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 without traverse of Invention I and Species C in the reply filed on 4 October 2025 is acknowledged. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Inventor’s assessment that claims 1-16 encompass the elected invention and species. Claims 2 and 15 are drawn to a wearable mask and, thus, belong in Species A. Claims 3-5, 7 and 12 regard such elements as “a plurality of nozzles configured to generate protective curtains […] surrounding individual users,” “a combustion engine,” or “a vehicle” which have only been described in the specification and figures of the instant application as being used in conjunction with a vehicle as defined by Species B. Therefore, claims 2-5, 7, 12, 15 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8-11, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pachoud et al. (US 2021/0322799; hereinafter “Pachoud”).
In regard to claim 1, Pachoud discloses a device (apparatus 100) comprising a housing (defining the counter-flow heat exchange path 4, heating chamber 6 and return heat exchange path 5; see Figure 9 and [0061]-[0063]) including an inlet (where air 1 enters) and an outlet (where cool air 11 exits), the inlet being configured to intake an infectious agents contaminated air (see at least [0060]), and the outlet being configured to output a sterilized air (“virus will be rendered harmless;” [0063]); a superheating heat exchanger (defined by the counter-flow heat exchange path 4 and heating chamber 6) configured to increase a temperature of the infectious agents contaminated air by superheating the contaminated air, the infectious agents contaminated air becoming the sterilized air after being superheated (“exposed to a minimum of 150 degrees C;” see [0058]); and a cooling heat exchanger (defined by return heat exchange path 5) configured to cool down the sterilized air and direct the sterilized air to the outlet of the housing.
In regard to claim 6, Pachoud teaches wherein the device is retrofittable with a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system of a building. See [0006], [0027] and [0070].
In regard to claims 8-9, Pachoud discloses wherein the device is operable through a direct current from a battery (battery power source 8 with batteries being well-understood to provide direct current; see at least [0026] and [0062]) or alternating current (“wall power can be used” which is well-understood to provide alternating current; see [0026]) power supply.
In regard to claim 10, Pachoud discloses wherein the superheating heat exchanger is configured to receive thermal energy from a heat source (heating elements 7). See [0062] and Figure 9.
In regard to claim 11, Pachoud discloses wherein the heat source is an electric heater as Pachoud states that “electrical current” is delivered “through the heating elements 7.” See [0062].
In regard to claim 13, Pachoud discloses wherein the superheating heat exchanger is capable of increasing the temperature of the infectious agents contaminated air to destroy a natural or man-made virus such as COVID-19. See the abstract, [0058] and [0063]. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
In regard to claim 14, Pachoud discloses wherein the device is configured to utilize electrical heat sources (“electrical current” is delivered “through the heating elements 7;” see [0062]) to heat up its internal surfaces and execute periodic self-sterilization cycles (see [0101]).
In regard to claim 16, Pachoud discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises a heater (heating elements 7; see [0062]) which would be capable of accelerating decay of ozone generated by an ultra violet lamp outside of the device as an increase in temperature necessarily increases the decay of ozone. It is noted that “an ultra violet lamp outside the device” constitutes structure which has not been positively recited by the instant apparatus, and, thus, does not function to further limit the patentability of the apparatus claims. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774