DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a fan mounted in the housing and used” should be corrected to “a fan mounted in the housing is used”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. Regarding claim 5, the limitation of “wherein the functional members comprise at least one of a fragrance member, a filtering member and an adsorption member” will be interpreted to be a fragrance, filter, or adsorption member that can be a functional member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake et al. (US 20200289985 A1), further in view of Aoki et al. (JP 2002178745 A).
Regarding claim 1, Drake teaches an air purifier (Fig. 4) comprising a main body (device 500, Fig. 4), wherein the main body comprises: a housing (housing 510, Fig. 4), wherein an interior of the housing is hollow (airflow 506 and 508, Fig. 4), end plates arc fixed at two ends of the housing (inlet screen 610, Fig. 8, and outlet screen 616, Fig. 7), a plurality of airflow holes are formed in the end plates (Fig. 7-8), an air inlet is formed at one end of the housing (inlet 522, Fig. 8), an air outlet is formed at the other end of the housing (outlet 526, Fig. 7);
a photocatalyst member mounted in the housing (catalyst inlet screen 614, Fig. 11, where “the coating on the catalyst inlet screen 614 is a photocatalytic coating”, [0060]);
ultraviolet light-emitting members mounted in the housing (UV lighting 590, Fig. 11, where “the UV lighting 590 may include LEDs”, [0059], implying that there are a plurality) so that ultraviolet light emitted by the ultraviolet light-emitting members effectively irradiate the photocatalyst member (“the UV lighting 590 may be configured to activate or energize the photocatalytic coating of the catalyst inlet screen 614 such that the photocatalytic coating interacts with the contaminated air 506 to assist in the decontamination process”, Fig. 11 and [0060]).
Drake fails to teach wherein the positions of the air inlet and the air outlet are interchangeable and wherein a fan mounted in the housing is used for sucking outside air from one end of the housing or for sucking outside air from the other end of the housing
Aoki teaches a vehicle air cleaner (Fig. 1 and 6) having a photocatalyst (filter 7 having photocatalyst, Fig. 1 and p.3 of English translation), a UV light source (sunlight, see p.3 of English translation), and a fan (5, Fig. 1 and 6) mounted in the housing (resin case 1, Fig. 1) used for sucking outside air from one end of the housing (Fig. 1 inlet 4 and outlet 8) or for sucking outside air from the other end of the housing (Fig. 1 inlet 8 and outlet 4), thus making the positions of the air inlet and the air outlet interchangeable in order to “select the blowing direction of the clean air to the front seat side or the rear seat side” ([0013]).
Drake and Aoki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification utilizing a fan, UV radiation, filters, and a photocatalyst.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of Drake by incorporating a reversible flow feature (thus making the inlet/outlet interchangeable) as taught by Aoki in order to “select the blowing direction of the clean air to the front seat side or the rear seat side” (Aoki, [0013]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Drake teaches wherein the main body further comprises a control panel (controller 650, Fig. 5 and 30) which is electrically connected with the fan and the ultraviolet light-emitting members (power supply 670 connected to controller 650, Fig. 30, where “the controller 650 is configured to selectively engage, selectively disengage, control, and/or otherwise communicate with the fan 570… [and] the UV lighting 590", [0074]).
6. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 20150352242 A1), further in view of Aoki et al. (JP 2002178745 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ando teaches an air purifier (10, Fig. 1) comprising a main body (vent body 12, Fig. 1) wherein the main body comprises: a housing (walls of vent body 12, Fig. 1), wherein an interior of the housing is hollow (airflow denoted by arrows implies the housing is hollow), end plates are fixed at two ends of the housing (filters 16a and 16b, Fig. 1), a plurality of airflow holes are formed in the end plates (airflow from opening 14a to 14 means filters 16a and 16b have a plurality of openings/holes, Fig. 1), an air inlet is formed at one end of the housing (opening 14a, Fig. 1), an air outlet is formed at the other end of the housing (opening 14b, Fig. 1), a photocatalyst member mounted in the housing (photocatalysts 26, Fig. 1): ultraviolet light-emitting members mounted in the housing (UV lamps 22, Fig. 1), so that ultraviolet light emitted by the ultraviolet light-emitting members effectively irradiate the photocatalyst member ([0027]).
Ando fails to teach wherein the positions of the air inlet and the air outlet are interchangeable and wherein a fan mounted in the housing is used for sucking outside air from one end of the housing or for sucking outside air from the other end of the housing
Aoki teaches a vehicle air cleaner (Fig. 1 and 6) having a photocatalyst (filter 7 having photocatalyst, Fig. 1 and p.3 of English translation), a UV light source (sunlight, see p.3 of English translation), and a fan (5, Fig. 1 and 6) mounted in the housing (resin case 1, Fig. 1) used for sucking outside air from one end of the housing (Fig. 1 inlet 4 and outlet 8) or for sucking outside air from the other end of the housing (Fig. 1 inlet 8 and outlet 4), thus making the positions of the air inlet and the air outlet interchangeable in order to “select the blowing direction of the clean air to the front seat side or the rear seat side” ([0013]).
Ando and Aoki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification utilizing a fan, UV radiation, filters, and a photocatalyst.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan of Ando by incorporating a reversible flow feature (thus making the inlet/outlet interchangeable) as taught by Aoki in order to select the blowing direction of the clean air to the front side or the rear side (Aoki, [0013]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ando teaches wherein the photocatalyst member is in a sheet-like structure (photocatalyst layers 26, Fig. 1), which is transversely mounted in a middle of the housing (see Fig. 1), the ultraviolet light-emitting members are in two groups (UV lamps 22a and b in one group, UV lamps 22c, d, and e in another, Fig. 1), and the two groups of ultraviolet light-emitting members are respectively mounted above and below the photocatalyst member (the UV lamps are mounted below photocatalyst filter 26b, Fig. 1).
7. Claim 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake et al. (US 20200289985 A1), further in view of Aoki et al. (JP 2002178745 A), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Schuld (US 20060277875 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Drake teaches an air purifier having a housing (device 500 and housing 510, Fig. 4), but fails to teach wherein the air purifier further comprises functional members, wherein the functional members are mounted at one end of the main body, and a plurality of vent holes are formed in two ends of the functional members.
Schuld teaches an air purifier (air purifier 10 having base unit 12, Fig. 2) having a housing (20, Fig. 2) wherein the air purifier further comprises functional members (filters 14, Fig. 2), wherein the functional members are mounted at one end of the main body (filters 14 are mounted to end of main body 12 via first and second connectors 60 and 62, Fig. 2-3), and a plurality of vent holes are formed in two ends of the functional members (openings 42, Fig. 2), for the purpose of “having an air cleaning capacity that is variable by the consumer” and “easy replacement or addition of filters” ([0001]).
Modified Drake and Schuld are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purifiers with filters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifier housing portion around the air inlet of Drake by incorporating filters attachable via connector assemblies as taught by Schuld in order to have a variable air cleaning capacity and easy replacement/addition of filters (Schuld, [0001]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Drake in view of Schuld teaches wherein the functional members comprise at least one of a fragrance member, a filtering member and an adsorption member (Schuld, filter 14, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Drake in view of Schuld teaches wherein cross-sectional shapes of the functional members are the same as that of the main body (Schuld, the cross-sectional shape of filters 14 and base unit 12 is identical, Fig. 2-4).
Regarding claim 6, modified Drake in view of Schuld teaches wherein a plurality of buffer grooves are provided at outer side surfaces of the end plates (Schuld, unlabeled grooves on Fig. 3, see below) and the functional members (Schuld, unlabeled grooves on upper filter 14 on Fig. 2) in an inward protruding manner, a plurality of buffer columns matched with the buffer grooves are provided at inner side surfaces of the functional members (Schuld, unlabeled extrusions/columns on Fig. 5, see below), and the buffer columns are embedded in the buffer grooves (Schuld, Fig. 4 shows there is no space that forms when filter 14 and base unit 12 are mated, implying that the unlabeled extrusions are coupled to the grooves).
PNG
media_image1.png
301
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
712
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
560
492
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is important to note that Schuld teaches the opposite configuration with respect to the locations of the grooves/columns as claimed by Applicant. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have inverted the mating setup of the unlabeled extrusions/columns and the grooves of Schuld when modified to Drake’s air purifier because shifting the positions of said grooves/columns would not have modified the operation of the device (MPEP 2144.04.VI.C).
Regarding claim 7, modified Drake in view of Schuld teaches wherein clamping pieces are provided at the inner side surfaces of the functional members in an inward protruding manner (Schuld, second connector 62, Fig. 5), and clamping grooves matched with the clamping pieces are formed in the outer side surfaces of the end plates and the functional members (Schuld, first connectors 60, Fig. 3 and 5), and the clamping pieces are clamped into the clamping grooves (Schuld, Fig. 4 shows there is no space that forms when filter 14 and base unit 12 are mated, implying that the unlabeled extrusions are coupled to the grooves).
8. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake et al. (US 20200289985 A1), further in view of Aoki et al. (JP 2002178745 A), as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of McLuckie et al. (US 20230330285 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Drake teaches a user interface on a side surface of the housing (660, Fig. 4) and a charging interface provided on a side surface of the housing (power supply 670, Fig. 30, where “the cleaning device 500… has an electrical cord capable of being plugged into an electrical outlet”, [0066]) and electrically connected with the control panel (Fig. 30, controller 650 and power supply 670), but fails to teach wherein a charging indicator lamp is provided on a side surface of the housing, and the charging indicator lamp is electrically connected with the control panel respectively.
McLuckie teaches an air purifier (100, Fig. 1-2) wherein a charging indicator lamp is provided on a side surface of the housing (LEDs 50, 60, and 80, Fig. 2, where “LEDs 50, 60, 80 may further depend on a charging state of the battery, for example by only activating the LEDs 50, 60, 80 when connected to the battery charger or when still being charged to at least 50% of its full battery capacity”, [0036]), and the charging indicator lamp is electrically connected with the control panel respectively (“the operation of the LEDs 50, 60, 70 is controlled by a controller”, [0041]).
Modified Drake and Morgan-Lange are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification utilizing power supplies connected to controllers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface attached to a side surface of the housing of Drake by incorporating an LED connected to a controller in order to display a charging state of the battery/power supply (McLuckie, [0036]).
9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake et al. (US 20200289985 A1), further in view of Aoki et al. (JP 2002178745 A), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Morgan-Lange et al. (US 20220062489 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Drake teaches a photocatalyst member (catalyst filter screen 614, Fig. 11), an ultraviolet light source (UV LEDs 590, Fig. 11), and an airflow channel that traverses from the end of the UV LEDs to the end of catalyst filter screen (see Fig. 11) but fails to teach wherein the photocatalyst member is a transparent porous photocatalyst member that is in a hood-shaped structure, a plurality of ventilation holes are formed in two ends of the hood-shaped structure, and the ultraviolet light-emitting members are mounted in the hood-shaped structure.
Morgan-Lange teaches an air purifier (Fig. 1) wherein the photocatalyst member is a transparent porous photocatalyst member (photocatalysts 140a and 140b, Fig. 1, where both photocatalysts can be a semiconductor 3-DOM photocatalyst wherein the photocatalyst is transparent and porous, see [0145] and [0083]) that is in a hood-shaped structure (circled below),
PNG
media_image4.png
364
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a plurality of ventilation holes are formed in two ends of the hood-shaped structure (air channels 124a, 124b, 126a, and 126b, Fig. 1), and the ultraviolet light-emitting members are mounted in the hood-shaped structure (ultraviolet light sources 115, Fig. 1).
Modified Drake and Morgan-Lange are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air purification utilizing UV light sources, photocatalysts, and airflow channels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the UV LEDs and catalyst filter screen assembly of Drake with a hood-shaped structure having a transparent, porous photocatalyst, UV light sources, and a plurality of air channels as taught by Morgan-Lange because the substitution of this feature yields the predictable result of decontaminating contaminants in the airstream.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758