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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 15 October 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 October 2025.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 January 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
5. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The present invention relates to,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length is less than 50 words and not sufficiently descriptive of the invention. Further, the use of the phrase “The present invention relates to” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, line 23: “Impurities” need not be capitalized.
Page 7, line 9: “Unit 2” need not be capitalized.
Page 7, line 10: “z. B.” should read --e.g.,--.
Page 8, line 21: “Light” need not be capitalized.
Page 10, lines 4-8: The sentence ending in “is” does not read as a complete sentence, Examiner suggests deleting “is” for readability.
Page 10, line 8: “second UV-10 unit” should read --second UV-C unit--.
Page 11, lines 13-16: This run-on sentence appears to be missing information. Further, the reference numeral “8” should refer to a privacy screen and not the gaseous components listed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “which is equipped with at least one O3-destroying and with or without an antibacterial active wavelength” should be revised to more clearly refer to the “at least one UV light device” that it modifies, e.g., as “wherein the at least one UV light device is equipped with at least one O3-destroying wavelength, and with or without an antibacterial active wavelength”.
Further, “the UV light device (1)” in line 13 should read --the at least one UV light device (1)--, for clarity.
8. Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble “antibacterial air filter device according to claim 1” should read --the antibacterial and/or antiviral air filter device according to claim 1--.
9. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the UV light device (1)” in line 2 should read --the at least one UV light device (1)--
10. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the air exiting an air duct” should read --air exiting an air duct--.
Claim Interpretation
11. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “which is designed to emit a constant amount of ozone to the cleaned air”, pertaining to the ozone-generating UV light device, is not interpreted strictly literally. Obviously, the UV light device itself emits UV radiation, and the limitation is interpreted to broadly cover a constant amount of ozone either generated in the proximity of this UV light device or emitted into the environment by the air purification device.
12. Regarding claim 7, the series “low-temperature plasma, dielectric barrier discharge, UV-C light with a wavelength of <230 nm, or laser-generated ozone” is interpreted broadly, wherein only the last limitation requires the generation of ozone. Further, the enrichment of air as written reads as an intended use of the apparatus, which imparts no patentable weight (see MPEP 2114(II)), though the capability of the apparatus to produce at least one of the recited effects in the air stream is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
13. 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.
14. Claims 4, 5, and 7 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. Specifically, the limitations “laser light”, “a laser”, and “laser-generated ozone” are not supported by the specification, which, though several references are made to the generation of ozone using UV-C light (pgs. 8-10), makes no mention of a laser.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-8 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.
17. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “being arranged first in the direction of air flow” in the tenth line is indefinite because no airflow moving mechanism and thus no direction of air flow is established in the claim. Likewise, the limitations “downstream” in the 13th and 17th lines are dependent on the indefinite air flow direction and thus also do not provide clear directional meaning.
Further, claim 1 recites the limitation "the ozone-free air flow" in the 15th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no point in the air flow is defined as “ozone-free” in the claim.
Further, claim 1 recites the limitation "the cleaned air" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and because it is it is unclear in the claim at what location in the device the ozone is emitted.
18. Claims 2-8 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on and failure to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
19. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the UV light device”, which lacks clear antecedent basis because it is not certain whether this recitation refers to the part of reference number 1 or of reference number 7. Examiner recommends revising to --the at least one UV light device (1)-- to clearly establish antecedent basis to the upstream UV light recited in claim 1.
20. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the UV radiation source with a wavelength >230 nm" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the independent claim 1 does not specify this wavelength range for either UV radiation source(s).
21. Regarding claim 8, the limitation “all units used” is indefinite because no definite grouping of units has been established, especially given that the units are claimed to be interchangeably installed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
22. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
23. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shingler et al (US 20210156569 A1).
24. Regarding claim 1, Shingler discloses an air filter device (particulate removal system positioned within the ventilation duct, pars 0003, 0027-0029, and 0035-0037). 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. See MPEP 2111.02(II). As “antibacterial and/or antiviral” and “for removing ultrafine aerosols and particles <2.5 microns and for inactivating bacterial or viral contaminants contained therein” describe an intended use without adding device structure, the preamble is not given patentable weight.
The device of Shingler comprises:
- at least one UV light device (one or more first UV lamps 306, par 0028),
- an electrostatic precipitator (electrostatic precipitator 404 includes one or more electrostatic precipitator cells, pars 0035-0036),
- at least one ozone-generating UV light device (one or more second UV lamps to generate ozone, par 0029) and
- an ionizer (ion generator, pars 0056-0057),
wherein, an air stream to be cleaned is guidable through the air filter device (fan being configured to pull the cooking exhaust through the inlet aperture and the ventilation duct, pars 0003 and 0035), with the at least one UV light device being arranged first in the direction of air flow (besides the grease filtration stage described in pars 0023-0026 but not included in the claimed structure, the UV treatment system is first with respect to the airflow inlet, pars 0027-0034, FIGS. 2-3) between an inlet (ventilation duct 106 comprises an inlet aperture 108, par 0022; FIG. 13, inlet aperture 1303) and an outlet for the air stream in the air filter device (discharge opening 1008 where filtered air is discharged into a surrounding environment, par 0058, FIG. 10), which is equipped with at least one ozone-destroying (ozone control system may include a UV lamp configured to output UV light having a wavelength of 253.7 nm, par 0050) and with or without an antibacterial active wavelength (in some examples, the wavelength range is selected to be germicidal UV light, par 0050), wherein downstream of the UV light device (after the UV treatment system, par 0035) the electrostatic precipitator is arranged (electrostatic precipitator 404, FIG. 4), which is designed to charge the aerosols (configured to remove grease and other matter from the air via corona discharge, par 0036), the particles and/or the organic contaminants in the ozone-free air flow and separate them on the electrostatic precipitator (use of dual ESP cells and offset collection fins may help to filter more airborne particulates, par 0036), and
that downstream of the electrostatic precipitator (fan positioned downstream of the particulate removal system 400, par 0047; ozone control system positioned downstream of the fan, par 0050) the ozone-generating UV light device is provided (ozone control system may comprise one or more UV lamps, par 0050), which is designed to emit a constant amount of ozone to the cleaned air (ozone generating lamp and ozone control system designs not disclosed as adjustable/variable, pars 0027-0034 and 0050, 0056-0057).
It is understood that the device of Shingler, having similar structural components arranged similarly and generating UV light, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, and other ionic species (par 0056) known to have antibacterial and antiviral effect (par 0050), would be capable of performing the claimed use functions of removing ultrafine aerosols/particles <2.5 µm (further remove smaller hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and odor molecules, par 0035) and inactivating bacterial or viral contaminants.
25. Regarding claim 2, Shingler discloses the antibacterial air filter device according to claim 1, wherein a catalyst for the degradation of chemical substances is provided (the one or more ozone mitigation components further may include an ozone reduction catalyst, par 0057).
26. Regarding claim 3, Shingler discloses the antibacterial air filter device according to claim 1, wherein the UV light device and a collector of the electrostatic precipitator face each other (prefilters 402 of ESP 404 face each other, FIG. 4, par 0035), so that the collector can be irradiated by the UV light device (FIG. 4, use of the UV treatment system 304 upstream of the pre-filter 402 may help to improve longevity of the filter, par 0037).
27. Regarding claim 5, Shingler discloses the antibacterial air filter device according to claim 1, wherein a low-temperature plasma, dielectric barrier discharge, UV-C light with a wavelength of <230 nm or a laser are provided for the formation of ozone (second UV lamp 308 is configured to output one or more wavelengths of UV light in a wavelength range of 180-190 nm to generate ozone, par 0029) in an air duct (positioned in ventilation duct, par 0029, FIG. 2).
28. Regarding claim 6, Shingler discloses the antibacterial air filter device according to claim 1, wherein for ozone depletion in an air duct catalysts are provided (one or more ozone mitigation components further may include an ozone reduction catalyst applied to an interior surface of the ventilation duct and/or the chamber, par 0057) in addition to or instead of the UV radiation source with a wavelength >230 nm (ozone control system may include a third UV lamp configured to output UV light having a wavelength of 253.7 nm, par 0050).
29. Regarding claim 7, Shingler discloses the antibacterial air filter device according to claim 1, wherein the air exiting an air duct and fed into a room can be enriched as required by low-temperature plasma, dielectric barrier discharge, UV-C light with a wavelength of <230 nm or laser-generated ozone (second UV lamp configured to output light in a wavelength range of 180-190 nm to generate ozone in the airflow, par 0029).
30. Regarding claim 8, Shingler discloses the antibacterial air filter device according to claim 1, wherein all units used are interchangeably installed in a housing (UV lamps may be removably mounted, par 0030; grease filter and bracket removable, pars 0024-0026; removable mount for ESP and other filters, par 0039) and/or an ionizer is provided (ion generator may take the form of a bipolar needlepoint ionizer, par 0056), which is arranged downstream of the electrostatic precipitator (ion generator 1014 is positioned downstream of the fan, par 0056; fan positioned downstream of the particulate removal system 400, par 0047) and is provided to generate a proportion of ions from the cleaned air (to further clean the air and deplete ozone before the air is discharged, par 0056).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
31. 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.
32. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shingler et al (US 20210156569 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benedek et al (US 20190240371 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Shingler discloses the antibacterial air filter device according to claim 1, wherein the UV light device emits UV-C radiation with >230 nm (first UV lamp 306 outputs one or more wavelengths of UV light in a wavelength range of 250-260 nm, par 0028). Shingler does not specifically teach that this light is formed from discharge tubes or diodes or by laser light.
Benedek teaches an analogous apparatus for treating air using UV light and ozone (Abstract, pars 0016-0018) wherein UV light is generated by a bulb or by light-emitting diodes (par 0017), the UV light being either an ozone generating wavelength less than 200 nm or a germicidal wavelength between 200-300 nm (par 0017). In an exemplary embodiment, the UV bulb and ozone generator are depicted as discharge tubes (FIG. 1, 122 and 124).
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 as the UV light device of Shingler a UV light-emitting diode or a UV discharge tube as taught by Benedek. Doing so would predictably provide suitable ozone generating and/or germicidal UV radiation, as Benedek teaches such light sources can be applied to treating an air stream in a similar device using ozone and germicidal UV light.
Conclusion
33. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Metteer (US 20130183214 A1) teaches a modular ductwork decontamination assembly (Title, Abstract) of UV lights to sterilize the genetic material of airborne microorganisms and/or pathogens (par 0048, FIG. 3), ozone generators (par 0050, FIG. 5), and ionizers that electrostatically precipitate various forms of particulate matter (par 0049, FIG. 4) in an interchangeable arrangement (par 0056, FIGS. 1-2).
34. 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