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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed 27 March 2026 (pertaining to amended claims filed 23 February 2026) has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-19 are presently pending and being examined herein.
4. All rejections from the prior Office action have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-19 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.
8. Regarding claim 1, the limitation requiring that “a width of the germ-inactivated spatial zone in the direction of the longitudinal axis is only greater than the longitudinal dimension of the apparatus” lends to an indefinite scope. First, “the direction” and “the longitudinal dimension” lack antecedent basis in the claim, as an axis definitionally points in two directions and the apparatus may be considered to have multiple longitudinal dimensions (e.g., length of interior along the longitudinal axis, length of housing including intake duct, length of device along non-major axis that is perpendicular to outflow). Second, the recitation wherein this width is “only greater than the longitudinal dimension” lacks definite bounds, as the longitudinal dimension of the lower bound is not defined and the word “only” implies that there is another dimension that is larger that would serve as the upper bound for the width.
9. Claims 2-19 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Jong (US 20230109493 A1).
12. Regarding claim 1, de Jong teaches a table-top apparatus (apparatus for preventing the spread of air-borne contaminants in a defined space, Abstract; tabletop may be the bottom of the defined space, par 0169) for generating a germ-inactivated spatial zone (controlled ‘air bubble’ or air cylinder of outflow after passing air treatment module, which may include a UV-C light source, to deactivate any viruses, molds, and/or bacteria, par 0123). Examiner notes that the generation of a germ-inactivated spatial zone constitutes an intended use of the apparatus, and as such, the zone itself carries no patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II). Accordingly, the apparatus claims are herein considered such that the structure of the prior art apparatus must be capable of generating the germ-activated spatial zone, flow vectors, etc., under an operational condition without non-obvious modification. De Jong teaches the apparatus comprising: a housing with an interior which has a longitudinal axis (FIG. 10B, entire interior of the diffusor functioning as a plenum, pars 0149-0153);
a blower device (a motor unit can be placed either at the base of the pillar 2615, as shown in FIG. 26A, or in the top, as shown in FIGS. 26B and 26C, near or in the diffusor section…can include various fans/blowers, par 0182) which is configured to take air in from outside the housing and convey the air into the interior of the housing (airflow is generated by typically a positive pressure in the diffusor/plenum and negative pressure at the air flow inlet driven by one or more fans, par 0116);
a radiation source, which is configured to emit light in a UV-C spectral range (air treatment is generally implemented by one or more air treatment module and can include…UV-C lighting, pars 0178 and 0180) into the interior (lamps may optionally be located in a plenum for the diffusor such that the air flow is further treated as it spreads out prior to being diffused, par 0181) in order to inactivate or kill germs in the air taken in to produce sterilized air (UV-C germicidal lamp…to kill or deactivate the virus, par 0178); and
an air outlet device (plenum and/or diffusor section making up the air flow outlet 620, par 0100), through which the sterilized air can flow out from the interior into a space surrounding the housing (controls and distributes air flow as a source of flow into the defined space 610, par 0100).
De Jong teaches a number of embodiments with various housing/diffusor geometries, with the general structure as claimed above shared among embodiments. Several such embodiments read upon the limitation wherein the air outlet device is configured to direct airflow perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, so a base embodiment of FIG. 10B is chosen. The limitation such that a width of the germ-inactivated spatial zone in the direction of the longitudinal axis is only greater than the longitudinal dimension of the apparatus, as interpreted broadly herein, is satisfied during normal operation by the FIG. 10B view wherein the germ-inactivated spatial zone as partially indicated by outflow arrows 1020 extends in all directions at a width greater than the diffuser 1060, including in the direction of the longitudinal axis which can be construed as vertical in FIG. 12D.
In the discussion of FIG. 10B, de Jong does not specifically teach wherein the air outlet device is configured to produce a laminar flow in the sterilized air flowing out, which assists formation of the germ-inactivated spatial zone within the space surrounding the housing and as such does not teach wherein the substantially germ-inactivated spatial zone thereby generated is closed off and fully encloses the housing, when the housing is observed in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the housing. Examiner notes Applicant’s definition of “closed off” per the Specification, page 17 lines 1-20, namely wherein the laminar flow streams of the spatial zone form a substantially stationary boundary where laminar flow collapses.
In other embodiments, de Jong teaches a diffusor design that uses flow resistance elements including guide tubes, flow straighteners, and/or a material porosity to minimize vortices and laminarize the diffusor flow (par 0121) and is depicted to produce a similar germ-inactivated spatial zone bounded similarly where the laminar flow vectors break down into turbulent flow (see particularly FIGS. 8E, 9B, and 10A). The laminar flow regions depicted read upon Applicant’s definition of “closed off” by showing a boundary between laminar and turbulent flow regimes that can be maintained at a constant position through steady-state operational settings. The laminar flow regions fully enclose the housing in each example, and when applied to the FIG. 10B embodiment would necessarily enclose the housing fully as viewed from any angle, including when observed in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, i.e., from above. The laminarization of flow is taught as advantageous to prevent mixing and uncontrolled flow around the subject (par 0121), and to distribute treated airflow more evenly over the workable area (par 0116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include laminar flow elements in the outlet/diffuser portion of the apparatus as taught by de Jong, as this would predictably generate a similar laminar flow field that is closed off and fully encloses the housing, providing the same advantages of distributing sterilized airflow evenly over the area and preventing mixing with untreated environmental air (pars 0116 and 0121). See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Examiner notes that because the claim does not positively recite a table as part of the scope of claim, the prior art apparatus is only required to be capable of use as a table-top apparatus. Although de Jong is silent regarding the dimensions or mounting configuration of the primary embodiment of FIG. 10B, de Jong teaches that in some embodiments the bottom of the defined space may be a tabletop (par 0169), indicating the utility of positioning the air purification apparatus with air inlets located near a working area for people (FIG. 33, par 0191).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ the modified apparatus as a tabletop apparatus as taught by de Jong, because this would predictably provide purification of tabletop air in the close proximity to people and involves simple substitution of one known element (inlet location) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
13. Regarding claim 2, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein an opening is provided (FIG. 10B, air flow inlet 1030), through which the air can be taken in from outside the substantially germ-inactivated spatial zone (FIGS. 8E, 10A) and conveyed into the interior of the housing(a conduit 1040 is for transporting air from the air flow inlet 1030 to the air flow outlet 1010, par 0134), the blower device being configured to drive an intake of the air through the opening (airflow is generated by typically a positive pressure in the diffusor/plenum 620 and negative pressure at the air flow inlet 630…driven by one or more fans, par 0116).
14. Regarding claim 3, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein the substantially germ-inactivated spatial zone has a maximum extent from the housing,
a suction duct is provided (FIG. 10B, conduit 1040; negative pressure at the air flow inlet, par 0116), which has the opening through which the air to be taken in is taken in (FIG. 10B, air flow intake 1030 at opposite end of conduit 1200 from diffuser 1230), and
a distance of the opening from the housing is greater than the maximum extent of the substantially germ-inactivated spatial zone based on the housing (FIG. 8E, air flow inlet 630 is located at the bottom of the pillar, par 0123).
15. Regarding claim 4, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 3, but de Jong does not specifically teach wherein the distance of the opening of the suction duct from the housing is 80 cm or more, or 90 cm or more, or 100 cm or more.
However, FIG. 8E depicts that the inlet opening of the suction duct at the bottom of the pillar (par 0123) is separated from the diffusor housing 810 by approximately the height of a person, which is understood to be in the general vicinity of the range of 100 cm or more. Further, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to space the opening of the suction duct from the diffuser housing by 100 cm or more as taught by de Jong as the suction duct would be expected to work similarly at any length in this range and the range can be reasonably selected through routine optimization.
16. Regarding claim 5, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 3, but de Jong does not specifically teach wherein the maximum extent of the substantially germ-inactivated spatial zone based on the housing is 80 cm or less, or 70 cm or less, or 60 cm or less.
However, de Jong teaches in various embodiments that the laminar flow zone extends approximately 2-3 head lengths (as pictured in FIGS. 8E and 9B) which is on the order of tens of centimeters, or can extend in a much longer dimension (as pictured in FIG. 9C). De Jong further teaches that the air flow generators may be configured to deposit air into the defined space at a relatively low speed which may provide a low turbulence air flow with lower flow speeds than usual (pars 0113-0114), indicating a correlation between outlet airflow speed and turbulence and that flow speeds can be adjusted (par 0151). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the apparatus of de Jong with an airflow rate such that the maximum extent of the germ-inactivated spatial zone based on the housing is 60 cm or less, as the boundary of the zone can be adjusted with tunable parameters including airflow speed and such a desired operating range can be reasonably selected through routine optimization.
17. Regarding claim 6, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the air outlet device has a grille structure or a pattern of holes (macro holes or guide tubes, par 0121), the grille structure or the pattern of holes having a multiplicity of air outlet openings (redistribution by flow resistance elements [holes or guide tubes] done at the diffuser surface, par 0121), wherein each of the multiplicity of air outlet openings gives rise to flow vectors in the sterilized air flowing out through them (FIG. 10B), the flow vectors in their entirety covering a full semicircle of at least 180 degrees in planes perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (FIG. 10B), perpendicularly over a surface on which the table-top apparatus is put during operation (FIG. 10B, flow vectors perpendicular to longitudinal/vertical axis and over the base surface).
18. Regarding claim 7, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the air outlet device is configured in such a way that two laminar flows lying opposite one another are formed perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis (FIG. 10B, outflow arrows 1020 can be divided into two laminar flows lying opposite one another; see also FIG. 10A), a flow rate in each of the two laminar flows being 0.5 m/s or less (deposit air into the defined space 610 from the air flow outlet 620 at a relatively low speed, such as less than 0.5 m/s, par 0113).
19. Regarding claim 8, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 7 wherein flow speeds can be adjusted (par 0151) and that a relatively low speed such as less than 0.5 m/s is preferred (par 0113). De Jong does not specifically teach wherein the flow rate in each of the two laminar flows is 0.2 m/s or less, or about 0.1 m/s.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", particularly when there is no showing of criticality of the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.05(I). Knowing that the upper bound of flow rate of 0.5 m/s taught by de Jong provides laminar flow (par 0113), it is understood that flows of 0.2 m/s or less, or about 0.1 m/s will also provide laminar flow that creates a laminar flow zone of clean air around the outlet. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the apparatus of de Jong with an outlet flow rate of 0.2 m/s or less, or about 0.1 m/s, because these low airflow speeds would predictably provide laminar flow zones of clean air and can be simply chosen as a product of routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
20. Regarding claim 16, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but the combination of embodiments above regarding claim 1 do not include docking means, by which a further table-top apparatus of a same design may be docked to the table-top apparatus along the longitudinal axis, in order to increase the germ-inactivated spatial zone in a direction of the longitudinal axis.
In another embodiment, de Jong teaches an add-on device 1810 that can be provided to extend the workable area of the diffusor 1800 (par 0162, FIGS. 18B-18F depict attachment i.e., docking means), though the extension can be readily envisioned to work with the same design as applied to the embodiment of FIGS. 10A-10B by connecting the plenums between adjacent diffusors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the diffuser of the base device with a docking means to dock the plenum a further diffuser along the longitudinal axis as taught by de Jong, because this would predictably increase the germ-inactivated spatial zone in a direction of the longitudinal axis in a similar manner and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
21. Regarding claim 17, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 1, furthermore comprising at least one droplet protection shield (upper portion of the plenum 1270 is not permeable, i.e., would necessarily protect against droplets, par 0151) which extends at least on an end side of the housing and in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the housing (FIG. 10B, top plane).
22. Regarding claim 18, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus of claim 1, wherein dosage is calculated and the UV-C light is set to provide sufficient wattage in this range to kill or deactivate the virus (par 0178). De Jong does not specifically teach wherein the germ-inactivated spatial zone includes a germ load with more than 95% inactivation.
McEllen further teaches that UV-C dosage can be applied following dosage requirements well known to disable over 90% of various microorganisms (par 0019), and that the UV-C emitter is preferably designed to produce a minimum exposure to airborne microorganisms of from about 30 to about 75 J/m2 (par 0019). As the percentage of microorganisms disabled is a result-effective variable, the inactivation percentage using the UV-C emitter of McEllen would be attainable via routine optimization as there is a motivation to disable as large a fraction of microorganisms as possible. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try UV-C dosages and air flows as taught by McEllen within the system of modified Straus such that the germ-inactivated spatial zone includes a germ load with more than 95% inactivation, as such a result would predictably be achievable via routine optimization of UV-C dosing and air flow conditions.
23. Regarding claim 19, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus of claim 1, and the limitation wherein the germ-inactivated spatial zone is closed off such that a boundary region marking a difference in contamination level between an inside and an outside of the germ-inactivated zone is stationary is considered a manner of operating the device and thus does not carry patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that under a constant airflow condition and without outside disturbance, the zone boundary surrounding the outlet of de Jong would be expected to remain stationary (FIG. 8E and FIG. 10A).
24. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Jong (US 20230109493 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McEllen (US 20040184949 A1).
25. Regarding claim 9, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the radiation source is configured to emit light in the UV-C spectral range with a dose calculated to provide sufficient wattage to kill or deactivate the virus (par 0178). De Jong does not specifically teach that the dose is 50 J/m2 or more, or 100 J/m2 or more.
McEllen teaches an analogous personal air sterilization unit that creates a sterilized air space (Abstract, pars 0023-0024) wherein the radiation source is configured to emit light in the UV-C spectral range (par 0027) with a minimum exposure dose of about 30 to about 75 J/m2 (par 0019), which is sufficiently specific to read upon the claimed range of 50 J/m2 or more as higher dose values would be expected to similarly deactivate pathogens. See MPEP 2131.03(II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the UV-C light source of de Jong to emit a UV-C dose of 50 J/m2 or more as taught by McEllen because this dosage would predictably disable a high percentage of pathogens (McEllen par 0019) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
26. Regarding claim 10, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 1 but does not teach a reflector device by which the interior is irradiated with radiation emitted by the radiation source.
McEllen teaches an analogous personal air sterilization unit that creates a sterilized air space (Abstract, pars 0023-0024) wherein the interior wall of the sterilization duct is preferably reflective to increase the UV dosage at the interior wall (par 0017) i.e., a reflector device by which the interior is irradiated with radiation emitted by the radiation source. McEllen teaches that this is reflective surface is advantageous because internal light scattering helps achieve the prescribed dosage on the outer perimeter of the sterilization duct (pars 0019 and 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, include on the internal walls of the housing of de Jong a reflector device as taught by McEllen because this reflector device would predictably irradiate the interior surfaces with radiation emitted by the radiation source, providing the same improvements in dose distribution as taught by McEllen (pars 0019 and 0021) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
27. Regarding claim 11, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 1 but does not teach wherein the interior is mirrored in order to achieve homogeneous illumination of the interior.
McEllen teaches an analogous personal air sterilization unit that creates a sterilized air space (Abstract, pars 0023-0024) wherein the interior wall of the sterilization duct is preferably reflective i.e., mirrored to increase the UV dosage at the interior wall (par 0017). McEllen teaches that this mirrored surface is advantageous because internal light scattering helps achieve the prescribed dosage on the outer perimeter of the sterilization duct (pars 0019 and 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, modify the internal walls of the housing of modified Straus to be mirrored as taught by McEllen because the mirrored finish would predictably provide the same improvements in dose distribution as taught by McEllen (pars 0019 and 0021) with reasonable expectation of success in achieving substantially homogeneous illumination of the interior. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
28. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Jong (US 20230109493 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Staniforth et al (WO 2020141312 A1).
29. Regarding claim 12, de Jong teaches the table-top apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the air outlet device has an air-permeable membrane (material porosity at the micro (fabric) or macro (holes/slots) level can be used, par 0121). De Jong does not teach that the laminar flow body would be arranged between an inner first grille structure and an outer second grille structure.
Staniforth teaches an analogous air treatment apparatus (pg 1 lines 28-32 and pg 3 lines 5-12) having ultraviolet disinfection function (pg 4 lines 7-17) wherein an outer grille extends over the outer surface of a tubular arrangement of porous material (pg 29 lines 6-14) and an inner grille extends over the inner surface of the tubular arrangement of porous material (pg 29 lines 6-14) thus sandwiching the laminar flow body in a supporting manner. Grilles may be hinged (pg 26 lines 30-37 and pg 27 lines 1-3) i.e. mechanically fastened and manually releasable, arranged to provide a door into the housing i.e. for cleaning (pg 26 lines 30-35), but at least the outer grille is releasably attached to the frame to cover the filter media (pg 28 lines 6-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the air outlet device of de Jong removable outer and inner grilles sandwiching the air-permeable membrane as taught by Staniforth because these grilles would predictably support and protect the laminar flow membrane (Staniforth pg 48 line 32 to pg 49 line 11) with a reasonable expectation of success and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
30. Regarding claim 13, de Jong as modified by Staniforth teaches the tabletop apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the outer second grille structure is removable (perforated shroud 1144 is releasably attached to each filter frame, Staniforth pg 28 lines 13-29) and is used to hold the air-permeable membrane onto the inner first grille structure (one or more filter media are supported on the outer convex face of the filter frame….shroud i.e. outer grille sized to block and hold the filter medium within the assembly, Staniforth pg 28 lines 6-29, FIGS. 31-32).
31. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Jong (US 20230109493 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silverman (US 20200282086 A1).
32. Regarding claim 14, de Jong teaches the tabletop apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach a sensor. The limitation for recording data relating to a function and an operating state of the table-top apparatus, including a dose of the light emitted, an air flow generated or a distance of a person located in the space surrounding the housing describes an intended use of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II).
Silverman teaches an airflow sterilizer using UV-C light (FIG. 1A, pars 0107-0108) wherein sensors such as an air quality monitor, camera, proximity sensor or motion sensor (pars 0040-0050) that is connected to a monitoring unit having a transmission and reception unit (wireless transceiver, pars 0051-0052, FIG. 5) such that data gathered by these accessories can be collected, analyzed and transmitted so that the performance of the UV-C apparatus can be assessed and tracked (par 0142). Such a sensor would work in concert with controls to assess an air flow generated and consequently a UV-C exposure time/dose (pars 0129 and 0140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the apparatus of de Jong a sensor linked to a wireless-based monitoring unit as taught by Silverman because doing so would predictably provide similar feedback to an operator about at least an airflow generated and a dose of the light emitted (Silverman par 0129), ensuring that the airflow exposure is sufficient to kill micro-organisms (Silverman par 0095), the combination of prior art elements according to known methods yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
33. Regarding claim 15, de Jong as modified by Silverman teaches the tabletop apparatus as claimed in claim 14, furthermore comprising a monitoring unit having a wireless-based transmission and reception unit (wireless transceiver, Silverman pars 0051-0052, Silverman FIG. 5), which is configured to communicate such data relating to the function and the operating state of the table-top apparatus (Silverman par 0142) to an external control device (remotely-controlled…communicating sensors and controls, Silverman par 0093).
Response to Arguments
34. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and its dependents, see Remarks filed 23 February 2026 pages 6-9, 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. Examiner reminds Applicant that the generated clean air zone is considered an intended use or mode of operating the device (see MPEP 2114(II)), air being a material worked upon by the apparatus per MPEP 2115, thus details of the shape and orientation of the clean air zone are relevant only as to how they affect the structure of the apparatus.
Conclusion
35. 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
Prosecution Insights