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, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Applicant states the limitation of “cross-sectional area of the first channel is gradually decreasing along a direction from the air inlet towards the air outlet, at least part of the purification device is positioned in the second channel” is a common feature between the two groups and would not present an additional examination burden. This is not found persuasive as claim 14 recites “a cross-sectional area of the of the second channel being smaller than the cross-sectional area of an end of the first channel closes to the air inlet” which conflicts with the apparatus described in claim 1 which has a “cross-sectional area of the of the second channel is [the] same along the direction from the air inlet towards the air outlet.” The Examiner respectfully asserts that these are two separate embodiments and the method as claimed can be practiced using a different apparatus than the one described in claim 1. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, please add “the” before “same” in line 12.
Claim 13, please change “closes” to “closest” in lines 3 and 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “purification device…configured to purify the air in the housing,” “guiding assembly...configured to guide air from the air inlet to the purification device,” and “air driving device…configured to drive the air from the air inlet to the purification device” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the purification device is disclosed as an ultraviolet lamp tube in para [0025] of the specification, the guiding assembly is disclosed as an extended inwall in para [0030], and the air driving device is disclosed as a fan in para [0028].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the air flow velocity detector" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as if dependent on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sahata (CN 112770788 A) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/04/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Sahata teaches an air purification equipment (Fig. 5, gas processing device 1) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 5, shell 10), the housing defining an air inlet (Fig. 5, 12a) and an air outlet (Fig. 5, 12c), the air inlet configured to import air into the housing, the air outlet configured to export air out of the housing (page 7, para 1-4);
a purification device arranged in the housing (Fig. 5, lamp 11) and configured to purify the air in the housing (lamp 11 is configured to irradiate gas G1 with UV light, page 7, para 2);
a guiding assembly arranged in the housing, the guiding assembly configured to guide the air from the air inlet to the purification device (Fig. 5, main body part 12 = guiding assembly, page 9, para 7);
an air driving device arranged in the housing, the air driving device configured to drive the air from the air inlet to the purification device, and drive the air to the air outlet (Fig. 5, fan 31);
wherein the guiding assembly forms a first channel and a second channel (Fig. 5, second channel= hollow portion 12b), the first channel is corresponding to the air inlet (Fig. 5, first channel 12a corresponds to inlet), a cross-sectional area of the first channel is gradually decreasing along a direction from the air inlet towards the air outlet (Fig. 5, 12a gradually decreases from air inlet towards air outlet), a cross-sectional area of the of the second channel is same along the direction from the air inlet towards the air outlet (Fig. 5, second channel 12b has even cross sectional area), the first channel is configured to guide the air to flow into the second channel (Fig. 5, 12a fluidly connected to 12b), at least a part of the purification device is positioned in the second channel (Fig. 5, lamp 11 positioned in second channel 12b).
Regarding claim 8, Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, wherein the guiding assembly further forms a third channel the third channel Fig. 5, main body part 12 = guiding assembly which forms third channel 12c), the third channel and the first channel are positioned on opposite sides of the second channel, the third channel is corresponding to the air outlet a cross-sectional area of the third channel is gradually increasing along the direction from the air inlet towards the air outlet, the third channel is configured to guide the air in the second channel to the air outlet (Fig. 5, third channel 12c is positioned opposite of first channel 12a and corresponds with air outlet, wherein a cross sectional area of 12c gradually increases towards the air outlet and guides air G1 to air outlet).
Regarding claim 9, Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, wherein the first channel and the second channel are both symmetric structures (Fig. 5, first channel 12a and second channel 12b are symmetrical), the first channel is a funnel shaped (Fig. 5, 12a is funnel shaped), the second channel is a rectangular shaped (Fig. 5, channel 12b is rectangular).
Regarding claim 13, Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, wherein a width of the second channel is smaller than a width of the housing, a cross-sectional area of the second channel is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the housing (Fig. 5, the width and cross-sectional area of second channel 12b is smaller than the width and cross-sectional area of housing 10); a width of a portion of the first channel closest to the air inlet is smaller than or equal to the width of the housing, a cross-sectional area of the portion of the first channel closest to the air inlet is smaller than or equal to the cross-sectional area of the housing (Fig. 5, the width and cross-sectional area of first channel 12a is smaller than the width and cross-sectional area of housing 10).
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.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN 112770788 A) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/04/2025), in view of Cui (CN 214276058 U) (cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 03/29/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, including a UV lamp (Fig. 5, 11) but does not teach wherein the equipment further comprising a light sensor, wherein the light sensor is arranged in the housing, the light sensor is configured to detect an illuminance of UV light in the housing emitted by the purification device.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the UV output from said lamp to control the disinfection of the air, motivating one to turn towards Cui. Cui teaches an air purification device (Fig. 1, 1) with an ultraviolet light source positioned in a housing (abstract) and a control circuit connected to an ultraviolet radiation illumination sensor (page 2, para 9-12, Fig. 1, 11), wherein the control circuit is configured to monitor the radiation illuminated by the light source via the sensor and adjust power to the light source to prevent damage (page 5, para 8-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purification apparatus as taught by Sahata to include the control circuit and light sensor as taught by Cui since Cui teaches the two elements to sense the radiation emitted by a light source and adjust power to said source to prevent damage and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 3, Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, including an air driving device (Fig. 5, fan 31) but does not teach wherein the apparatus further comprising an air flow velocity detector, wherein the air flow velocity detector is arranged in the housing, the air flow velocity detector is configured to detect an air flow velocity in the housing.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the flow velocity inside the housing to determine the residence time of air being exposed to UV light, motivating one to turn towards Cui. Cui teaches an air purification device (Fig. 1, 1) with an ultraviolet light source positioned in a housing (abstract) and a control circuit connected to an air speed sensor (page 7, para 3, Fig. 1, 17), wherein the control circuit is configured to monitor the air speed in the housing and adjust power to the light source based on the amount of people in a space and the speed of the air (page 7, para 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purification apparatus as taught by Sahata to include the control circuit and air velocity sensor as taught by Cui since Cui teaches the two elements to sense the air speed within a housing and adjust the radiation emitted by a light source and adjust power to effectively sterilize air and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 2, further comprising a processor, wherein the processor is electrically connected to the light sensor (Cui, control circuit understood to be processor connected to light sensor page 2, para 9-12), the light sensor detects the illuminance of the light in the housing emitted by the purification device and outputs light detected information to the processor, the processor is configured to determine whether the purification device is abnormal according to the light detected information (Cui, page 5, para 8-10).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 3 (see 112 rejection above), wherein the processor is electrically connected to the air flow velocity detector, the air flow velocity detector detects the air flow velocity in the housing and outputs air flow velocity information to the processor (Cui, control circuit is electrically connected to air speed sensor, page 7, para 3), the processor is configured to determine whether the air inlet is blocked according to the air flow velocity information (Cui, page 7, para 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, wherein the guiding assembly comprises a surface (Fig. 5, guiding assembly 12) but does not teach wherein the surface is arranged with a reflector, and the reflector is configured to reflect the light emitted by the purification device.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with ultraviolet light leaking from the guiding assembly and leading to injury or inefficiency energy loss, motivating one tot turn towards Cui. Cui teaches an air purification device (Fig. 1, 1) with an ultraviolet light source positioned in a housing (abstract), wherein the housing comprising an air channel (Fig. 1, 4) with a reflective inner wall (such as polished aluminum) configured to reflect ultraviolet light and increase efficiency of sterilization (page 6, para 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guiding assembly as taught by Sahata with the reflective inner wall as taught by Cui to increase the density of UV radiation and the efficiency of air sterilization and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the apparatus further comprising a filter, wherein the filter is secured to the air inlet, the filter is configured to block dust from the housing.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with preventing dirt from entering the housing and increasing maintenance and cleaning costs, motivating one to turn towards Cui. Cui teaches an air purification device (Fig. 1, 1) with an ultraviolet light source positioned in a housing (abstract) and a filter unit comprising a filter screen near the air inlet to prevent dust from contaminating the ultraviolet light source (page 5, para 3-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purification apparatus as taught by Sahata to include the filter unit at an air inlet of an air purification housing as taught by Cui to prevent the contamination of an ultraviolet air source and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN 112770788 A) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/04/2025), in view of Wang (CN 2608011 Y) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/04/2025).
Regarding claim 7, Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 1, wherein the purification device comprises a lamp tube (Fig. 5, UV lamp 11) the lamp tube is configured to emit UV light (page 7, para 4) but does not teach a fiberglass sleeve wherein the fiberglass sleeve covers the lamp tube.
Wang teaches an air cleaning device (abstract) comprising an ultraviolet lamp (Fig. 2, lamp 2) with coated with a photo-catalytically active glass fiber sleeve (Fig. 2, fiber glass sleeve 5, page 3, para 8) designed to generate free radicals that assist in the deactivation of bacteria contained in the air (page 3, para 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultraviolet lamp as taught by Sahata to include the photocatalytic fiber glass sleeve as taught by Wang to generate bacteria killing free radicals and improve the purification of the air passing through a housing and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 7, wherein the lamp tube is fully positioned in the second channel the lamp tube is partially positioned in the second channel, and the rest of the lamp tube is positioned in the first channel; or the lamp tube is partially positioned in the second channel, and the rest of the lamp tube is extended out of the second channel from a direction away from the first channel (Sahata, Fig. 5, lamp 11 is fully positioned into second channel 12b).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN 112770788 A) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/04/2025), in view of Cui (CN 214276058 U) (cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 03/29/2023), further in view of Hartenstein (US 20230138501 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Sahata teaches the air purification equipment of claim 4, including a processor (Cui, control circuit understood to be processor, page 2, para 9-12), but does not teach a protection cover, wherein the protection cover is arranged in the housing, the protection cover covers the processor, and the protection cover is configured to decrease an illuminance area of the light illuminates on the processor.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with protecting the processor from damaging ultraviolet radiation, motivating one to turn towards Hartenstein. Hartenstein teaches a disinfecting system for a face mask with ultraviolet light (abstract) including a UV light source, a circuit board, and a UV stable cover which encapsulates these electrical components for protection [0067].
Hartenstein is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to ultraviolet disinfection apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor as taught by Modified Sahata to include the UV stable cover as taught by Hartenstein to protect the processor from ultraviolet light and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758