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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 March 2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
5. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because reference characters should not be included, by reason of referring to extensive design details. 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:
In par 0002, “According to Japanese Patent Laying-Open No. 2019-5094” should read --according to Japanese Patent Publication No. 2019-005094--.
In par 0018, chemical formulas should have proper subscript and superscript format.
In par 0023, “the blow-out fan” should read --the fan-- to make clear reference to the part referred to as blow fan 140. The use of “blow fan” throughout, while acceptable lexicography, is unusual and may be advantageously corrected to --blower fan--.
In par 0031, “FIGS 14 to 18” should read --In FIGS. 14 to 18--.
After par 0039, “Forth Embodiment” should read --Fourth Embodiment--.
In par 0053, reference sign 110Y should be added, and the description for reference sign 162 should read --protruding member--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the first line, “The sterilization system, comprising” should read “A sterilization system comprising”.
8. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the first line, “The sterilization system, comprising” should read “A sterilization system comprising” for proper dependence on the sterilization device of claim 1.
9. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The sterilization system, according to claim 8, wherein” should read “The sterilization system according to claim 8, wherein”. Further, the limitation “the inside of the hole” in the fourth line may introduce confusion, likely resolvable by revising to read --the inside of its respective hole--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
12. Claim 1 recites the limitations "the top" and “the side” in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, as no geometric frame of reference has been established in the claim.
13. Claims 2-10 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on and failure to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
14. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the wind direction" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
15. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the side of the filter" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear on which side this opening would exist.
16. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the back of the case" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no frame of reference has been established.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the end of the clip" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the clip was not introduced structurally as having a singular definite end.
17. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the side of the filter" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear which side of the filter the holder would hold.
18. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the lower end of the case" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no frame of reference has been established.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the positive terminal and the negative terminal of the charging device" in the sixth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the charging device and its structure has not been introduced.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the charging terminal" in the seventh line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear to which of the two charging terminals this limitation purports to refer.
19. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the lower portion of the sterilization device" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear what parts of the sterilization device this portion would encompass.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the positive terminal and the negative terminal" in the sixth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim is written as dependent on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bottom surface of the recess" in the sixth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no geometric frame of reference has been established.
20. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the top of the sterilization device" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no geometric frame of reference has been established.
21. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the upper portions of both side surfaces" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear what parts constitute upper portions and no definite number of side surfaces has been established.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lower ends of the neck frames" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as neck frames have not been introduced in anteceding claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the hole" in the fifth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear which of the holes this limitation purports to refer.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the side surface of the protrusions" in the fifth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as such surface definition has not been established for these protrusions.
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.
23. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 20170348455 A1).
24. Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a sterilization device (air cleaner, Title, Abstract, pars 0107-0112; UV exposure to airflow, par 0111), comprising:
a cylindrical case (FIG. 8, outer housing 20) having an air outlet on the top (FIG. 8, discharge port 45, par 0027) and an air inlet on the side (FIG. 8, suction ports 215 and 221-222);
a fan (fan 60 is mounted on the fan mounting unit 32, par 0082) arranged below the air outlet in the case (FIG. 8, fan mounting unit 32 below outlet 45) for sending air to the air outlet (fan inducing forcible discharge of air towards the discharge port, par 0027); and
a filter (photocatalytic filter 80 mounted on filter mounting unit 34, par 0108) arranged below the fan in the case (FIG. 8, filter 80/mounting unit 34 below fan unit 32).
Examiner notes that 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). In this case, though Kim does not disclose a level of sterilization achievable with the air cleaner, Kim discloses all the structural limitations above thereby anticipating the claim.
25. Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the sterilization device according to claim 1, wherein the filter is a photocatalyst filter (photocatalytic filter 80, par 0108) having a plurality of openings in the wind direction of the fan (photocatalytic filter has a structure allowing air to pass through the plurality of air flow passages, par 0096), and
the sterilization device further comprises a light arranged below the fan for irradiating the photocatalyst filter (UV light source emitting UV light towards the photocatalytic filter, par 0027; FIG. 8, UV LED substrate 50 and UV LED 51 arranged below fan housing 32).
26. Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the sterilization device according to claim 1, wherein the case has an opening in the side of the filter (FIG. 8, opening formed at upper portion of body housing 20, par 0098),
the sterilization device further comprises a detachable cover for closing the opening (upper housing 40 is separated from the body housing 20, par 0098), and
the filter can be removed from the case by sliding it through the opening and out of the case (photocatalytic filter may be inserted into and removed from the air cleaner through an opening formed by separation of the upper housing, pars 0030 and 0098), with the cover removed (when the upper housing 40 is separated from the body housing 20, par 0098).
27. Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the sterilization device according to claim 4, further comprising:
a holder for holding the side of the filter (photocatalytic filter mounting unit 34 having the photocatalytic filter 80 mounted thereon, pars 0083 and 0085), wherein the filter, together with the holder (photocatalytic filter 80 may be mounted on the photocatalytic filter mounting unit 34 by placing the photocatalytic filter 80 thereon from above the inner housing, par 0097), can be removed from the case by sliding it through the opening to the outside of the case (facilitates separation of the photocatalytic filter through an opening, par 0111).
28. Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses a sterilization system (air cleaner comprising several components working together to purify air, Abstract, pars 0107-0112; UV exposure to airflow, par 0111), comprising:
the sterilization device according to claim 1 (see above), and
a neck frame (FIG. 8, front housing 21 frames neck at top of the device) detachable to the top of the sterilization device (upper housing 40 detachably fastened to the front housing 21, par 0075). As the present specification does not redefine the term “neck frame”, the plain meaning is used which directs to a structural element pertaining to a neck, in this case, of the device. See MPEP 2111.01.
Examiner notes that 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). In this case, though Kim does not disclose a level of sterilization achievable with the air cleaner, Kim discloses all the structural limitations above thereby anticipating the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
29. 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.
30. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20170348455 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takami et al (JP 2019005094 A, references made to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the sterilization device according to claim 1, wherein the fan 60 is mounted on the fan mounting unit 32, which is arranged around the fan for supporting the fan with respect to the case and closing between the fan and the case (par 0082). Kim does not teach that this mounting unit would be an elastic member.
Takami teaches an analogous small size air cleaner (Abstract, pars 0009-0010, FIG. 1) wherein a vibration suppressing section comprising a spring structure i.e., an elastic member is provided around the intake fan to suppress vibration during operation and prevent the intake fan from shifting (par 0044).
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 fan support member of Kim to be an elastic member as taught by Takami. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantages of suppressing fan vibration and preventing the fan from shifting during use.
31. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20170348455 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the sterilization device according to claim 4, but the embodiment of FIG. 8 does not explicitly feature a clip attached to the back of the case for holding the sterilization device.
Kim teaches an analogous embodiment in FIGS. 9-11 that features a clip attached to the back of the case for holding the sterilization device (FIG. 10, handling unit includes a fastening portion 141 formed on a lower surface of the upper housing, i.e., cover, par 0135), wherein an end of the clip is detachably attached to the cover (FIG. 10, handling unit 141 mounted i.e., attachable but not integral, or detachably attached on the upper housing, par 0133).
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 a clip attached to the back of the case for holding the sterilization device wherein an end of the clip is detachably attached to the cover as taught in another embodiment by Kim. Doing so would predictably provide the same support for the handling unit to be readily used by a user (Kim pars 0133-0135).
32. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20170348455 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takami et al (JP 2019005094 A, references made to English Machine Translation) and Kang (KR 950004363 Y1, references made to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the sterilization device according to claim 1, but Kim does not teach a rechargeable battery that can be charged in a reversible manner by using a bridge circuit having a plurality of diodes.
Takami teaches an analogous small size air cleaner (Abstract, pars 0009-0010, FIG. 1) that includes a rechargeable battery that is small and lightweight with large capacity for powering the air cleaner components (pars 0081 and 0083-0085) that can be connected to a power source using known methods (par 0083). Takami does not specifically teach what known method is advantageously employed for charging.
Kang teaches a device for charging power from a fixed device to a portable device (page 1 lines 10-11) wherein a rechargeable battery can be charged regardless of which of the two charging terminals the positive terminal and the negative terminal of the charging device are connected to (page 3 lines 12-23), by using a bridge circuit (bridge diode 32, page 2 lines 22-29) having a plurality of diodes between the charging terminal and the rechargeable battery (FIG. 2, bridge diode 32 has 4 diodes indicated by black triangles between charging terminals 28/30 and battery 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to power the air cleaner of Kim using a conventional rechargeable battery as taught by Takami, as such a battery would predictably enable the device to be similarly powered in a portable manner. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to seek a conventional means to charge this battery and incorporate the charging system of Kang, namely using a bridge circuit having a plurality of diodes between the charging terminal and the rechargeable battery. Doing so would predictably enable the device to be charged regardless of the direction the portable device is placed on the fixed charging device, as advantageously taught by Kang (page 3 lines 12-23).
33. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20170348455 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takami et al (JP 2019005094 A, references made to English Machine Translation) and Kodama (US 5519776 A).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a sterilization system (air cleaner, Title, Abstract, pars 0107-0112; UV exposure to airflow, par 0111), comprising the sterilization device according to claim 1. Kim does not teach a charging device having a recess as claimed, as the device of Kim is powered via a connector to an exterior power source (par 0034).
Takami teaches an analogous small size air cleaner (Abstract, pars 0009-0010, FIG. 1) that includes a rechargeable battery that is small and lightweight with large capacity for powering the air cleaner components (pars 0081 and 0083-0085) that can be connected to a power source using known methods (par 0083). Takami does not teach a specific method or device for charging.
Kodama teaches a conventional cordless telephone charger (Abstract, col 1 lines 12-48 and col 2 lines 22-55) i.e., a charging device having a recess (a portion of the holder section 21 on which the receiver section 12 of the handset 1 is placed is recessed, col 4 lines 5-18) into which the lower portion of the handheld device can be inserted for holding the handheld device in a slanted state (FIGS. 2a-2b), and the positive terminal and the negative terminal provided on the bottom surface of the recess (FIG. 1b, conducting terminals 22 attached to the inner side i.e. bottom surface of the charger recess, col 4 lines 5-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to power the air cleaner of Kim using a conventional rechargeable battery as taught by Takami, as such a battery would predictably enable the device to be similarly powered in a portable manner. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to seek a conventional means to charge this battery and incorporate the charging system of Kodama, namely using a charging device having a recess having the positive terminal and negative terminal therein and into which the lower portion of the sterilization device can be inserted for holding the sterilization device in a slanted state. Doing so would predictably enable the device to be charged regardless of the direction the portable device is placed on the fixed charging device, as advantageously taught by Kodama (col 5 lines 28-47 and col 6 lines 1-5).
Examiner notes that 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). In this case, though Kim does not disclose a level of sterilization achievable with the air cleaner, Kim as modified teaches the structural limitations of the claim and thus would be expected to achieve a level of sterilization.
34. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 20170348455 A1), Takami et al (JP 2019005094 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chan (US 20070257383 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kim as modified above teaches the sterilization device according to claim 8, but the combination does not teach the specific hole/frame morphology claimed, namely that the side surfaces of each hole have a member biased toward the inside of the hole wherein each of the lower ends of the neck frame has a protrusion for inserting into the hole having a concave portion.
Chan teaches an analogous wearable air purifier (FIGS. 1-3, pars 0035-0037 and 0064) wherein the upper portions of both side surfaces of the case have holes (FIG. 3, holes for connector post 42) connectable to the lower ends of the neck frames (FIG. 3, complementally formed to mate with attachment members 35, par 0043), side surfaces of each of the holes have a member biased toward the inside of the hole (each post head is round in configuration with a pair of diametrically opposed, radially outwardly extending tabs in contact with opening, par 0043), each of the lower ends of the neck frame has a protrusion for inserting into the hole (FIG. 3, neck strap connector post 42 at lower end of neck frame 12, par 0043), and the side surface of the protrusion has a concave portion at a position facing the member (attachment member rotates so that slots and tabs misalign, par 0043).
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 a neck frame to hang the device of modified Kim in the configuration taught by Chan, namely wherein the upper portions of both side surfaces of the case have holes connectable to the lower ends of the neck frames, side surfaces of each of the holes have a member biased toward the inside of the hole, each of the lower ends of the neck frame has a protrusion for inserting into the hole, and the side surface of the protrusion has a concave portion at a position facing the member. Doing so would predictably provide a suitable attachment for a neck strap and confer the same advantages taught by Chan, namely that the air purifier may be positioned atop the chest of a user and adjustable so that the purified air can readily flow toward the user’s face (pars 0035-0036).
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