DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (KR 100625769 B1) in view of Krigmont (US 20220088260 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang teaches a composite air sterilization purifier configured to forcibly suction external air through an intake port in order to sterilize the air and to discharge the purified air through an exhaust port (circulation duct forms circulation path for air flow generated by the blower , page 8 lines 11-15), the composite air sterilization purifier comprising: a particle separation unit configured to separate dust included in the air suctioned through the intake port and bacteria and viruses included in the air from each other (pretreatment filter removes particles larger than several microns, page 12 lines 12-13); an electrostatic dust collection unit configured to capture the dust, the bacteria, and the viruses included in the air that has passed through the particle separation unit (high-efficiency electrostatic filtration filter after pretreatment filter, page 12 lines 8-9, and electrostatic filer removes ultra-fine floating particles, page 13 lines 14-15); an ultraviolet sterilization unit configured to radiate UV to the electrostatic dust collection unit in order to sterilize the bacteria and viruses captured in the electrostatic dust collection unit (UV source is downstream of electrostatic filter, page 9 line 2); a photocatalyst filter configured to sterilize the air that has passed through the ultraviolet sterilization unit (photocatalyst removes harmful gases using a photocatalyst activated by UV rays, page 10 lines 8-9); a plasma sterilization unit configured to increase density of the bacteria and the viruses included in air that has passed through the photocatalyst filter and to intensively sterilize the bacteria and the viruses (plasma discharge of a sterilizing plasma generator downstream of the photocatalyst unit, page 9 lines 5-6); an active species filter configured to absorb harmful gas, ozone, and residual active species included in the air that has passed through the plasma sterilization unit (generated active substance permanently inactivates floating particles caught in slim high-efficiency filer at the rear end of the system, page 15 lines 15-17), but does not teaches the use of UVC light. However, Krigmont teaches the use of UVC light (emits short wavelength UV light in the germicidal spectrum UVC, paragraph [0055]).
Hwang and Krigmont are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of electrostatic filtering devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the electrostatic filtering device taught by Hwang with the UVC light taught by Krigmont because Krigmont teaches light emitted in the UVC region will produce the highest germicidal efficiency (paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hwang and Krigmont teaches wherein the particle separation unit separates the dust and the bacteria and the viruses having a smaller particle size than dust from each other based on particle size (pretreatment filter removes particles larger than several microns, page 12 lines 12-13, Hwang).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hwang and Krigmont teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the electrostatic dust collection unit contains a HEPA filter and an electric dust collection filter (e-HEPA filer which has a filter medium that is electrostatic, page 16 lines 8-9, and high-efficiency electrostatic filtration filter, page 12 line 9, Hwang) and the filters are vertically mounted (Figure 1 filters “120”, “130”, and “160” with vertical orientation, Hwang), but does not teach wherein the HEPA and dust collection filters are disposed in parallel or mounted in slots so as to be detachable. However, Krigmont further teaches wherein the filters are disposed horizontally in parallel (concentric particle collection tubes, paragraph [0051], and one of the concentric electrodes can be made of porous filter material, paragraph [0054]) and mounted in slots so as to be detachable (connecting and releasing tubes, abstract).
Hwang and Krigmont are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the electrostatic filtering device taught by Hwang and Krigmont with the parallel filters and detachability taught by Krigmont because Krigmont teaches the concentric collection tubes create a uniform high-tension electrostatic field to remove particles from the air stream (paragraph [0051]) and the detachability makes the device easy to clean (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hwang and Krigmont teaches wherein the air comprising the dust that has passed through the particle separation unit is introduced into the HEPA filter, and the air comprising the bacteria and the viruses that has passed through the particle separation unit is introduced into the electric dust collection filter (particles of about 0.5µm or larger are charged and attached to the electrodes, and particles of about 0.5 µm or smaller are attached to mesh or porous plate, page 13 lines 9-12, Hwang).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hwang and Krigmont teaches a dust collection electrode unit configured to have a structure in which dust collection electrodes are alternatively disposed (Figure 4 electrodes “13” and collector plate “12” with alternating charges, Krigmont); and a switching unit configured to select polarity of each of the dust collection electrodes (alternating current supply or other voltage supply as available, paragraph [0053], Krigmont).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hwang and Krigmont teaches wherein the ultraviolet sterilization unit radiates UVC to the photocatalyst filter to sterilizing bacteria and viruses absorbed on the photocatalyst filter (UV composite unit sterilizes floating biohazard particles contained in circulating air stream, page 8 line 21- page 9 line 1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hwang and Krigmont teaches a plasma sterilization unit provided between the electrostatic dust collection unit and the ultraviolet sterilization unit, the plasma sterilization unit being configured to sterilize the bacteria and the viruses included in the air that has passed through the electric dust collection filter (low-temperature plasma is formed in electrostatic filtration filter between two electrodes, page 13 lines 6-7, Hwang).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hwang and Krigmont teaches an inlet air quality provided in the intake port, the inlet air quality sensor being configured to sense at least one of dust, harmful gas, bacteria, and viruses included in the air suctioned through the intake part (monitoring system includes floating particle detection unit and ozone sensor, page 9 lines 9-11, Hwang); and a controller configured to control the electrostatic dust collection unit, the ultraviolet sterilization unit, and the plasma sterilization unit according to a sensing signal form the unlet air quality sensor (control unit controls work door of cabinet based on detection signals, page 9 lines 15-17, and sterilization mode performed while work door is closed, page 11 lines 1-2, Hwang).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang and Krigmont in view of Schieven (US 20150283283 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hwang and Krigmont teaches wherein the plasma sterilization unit is provided with an air inlet configured to allow air to be introduced therethrough and an air outlet configured to allow the air introduced through the air inlet to be discharged therethrough (Figure 1 air flows through electrostatic filtration filter “130” including plasma electrodes “132” and “133”), a plasma zone is formed between the air inlet and the air outlet, the plasma zone being configured to allow air to pass between plasma electrodes spaced apart from each other so as to correspond to each other therein (Figure 1 electrostatic plasma generator “131” formed between electrodes “132” and “133”), but does not teach wherein the plasma zone is formed in a venturi structure having a predetermined radius of curvature in section. However, Schieven teaches wherein the plasma zone is formed in a venturi structure having a predetermined radius of curvature in section (electric divider are substantially arcuate V-shaped in cross section to provide a venturi effect as fluid flow through the dielectric tube, paragraph [0091]).
Hwang and Krigmont are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Schieven is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of plasma air filtration devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the plasma zone as taught by Hwang and Krigmont with a venturi structure as taught by Schieven because Schieven teaches the venturi structure increases the energy efficiency of the apparatus by reducing the pressure drop over the plasma (paragraph [0091]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang and Krigmont as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mäkipää (US 20200109869 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hwang and Krigmont teaches all aspects of the current invention including a suction fan provided in the exhaust port (Figure 1 blower “110” at outlet duct “11”, Hwang), but does not teach a fan motor is configured to provide torque to the suction fan, wherein the fan motor is controlled by the controller such that the amount of air that is suctioned through the intake port is adjusted based on the degree of the air pollution sensed by the inlet air quality sensor. However, Mäkipää teaches a fan motor is configured to provide torque to the suction fan (rising speed of fan motor changes fan speed, paragraph [0266]), wherein the fan motor is controlled by the controller such that the amount of air that is suctioned through the intake port is adjusted based on the degree of the air pollution sensed by the inlet air quality sensor (carbon dioxide sensors detect carbon dioxide levels that adjust speed of fan automatically, paragraph [0038]).
Hwang, Krigmont, and Mäkipää are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of electrostatic filtering devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the electrostatic filtering device taught by Hwang and Krigmont with the fan control taught by Mäkipää because Mäkipää teaches that the automatic fan control allows for the device to enter standby mode to save energy (paragraph [0038]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, Krigmont, and Schieven in further view of Mäkipää.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hwang, Krigmont, and Schieven teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein each of the plasma electrodes is disposed so as to be inclined at a predetermined angle toward the air inlet such that an end of each of the plasma electrodes faces the air inlet. However, Mäkipää teaches wherein each of the plasma electrodes is disposed so as to be inclined at a predetermined angle toward the air inlet such that an end of each of the plasma electrodes faces the air inlet (Figure 3 high voltage electrodes “15” angled toward air inlet).
Hwang, Krigmont, Schieven, and Mäkipää are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the filtering device taught by Hwang, Krigmont, and Schieven with the angled electrodes taught by Mäkipää because Mäkipää teaches such an orientation of the electrodes produces effective filtering without high pressure drops (paragraph [0042]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799