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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/7/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) in view of Allen (US 2022/0001069).
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 the limitation directed towards the ratio of energy provided to the UV light source and the LED lamp to generate heat: 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 the limitation directed towards the claimed wavelength Allen (US 2022/0001069) 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, 78, 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.
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).
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) in view of Allen (US 2022/0001069) 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) in view of Allen (US 2022/0001069) 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 5/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards Akimoto on page 7 arguing Akimoto fails to teach or fairly suggest an LED lamp having a wavelength of 265 nm with the claimed ratio of energy for heating and lighting are not persuasive. Akimoto is not relied upon for teaching the claimed wavelength anywhere in the rejection, and the modification of Akimoto to have the irradiation function providing 30% of the energy to the UV lamp to generate ultraviolet rays and 70% of the energy to the LED lamp to generate heat would only be that of routine optimization. Both light and heat are known in the cited prior art to decompose ozone and the ratio of heat and light used would only be an ordinary modification that would not require undue experimentation and would not achieve any result that is not predictable.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards Schmidt on pages 7-8 arguing Schmidt fails to teach a wavelength of 265 nm with the claimed ratio of energy for heating and lighting are not persuasive. Schmidt is similarly not relied upon for teaching these limitations as set forth above with respect to Akimoto. Applicant further argues there would be no motivation to incorporate the activated carbon impregnated with a metal composite catalyst of Schmidt and this is further not persuasive. Akimoto requires a catalyst that is only set forth generically and Schmidt teaches a specific structure including a core of metal composite catalyst coated with activated carbon used for decomposing ozone and an ordinary artisan would be readily motivated to incorporate that structure into Akimoto. Applicant argues that there is no “physical application or coating of activated carbon onto a filter” which is not persuasive. The claim is directed towards an apparatus which includes the structural component of a filter. The manner in which the prior filter is assembled is not significant if the prior art teaches the structure of the apparatus. Applicant fails to identify the difference between the structure of an activated carbon impregnated catalyst and a catalyst that is coated with activated carbon. Both would include a core of metal composite and a coating of activated carbon and therefore all the limitations of the claim are met.
Applicant’s remarks on page 8 arguing Naito fails to teach the claimed wavelength, the catalyst type, and the ratio of heat to UV energy are not persuasive because Naito is similarly not relied upon for teaching these limitations as set forth above with respect to Akimoto. Applicant argues that the combination cannot achieve the synergistic effect of the claimed ozone decomposition by the claimed configuration of UV sterilization, LED lamp heating, and the metal catalyst and activated carbon filter but does not specifically identify what this alleged synergistic effect is. The effect of using UV, heat from a lamp, and a metal catalyst and activated carbon filter are all understood in the art to perform the function of ozone decomposition. This function it is not considered, based on any evidence in the prosecution record or the prior art, to be anything other than ordinary or expected.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards Ando on pages 8-9 arguing Ando fails to teach the claimed wavelength, the catalyst type, and the ratio of heat to UV energy are not persuasive because Naito is similarly not relied upon for teaching these limitations as set forth above with respect to Akimoto. Applicant similarly argues Ando is not capable of achieving the synergistic effect of the claimed ozone decomposition by the claimed configuration of UV sterilization, LED lamp heating, and the metal catalyst and activated carbon filter and similarly fails to identify any specific synergistic effect that would be anything other than an expected result of the combination of these prior art components.
Applicant’s remarks on page 9-10 directed towards Allen arguing there is no motivation to incorporate the safety logic of Allen into Akimoto, and this argument is moot because that feature is not incorporated into Akimoto anywhere in a rejection of record. Applicant further argues Allen fails to teach a UV lamp emitting 265 nm which is not an accurate characterization of Allen. Paragraph 78 of the reference specifically discloses 265 nm UV light, and in pars. 75 and 104 disclose this wavelength is desirable to use in sterilizing applications where ozone production is not desirable. Applicant’s arguments that Allen fails to teach the claimed filter and the claimed ratio of heat and light energy are further not persuasive as the reference is not relied upon for these teachings. Similar to above, this line of argument relies on an individualistic view of the prior art and does not reasonably consider the references as they are relied upon in the prior art. 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 reiteration that the prior art fails to teach the high-efficiency ozone decomposition of the claimed apparatus but once again fails to provide any evidence that the results achieved by the configuration are anything more than ordinary and expected. Claim 1 remains rejected.
The remaining claims remain rejected similarly.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights