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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 15–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US Pub. # 20060024198), hereinafter referred to as Park.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches, “An air purifying performance evaluation device which evaluates air purifying performance of an inspection object (Fig. 4, 6, 7; ref. # 11, 14, 15 of 10) by air and microorganisms, the air purifying performance evaluation device comprising: a chamber (30) which accommodates the inspection object (interpreted as 11, 14, 15 of 10); a stirring fan (37) which circulates the air inside the chamber; a sterilizer (interpreted as 19, 21 of 10) which sterilizes the microorganisms inside the chamber; a microorganism injector (31) which injects the microorganisms from outside of the chamber into the chamber; and a sampling assembly (Fig. 4, ref. # 33, 34, 35) which obtains a sample of the microorganisms inside the chamber, wherein the sampling assembly includes an extraction tube (33; upstream and downstream of 34) which extracts air containing the microorganisms from inside the chamber to the outside of the chamber, and a sampler (34) which collects the microorganisms in the air extracted through the extraction tube from the outside of the chamber, and wherein the sampler collects viruses outside the chamber (see para. [0047, 0048]; 34 is outside 30).” Notably, the inspection object is not required by the claimed “evaluation device”, and doesn’t require anything besides “accommodating”. Furthermore, there are no specific claimed details of what the inspection object is/does. Even further, 11, 14, 15 are interpreted as the “inspection object” and 19, 21 are interpreted as the purification/sterilizer, where if the claims are amended to include a sterilizer/purifier, completely separate and distinct from the inspection object, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s invention to include a sterilizer to cleanse and purify the air in the chamber to ensure the testing conditions are optimal and free of any materials/substances that would destroy the accuracy of the test/evaluation. Cleaning/sterilizing testing rooms before testing is well known in the art of measuring and testing. (alternatively, 19, 21 can be interpreted as the inspection object and 11, 14, 15 can be interpreted as the sterilizer/purifier)
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches, “wherein the sampler includes a filter which filters the viruses (34).”
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches, “A method for evaluating an air purifying performance of an inspection object (interpreted here as ref. # 11, 14, 15 of 10) by air and microorganisms, the method comprising: preparing a chamber (Fig. 4, ref. # 30); injecting the microorganisms into the chamber (via 31); stirring the air inside the chamber (via 37); sampling the air inside the chamber (via 33, 34, 35; see para. [0047–0049]), performing air purification by the inspection object (via 19, 21), and sampling the air inside the chamber to measure a concentration change of the microorganisms (see [0048–0049]), extracting air containing the microorganisms from inside the chamber to the outside of the chamber (via 33, 34), collecting the microorganisms in the air extracted from the outside of the chamber (via 34), wherein the collecting the microorganisms includes collecting viruses outside the chamber (see 34 outside 30 in Fig. 4).”
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches, “placing the inspection object inside the chamber (11, 14, 15 of 10 in 30).”
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches, “sealing the inside of the chamber (30 is sealed).”
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches, “sterilizing the inside of the chamber (sterilization via 19, 21).”
Regarding claim 19, Park teaches, “culturing the microorganisms to prepare a spray solution (via 31).”
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches, “wherein placing the inspection object inside the chamber includes arranging an air purifier, an air sterilizer, an air purifying unit, or an air sterilizing unit in a center of the chamber (ref. # 11, 14, 15 of 10; purification/sterilizer interpreted as 19, 21).” Notably, for claims 15, 18, and 20, ref. # 11, 14, 15 are interpreted as the “inspection object” and 19, 21 are interpreted as the purification/sterilizer, where if the claims are amended to include a sterilizer/purifier, completely separate and distinct from the inspection object, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s invention to include a sterilizer to cleanse and purify the air in the chamber to ensure the testing conditions are optimal and free of any materials/substances that would destroy the accuracy of the test/evaluation. Cleaning/sterilizing testing rooms before testing is well known in the art of measuring and testing. (alternatively, 19, 21 can be interpreted as the inspection object and 11, 14, 15 can be interpreted as the sterilizer/purifier)
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Pub. # 20060024198).
Regarding claim 11, Park does not appear to teach, “wherein a volume inside the chamber is about 0.1 cubic meter or more and about 0.5 cubic meter or less.” However, as a matter of design choice, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s invention to adjust the volume of the evaluation chamber to optimize the conditions for which the purification/inspection object will be placed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Park’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring the conditions of the chamber closely match the conditions for which the object will be performing its intended function of purification or elimination of unwanted microorganisms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4–10 and 12–14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (see Office action dated 9/18/25)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks (pages 3-4), filed December 18, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 15 (and their related dependent claims) under 102(a)(1) 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 Park et al (US Pub. # 20060024198).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights