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 .
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.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKIMOTO (CN 109803690) in view of Schmidt (CA 2585998) in view of Naito (EP 3738616) in view of Ando (US 2015/0352242).
Regarding claim 1, AKIMOTO (CN 109803690) discloses –
An ozone purification device comprising (Fig. 1, discharge processing unit 100, corona discharge processing unit 12, p. 8 par. 1):
an ultraviolet light source (Ozone removal unit 14) including an ultraviolet lamp (UV lamp 42, p. 6 last par.), wherein
the ultraviolet lamp generates ultraviolet rays (p. 6 last par. describes the emission at 254 nm); and
a filter (fig. 15 ozone removal unit 14) being composed of a metal composite catalyst with an active carbon (p. 6 last par. – p. 7 first par. disclose ozone removal unit being a catalytic decomposition filter using activated carbon together with a manganese dioxide catalyst), wherein
when ozone passes the ultraviolet light source, ozone is irradiated by the ultraviolet lamp of the ultraviolet light source, and then passes through the metal composite catalyst and the active carbon of the filter to accelerate the decomposition of ozone into oxygen (p. 7 par. 2 disclose the UV light 42 and filter unit 14 performing the claimed function of decomposing ozone, the decomposition into oxygen being spontaneous and inherent by these means).
Akimoto appears to be silent with regards to the UV source including an LED to generate heat, ozone passing through the UV source, and the metal composite catalyst specifically being coated with the activated carbon.
Schmidt (CA 2585998) discloses a degradation filter (filter 36) where a metal composite is coated with an activated carbon (par. 18 discloses an activated carbon that is impregnated with potassium permanganate, such that there is a core of permanganate surrounded by and thus coated with activated carbon). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akimoto such that the filter including a metal compositive catalyst and active carbon specifically is a metal composite coated with activated carbon as taught by Schmidt to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully implement the metal and activated carbon catalyst as desired by Akimoto and to do so according to known catalyst constructions to arrive at a successful ozone decomposition filter. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including known catalyst compositions and known catalyst configurations, according to known means for the same purpose together as separate to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding more specifically the limitation that the UV source includes an LED lamp that generates heat: Naito (EP 3738616) teaches an ozone decomposition device including an LED for generating heat to assist in the decomposition of ozone (par. 82, step 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akimoto such that the UV source includes an LED lamp for generating heat to assist in the decomposition of ozone to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to enhance the ozone decomposing capabilities of the ozone decomposing unit 14 as desired to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding the limitation directed towards the ozone passing through the UV source: Ando (US 2015/0352242) discloses an ozone air purification device (abstract) where ozone is passed through a UV source (Figs. 1 and 3, UV lamps 22a, 22b; par. 28) before decomposition (photocatalyst filter 26c, par. 39 discloses an ozone removing device). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akimoto such that the UV source is structured in such a way that the ozone passes through the unit to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to allow for the greatest possible exposure of ozone to UV light to assist with sterilization and decomposition to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 4, modified Akimoto further teaches the metal composite catalyst of the filter is composed of a manganese oxide and at least one transition metal oxide (par. 65 of Naito discloses a list of catalyst materials including manganese dioxide and iron oxide as appropriate decomposition catalysts, and the selection therefrom would be obvious).
Regarding claim 5, modified Akimoto further teaches the metal composite catalyst of the filter is composed of a manganese oxide and a noble metal palladium (par. 65 of Naito discloses manganese dioxide and palladium).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKIMOTO (CN 109803690) in view of Schmidt (CA 2585998) in view of Naito (EP 3738616) in view of Ando (US 2015/0352242) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Allen (US 2022/0001069).
Regarding claim 2, modified Akimoto is set forth with regards to claim 1 above, but appears to be silent with regards to the irradiation function providing the claimed ratio of energy to the UV lamp and the LED lamp.
Allen (US 2022/0001069) discloses a UV disinfection system including a plurality of different light sources for emitting different wavelengths (Fig. 25 sources 82, 84 emit UVC and UVA LEDs), where the power supplied to each light source is adjusted based on a desired disinfection parameter and to avoid overexposure (par. 170 discloses the voltage applied to each LED is independently adjusted to effectively disinfect while not exceeding a threshold for safety). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Akimoto such that the UV lamp and LED lamp are separately and controllably powered as disclosed by Allen, such that the device would be capable of performing the claimed function of providing 30% energy to generate UV rays and 70% of an energy to generate heat to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to control the delivered dose of radiation to the ozone and fluid the ozone is in to better disinfect and degrade ozone as desired according to desired operational parameters. Furthermore, if it found that Akimoto in view of Allen would not inherently perform the claimed functional language: Allen discloses the advantages of controllably delivering power to distinct light sources for the purpose of implementing UV radiation, and Akimoto and Naito teach the efficacy of UV light and LEDs for the purpose of degradation of potentially harmful ozone. Therefore, the modification of Akimoto to be provided specifically 30% of an energy to generate UV rays and 70% of an energy to generate heat from the LED lamp is nothing more than an optimization of known variables for their known purpose. The product of which is nothing more than routine optimization, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The implementation of the light at the claimed energy ratio would arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable, including the degradation of ozone in the same way that is expected, and the expectation of success would be reasonable, as the UV rays and LED lamp are not being used for any purpose that is not already well understood.
Regarding claim 3, modified Akimoto appears to be silent with regards to the claimed wavelength.
Allen further discloses 265 nm UV light to be a very effective wavelength for disinfection while avoiding the production of ozone as a by-product (pars. 75-76, 104). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device such that the UV lamp disclosed by Akimoto emits 265 nm ozone as taught by Allen. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully treat the fluid, break down the ozone, and avoid the undesirable creation of more ozone.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKIMOTO (CN 109803690) in view of Schmidt (CA 2585998) in view of Naito (EP 3738616) in view of Ando (US 2015/0352242) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Young (KR 20030071697).
Regarding claim 6, modified Akimoto is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to manganese oxide and cerium.
Young (KR 20030071697) teaches cerium and manganese oxide are used to catalytically degrade ozone (par. 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal composite catalyst includes manganese oxide and cerium as disclosed by Young to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known appropriate catalyst material for degrading ozone to arrive at a successful invention. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including catalyst materials for their known applications, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKIMOTO (CN 109803690) in view of Schmidt (CA 2585998) in view of Naito (EP 3738616) in view of Ando (US 2015/0352242) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wen (CN 102671688).
Regarding claim 7, modified Akimoto is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to iron-modified zeolite and an iron-modified quartz sand.
Wen (CN 102671688) discloses an ozone decomposition catalyst including iron-modified zeolite and iron-modified quartz sand (abstract, par. 13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akimoto such that the catalyst includes iron-modified zeolite and iron-modified quartz sand as taught by Wen to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known-effective ozone degradation catalyst material to arrive at a successful ozone degradation filter. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including catalyst materials for their known applications, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 that Akimoto fails to teach light or heat associated decomposition, which is not persuasive. The claim is directed towards an apparatus, the claimed features of a UV source and the UV source decomposing ozone. The ozone removal unit includes a UV lamp as set forth in the rejection above, and the UV lamp would produce heat during an operation thereof as is inherent to any operating electrical device. Applicant further argues that Akimoto fails to teach an LED, however Akimoto is not relied upon for teaching this limitation, Naito is. Similarly, Applicant argues that Akimoto fails to teach a metal composite catalyst coated with activated carbon, which is not persuasive because Akimoto is not relied upon for teaching the contested limitation anywhere in the rejection. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s remarks directed towards Schmidt on pages 7-8 are further not persuasive, as Applicant once again attacks the reference for lacking limitations for which the reference is not relied upon for teaching anywhere in the rejection. Schmidt is not relied upon for teaching a thermal assistance method nor is it relied upon for teaching an LED. The claim does not contain any limitation directed towards a “multi-layer filter structure” and therefore this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards Naito on pages 8-9 are similarly not persuasive. Naito specifically discloses the use of an LED light source that emits light and heat to decompose ozone in par. 82, which is what the reference is relied upon for teaching. The fact that there are other features disclosed by the references that are not cited anywhere in the rejection does not undermine the reference teaching the claimed limitation, and the obviousness of that teaching when incorporated into the primary reference. Applicant’s argument that Naito is different than the present disclosure is further not persuasive. A 103 rejection necessarily implies that there is some difference between the prior art and the claimed invention, so this fact is immaterial to the obviousness of the claim.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards Ando on pages 9-10 are similarly not persuasive, as Ando is not relied upon for teaching an LED lamp as a heat source nor a multi-layer filter structure, the latter of which is a feature that is not claimed anywhere in the pending claims, and is instead relied upon to teach the limitation that the ozone is passed through the decomposing means, which Applicant fails to address in the remarks.
The remaining remarks on page 10 only address the references individually in a vacuum and do not address the combination of references relied upon in the rejection.
Applicant then argues on page 11 that there is no reason to combine the prior art and that there is no reasonable expectation of success, which are further not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that Akimoto cannot be combined with the other references because the disclosure includes an electro-discharge system, and teaches an opposite technical objective to other photocatalyst or thermal decomposition technologies, and argues that any prior art in existence would teach away from the claimed invention, which is not persuasive. The incorporation of an LED into the device, for example, would hardly be said to teach away from the disclosure of Akimoto and would indeed have benefits such as energy efficiency that an ordinary artisan would readily appreciate.
Applicant similarly argues on page 12 that Schmidt teaches a photocatalyst air purification field, which does not address the limitations for which the reference is relied upon. A reference can be relied upon for all that it teaches, for example the filter structure of Schmidt, and the fact that the reference teaches other features that that are not claimed nor present in the other prior art does not sufficiently prove the inoperability or non-obviousness of the combination of the two references.
Similarly, Applicant’s arguments directed towards Naito are not persuasive. Applicant does not address the limitations for which the reference is relied upon. A reference can be relied upon for all that it teaches, for example the use of an LED as taught by Naito, and the fact that the reference teaches other features that that are not claimed nor present in the other prior art does not sufficiently prove the inoperability or non-obviousness of the combination of the two references.
Similarly, Applicant’s arguments directed towards Ando are not persuasive. Applicant does not address the limitations for which the reference is relied upon. A reference can be relied upon for all that it teaches, for example the passing of ozone through the decomposition means as taught by Ando, and the fact that the reference teaches other features that that are not claimed nor present in the other prior art does not sufficiently prove the inoperability or non-obviousness of the combination of the two references.
Applicant only address these references for features that are not relied upon anywhere in the rejection, and fails to present any reasoning as to why the features that are relied upon could not be used in combination with a reasonable expectation of success. The arguments are piecemeal and only attack the references individually, which is not persuasive. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The remaining arguments are not persuasive as they do not particularly point out the novelty or non-obviousness of the claims, and therefore claims 2-7 remain rejected similarly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758