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 .
Specification
The use of the terms “Wi-Fi” and “Bluetooth,” which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim depends on itself. For the purpose of examination, claim 8 will be viewed to depend on --claim 7-- instead of “claim 8” and claim 10 will be viewed to depend on --claim 9-- instead of “claim 10.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the air outlet" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second channel" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a duct" in line 11. It is unclear if the limitation refers to the “air inlet and outlet duct” presented in line 6 of the claim or to a different duct.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first channel" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the radical mixture" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mixture of the fluids" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In regard to claim 8, the above interpretation of claim 8 reciting dependency on claim 7 has been applied for the purpose of practicing compact prosecution. It is noted that claim 7 recites “wherein the conversion unit (11) is an ultraviolet light generator” and claim 8 recites “said ultraviolet light generator (16).” It is noted that the specification and drawings depict the structures of numeral (11) and numeral (16) to be separate and distinct structures. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation of claim 8 is referring to one structure or two different structures as two numerals have been referenced.
In regard to claim 9, it is noted that the claim recites “said conversion unit (11) is an ultrasound generator (17).” It is noted that the specification and drawings depict the structures of numeral (11) and numeral (17) to be separate and distinct structures. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation is referring to one structure or two different structures as two numerals have been referenced.
Claim 14 contains the trademarks/trade names “Wi-Fi” and “Bluetooth.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe wireless for local and personal area networks and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segura Rius et al. (US 2014/0079597; hereinafter “Segura”) in view of Catalan (US 2021/0330850).
In regard to claims 1-2, 4-8 and 11-12, Segura discloses a device capable of generating hydroxyl radicals, hydroperoxyl radicals, negative ions, positive ions and ozone (see [0080]) comprising a) at least one container (reservoir 910) suitable for containing a liquid substance such as hydrogen peroxide (see [0079]) from which said hydroxyl radicals are generated; b) at least one conversion unit (ozone generator 935 which can be a plasma ion generator or a UV type ozone generator; see [0035] and [0079]) capable of generating said hydroxyl radicals from said substance; c) a base (base unit 900) comprising a power supply (transformer; [0084]), a fan 955, an air inlet and outlet duct (narrowing air conduit 960) of the device, and an electrically supplying device (electrical contact 945 and/or power supply socket 950) for the various components of the device; wherein said air inlet and outlet duct of the device comprises a mixing vessel (mixing chamber 975) before an air outlet (dispensing outlet 980) of the device, wherein characterised in that it the device has at least one fluid conduction system with a duct/first channel (conduit 960 which can be provided in the form wherein “the ozone generator and hydrogen peroxide supply are placed in the same conduit”; [0086]) and that said at least one container and at least one conversion unit can be removed from the base unit as a cartridge 905. Thus, Segura discloses that the air inlet and outlet duct (960) of the device comprises a first section (proximal to the fan 955) which conducts the air supplied by the fan; a second section connected to the first which is narrower and to which part of the air supplied from the first (proximal to ozone generator 935 in Figure 9); a third section (downstream of the ozone generator 935) connected to the second and first which conducts the mixture of the fluids from the first two sections to the device outlet, and a fourth (proximal to the mixing chamber 975) where the air is mixed and released to the outside. See Figures 9-10b and [0079]-[0088].
Segura is silent in regard to a controller for the embodiment of base unit 900. However, Segura discloses that “control electronics” can be used in the embodiment of Figure 3 to provide power to the fan and ozone generator intermittently and to connect to a user interface. See [0067]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control electronics of the alternative embodiment of Segura into the embodiment of the base unit 900 for the purpose of allowing for control of the fan and ozone generator in the other embodiment without creating any new or unexpected results.
Segura is further silent in regard a second channel for allowing the recirculation of air within the device in such a way that at least part of the air with radicals circulates several times before going outside.
Catalan discloses an air disinfection device wherein air is recirculated past the ultraviolet C light sources (204 which would necessarily include wavelengths of between 100 and 280 nm) for creating radicals and a second channel (recirculation path 211) for allowing the airflow to have multiple passes by the UV-C light sources for increasing the disinfection effect. See [0014]-[0015], [0095]-[0102] and Figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the recirculation path and use of UVC light sources of Catalan with the apparatus of Segura for the purpose of recirculating air until the desired effect is achieved and for providing UV light in wavelengths that are effective in producing ozone as desired.
In regard to claim 3, Segura discloses wherein the container is an open container (reservoir 910 has a cap 925 covering opening 920) comprising a wick 915 which can be made from any suitable fibrous material such as polypropylene fiber. See [0078] and Figures 9-10b. Segura does not explicitly disclose wherein the wick can be made from cellulose, cotton, sponge or a mixture thereof. However, the Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Therefore, as it is viewed that cellulose and cotton are extremely well known to be used to form wicks and are “fibrous”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a cotton or cellulose wick for the wick of the above combined device as one of ordinary skill would have been aware that cotton and cellulose are one of the “other suitable fibrous materials” from which to form a wick.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segura in view of Catalan and Riesz et al. (“Free Radical Generation by Ultrasound in Aqueous and Nonaqueous Solutions,” Environmental Health Perspectives 64:233/52; hereinafter “Riesz”).
In regard to claims 9-10, Segura and Catalan are silent in regard to wherein the conversion unit can be an ultrasound generator.
Riesz discloses that ultrasound can be used to induce transient cavitation in solutions to generate hydroxyl radicals. Riesz teaches that frequencies in the MHz range, such as 1.6 MHz, are effective to produce cavitation bubbles, and thus hydroxyl, in aqueous solutions. See the abstract and at least page 236. Nonetheless, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum or workable range of ultrasound frequency to generate hydroxyl radicals through routine experimentation. “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (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 have combined and/or substituted an ultrasound generator as taught by Riesz with and/or for the conversion unit of the above combination without creating any new or unexpected results as the structures would be functionally equivalent. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segura in view of Catalan and Uchimura (US 2020/0030478).
In regard to claims 13-14, Segura and Catalan are silent in regard to sensors as recited and to a data transmission module.
Uchimura discloses an air purifier which includes sensors capable of detecting volatile organic compounds (odor sensor 104), temperature (temperature sensor 106), humidity (humidity sensor 107), and particles in the air (dust sensor 103) to enable adjustment of the operation of the air purifier and a data transmission module (communication unit 109) which is capable of Wi-Fi™ transmissions. See [0042], [0045], [0056] and Figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the sensors and communication unit of Uchimura with the above combined device for the purpose of enhancing the control and operation of the device by enabling operation to be controlled based upon received transmissions and sensed ambient conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774