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 § 112(b)
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.
Claims 3–4, 7–8 and 13–20 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.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed “filter” is the same as that recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reason as claim 3 because of the limitations of “a filter.” Claim 4 is also indefinite because it depends on claim 3.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed “a top edge” of the first, second, third and fourth sidewall are the same as that recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed “a first sidewall” is the same as that recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear if the term “a filter” in the last limitation is the same as those recited earlier in claim 13.
Claims 14–20 are indefinite because they depend on claim 13.
Claims 14 and 16 are indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed “a top edge” is the same as that recited in claim 13.
Claims 15–20 are indefinite because they depend on claim 14.
Claims 17–20 are indefinite because they depend on claim 16.
Claim 17 is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed “a first sidewall” is the same as that recited in claims 13, 14 and 16.
Claims 18–20 are indefinite because they depend on claim 17.
The claims are replete with similar antecedent basis issues. The examiner encourages the applicant to double check before resubmitting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15, which depends on claim 14, and claim 16 recites the same limitation of claim 14. Claim 16 therefore does not further limit claim 15, because claim 15 depends on claim 14 and requires all the limitation of claim 14, and claim 16 repeats the limitation of claim 14.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 17–20 are rejected because they depend on claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–3, 5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hodge, US 6,174,340 B1 (“Hodge”).
Regarding claim 1:
Hodge discloses that an air scrubber comprising: an outer shell comprising: a first sidewall having a first aperture, the first aperture having a top edge, a bottom edge, a left edge, and a right edge; a second sidewall having a second aperture , the second aperture having a top edge, a bottom edge, a left edge, and a right edge; a third sidewall having a third aperture , the third aperture having a top edge, a bottom edge, a left edge, and a right edge; a fourth sidewall having a fourth aperture, the fourth aperture having a top edge, a bottom edge, a left edge, and a right edge (Hodge discloses an rectangular shaped air filter apparatus 2, which has four side walls with four rectangular shaped apertures, each side wall and rectangular shaped aperture would read on the claimed first, second, third and fourth side wall and first, second third and further aperture, with four lateral sides of each aperture respectively read on the claimed ‘top, bottom, left and right edge.”). Hodge Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 10–12.
Hodge also discloses a top wall 6 and a bottom wall 8. Hodge Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 10–12. Hodge discloses a first aperture cover configured to engage the first sidewall and substantially cover the first aperture; a second aperture cover configured to engage the second sidewall and substantially cover the second aperture; a third aperture cover configured to engage the third sidewall and substantially cover the third aperture; a fourth aperture cover configured to engage the fourth sidewall and substantially cover the fourth aperture (Hodge’s decorative grill substantially covering each aperture would read on the claimed “first, second, third and further aperture cover). Hodge Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 52–56. Hodge also discloses a fan (exhaust fan 18) engaged with the top wall 6 and configured to move air inward through each of the first aperture, the second aperture, the third aperture, and the fourth aperture outward through the top wall (as indicted by air flow arrow 20). Hodge Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 22–26. Hodge discloses that each of the first aperture, the second aperture, the third aperture, and the fourth aperture have a height, width, and depth configured to engage a filter (as clearly shown in Hodge’s Fig. 1, Hodge’s first sheet 39 would read on the claimed “filter”). Hodge Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 43–46.
Regarding claim 2:
Hodge discloses that the air scrubber of claim 1 further comprising: a first lip (Hodge’s channel elements 50) extending from the first sidewall, the first aperture cover 54 configured to engage the first lip 50. Hodge Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 43–59. Hodge also discloses a second lip 50 extending from the second sidewall, the second aperture cover 54 configured to engage the second lip; a third lip 50 extending from the third sidewall, the third aperture cover 54 configured to engage the third lip 50; and a fourth lip 50 extending from the fourth sidewall, the fourth aperture cover 54 configured to engage the fourth lip 50. Hodge Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 43–59.
Regarding claim 3:
Hodge discloses that the air scrubber of claim 2, further comprising: a first clip configured to removably engage a filter within the first aperture; a second clip configured to removably engage a filter within the second aperture; a third clip configured to removably engage a filter within the first aperture; and a fourth clip configured to removably engage a filter within the first aperture (Hodge discloses magnets 30 or clips can be used to removably attach its filter panels 22 to the sides 10). Hodge Fig. 3, col. 3, ll. 31–42.
Regarding claim 5:
Hodge discloses that the air scrubber of claim 1, wherein the outer shell 4 is molded as a single integral piece (as shown in Hodge’s Fig. 1, its housing frame 4) is shown as a single integral piece. Hodge Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 10:
Hodge discloses that the air scrubber of claim 1, wherein the bottom wall is engaged with at least one foot (as shown in Hodge’s Fig. 4). Hodge Fig. 4, col. 4, ll. 29–34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 4, 13, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodge in view of Mann et al., US 2010/0192528 A1 (“Mann”).
Regarding claim 4:
Hodge does not disclose that the air scrubber of claim 3, further comprising: a first gasket engaged with the first sidewall and configured to engage a filter engaged in the first aperture; a second gasket engaged with the second sidewall and configured to engage a filter engaged in the second aperture; a third gasket engaged with the third sidewall and configured to engage a filter engaged in the third aperture; and a fourth gasket engaged with the fourth sidewall and configured to engage a filter engaged in the fourth aperture.
In the analogous art of air filters, Mann discloses a similar rectangular air inlet with engaged with a rectangular shaped air filter 24. Mann Fig. 2, [0019]. Mann discloses a gasket maybe disposed between sealing surface 34 and filter flange 44 to provide an air tight seal. Mann Fig. 2, [0019]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Mann’s gasket between each of Hodge’s first, second, third and fourth side wall and corresponding apertures to provide an air tight seal.
Regarding claim 13:
Hodge discloses that an air scrubber 2 comprising: an outer shell 4 comprising: a first sidewall having a first aperture, the first aperture having a top edge, a bottom edge, a left edge, and a right edge; a second sidewall having a second aperture, the second aperture having a top edge, a bottom edge, a left edge, and a right edge; a third sidewall having a third aperture, the third aperture having a top edge, a bottom edge, a left edge, and a right edge; a fourth sidewall having a fourth aperture, the fourth aperture having a top edge, a bottom edge, a left edge, and a right edge (Hodge’s outer shell 4 is rectangular shaped with four side walls each include rectangular shaped apertures, which would read on the claimed first, second, third and fourth side wall with each of the lateral side of the rectangular apertures read on the claimed top, bottom, left and right edge of a “first, second, third and fourth aperture). Hodge Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 10–16. Hodge discloses a top wall 6 and a bottom wall 8. Hodge Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 10–13.
Hodge discloses a fan 18 engaged with the top wall 6 and configured to move air inward through each of the first aperture, the second aperture, the third aperture, and the fourth aperture outward through the top wall 6 (as indicated by arrow) wherein each of the first aperture, the second aperture, the third aperture, and the fourth aperture have a height, width, and depth configured to engage a filter 22. Hodge Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 10–30.
Hodge does not teach a first gasket engaged with the first sidewall and configured to engage a filter engaged in the first aperture; a second gasket engaged with the second sidewall and configured to engage a filter engaged in the second aperture; a third gasket engaged with the third sidewall and configured to engage a filter engaged in the third aperture; and a fourth gasket engaged with the fourth sidewall and configured to engage a filter engaged in the fourth aperture.
In the analogous art of air filters, Mann discloses a similar rectangular air inlet engaged with a rectangular shaped air filter 24. Mann Fig. 2, [0019]. Mann discloses a gasket may be disposed between sealing surface 34 and filter flange 44 to provide an air tight seal. Mann Fig. 2, [0019].
It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to include Mann’s gasket between each of Hodge’s first, second, third and fourth side wall and corresponding apertures to provide an air tight seal.
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Hodge discloses that the air scrubber of claim 14, wherein the outer shell 4 is molded as a single integral piece (as shown in Hodge’s Fig. 1). Hodge Fig. 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodge in view of Courtwright et al., US 5,556,441 A (“Courtwright”) and in further view of Aumann, US 2020/0238579 A1 (“Aumann”).
Regarding claim 6:
Hodge does not disclose that the air scrubber of claim 2, wherein the outer shell is rotomolded.
In the analogous art of air filter housing, Courtwright discloses an air filter housing are preferably be made of a molded polymer of plastic material. Courtwright col. 6, ll. 7–12. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Hodge’s housing to be made of polymer or plastic materials because Courtwright teaches such material is preferred.
Additionally, Aumann teaches using rotomolding process to produce hollow plastic articles of different kinds are “very well known”. Aumann [0002]. Since claims are directed to a process making as a rotomolded one skill in the art would look to all molded plastic areas for how things are made. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Hodge’s plastic hollow casing 4 to be made of rotomolding because Aumann discloses rotomolding is very attractive and applicable in an economic manner for the production of hollow plastic articles.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodge in view of Burnett et al., US 4,749,390 A (“Burnett”).
Regarding claim 7:
Hodge does not disclose the air scrubber of claim 1, wherein the top wall is recessed below a top edge of the first sidewall, a top edge of the second sidewall, a top edge of the third sidewall, a top edge of the fourth sidewall.
Similar to Hodge, Burnett discloses an air filter comprising four side walls each accommodating a filter cover 26 and filters elements 12 and 14. Burnett Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 16–23. Burnett also discloses a top wall 28 and a bottom wall 48. Burnett Figs. 1–2, col. 3, l. 35–41. Additionally, Burnett discloses its top wall 28 is recessed below a top edge of first, second, third and fourth sidewall as shown in Fig. 1. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hodge’s top wall to be recessed the same way as shown in Burnett because such designs are known in the art. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have such design to spare space for holding Hodge’s lamp fixture 81 and make the device compact.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodge in view of Wittleder, EP 2524739 A2 (“Wittleder”).
Regarding claim 8:
Hodge does not disclose that the air scrubber of claim 1, wherein one of a first sidewall, the second sidewall, the third sidewall, and the fourth sidewall includes a handle.
In the analogous art of air filter 100 comprising a housing 10 with a first, second, third and fourth sidewall. Wittleder Fig. 1, p. 4. Wittleder discloses its side wall comprising a handle 36, 37. Wittleder Fig. 3, p. 4. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a handle similar to that disclosed by Wittleder in Hodge because such design is known and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a handle as disclosed by Wittleder such that Hodge’s lamp assembly could be moved around conveniently during house cleaning, room rearrangement etc.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodge in view of George et al., US 1,418,462 A (“George”).
Regarding claim 9:
Hodge does not disclose that the air scrubber of claim 1, wherein the top wall includes cord retainer configured to retain an electrical cord.
Hodge discloses its air purifier apparatus could include a lamp assembly using the top wall 6 as the base. Hodge Fig. 4, col. 4, ll. 29–33. Hodge discloses its lamp fixture 81 is mounted on the first end 6. Id.
In the analogous art of lamp fixtures, George discloses a lamp base 21, which serves as a cord retainer. George Fig. 2, ll. 26–28 and ll. 46–49. It would therefore have been obvious for Hodge’s lamp base (the top wall) to include a cord retainer because it is known in the art to include a cord retainer in the base of a lamp to accommodate an electrical cord.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodge in view of Chinsoo et al., KR 20210050477 A (‘Chinsoo”).
Regarding claim 11:
Hodge does not disclose that the air scrubber of claim 1, wherein the air scrubber has a weight in the range of 10 lbs to 20 lbs.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Chinsoo discloses an air purifier with a weight of about 10 pounds. Chinsoo Fig. 1, p. 3. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Hodge’s air scrubber to have a weight of about 10 pounds because such weight is known in the art as being suitable for a room air purifier. With such modification, modified Hodge would have a weight overlapping the claimed range and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodge in view of Atri et al., US 2021/0368885 A1 (“Atri”).
Regarding claim 12:
Hodge does not disclose that the air scrubber of claim 1, wherein the first aperture cover; the second aperture cover; the third aperture cover; and the fourth aperture cover are made of an ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber material.
In the analogous art of air filter covers, Atri discloses a filter cover structure 510 configured to protect filter 508. Atri Fig. 5, [0060]. Atri discloses that its filter cover structure 510 is made of EPDM rubber, because it supports the filter 508 while resisting corrosion due to moisture intrusion. Atri Fig. 5, [0060]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Hodge’s filter cover 54 to be made of EPDM rubber as disclosed by Atri for the benefits disclosed above.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodge in view of Mann, and in further view of Burnett.
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Hodge does not disclose that the air scrubber of claim 13, wherein the top wall is recessed below a top edge of the first sidewall, a top edge of the second sidewall, a top edge of the third sidewall, a top edge of the fourth sidewall.
Similar to modified Hodge, Burnett discloses an air filter comprising four side walls each accommodating a filter cover 26 and filters elements 12 and 14. Burnett Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 16–23. Burnett also discloses a top wall 28 and a bottom wall 48. Burnett Figs. 1–2, col. 3, l. 35–41. Additionally, Burnett discloses its top wall 28 is recessed below a top edge of first, second, third and fourth sidewall as shown in Fig. 1. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hodge’s top wall to be recessed the same way as shown in Burnett because such designs are known in the art. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have such design to spare space for holding Hodge’s lamp fixture 81 and make the device compact.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is a duplication of claim 14 and the same rejection of claim 14 applies to claim 16.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodge in view of Mann, in further view of Burnett and in further view of Wittleder.
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Hodge does not disclose that the air scrubber of claim 16, wherein one of a first sidewall, the second sidewall, the third sidewall, and the fourth sidewall includes a handle.
In the analogous art of air filter 100 comprising a housing 10 with a first, second, third and fourth sidewall. Wittleder Fig. 1, p. 4. Wittleder discloses its side wall comprising a handle 36, 37. Wittleder Fig. 3, p. 4. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a handle similar to that disclosed by Wittleder in Hodge because such design is known.
Claims 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodge in view of Mann, in further view of Burnett, in further view of Wittleder and in further view of Chinsoo.
Regarding claim 18:
Modified Hodge does not disclose that the air scrubber of claim 17, wherein the air scrubber has a weight in the range of 10 lbs to 20 lbs.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Chinsoo discloses an air purifier with a weight of about 10 pounds. Chinsoo Fig. 1, p. 3. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Hodge’s air scrubber to have a weight of about 10 pounds because such weight is known in the art as being suitable for a room air purifier. With such modification, modified Hodge would have a weight overlapping the claimed range and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Hodge discloses that the air scrubber of claim 18, wherein the bottom wall is engaged with at least one foot (see Hodge Fig. 4). Hodge Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Hodge discloses that the air scrubber of claim 19, further comprising: a first aperture cover configured to engage the first sidewall and substantially cover the first aperture; a second aperture cover configured to engage the second sidewall and substantially cover the second aperture; a third aperture cover configured to engage the third sidewall and substantially cover the third aperture; and a fourth aperture cover configured to engage the fourth sidewall and substantially cover the fourth aperture (Hodge’s decorative grill read on the claimed “first, second, third and fourth aperture cover). Hodge Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 52–59.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776