposed to heat generated by the heater as the heater is off when not regenerating the adsorbent bed).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obee and Fiedler as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Dutch Patent Application No. DE 10 2018 118 683 A1 to Fiedler et al. (hereinafter referred to as Fiedler 2)
Regarding claim 5, Obee and Fiedler teach the air treatment device as applied to claim 4 above. Obee and Fiedler do not teach wherein the photocatalytic reactor comprises an at least partially transparent partition that separates the one or more light sources from the photo-catalyst, the partition separating the first portion from the second portion.
However, Fiedler 2 teaches an air treatment device (Fig. 1) that contains an adsorbent material with photocatalytically active areas (Fig. 1, gas purification unit 6 and photocatalytic surface 7) and a light source (Fig. 1, light rays 9), wherein the light source has a translucent temperature shield (¶0018 “whereby the light source is provided with a translucent temperature shield, which prevents direct contact of the light source with the hot gases in the exhaust stream.”).
Obee, Fiedler, and Fiedler 2 are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filtration systems with photocatalytic materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the air treatment device as taught by Obee and Fiedler to include the translucent temperature shield as taught by Fiedler 2 to protect the light sources from the heat produced during regeneration. As to the transparent partition’s location, the light source for activating the photocatalyst is located in the upper portion of the air treatment device (as taught by Obee and Fiedler) and the upper portion would therefore be an appropriate location for the transparent partition. With this placement, the combination of Obee, Fiedler, and Fiedler 2 would read on the limitation “the partition separating the first portion from the second portion.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights