CTNF 18/112,053 CTNF 84654 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species AL-1, Species AC-1, and Species AA-1 of Species A , encompassing claims 1-4, 7-11, 17, and 23-25 , in the reply filed on 2/25/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5-6, 12-16, 18-22, and 26-30 are withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 17, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikuta et al (PG-PUB US 2023/0372919) . Regarding claim 1 , Ikuta et al disclose an air purification device (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises (1) a photocatalytic filter 6 having a photocatalytic layer 5 and a metal substrate 11, wherein the metal substrate comprises nickel, silver or aluminum and has a catalytic function (i.e., a catalyst filter including a photocatalyst and an oxidation catalyst, Figures 2 & 4, paragraphs [0024], [0027], & [0054] –[0057]); and (2) a light source 7 for activating the photocatalytic filter 6 (i.e., a light-emitting heat source …, Figures 2 & 4, paragraph [0025]). The instant specification discloses that the oxidation catalyst comprises a metal, such as nickel, silver or aluminum (paragraphs [0094] –[0095]). Ikuta teaches that the metal substrate 11 has a catalytic function and comprises nickel, silver or aluminum (paragraphs [0054] –[0057]), which is the same as disclosed in the instant specification. Thus, the metal substrate 11 of Ikuta is fully capable of being an oxidation catalyst. The instant specification further discloses that the light-emitting heat source 200 may include ultraviolet rays or visible rays (paragraph [0045]). Ikuta teaches that the light source 7 may provide UV light and/or visible light (paragraphs [0075] – [0076]), which is the same as disclosed in the instant specification. Thus, the light source 7 of Ikuta is fully capable of being a light-emitting heat source. The limitation of “a temperature of … of the unpurified air” is a result of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, since the device of Ikuta comprises substantially the same structures as claimed, it is fully capable of performing the claimed functions. Regarding claim 2 , the cited limitation is a result of operating the device, which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, since the device of Ikuta comprises substantially the same structures as claimed, it is fully capable of performing the claimed functions. Regarding claim 3 , Ikuta teaches that the light source 7 may provide UV light and/or visible light (paragraphs [0075] – [0076]). Regarding claim 17 , Ikuta teaches a grease filter 34 provided upstream from the catalyst filter 6 (Figure 4, paragraph [0103]) Regarding claim 23 , Ikuta teaches that multiple staged assembly 25 includes alternatively arranged catalytic filters 6 and light sources 7, wherein each of the catalytic filter 6 comprises the photocatalyst 5 and the metal substrate 11 having oxidation catalytic function, hence being a photocatalyst filter and/or an oxidation catalyst filter As such, the multiple staged arrangement comprises a 1-1 photocatalyst filter upstream from a 1-1 light source 7 and a 1-1 oxidation catalyst filter downstream from the 1-1 light source 7 (Figure 4, paragraphs [0098] – [0102]). Regarding claim 24 , the multiple stages arrangement of Ikuta also includes a 1-2 photocatalyst filter between the 1-1 light source 7 and the 1-1 oxidation catalyst filter (Figure 4, paragraphs [0098] – [0102]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 7-11, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikuta et al (PG-PUB US 2023/0372919) as applied to claims 1 and 24 above . Regarding claim 4 , Ikuta teaches that multiple staged assembly 25 includes a plurality of light sources 7 with a certain thickness and width (Figure 4, paragraphs [0098] – [0102]). Ikuta does not specifically teach the claimed dimensions. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144). Furthermore, it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize different dimensions since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. Regarding claim 7 , Ikuta teaches that multiple staged assembly 25 includes a plurality of catalytic filters 6 with a certain thickness and width (Figure 4, paragraphs [0098] – [0102]). Ikuta also teaches that the metal substrate 11 comprises aluminum or silver (paragraphs [0054] –[0057]). Ikuta does not specifically teach the claimed dimensions. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144). Furthermore, it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize different dimensions since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. Regarding claim 8 , Ikuta teaches that the metal substrate 11 comprises porous material having a plurality of pores/holes (paragraphs [0057] & [0163]). Regarding claim 9 , Ikuta teaches that the metal substrate 11 comprises porous material having a plurality of pores/holes with certain patterns (paragraphs [0057] & [0163]). Regarding claim 10 , Ikuta teaches that the metal substrate 11 comprises porous material having a plurality of pores/holes divided by partition walls having protrusions/ridges and/or depression/recess (paragraphs [0057] & [0163]). Regarding claim 11 , Ikuta teaches that the metal substrate 11 comprises porous material having a plurality of pores/holes divided by partition walls having protrusions/ridges and/or depression/recess (paragraphs [0057] & [0163]). It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144). It has been held that, without persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant; a change in shape is generally recognized as being within ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP 2144). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize different dimensions and different shapes since such a modification would have involved routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 25 , Ikuta teaches that multiple staged assembly 25 includes a plurality of light sources 7 and photocatalyst filters 6 with a certain thickness and width (Figure 4, paragraphs [0098] – [0102]). Ikuta does not specifically teach the claimed dimensions. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144). Furthermore, it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize different dimensions since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/244235 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims an apparatus comprising substantially the same structures as that of the co-pending application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 3, and 23-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 3-5, 9-11, and 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,465,879 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims an apparatus comprising substantially the same structures as that of the issued patent . Conclusion Claims 1-4, 7-11, 17, and 23-25 are rejected. Claims 5-6, 12-16, 18-22, and 26-30 are withdrawn. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00. 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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. /XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/112,053 Page 2 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/112,053 Page 3 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/112,053 Page 4 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/112,053 Page 5 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/112,053 Page 6 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/112,053 Page 7 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/112,053 Page 8 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/112,053 Page 9 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/112,053 Page 10 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/112,053 Page 11 Art Unit: 1795