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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “216”, “218”, “206”, “222”, “224”, “228”, “220”, “212”, “204”, “208”, and “214”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7 of the claim reads “an AC power supply inlet by an AC-DC” but should read “an AC power supply inlet by an AC-DC converter” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-15 are objected to based on their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 contains the trademark/trade name “slide-lock”. 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 an attachment structure of the battery module and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weinberg (US 5814135 A).
Regarding claim 1, Weinberg teaches a portable air and surface sanitizer device (portable personal corona discharge device, title), comprising: a protective housing (Figure 1 purifier device “10” components contained in body) comprising first and second panels arranged on opposing ends of the housing to each other (intake on side surface, column 4 lines 12-13, and purified air propelled out through opening, column 3 line 52, and Figure 3 intake filter “14” shown opposite of outlet gride “24”), the panels both having a plurality of perforations or openings formed therein for allowing airflow through the housing (intake covered by filter, column 4 line 13, and purified air exits through metallic grid, column 3 line 27); a bi-voltage power supply module (connector for AC battery adaptor and conventional nine-volt battery, column 3 lines 23-25), the power supply module comprising a power distribution unit coupled to both a detachable batter module by a DC-DC inverter (conventional nine-volt battery power, column 3 lines 24-25) and to an AC power supply inlet by an AC-DC (AC voltage source with AC/DC converter, column 7 lines 53-55); an electric fan coupled to the power supply module and arranged adjacent to an inner surface of the first panel (Figure 3 fan “15” adjacent to intake filter “14”, and brushless DC fan, column 4 line 25); an ozone generator device coupled to the power supply module and arranged between the fan and the second panel (Figure 3 emitter point producing corona discharge “26” positioned between fan “15” and outlet “24”); a control element disposed on the housing exterior and configured to, upon actuation, cause the power supply module to send power to the electric fan and ozone generation device (Figure 2 on/off switch “18”, and on/off switch activates corona discharge unit, column 7 line 67-column 8 line 1).
Regarding claim 2, Weinberg teaches wherein the ozone generator is a corona discharge device comprising a transformer for producing a high voltage across a dielectric place (air near emitter becomes ionized by corona discharge device by a high voltage, column 3 line 30, high voltage supply comprises transformer with primary and secondary winding, claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Weinberg teaches wherein the battery module is of a slide lock design (typical nine-volt alkaline battery, column 2 line 6).
Regarding claim 5, Weinberg teaches wherein the battery module is of a stick battery insert design (six 1.5 volt AA batteries, column 7 line 66).
Regarding claim 7, Weinberg teaches wherein the housing comprises a handle attached to an exterior top surface (Figure 10 extended handle “116”).
Regarding claim 15, Weinberg teaches wherein the control elements is a single on/off rocker (an off/on push button trigger or switch, column 7 line 67).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg.
Regarding claim 14, Weinberg teaches wherein the device further comprises a HEPA filter arranged adjacent to the electric fan (Figure 3 filter “14” next to fan “15”, and HEPA filter can be used column 4 lines 41-42). While Weinberg does not explicitly teach wherein the filter is arranged between the fan and the second panel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device using that placement to achieve the desired air purity through rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI (C)).
Claims 3, 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg in view of Jurak (US 20210015953 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Weinberg teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the power supply module is configured to cut power to the ozone generator and fan after a pre-determined time period. However, Jurak teaches wherein the power supply module is configured to cut power to the ozone generator and fan after a pre-determined time period (user can program the run of the ozone generation and degradation cycles, paragraph [0096]).
Weinberg and Jurak are considered analogous to the current invention because are in the field of ozone sterilization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ozone sterilization device taught by Weinberg with the timing feature taught by Jurak because Jurak teaches this feature advantageously allows the user to choose the sterilization time based on features of the space to be sterilized (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 8, Weinberg teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the device further comprises a temperature sensor and display coupled to the power supply module. However Jurak teaches wherein the device further comprises a temperature sensor (sensor to detect temperature and stored as data, paragraph [0085]) and display coupled to the power supply module (computer can display data stored by device, paragraph [0099]).
Weinberg and Jurak are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ozone sterilization device taught by Weinberg with the temperature sensor and display taught by Jurak because Jurak teaches the display advantageously provides the users with information about the status of the sterilization unit (paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 9, Weinberg teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the device further comprises a humidity sensor and display coupled to the power supply module. However Jurak teaches wherein the device further comprises a humidity sensor (sensor to detect humidity and stored as data, paragraph [0085]) and display coupled to the power supply module (computer can display data stored by device, paragraph [0099]).
Weinberg and Jurak are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ozone sterilization device taught by Weinberg with the humidity sensor and display taught by Jurak because Jurak teaches the display advantageously provides the users with information about the status of the sterilization unit (paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 10, Weinberg teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the device further comprises an air quality sensor and display coupled to the power supply module. However Jurak teaches wherein the device further comprises an air quality sensor (ozone sensor can determine level of ozone during sterilization and send data to computer system of unit, paragraph [0083]) and display coupled to the power supply module (computer can display data stored by device, paragraph [0099]).
Weinberg and Jurak are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ozone sterilization device taught by Weinberg with the humidity sensor and display taught by Jurak because Jurak teaches the display advantageously determine if the sterilizing device is functioning properly (paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 13, Weinberg teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the device further comprises a UV lighting element coupled to the power supply module. However, Jurak teaches wherein the device further comprises a UV lighting element coupled to the power supply module (device may include an ultraviolet ozone generator, paragraph [0017]).
Weinberg and Jurak are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Jurak teaches that ultraviolet lighting elements are known in the art as a viable method for the generation of ozone (paragraph [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an ultraviolet light as the ozone generation component in the ozone sterilization device through simply substitution of parts (See MPEP 2143 I (B)).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg in view of Huang (US 20170202993 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Weinberg teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the housing is a singular 3D-printed unit constructed such that each internal component can be bolted to a designated portion of the internal surface. However, Huang teaches wherein the housing is a singular 3D-printed unit (ABS plastic for the housing, paragraph [0048]) constructed such that each internal component can be bolted to a designated portion of the internal surface (surface comprises screw receiving threads to secure ozone generator, control board, ionizer, and shroud to component support structure (paragraph [0037]).
Weinberg and Huang are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of the portable ozone generators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ozone sterilization device with the housing design taught by Huang because Huang teaches that such a housing improves the strength of the device without reducing the functionality of the device (paragraph [0048]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg in view of Gardner (US 20200009283 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Weinberg teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the device further comprises an LED indicator coupled to the power supply module. However, Gardner teaches wherein the device further comprises an LED indicator coupled to the power supply module (LED light having a plurality of color settings, paragraph [0040]).
Weinberg and Gardner are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of portable ozone sterilization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ozone sterilization device taught by Weinberg with the indicator light taught by Gardner because Gardner teaches the light source advantageously informs the user to operation status of the device (paragraph [0040]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg and Jurak as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Forzani (US 20220054687 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Weinberg and Jurak teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the one or more air quality sensors include one or more of a PPM sensor (ozone sensor can detect concentrations between 1ppm – 150ppm, paragraph [0182]), but does not teach wherein the air quality sensor includes one or more CO2 sensors. However, Forzani teaches wherein the air quality sensor includes one or more CO2 sensors (sensors include a carbon dioxide sensor, paragraph [0090]).
Weinberg, Jurak, and Forzani are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field ozone generating devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ozone sterilization device taught by Weinberg and Jurak with the carbon dioxide sensor taught by Forzani because Forzani teaches the carbon dioxide sensor can be advantageously indicative of indoor air quality and the comfort of humans in the target space (paragraph [0091]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799