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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 23 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 23 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedler et al. (US 2019/0001015 A1) in view of Katayama (US 2008/0310993 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Fiedler teaches “a photocatalytic reactor (21) arranged to receive one or more airborne contaminants (paragraph 62), the photocatalytic reactor comprising: a reaction chamber (inside of 22; see Figs. 4-7); a photo-catalyst (paragraph 85) for photocatalytic degradation of one or more of the contaminants (paragraph 85) disposed on a first substrate (25); wherein the first substrate is disposed within the reaction chamber (see Fig. 4) and includes first (25 on top) and second (25 on bottom) base sections (see Fig. 7), each following a contour of an internal surface of the reaction chamber (see Fig. 7), wherein each of the first and second base sections extends between opposite first and second ends (from one side part 42 to the opposite side part 42; see Fig. 6), wherein first and second projections (37) extend from the first and second base sections (see Figs. 4-7), respectively, at the corresponding first ends thereof (see Figs. 4-7), and a light-emitting diode circuit board (38+40) comprising a circuit board (38) with one or more first light-emitting diodes (40) mounted to a first surface of the circuit board (see Fig. 4) and one or more second light- emitting diodes (40) mounted to a second surface of the circuit board (see Fig. 4); wherein the first substrate is arranged to be illuminated by both the one or more first light-emitting diodes and the one or more second light-emitting diodes (see Figs. 5-7) in order to facilitate photocatalytic degradation (paragraph 78)”.
Fiedler does not specifically teach “wherein the first end of the first base section is disposed adjacent the first end of the second base section, and wherein an end of the first projection, that is distal from the first base section, is connected to an end of the second projection that is distal from the second base section”.
However, Katayama teaches a photocatalytic reactor (1) employing a substrate (13) having first and second base sections (top half of Fig. 6, bottom half of Fig. 6) whose first ends are disposed adjacent to each other (see Fig. 6) and having first and second projections (9) that are connected to each other via respective ends distal to the first and second base sections (see Fig. 6)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photocatalytic reactor of Fiedler with the connected substrate of Katayama in order to provide a very simple construction that maximizes catalytic action (Katayama paragraph 11)
With respect to claim 2: Fiedler in view of Katayama teaches “The photocatalytic reactor of claim 1 (see above)”.
Fiedler teaches “wherein the substrate is arranged to shade the light-emitting diode circuit board (see Figs. 5-7)”.
With respect to claim 3: Fiedler in view of Katayama teaches “The photocatalytic reactor of claim 1 (see above)”.
Fiedler teaches “wherein the substrate is arranged to surround the light-emitting diode circuit board (see Figs. 6, 7)”.
With respect to claim 4: Fiedler in view of Katayama teaches “The photocatalytic reactor of claim 1 (see above)”.
Fiedler teaches “wherein the light-emitting diode circuit board is arranged concentrically within the substrate (see Figs. 6-7)”.
With respect to claim 5: Fiedler in view of Katayama teaches “The photocatalytic reactor of claim 1 (see above)”.
Fiedler teaches “wherein the photocatalytic reactor comprises an air inlet (23) and an air outlet (24) and is arranged such that an airflow (29) passing between the air inlet and the air outlet contacts the photo- catalyst (paragraph 76)”.
With respect to claim 6: Fiedler in view of Katayama teaches “The photocatalytic reactor of claim 1 (see above)”.
Fiedler teaches “wherein the light-emitting diode circuit board comprises any of a double-sided circuit board (see Fig. 4) and a multi-layer circuit board”.
With respect to claim 7: Fiedler in view of Katayama teaches “The photocatalytic reactor of claim 1 (see above)”.
Fiedler teaches “wherein the first and second projections (37) extend from the first and second base sections, respectively, towards the light-emitting diode circuit board (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 8: Fiedler in view of Katayama teaches “The photocatalytic reactor of claim 1 (see above)”.
Fiedler further teaches “an air treatment device (Fig. 3) comprising the photocatalytic reactor (21) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above)”.
With respect to claim 17: Fiedler in view of Katayama teaches “The photocatalytic reactor of claim 1 (see above)”.
Fiedler teaches “wherein the first and second surfaces of the circuit board are opposite to one another (see Fig. 4)”.
With respect to claim 19: Fiedler in view of Katayama teaches “The photocatalytic reactor of claim 1 (see above)”.
Fiedler teaches “wherein the first substrate circumferentially surrounds the light-emitting diode circuit board in cross-section (see Fig. 7)”.
With respect to claim 20: Fiedler in view of Katayama teaches “The photocatalytic reactor of claim 1 (see above)”.
Fiedler further teaches “wherein the first end of the first base section is spaced (by the height of 42) from the first end of the second base section along the internal surface of the reaction chamber (see Figs. 6, 7)”.
Claims 9-11, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedler in view of Katayama and Smits et al. (US 2017/0261194 A1).
With respect to claim 9: Fiedler teaches “a photocatalytic reactor (21) arranged to receive one or more airborne contaminants (paragraph 62), the photocatalytic reactor comprising: a reaction chamber (inside of 22); a photo-catalyst (paragraph 85) for photocatalytic degradation of one or more of the contaminants (paragraph 85) disposed on a substrate (25), wherein the substrate is disposed within the reaction chamber (see Figs. 4-7) and includes first and second base sections (top and bottom 25), each following a contour of an internal surface of the reaction chamber (see Fig. 7), wherein each of the first and second base sections extends between opposite first and second ends (from one side part 42 to the other side part 42; see Fig. 6), wherein first and second projections (37) extend from the first and second base sections (see Figs. 4-7), respectively, at the corresponding first ends thereof (see Figs. 4-7); one or more light sources (40) for illuminating the photo-catalyst to facilitate photocatalytic degradation (paragraph 78)”.
Fiedler does not specifically teach “wherein the first end of the first base section is disposed adjacent the first end of the second base section, and wherein an end of the first projection, that is distal from the first base section, is connected to an end of the second projection that is distal from the second base section”.
However, Katayama teaches a photocatalytic reactor (1) employing a substrate (13) having first and second base sections (top half of Fig. 6, bottom half of Fig. 6) whose first ends are disposed adjacent to each other (see Fig. 6) and having first and second projections (9) that are connected to each other via respective ends distal to the first and second base sections (see Fig. 6)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photocatalytic reactor of Fiedler with the connected substrate of Katayama in order to provide a very simple construction that maximizes catalytic action (Katayama paragraph 11).
Fiedler does not teach “at least two layers of transparent material disposed between and separating the one or more light sources from the photo-catalyst”.
However, Smits teaches a light emitting device (200) whose light sources (201) are surrounded (see Fig. 2b) by two transparent layers (205, 207).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photocatalytic converter of Fiedler by surrounding Fiedler’s light source with the two layers of transparent material taught by Smits, thereby placing the two layers between the light sources and the photocatalyst, in order to place a heat-dissipating fluid between the two layers of transparent material that can then be used to dissipate heat generated by the light sources via convection (Smits paragraph 50).
With respect to claim 10: Fiedler in view of Katayama and Smits teaches “the photocatalytic reactor of claim 9 (see above)”.
Fiedler does not teach “wherein the at least two layers of transparent material comprise a first layer of transparent material that is separated from a second layer of transparent material by a gap”.
However, Smits teaches “wherein the at least two layers of transparent material comprise a first layer of transparent material that is separated from a second layer of transparent material by a gap (see Figs. 2)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photocatalytic converter of Fiedler by surrounding Fiedler’s light source with the two layers and gap therebetween of transparent material taught by Smits, thereby placing the two layers between the light sources and the photocatalyst, in order to place a heat-dissipating fluid in the gap between the two layers of transparent material that can then be used to dissipate heat generated by the light sources via convection (Smits paragraph 50).
With respect to claim 11: Fiedler in view of Katayama and Smits teaches “the photocatalytic reactor of claim 9 (see above)”.
Fiedler teaches “wherein photocatalytic reactor comprises a first portion (25) containing the photo-catalyst (paragraph 85) and a second portion (39) containing the one or more light sources (40)”.
Smits teaches a light emitting device (200) whose light sources (201) are surrounded (see Fig. 2b) by two transparent layers (205, 207), and surrounding the light sources of Fiedler with the two transparent layers of Smit would place said transparent layers between the light sources and the photo-catalyst (see Fiedler Figs. 5-6)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photocatalytic converter of Fiedler by surrounding Fiedler’s light source with the two layers of transparent material taught by Smits, thereby placing the two layers between the light sources and the photocatalyst, in order to place a heat-dissipating fluid between the two layers of transparent material that can then be used to dissipate heat generated by the light sources via convection (Smits paragraph 50).
With respect to claim 13: Fiedler in view of Katayama and Smits teaches “The photocatalytic reactor of claim 9 (see above)”.
Fiedler does not teach “wherein the at least two layers of transparent material comprise at least two conduits arranged concentrically around the one or more light sources, at least a portion of each conduit comprising the transparent material”.
However, Smits teaches “wherein the at least two layers of transparent material comprise at least two conduits (205, 207) arranged concentrically around the one or more light sources (see Fig. 2b), at least a portion of each conduit comprising the transparent material (see Fig. 2b; note light 217 and 219)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photocatalytic converter of Fiedler by surrounding Fiedler’s light source with the two concentric layers of transparent material taught by Smits, thereby placing the two layers between the light sources and the photocatalyst, in order to place a heat-dissipating fluid between the two layers of transparent material that can then be used to dissipate heat generated by the light sources via convection (Smits paragraph 50).
With respect to claim 14: Fiedler in view of Katayama and Smits as applied to claim 9 above teaches “an air treatment device comprising the photocatalytic reactor according to claim 9 (see claim 9 above)”.
With respect to claim 15: Fiedler teaches “a photocatalytic reactor (21) arranged to receive one or more airborne contaminants (paragraph 62), the photocatalytic reactor comprising: a reaction chamber (inside of 22); a photo-catalyst (paragraph 85) for photocatalytic degradation of one or more of the contaminants (paragraph 85) disposed on a substrate (25), wherein the substrate is disposed within the reaction chamber (see Figs. 4-7) and includes first (25 on top) and second (25 on bottom) base sections, each following a contour of an internal surface of the reaction chamber (see Figs. 4-7), wherein each of the first and second base sections extends between opposite first and second ends (from end part 62 on one side to end part 62 on the other side), wherein first and second projections (37) extend from the first and second base sections (see Figs. 4-7), respectively, at the corresponding first ends thereof, a light-emitting diode circuit board (38+40) comprising a circuit board (38) with one or more first light-emitting diodes (40) mounted to a first side of the circuit board and one or more second light- emitting diodes mounted to a second side of the circuit board (see Fig. 4); wherein the substrate is arranged to be illuminated by both the one or more first light- emitting diodes and the one or more second light-emitting diodes (see Figs. 4-7)”.
Fiedler does not specifically teach “wherein the first end of the first base section is disposed adjacent the first end of the second base section, and wherein an end of the first projection, that is distal from the first base section, is connected to an end of the second projection that is distal from the second base section”.
However, Katayama teaches a photocatalytic reactor (1) employing a substrate (13) having first and second base sections (top half of Fig. 6, bottom half of Fig. 6) whose first ends are disposed adjacent to each other (see Fig. 6) and having first and second projections (9) that are connected to each other via respective ends distal to the first and second base sections (see Fig. 6)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photocatalytic reactor of Fiedler with the connected substrate of Katayama in order to provide a very simple construction that maximizes catalytic action (Katayama paragraph 11).
Fiedler does not teach “at least two layers of transparent material disposed between and separating the light-emitting diode circuit board from the photo-catalyst”.
However, Smits teaches a light emitting device (200) whose light sources (201) are surrounded (see Fig. 2b) by two transparent layers (205, 207).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photocatalytic converter of Fiedler by surrounding Fiedler’s light source with the two layers of transparent material taught by Smits, thereby placing the two layers between the light sources and the photocatalyst, in order to place a heat-dissipating fluid between the two layers of transparent material that can then be used to dissipate heat generated by the light sources via convection (Smits paragraph 50).
With respect to claim 16: Fiedler in view of Katayama and Smits as applied to claim 15 above teaches “an air treatment device comprising the photocatalytic reactor according to claim 15 (see claim 15 above)”.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedler in view of Katayama and Smits as applied to claims 9, 11 above, and further in view of Van Buskirk et al. (US 2020/0360857 A1).
With respect to claim 12: Fiedler in view of Katayama and Smits teaches “the photocatalytic reactor of claim 11 (see above)”.
Fiedler further teaches “the first portion is arranged to receive an airflow (29) including one or more airborne contaminants (paragraph 62), the one or more light sources may comprise one or more light-emitting diodes (paragraph 77), and preferably comprises one or more light-emitting diodes (40) mounted to a circuit board (38)”.
Fiedler as modified by Smits does not necessarily teach “the second portion is arranged to receive an airflow that contacts the one or more light sources to provide air cooling”.
However, Van Buskirk teaches that a forced airflow over the light sources of a photocatalytic reactor provides the benefits of dissipating the excess heat of said light sources (Van Buskirk paragraph 81) and recirculating the heated air to heat other parts of the reactor (Van Buskirk paragraph 88).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photocatalytic converter of Fiedler by allowing the airflow over the light sources as an art recognized means of cooling said light sources (Van Buskirk paragraph 81).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedler in view of Katayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pastor (US 8974742 B2).
With respect to claim 18: Fiedler in view of Katayama teaches “the photocatalytic reactor of claim 1 (see above”.
Fiedler does not specifically teach “wherein each of the first and second sections has an arc-shaped profile”.
However, Pastor teaches the first section (top half of 4) and the second section (bottom half of 4) both have an arc-shaped profile (see Fig. 3b)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the photocatalytic converter of Fiedler by using a arced substrate as taught by Pastor due to the art recognized suitability of the cylindrical shaped substrate for the purpose of photocatalytic treatment and the art recognized equivalence of the cylinder shape of Pastor to polygonal shapes like Fiedler (Pastor column 6 lines 40-52).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tupman et al. (US 2012/0141320 A1), which teaches a photocatalytic reactor.
Scahill et al. (US 2004/0007453 A1), which teaches a photocatalytic reactor.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875