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 amendments filed 9/18/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been considered.
As to the 112 rejection of claim 2, the applicant’s arguments do not remedy the fact that the same element is being referred to by two different names in the claims. The claim language needs to be amended to reflect the understanding in the remarks/specification. Perhaps something along the lines of “wherein the photocatalytic material includes photocatalytic nanofibers….”
The applicant argues that modifying Park based on Kawai would change the principle of Parks operation. The applicant defines the principle of operation too narrowly. Adding the light source of Kawai to Park would not destroy the basic principles of operation as one would still have a photocatalytic filter.
In response to applicant's argument that adding elements of Kawai to Park would require substantial reconfiguration, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to include both a structure of electroluminescent material and side glow fibers. These elements are disclosed in two separate embodiments as alternatives and not described together. The glow fibers are in the embodiment of figure 1 described on page 12, lines 20-29. The electroluminescent material is in figured 2, described as “another embodiment” and refers to figure 1 as “the first embodiment”. It is only in the second embodiment that the electroluminescent material (page 12, line 30 to end of document). The support 16 in the first embodiment has the glow fibers while the support in the second embodiment is made of the electroluminescent material.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend. Claims 14-16 incorporate claim 1 through 13 and are rejected for the same reasons as well.
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 2-5 and 10 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.
With regards to claim 2, it is unclear whether the photocatalytic nanofibers are additional to the semiconductor photocatalytic material or if the claim intends that the photocatalytic material is a photocatalytic nanofiber comprising a photocatalyst coated nanofiber.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2015/0075384) in view of Kawai (EP 1,772, 187)(cited by applicant).
With regards to claim 1, Park teaches a filter medium (50) for air purification and disinfection (para [0001]) comprising: a semiconductor photocatalytic material (photocatalyst that can be titanium dioxide coats fibers 11), a light energy means for radiating or tansmitting light to activate reactions of the semiconductor photocatalytic material (optical fibers 20), wherein the light energy means is configured as a support for the semiconductor photocatalytic material (intermingled in an optical fiber mixed non-woven fabric (fig 20; para [0087]-[0089]). The light energy source comprises side glow fibers (light enters from the side; fig 20) or fibrous optical waveguides (optical fibers), receiving photons from at least one light source.
Park does not teach an electroluminescent material as part of the light energy means. Kawai teaches a filter medium for air or water purification and disinfection (abstract) comprising: a semiconductor photocatalytic material (titanium dioxide; para [0048]-[0049]), a light energy source (thin surface light emitting device) (para [0050]) adapted to active photocatalytic reactions of the semiconductor photocatalytic material (abstract); the light energy source is configured as a support for the semiconductor material (sandwiched together fig 1-4)(see whole document). The light energy source is configured as a structure of the electroluminescent material (para [0028]-[0029]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have added electroluminescent material to the light energy means/filter media as taught by Kawai motivated by an expectation of successfully providing more light for photocatalytic reactions. As part of the light energy means and filter medium the electroluminescent material provides at least some support for the semiconductor photocatalytic material.
With regards to claim 2, Park teaches that the photocatalytic material is made of fibers (11) coated with a photocatalyst that form a structure (filter media as in fig 20) (para [0087]-[0089]). As to the size of the fiber and coating particles, Park teaches the optical fibers used in the filter media has an overlapping range of a diameter of less than 2mm to ensure flexibility (para [0055]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the fibers in order to achieve the desired flexibility of the fibers.
The photocatalyst is made by sol-gel and sprayed on the fiber (para [0089]). A sol is a colloidal solution made of tiny solid particles taken to be nanoparticles. Thus, the photocatalyst is taken to be nanoparticles. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the particle size in order to get the desired spray coating of the fibers with the desired fiber thickness for flexibility/airflow.
With regards to claim 3, the optical fibers (20) can also be coated and a portion can be taken to be the photocatalytic nanofibers (para [0087]-[0089]; fig 20).
With regards to claim 4, the semiconductor photocatalytic material comprises a non woven mesh (fig 20)of the photocatalytic nanofibers (11) supported on a substrate of the light energy source made of an optical material (optical fibers 20) (fig 20; para [0087]-[0089]).
With regards to claim 7, the light source (30) is a UV source and can be a lamp of LED (para [0058], claim 7).
With regards to claim 9, the electroluminescent material and the semiconductor photocatalytic material are arranged as layers between a first electrode and a second electrode (fig 3, 4, 7) which are in the form of a mesh (sputtered lattice)(para 70-73, 76, 87, 95, 96; Kawai). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have provided the electrodes and layers taught by Kawai motivated by an expectation of successfully using the electroluminescent material to provide more light.
With regards to claim 10, as to the size of the fiber and coating particles, Park teaches the optical fibers used in the filter media has an overlapping range of a diameter of less than 2mm to ensure flexibility (para [0055]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the fibers in order to achieve the desired flexibility of the fibers.
With regards to claim 11, the semiconductor photocatalytic material includes TiO2 (para [0089]).
With regards to claim 12, the semiconductor photocatalytic material can be titanium dioxide (para [0089]). The photocatalyst is made by sol-gel and sprayed on the fiber (para [0089]). A sol is a colloidal solution made of tiny solid particles taken to be nanoparticles. Thus, the photocatalyst is taken to be nanoparticles.
it is additionally and alternatively presented that the semiconductor photocatalytic material can be titanium dioxide (para [0089]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the particle size in order to get the desired spray coating of the fibers with the desired fiber thickness for flexibility/airflow.
With regards to claim 13, Park teaches a filter unit (both fig 24s to 26) comprising the filter medium of claim 1 (see above; the optical fiber mixed nonwoven fabric is used in filter 100B), a housing (duct case 160), and at least one light source (30) arranged outside or inside the housing (second fig 24) adapted to pump photons in the light energy source (para [0099]-[0101]; fig 20).
With regards to claims 14 and 16, the filter unit is combined as part of an air circulation system or a stand alone filtering device (fig 26; can circulate air by itself with blower 130).
With regards to claim 15, that the device is a personal breathing device is an intended use of the device (the claim does not add any limitations beyond the filter in some device). The device is taken to be a personal breathing device when one person is breathing the air purified from the device. It is additionally and alternatively presented that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have sized the device as desired motivated by an expectation of providing the desired amount of air treatment in the desired space. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have included the air purifying filter media in any air purifying device including a personal breathing device motivated by an expectation of providing purified air as desired.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2015/0075384) and Kawai (EP 1,772, 187)(cited by applicant) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Iimura (US 6,108,476).
With regards to claim 5, Park does not teach that the optical material is PMMA. Iimura teaches an optical fiber coated with photocatalyst (abstract; fig 1). The UV transparent optical fiber can be made from a variety of materials including PMMA (column 3, line 66 to column 4, line 8). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the optical fiber out of PMMA motivated by an expectation of successfully forming a UV transparent optical fiber for making photocatalyst coating optical fibers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799