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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “wherein the perforated plate collects the water into the water tank with the help of pipe”. It was understood that the pipe was meant to be the same as the one recited in claim 1, at which The Office recommends the claim to recite -the help of the pipe-. However, if Applicant intended for there to be a separate pipe then applicant should revise the language to read -the help of another pipe-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearinger (US 20180338440 A1) in view of Kaur (IN 201711017992 A).
Regarding claim 1: Dearinger discloses an air purification system based aeroponic technique, said system (aeroponic device that could be used to purify air) comprising of: a. an enclosure that comprises an upper chamber and a lower chamber (manifold 610 divides internal volume into upper and lower chambers), wherein a top panel (lid 130) of the upper chamber provides a support for specific plants (via apertures 140, para 20) having microbes on rhizosphere/roots capable of removing pollutants from surrounding (this apparatus is capable of performing this function) wherein one or more specific plants are hung from the top panel (para 20), wherein rhizosphere/roots of the one or more specific plants are exposed to air in the upper chamber below the top panel (para 24) and leaves of the specific plants are positioned above the top panel of the upper chamber of the enclosure (para 20, roots positioned in apertures 140 would result in leaves positioned above the lid 130); b. a axial fan (fan 160) at an inlet in the upper chamber (lid 130), an outlet (ventilation holes 310), wherein the axial fan generate a flow force for passing are that passes air directly upon and through the exposed rhizosphere/roots of the one or more specific plants that facilities flow of polluted air in and clean air out of the upper chamber (para 30 discusses air circulated through enclosure can be released via ventilation holes 310); c. a water tank (reservoir 110) with a pump (pump 220) for regular watering of the one or more specific plants, wherein the water tank is located in the lower chamber (Fig. 5); d. a perforated plate (manifold 610) that separates the upper chamber from the lower chamber (Fig. 6), wherein the perforated plate is configured to mediate collection of water in the water tank (openings within manifold would allow water to be collected in reservoir 110); e. a pipe (piping 530) and nozzles (spray jets 620) located in the upper chamber for spraying of the exposed rhizosphere/roots with water with nutrients (jets 620 would be positioned in the upper chamber);
Dearinger fails to teach an axial fan at an outlet in the upper chamber, and a sensor for detecting pollutants.
However, Kaur teaches a plurality of axial fans (9) at an inlet and an outlet (claim 1), wherein the plurality of axial fans generate a flow force for passing are through the exposed rhizosphere/roots of the specific plants that facilities flow of polluted air in and clean air out (Claim 1); and a sensor (8) for detecting pollutants.
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 aeroponic system as disclosed by Dearinger with the outlet fan and sensor as taught by Kaur with a reasonable expectation of success because these structural components would assist with air purification, by allowing polluted air to be fed through the plants so that a resulting clean air exits the aeroponic system, and the sensor could assist with the turn on/off of the fans to assist with cleaning the air, in which both components would result in a more efficient aeroponic system that produces fresh air which would thus benefitting the environment near the apparatus.
Regarding claim 2: Dearinger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kaur further teaches wherein the one or more specific plants are selected from the group consisting of Peperomia capperata, Peperomia capperata variegata, Peperomia sandersii, Maranta leuconeuro, Maranta cinza, Alocasia amazonica, Alocasia macorrhiza variegata, Calathea zebrina, Calathea roseopicta, Crassula ovata, Crassula argenta, Pilea microphylla, Pilea spruceana, Philodendron xanadu, Dracaena mahatama, Sanseivera cylindrica, Savia splendens, Alpinia zerumbet variegata, Brassica oleracea, Pandanus tectonus, Coleus blumei, Excoecaria cochinchinensis, Tradescantia zebrina, Kalanchoe tomentosa, Beaucarnea recurvate (Claim 4).
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 aeroponic apparatus as disclosed by modified Dearinger with the plants as taught by Kaur with a reasonable expectation of success because these plants are well known in the art to purify air, which would provide fresher and cleaner air quality within the room the plant system is situated in.
Regarding claim 4: Dearinger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kaur further teaches wherein the one or more specific plants automatically remove the pollutants from air around the air purification system (page 17, 5th advantage).
Regarding claim 5: Dearinger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kaur further teaches wherein the perforated plate collects the water into the water tank with the help of pipe (as seen in Fig. 1, pump would dispense water which goes through plate and arrives at water tank, discussed in claim 1 of Kaur).
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 water arrangement as disclosed by Dearinger with the piping as taught by Kaur with a reasonable expectation of success because providing this watering arrangement would assist with the recirculation of water, decreasing the water lost as a result of growing these plants, and further optimizing the aeroponic apparatus by decreasing cost.
Regarding claim 6: Dearinger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Kaur further teaches wherein the purification system is provided with an energy source selected from the group consisting of a solar panel, wind energy and a conventional energy source (Claim 7, abstract).
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 aeroponic apparatus as disclosed by modified Dearinger with the energy source as taught by Kaur with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an energy source would allow the fans to be activated, which would assist with the purification of air within a polluted room.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/EDGAR REYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights