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 .
Response to Amendment
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 02/23/2026. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-24 are pending in the application. Claims 20-24 have been withdrawn and claims 1, 3-5, and 7-19 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. The objection to the disclosure is maintained in view of Applicant's amendment.
The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the term “chemical oxidation system” is maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment.
All rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.8-9 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that primary reference Burkhardt does not disclose any self-cleaning capability of the filter of the UV source, specifically mentioning that the filters must be replaced and the UV light source to be manually cleaned/wiped. Furthermore, the ionizer does not derive energy from the UV source to generate radicals, because the ionizer is powered by an external power source.
The Examiner does not find these arguments persuasive. The term “self-cleaning” is a broad term. Both the ion brushes and the UV light source each have a disinfection capability because any microorganisms that enter their respective exposure areas are inactivated, thus “cleaning” out the area. A disinfection source is inherently a self-cleaning source because it itself does the disinfection. Regarding Burkhardt stating that the filters must be replaced and the UV light source to be manually cleaned/wiped periodically, this does not take away from the fact that the ion brushes and the UV source are self-cleaning disinfection sources. The reason as to why the filters and the UV source are wiped/cleaned is because the disinfection capability external/outside of the UV source is hindered due to a particulate buildup on the UV source. The disinfection source itself is still self-cleaning, but buildup of particulate matter provide physical impediment to the space around the source (not the source itself).
Furthermore, the ionizer does derive energy from the UV source to generate radicals. Burkhardt [0023] states: “grille 30, which also acts as a light baffle to prevent ultraviolet (UV) radiation 24 emitted by UV lamp 22 from escaping housing 34", implying that the UV radiation is emitted in all directions confined by the housing, including in the direction of the ion brushes 36. As evidenced by Takeda from the ambient humidity of air, the ion brushes, with the UV rays being emitted onto said brushes, still functionally generate hydroxyl radicals and hydrogen peroxide. While it is true that ionizer is powered by an external source (the Applicant’s ionizer also utilizes a “high voltage” source to provide power to the ionizer), the UV rays are still imparted onto the ion brushes.
The remaining arguments in regards to evidentiary reference Takeda and secondary references Yo, Goswami, and Schwartz are directed towards the deficiencies of the individual references themselves in regards to the Applicant’s endeavor.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references for what they each teach as a whole, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Because Burkhardt does teach a self-cleaning capability and a dual sterilization capability via the UV light and the ion brushes, the remaining references utilized for rejection were not used in their entirety, but rather for specific features/results mentioned by them that would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art due to an additional benefit or predictable result with said modification.
Takeda was used as an evidentiary reference that an application of voltage to electrodes (i.e., ion brushes of Burkhardt) inherently generates free radicals (hydroxyl ions and hydrogen peroxide) due to the moisture content in atmospheric air, not for its entirety.
Schwartz was utilized as a secondary reference to show that a chemical fogging system is a routine and conventional device/method to disinfect an enclosed space and/or an external environment, and thus adding a chemical fogging system downstream of the mechanical filter of Burkhardt would provide the added benefit and predictable result of increased disinfection but also providing said disinfectant to the external environment.
Goswami was utilized as a secondary reference to show that a photocatalytic oxidation coating provides the effect of absorbing incoming VOCs and odors/gases, and thus would provide benefit to Burkhardt via the absorption of incoming VOCs and odors/gases.
Yo was utilized as a secondary reference to provide conventional UV wavelengths used for disinfection of any fluid within an enclosed space because Burkhardt is silent on specific wavelengths (despite reciting a germicidal effect of its UV source).
Specification
5. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the limitation of “wherein the water source is the humidity in the air” of claim 3 should be included in the specification, as there is no mention of where or what the water source is.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
7. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “chemical oxidation system” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure appears to be a chemical fogging system (e.g., hydrogen peroxide) having a container to store the disinfectant, a pump, a valve to control amount of disinfectant to be atomized, and a nozzle for atomization ([0059]) and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 12-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burkhardt (US 20040013583 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 01/09/2023), evidenced by Takeda et al. (US 20040007000 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burkhardt teaches an air purification system (air cleaner unit 10, Fig. 1A-3), for purifying incoming impure air ([0023]), the system comprising:
a UV source configured to produce irradiation (UV lamp 22, Fig. 1A and [0005]);
an ionizer configured to emit electrons (ion brushes 36, Fig. 1A and [0026-0027]) and thus produce at least one of OH radicals or Hydrogen Peroxide using a water source (Takeda [0011] evidences that any plasma/ion discharge in contact with a water molecule from moisture in air (moisture in air is a natural phenomenon) will result in hydroxyl radicals and hydrogen peroxide, to which Burkhardt’s ion brushes reacting with water molecules in incoming polluted air would produce hydroxyl radical and hydrogen peroxide production) and the energy imparted by the UV source (UV lamp 22 also emits UV rays to the ion brush 36 because grille 30 serves as a barrier for the UV rays to not escape the housing 34, Fig. 1A and [0023]);
a filter (14, Fig. 1A and 2) having an inner surface (surface of photocatalyst 42, Fig. 2) and an outer surface (surface of mechanical filter media 40, Fig. 2), configured to trap impurities of the impure air and produce filtered air from the outer surface (airflow travels from inlet 26 to outlet 28, where “the air passing through the chamber is purified by the photocatalytic agent and filtered by the mechanical filtration media”, Fig. 1A-2 and [0009]);
wherein the UV source and ionizer are configured to face the inflow of impure air before the impure air reaches the filter (UV lamp 22 and ion brushes 36 encounter the incoming polluted air before reaching filter 14, Fig. 1A) to effectively produce that at least one of OH radicals or Hydrogen peroxide (produced by ion brushes 36, Fig. 1A) that enables the UV source (UV lamp 22, Fig. 1A) and the filter (14, Fig. 1A) to exhibit self-cleaning ability (Both UV lamp 22 and titanium dioxide coated filter 14 are disinfection sources and thus are inherently self-cleaning sources because they themselves do the disinfection, Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 3, Burkhardt teaches wherein the water source is the humidity in the air (incoming polluted air inherently has moisture as a natural phenomenon).
Regarding claim 5, Burkhardt teaches wherein the Ionizer is configured to impart charges (ion brushes 36, Fig. 1A and [0026-0027]) on impurities thereby producing conductive (charging the airstream encountering ion brushes 36, Fig. 1A) and inductive forces (electrostatic attraction to polarized filter media, [0012]) for increased filtration by having impurities stick to the filter (“improving its filtration efficiency”, [0012]).
Regarding claim 7, Burkhardt teaches wherein the inner surface of the filter that faces inflow of the air is facing the UV source for in-situ deactivation of microorganism (surface of photocatalyst 42 faces the incoming airflow 12 where UV radiation 24 is emitted in the direction of the photocatalyst, Fig. 1A and 2).
Regarding claim 8, Burkhardt teaches wherein the inner surface of the filter that faces inflow of the air is facing the ionizer (surface of photocatalyst 42 faces the incoming airflow 12 where ion brushes 36 are located, Fig. 1A and 2).
Regarding claim 9, Burkhardt teaches wherein the inflow of the impure air is parallel to the surface of the UV source (the airflow 12 is parallel to the surface of the UV lamp 22, Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 12, Burkhardt teaches a mesh towards the inner surface of the filter (surface of photocatalyst 42 is a mesh, Fig. 2 and [0031]) having photocatalyst coating for increased effect on microorganisms (TiO2 coating, [0031]).
Regarding claim 13, Burkhardt teaches an antimicrobial coating on the filter (photocatalyst 42 of filter 14 has TiO2 coating, which is antimicrobial when activated by UV lamp 22, Fig. 1A and 2, see [0006]).
Regarding claim 14, Burkhardt teaches wherein UV source is cylindrical (Fig. 1A and 1B show UV lamp 22 having a circular cross-section and a rod-like shape, which is cylindrical).
Regarding claim 17, Burkhardt teaches wherein the filter is flat in shape (filter 14, Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 18, Burkhardt teaches wherein the impure air inlet (26, Fig. 1A) and the outlet for purified air (28, Fig. 1A) are configured to allow for batch processing of the air (both are fully capable of allowing batch processing of air, the operation of the air inlets and outlets with respect to the entire device is not hindered/inoperative during batch processing).
Regarding claim 19, Burkhardt teaches wherein the impure air inlet (26, Fig. 1A) and the outlet for purified air (28, Fig. 1A) are configured to allow for continuous processing of the air (both are fully capable of allowing continuous processing of air, the operation of the air inlets and outlets with respect to the entire device is not hindered/inoperative during continuous processing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
11. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhardt (US 20040013583 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 01/09/2023), evidenced by Takeda et al (US 20040007000 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwartz et al. (US 20110091354 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Burkhardt teaches filtered air after the filtration (clean air after filter 14, Fig. 1A), but fails to teach a chemical oxidation system that comprises at least a blower, an outlet, a needle and a chamber for introducing chemical oxidation agent into the filtered air after the filtration.
Schwartz teaches a disinfection system (10, Fig. 1-2), where the incoming air pumped by fan (23, Fig. 2) through air inlets (20, Fig. 1-2) are filtered via filters (24, Fig. 1-2), to which the filtered air encounters a hydrogen peroxide system (reservoir 36 containing hydrogen peroxide, Fig. 2 and [0023], connected to pump 42 and ultimately an atomizing nozzle 38) in order to introduce hydrogen peroxide to the filtered air and thus introduce an exhausted disinfecting fog to the environment ([0002] and [0005]).
Burkhardt and Schwartz are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filtration and disinfection.
Therefore, 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 filtered/clean air interior region of Burkhardt by incorporating a hydrogen peroxide system having a blower/fan as taught by Schwartz in order to introduce the filtered air to hydrogen peroxide and subsequently provide a disinfecting fog to the exterior room/space (Schwartz, [0002] and [0005]).
12. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhardt (US 20040013583 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 01/09/2023), evidenced by Takeda et al (US 20040007000 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goswami (US 5933702 A).
Regarding claim 10, Burkhardt teaches an outer surface of the filter (surface of mechanical filtration media 40, Fig. 2), but fails to teach wherein the outer surface of the filter is coated with an adsorbent to trap gases and volatile organic compounds.
Goswami teaches an air purifier (Fig. 12) utilizing an ultraviolet source (UV lamps 224, Fig. 1) with a photocatalytic insert (212, Fig. 12-13), to which the photocatalytic insert contains an after-filter (230, Fig. 13) that can “be coated or impregnated with material like activated carbon or other suitable materials for absorbing VOC's, odors, and the like” (col. 11, lines 16-18).
Burkhardt and Goswami are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification systems utilizing UV light, photocatalysts, and filters.
Therefore, 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 mechanical filter media of Burkhardt by incorporating an activated carbon coating as taught by Goswami in order to absorb VOCs and odors/gases (Goswami, col. 11, lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 11, Burkhardt in view of Goswami teaches wherein the adsorbent is activated carbon (Goswami, col. 11, lines 16-18, for the same modification purpose as claim 10 rejection above).
13. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhardt (US 20040013583 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 01/09/2023), evidenced by Takeda et al (US 20040007000 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yo et al. (JP H11169612 A).
Regarding claim 15, Burkhardt teaches a UV light source (UV lamp 22, Fig. 1A), but is silent on the wavelength of the UV radiation.
Yo teaches a water filtration device (1, Fig. 1) utilizing an ultraviolet lamp (3, Fig. 1) with a wavelength of 254 nm in order to inactivate microorganisms (see p.4, 1st paragraph of English translation).
Burkhardt and Yo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV sterilization systems of fluids such as air or water.
Therefore, 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 UV lamp of Burkhardt by incorporating a 254 nm feature to the UV lamp as taught by Yo in order to inactivate microorganisms present in the fluid (Yo, p.4, 1st paragraph of English translation).
Regarding claim 16, Burkhardt teaches a flat filter (filter 14, Fig. 1A) that is adjacent to the UV source (UV lamp 22, Fig. 1A), but fails to teach wherein the filter is cylindrical in shape engulfing said UV source.
Yo teaches a water filtration device (1, Fig. 1) utilizing an ultraviolet lamp (3, Fig. 1) and a cylindrical filter (2, Fig. 1) surrounding the lamp because “the utilization rate of the ultraviolet rays is twice or more as compared with the case where the conventional flat film is used” (see p.3, last paragraph to p.4, 1st paragraph of English translation).
Burkhardt and Yo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV sterilization systems of fluids such as air or water.
Therefore, 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 flat filter of Burkhardt by incorporating a cylindrical feature to the filter that surrounds the UV source as taught by Yo in order to increase the utilization rate of the UV rays with respect to the filter (Yo, p.3, last paragraph to p.4, 1st paragraph of English translation).
Conclusion
14. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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, Maris R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758