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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed 14 May 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 17-20 and 23-25 are presently pending and being examined herein.
4. All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. The double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the accepted Terminal Disclaimer.
6. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Terminal Disclaimer
7. The terminal disclaimer filed on 14 May 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent Number 11,577,197 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “control selected operation” should read --control a selected operation--, for clarity that this refers to a general operation that can be selected in operating the device and not to an operation known to be preselected (which would raise an antecedent basis issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 17-20 and 23-25 are 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.
11. Regarding claim 17, the limitation “at an air flow exit to the passenger space” is recited in line 14, but it is unclear whether this clause applies to the location of the first air cleaner only, to the second air cleaner only, or to the entire series including the first air cleaner and the second air cleaner. Further, when considered in view of the present Specification, it is unclear how “at an air flow exit to the passenger space” is to be construed with respect to the second air cleaner, as only the DHP device is described as close to where the air flow exits into the space (e.g., right before a diffuser, page 16 lines 1-4) and the embodiments depicted in the Figures e.g., FIGS. 2B and 11A-B, depict the first and second air cleaners (modules 220/230 or array 1090) as being separated from the outlet by various other structures (such as a fan, FIG. 2B blower 250, page 21 lines 16-18). For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted broadly such that the series of air cleaners may extend a distance upstream from the air flow exit, which is understood as the outlet where air is released to the passenger space.
12. Claims 18-20 and 23-25 are indefinite by virtue of dependence on indefinite claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claims 17, 20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20200182495 A1) in view of Kwak et al (US 20210019042 A1).
15. Regarding claim 17, Park teaches a system for air cleaning and/or sanitization (air purifier, Abstract, pars 0047-0053) in a heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and/or refrigeration system (purifying recycled air for air conditioning system, par 0047), comprising:
an air flow path (FIGS. 2-7), the air flow path to deliver air to the space serviced by the HVACR system (inlet 211 for sucking air from an indoor space and outlet 213a, 213b through which purified air is discharged, par 0078);
a fan within the air flow path (direction of the air passage may be changed by controlling the rotation of the fan in the air purifier, par 0053),
a first air cleaner (deodorizing filter 110d, par 0088) having a capacity (information about the contamination of the filter, pars 0081 and 0096), the first air cleaner within the air flow path (filters 110 disposed in air passage, pars 0075-0076);
a second air cleaner (harmful gas filter 110c, pars 0083 and 0085), the second air cleaner within the air flow path (filters 110 disposed in air passage, pars 0075-0076) in series with the first air cleaner (harmful gas filter 110c and deodorizing filter 110d in series of filters 110a-e, FIG. 3);
a controller to control a selected operation of the second air cleaner (processor 130 may control the driving unit 120 so that at least one filter among the plurality of filters 110 is disposed in the air passage inside the air purifier 1000, pars 0075-0076; control the driving unit 120 so that the harmful gas removal filter is disposed in the air passage, pars 0154 and 0083-0085); and
a sensor to detect a concentration of airborne contaminants in the space serviced by the HVACR system (air purifier may include a gas and/or dust sensor to identify an air state, pars 0063 and 0089),
the controller to receive the detected concentration of airborne contaminants (processor identifies air state based on the output value of the dust sensor and/or gas sensor, pars 0075-0076; concentration of gas may be identified based on the size of the sensing value, par 0073) in the space serviced by the HVACR system (sensor unit measures the air state at a desired space, par 0137), and to determine whether the detected concentration of airborne contaminants exceeds a threshold relative to the capacity of the first air cleaner (if a particular source of contaminants is present above a certain concentration, reference information may be stored to identify that the air condition is a contaminated state, par 0154);
the first air cleaner having a cleaning material different from the second air cleaner (materials to be used for harmful gas filter in pars 0085-0087, materials to be used for deodorizing filter in pars 0088 and 0154), and the first air cleaner, relative to the second air cleaner. The limitation to treat the passenger space serviced by the HVACR system at a lower concentration of airborne contaminants is recited as an intended use or purpose of the cleaning materials, which does not carry patentable weight per MPEP 2114(II). However, Examiner notes that the second air cleaner of Park, i.e., harmful gas filter is only deployed i.e., activated when a particular source of contaminants is present above a certain concentration (par 0154), reading upon the use case recited.
Park further teaches the second air cleaner comprising: one or more cleaner modules (FIGS. 3-7, filters 110a-e configured to be moved individually by driving unit 120, pars 0056-0059), each of the one or more cleaner modules mounted within a frame (FIGS. 3-7, 110a-e), the frame being a four sided parallelogram with a right angle (FIGS. 3-7, 110a-e);
an electrical connector mounted on each of the one or more cleaner modules (basic unit of the units forming the assembly-type air purifier 1000 can be supplied with power through an electric cord, par 0141; FIG. 1), the electrical connector to connect the air cleaning apparatus to power and to a control (processor 130 may control the driving unit 120 to individually move the plurality of filters 110, par 0061).
Although Park does not teach for the primary embodiment of FIGS. 3-7 that the harmful gas filter would include two or four cells, Park teaches another embodiment wherein each of the one or more cleaner modules includes four cells (plurality of filters may be manufactured as a module in a combination as desired by a user, par 0052; FIGS. 15-16, each module consists of four filter cells), and the one or more cleaner modules consisting of one to six cleaner modules (harmful gas filter 110c is for the use of removing harmful gas and is divided into an absorption filter and a decomposition filter, par 0085; FIG. 16 depicts three modules).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to subdivide the second air cleaner of Park into one or more cleaner modules each including two or four cells, as this would predictably provide the same advantageous customizability for treating a specific contamination source as demonstrated in the FIG. 15-16 embodiment of Park (pars 0133-0134) and the modification entails simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The limitations wherein when the detected concentration of airborne contaminants exceeds the threshold, the controller selects operation of the second air cleaner and enables the second air cleaner that is within the air flow path in series with the first air cleaner to be activated in the space serviced by the HVACR system and when the detected concentration of airborne contaminants does not exceed the threshold, the second air cleaner is not activated describe an intended use of the device having limited patentable weight as analyzed per MPEP 2114(II).
Examiner notes that the controller of Park is configured to perform the claimed sequence as evidenced by the following: when the detected concentration of airborne contaminants exceeds the threshold (if a particular source of contaminants is present above a certain concentration, par 0154), the controller selects the second air cleaner and enables the second air cleaner that is within the air flow path in series with the first air cleaner to be activated in the space serviced by the HVACR system (control the driving unit 120 so that the harmful gas removal filter is disposed in the air passage, pars 0154 and 0083-0085; harmful gas filter 110c among filters 110a-e in series, FIGS. 3-7); and
when the detected concentration of airborne contaminants does not exceed the threshold, the first air cleaner that is within the air flow path in series with the second air cleaner is enabled in the space serviced by the HVACR system, and the second air cleaner is not activated (control the driving unit so that the deodorizing filter is disposed in the air passage, pars 0154 and 0101).
Although Park teaches that the air purification system can be incorporated within an air conditioning system (par 0047), Park does not teach a transport system having the specific components of a conventional HVACR system, namely, a compressor, a condenser, an expander, and an evaporator arranged as a fluidly connected circuit to heat and/or cool a passenger space of the transport system, with one or more of the condenser and evaporator in a heat exchange relationship with the air flow path.
Kwak teaches a vehicle passenger space (FIGS. 1 and 5-7) equipped with an analogous HVAC system (pars 0064-0065) composed of a refrigerant fluid circuit linking a condenser, a compressor, an evaporator, and an expander for controlling the temperature of the air inside the vehicle (par 0065), with at least the condenser in thermal contact i.e. a heat exchange relationship with the ambient air being cooled (pars 0064-0065). Kwak further teaches an analogous air purification device (par 0068) that includes a sensor for detecting air quality and a filter for purifying the air (par 0068), the filter connected to the air conditioning device to discharge the purified air into the vehicle (par 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the air cleaning system of Park with a vehicle HVAC system comprising a condenser, compressor, evaporator, and expander by connecting the filtration device/air cleaning system to the discharge of the air conditioner as taught by Kwak, because the combination would predictably enable cooling and purification of the vehicle air (Kwak pars 0065 and 0068) and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
16. Regarding claim 20, Park as modified by Kwak teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the second air cleaner is a photocatalytic oxidation air cleaner (harmful gas filter 110c includes filter to which photocatalysis is applied to removed harmful organic substances, Park pars 0085 and 0087).
17. Regarding claim 23, Park as modified by Kwak teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the first air cleaner comprises filter media (deodorizing filter 110d…can be activated carbon, activated alumina, or the like, Park par 0088).
18. Regarding claim 24, Park as modified by Kwak teaches the transport system of claim 17. The limitation wherein the selected operation of the second air cleaner is at a rate proportional to the detected concentration of the airborne contaminants describes an intended use of the air cleaning device analyzed for structural patentable weight per MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the device of claim 17 can carry out the intended use, as Park teaches that the purification unit may adjust the purification unit according to the sensing result, or control a movement of a plurality of filters in the purification unit (Park par 0144), the adjustment according to the sensing result reading upon a proportional rate to the detected concentration by the sensor.
19. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20200182495 A1) and Kwak et al (US 20210019042 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Roseberry (US 20070227362 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Park as modified above teaches the system of claim 17, but the combination does not teach wherein the capacity of the first air cleaner is a number of molecules of cleaning material the first air cleaner can generate, and the threshold is a stoichiometric ratio of the molecules of cleaning material to molecules of the airborne contaminants.
Roseberry teaches an analogous air filtration system to remove contaminants from air (Abstract, pars 0038-0039) wherein each filter is described to have a stoichiometric capacity for gaseous contaminant removal (par 0031) i.e. a ratio of molecules of cleaning material to molecules of the airborne contaminants, wherein the cleaning material is a media bed that can be regenerated (pars 0063-0064) i.e. the capacity of the first air cleaner comprises an amount, composed of molecules, of cleaning material that the first air cleaner can generate. The regenerating filter media is taught as beneficial because it increases the stoichiometric capacity of the media (par 0031), greatly extending the life of such media and maintaining the highest efficiency through a continuously cleansed surface (par 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ for the first air cleaner of modified Park a regenerative media absorptive filter as taught by Roseberry. Doing so would predictably provide the same benefits of a higher stoichiometric cleaning ratio and longer life, while providing the claimed conditions wherein the capacity of the first air cleaner is a number of molecules of cleaning material the first air cleaner can generate, and the threshold is a stoichiometric ratio of the molecules of cleaning material to molecules of the airborne contaminants.
20. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20200182495 A1) and Kwak et al (US 20210019042 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Parker (US 20070227362 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Park as modified by Kwak teaches the system of claim 17, and Park further teaches that the photocatalytic filter induces a chemical reaction to remove harmful organic substance due to light energy, including by ultraviolet illumination (par 0087). The combination does not teach wherein the first air cleaner includes a gaseous hydrogen peroxide generator.
Parker teaches an analogous linear air cleaning system (Abstract, pars 0003 and 0008-0012) employing photoreactive filtration media in the form of PCO reactor pads (par 0012) that react with ultraviolet radiation in a photocatalytic manner to create hydroxyl radicals and hydrogen peroxide (par 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the photocatalytic filter modules of modified Park in a manner to illuminate the photoreactive filters with ultraviolet light to similarly produce gaseous hydrogen peroxide taught by Parker, because this ultraviolet illumination of a suitable photocatalytic filter would predictably function as a gaseous hydrogen peroxide generator to further degrade and destroy organic contaminants via oxidation (Parker par 0012) and involves simple substitution of one known element (photocatalyst material) for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
21. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 20200182495 A1) and Kwak et al (US 20210019042 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Mello et al (US 20090025559 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Park as modified by Kwak teaches the transport system of claim 17, wherein the one or more cleaner modules form an array of cleaner modules (plurality of filters may be manufactured as a module in a combination as desired by a user, Park par 0052), each of the cleaner modules in the array having the frame (Park FIGS. 15-16);
Park teaches that the plurality of filters and modules may be manufactured in a combination as desired by the user (Park par 0052), specifically teaching embodiments with one cell (Park FIGS. 3-7, harmful gas filter 110c) and four cells/three modules (Park FIGS. 15-16), the combination does not specifically teach wherein each of the cleaner modules include two cells, nor specifically with regard to the second air cleaner the array of cleaner modules consisting of four to six cleaner modules .
However, neither the number of cleaner modules nor the number of cells is considered critical to the air purification function provided by the device, thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would be inclined to perform routine experimentation with module and cell numbers, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). As two cells would land between the taught options of one cell and four cells, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The specific illustration of three air cleaning modules in Park FIGS. 15-16 illustrates that modules are placeable in series at the discretion of a user, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that module number is non-critical to the device operation such that four to six modules would be expected to function similarly as a staged air purifier to three modules. See also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the array of cleaning modules to include four to six modules wherein each of the cleaner modules includes two cells, because Park teaches customizable modules and this combination would predictably perform the air cleaning operation and can be readily achieved through routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Park as modified teaches frames having mounting locations (chain is connected i.e. mounted to each of the plurality of filters, Park par 0059), the mounting locations being bidirectional (chain rotates filters in and out i.e. in two directions, Park par 0059), the frame being mounted together with the evaporator (plurality of filters may be mounted by frames in filter cartridge, Park par 0128 and FIGS. 15-16; evaporator fixed in air conditioning device, Kwak par 0065). The frames are depicted as fitting within a tower air purifier unit (Park FIG. 3) and as modified would need to fit within a vehicle (Kwak FIGS. 5-7) but the combination is otherwise silent regarding the dimensions of the air cleaners. Thus, the combination does not teach the limitation wherein the frame has a dimension of at or about 165 mm X 535 mm X 25 mm, or has the dimension of at or about 6.5 in X 21 in X 1 in nor that the electrical connector would be mounted on the frame at about a midpoint of the dimension at or about 165 mm.
Mello teaches an analogous air conditioning system including an electrostatic air filter apparatus (Abstract, pars 0008-0009), wherein each filter 54 is a rectangular filter approximately 18-22 inches in width, approximately 24-30 inches in height, approximately 4-6 inches deep (par 0088) and each filter is held in a framework 210 (pars 0095-0098). Mello teaches that the frame is formed around one face of the filter (Mello FIG. 26, frame 210), thus the depth or thickness dimension of the filter is demonstrated as not critical to the depth or thickness dimension of the frame. As Mello fits the length and width of the frame to the length and width of the filter to successfully hold the filter, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be expected to fit the frame dimensions to the dimensions of the space of application, which in Park would be a narrow rectangular duct. Thus the dimensions of the filter and frame are also not critical and can be tailored as needed by a skilled artisan, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and 2144.05(II). Mello further teaches embodiments with electrical connectors mounted on the frame at about a midpoint of a frame dimension (FIG. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ a frame in the device of modified Park with dimensions of about 6.5 in X 21 in X 1 in having the electrical connector mounted on the frame near a midpoint as taught by Mello, because this frame modification would predictably provide similar support to a filter of such dimensions while providing a suitable wiring connection (Mello par 0088 and FIG. 4).
Response to Arguments
22. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9 of Remarks filed 14 May 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kwak to address the newly added limitations that the second air cleaner is in series with the first air cleaner at an air flow exit to the passenger space of a transport system. Examiner submits that the teachings of Park in view of Kwak resolve the deficiencies specifically argued by Applicant, namely that the general air conditioner taught by Park (par 0047) can be embodied with the condenser, compressor, expander, and in the system of the vehicle air conditioner taught by Kwak (par 0065) with the filtration module near the air outlet in the same manner as Kwak (par 0068).
23. With respect to new claim 25, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Examiner notes that differences in size or number between the modules of the present claim and the prior art are considered obvious matters of engineering design, as explained in the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, having no evidence that specific sizes or numbers of cells or modules provide any unexpected results or criticality. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)), and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) (mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Conclusion
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cermak et al (US 20110028078 A1) teaches an analogous air cleaning unit having customizable air cleaner modules mounted in a mass transit vehicle (pars 0003-0006, FIGS. 1 and 8-9).
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights