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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 23 September 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “search and examination can be made without serious burden on the examiner.” This is not found persuasive because the Examiner correctly showed that the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus as the process does not require the particular structure of the apparatus. It is noted that the process does not explicitly require the structure of “a fan” and “a descenting agent source” (emphasis added). The Examiner also correctly showed that the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as a process of sterilizing an interior space using ozone or treating a fluid flow, such as water, with ozone. Therefore, a search and/or examination burden would exist if the groups were examined together. It is noted that the method of claim 15 would be eligible for rejoinder if the method were rewritten to explicitly require the apparatus of claim 1 or claim 20. The Examiner regrettably notes that CPC class “A31M31/02” was accidentally entered in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 30 July 2025 instead of --A01M31/02--. The Examiner apologizes for the typo.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. US 8,663,553 is recited in paragraph [0003] of the specification.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0027] appears to have been submitted in an incomplete form due to the use of placeholder letters and brackets in the four sentences of the paragraph and [0028] has been left blank.
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 2-9, 12-14 and 20 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 2 recites the limitation "the descenting agent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It has not been explicitly stated that the structure of “a descenting agent source” produces the “descenting agent.”
In regard to claim 3, it is unclear if the claim is explicitly requiring that the “descenting agent source” to be the “ozone generator” or whether the structures are separate and distinct. For the purpose of examination, it is held that the claim explicitly requires that the “descenting agent source” is an ozone generator.
In regard to claim 4, it is unclear how the structure of the housing, which the ozone generator is required to be “located within” and is required to have “an inlet port fluidly connected to the internal environment and an outlet port fluidly connected to the external environment,” is related to the structure of “a fluid conduit” which is require to be “between the internal environment and the external environment” and to house the “descenting agent source” which is defined as the “ozone generator” in claim 3. For the purpose of examination, it is held that “a fluid conduit” regards the interior space which is defined by the structure of “a housing.”
Claims 5-9 and 12-14 are rejected based upon their dependence on the claims rejected above.
In regard to claim 20, it is unclear how “a fluid conduit” can have “an inlet inside the structure and an exhaust outlet outside the structure” while “a housing” can have “an inlet port fluid connected to the inlet and an outlet port fluidly connected to the exhaust outlet” and to have the fluid conduit be either in a single piece or to not have the housing and fluid conduit form a closed loop. For the purpose of examination, it is held that “a fluid conduit” regards the interior space which is defined by the structure of “a housing.”
In regard to claim 20, the limitation of “wherein at least one of (the inlet port and the outlet port) is configured for convenient attachment and detachment to a stand-dimension PVC pipe” is unclear as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the limitation if the claim were allowed to issue. It is noted that [0026] of the specification discusses the limitation, and the limitation remains unclear as “convenient” has been defined to mean “attachment and detachment without tools or with only simple tools […], and/or tools found on a common multipurpose pocket tool.” As such, the scope of the limitation relies upon all the known and unknown attachment means for PVC pipes which can be viewed to allow for “convenient” attachment. As such, the limitation is unclear as the language of the limitation would not allow one of ordinary skill to interpret the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. See MPEP § 2173.02.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hess et al. (US 7,222,634; hereinafter “Hess”).
In regard to claim 1, Hess discloses an apparatus (filtration unit 26) for reducing scent emanating from a substantially enclosed structure’s (hunting blind 22) internal environment to the external environment (see Figure 1), the apparatus comprising: a fluid conduit (interior of the frame components 90, 94 and 96 which are “attached together or integrally formed as a canister;” see col. 7; lines 31-54) between the internal environment and the external environment (opening 70 in the blind 22 is “sized and shaped for receiving therethrough the filtration unit 26;” see col. 5, line 66 through line 1 of col. 6); a descenting agent source (scent-elimination element 84) within the fluid conduit; and a fan (air moving device 86 which comprises an electric fan 92) within the fluid conduit configured to exhaust air from the internal environment to the external environment. See col. 7, line 18 through col. 8, line 26 and Figures 1, 5 and 9-13.
In regard to claims 2-3, Hess discloses wherein the descenting agent source (scent-elimination element 84) can be an ozone generator (“ultraviolet lamp for providing ozonation”) which produces ozone. See col. 8, line 11.
In regard to claim 4, Hess discloses wherein the ozone generator is located within a housing (the combined structure of frame components 90, 94 and 96 - specifically within the frame 90), said housing comprising an inlet port (open side of the frame 90) fluidly connected to the internal environment and an outlet port (the other open side of the frame 94) fluidly connected to the external environment. See col. 7, lines 31-36 and Figures 10-11.
In regard to claim 5, Hess discloses wherein the fan 92 is located within the housing the combined structure of frame components 90, 94 and 96 - specifically within the frame 96). See col. 7, lines 31-36 and Figures 10-11.
In regard to claim 7, Hess discloses wherein the fan 92 is located proximate to the outlet port of frame 96. See Figure 11.
In regard to claims 8-9, Hess discloses wherein the housing is capable of being mounted on a sidewall (such as bottom panel 58) of the substantially enclosed structure (hunting blind 22; not explicitly recited) using a retainer (“threaded for mating with threads of a collar;” see col. 43-50) encircling the fluid conduit proximate the outlet port. Hess also discloses wherein the filtration unit 26 can be “suspended from the frame.” See col. 8, lines 7-26.
In regard to claim 11, Hess discloses wherein the fluid conduit comprises flexible ducting such as “an outlet hose” as a hose is necessarily viewed to be at least somewhat flexible. See col. 8, lines 7-26.
In regard to claim 12, Hess discloses wherein the housing is configured to be suspended within the substantially enclosed structure as it is taught that the filtration unit 26 “sits on the bottom panel of the blind or is suspended from the frame.” See col. 8, lines 7-26.
In regard to claim 13, Hess discloses wherein the fan 92 and the ozone generator are necessarily electrically connected to one or more power sources (power source 98). See Figure 12 and col. 7, lines 55-59.
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.
Claims 6, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess in view of Elrod (US 2023/0013249).
In regard to claim 6, Hess is silent to wherein the fan is located proximate to the inlet port.
Elrod discloses an air flow control blind which uses an ozone generator 180 within the exhaust openings to descent the air exhausted from the blind. Elrod teaches that the ozone generator has a fan located proximal to the inlet, outlet or both of the ozone generator for drawing air therethrough. See at least Figure 9 and [0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the fan in the apparatus of Hess in the manner disclosed by Elrod such that the fan pushes air from the inlet to the outlet instead of pulling air from the inlet to the outlet without creating any new or unexpected results. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In regard to claim 14, Hess is silent to wherein the rate of ozone generation is variable.
Elrod discloses wherein the oxidant out rate of the generator 180, which can use an ultraviolet light ozone generator, can be variable and controlled by the controller 181. See [0072], [0074] and [0090].
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 variable control of the ozone generator as taught by Elrod with the apparatus of Hess for the purpose of allowing a user to determine and control the rate of ozone generation without creating any new or unexpected results. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
In regard to claim 20, Hess discloses an apparatus (filtration unit 26) for reducing scent emanating from a substantially enclosed structure’s (hunting blind 22) internal environment to the external environment (see Figure 1), the apparatus comprising: a fluid conduit (interior of the frame components 90, 94 and 96 which are “attached together or integrally formed as a canister;” see col. 7; lines 31-54) having an inlet inside the structure and an exhaust outlet outside the structure (opening 70 in the blind 22 is “sized and shaped for receiving therethrough the filtration unit 26;” see col. 5, line 66 through line 1 of col. 6); a housing (the combined structure of frame components 90, 94 and 96) comprising an inlet port (open side of the frame 90) fluidly connected to the inlet and an outlet port (the other (open side of the frame 94) fluidly connected to the exhaust outlet; a retainer (“threaded for mating with threads of a collar;” see col. 43-50) configured to secure the housing to a wall of the structure (such as the bottom panel 58); an electric ozone generator (scent-elimination element 84 in the form of an ultraviolet lamp for providing ozonation; see col. 8, lines 9-13) capable of generating an ozone-rich vicinity within the housing; and an electric fan 92 located within the housing, said fan configured to draw air from the internal environment at the inlet and exhaust the air to the external environment at the exhaust outlet after the air passes through the ozone-rich vicinity; wherein at least the outlet port is configured can capable of convenient attachment and detachment to a standard-dimension PVC pipe as Hess teaches that an outlet hose can be coupled between the filtration unit and the blind opening which would necessitate that a PVC pipe could “conveniently” be attached by hand or with simple tools using well-known attachment means. See col. 7, line 18 through col. 8, line 26 and Figures 1, 5 and 9-13.
Hess does not explicitly disclose wherein the electric ozone generator has a variable output and wherein the electric fan has a variable speed.
Elrod discloses an air flow control blind which uses an ozone generator 180 within the exhaust openings to descent the air exhausted from the blind. Elrod discloses wherein the oxidant out rate of the generator 180, which can use an ultraviolet light ozone generator, can be variable and controlled by the controller 181 and wherein the fan speed can also be controlled by the controller 181. See [0072], [0074] and [0090].
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 variable control of the ozone generator and fan as taught by Elrod with the apparatus of Hess for the purpose of allowing a user to determine and control the rate of ozone generation and air movement speed without creating any new or unexpected results. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess in view of Wardlaw, III (US 5,101,604; hereinafter “Wardlaw”).
In regard to claim 10, Hess is silent to wherein the fluid conduit comprises PVC pipe. Hess does disclose wherein an “an outlet hose” is used as an exhausting conduit. See col. 8, lines 7-26.
Wardlaw discloses wherein the exhausting conduit of an enclosure (habitat 100) can be a PVC tube which is placed through an opening 106 in the enclosure. See Figure 1 and col. 2, lines 44-50.
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 the PVC tube of Wardlaw for the outlet hose of Hess without creating any new or unexpected results as the structures are functionally equivalent.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess in view of Fargason (US RE38,231).
In regard to claim 11, Hess does not explicitly disclose wherein “outlet hose” is “flexible.” This rejection is included in case it is determined that a “hose” is not necessarily “flexible.”
Fargason discloses a wildlife blind which includes a “reinforced flexible hose” 14 as an air exhaust outlet from the blind. See col. 1, lines 64-67 and Figures 1-5.
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 the flexible tube of Fargason for the outlet hose of Hess without creating any new or unexpected results as the structures are functionally equivalent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moore (US 8,602,854).
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