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 .
Response to Arguments
In light of amendments to claims 1, 8, and 10, the objection to claims 1, 8, and 10 has been withdrawn. In light of amendments to claims 1-11, the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC § 112(b) has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed June 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derks (US 9004995 B1) in view of Lind (US 9305539 B2) taken with Jones (US 5925320).
For claim 1, Derks discloses a sound-reducing air purification unit (Figs. 5, 6), comprising a housing (housing 303) enclosing at least one filter (horizontal structure between blower 333 and airflow arrow from intake vent 332). While the at least one filter of Derks is inherently provided, O’Connell US 3156233 A is provided as extrinsic evidence; whereas, in Fig. 1 O’Connell illustrates filter 33 below blower 20 that is analogous to the at least one filter of Derks. Derks discloses a blower (blower 333; Fig. 6; col. 8, ll. 35-36), the housing configured to cause a filtration of air when the air flows through the at least one filter (Fig. 6); the blower configured to cause the air to flow through the at least one filter and into an inlet of the blower (Fig. 6); a lower sound reduction unit secured to the housing (Figs. 5, 6), the lower sound reduction unit comprising at least one slot (either of 324 and 325 in Figs. 5, 6) and at least one bracket (either structures at 324 and 325 in Figs. 5, 6) configured to impede a path of sound through the at least one slot while allowing air to pass around the at least one bracket into the housing (Figs. 5, 6; col. 8, ll. 12-55; sound absorbing material 328), the lower sound reduction unit being configured to absorb sound emitted by the blower within the housing; a discharge channel configured to channel the air expelled from the blower (Figs. 5, 6; col. 8, l. 3-col. 9, l. 4).
Derks does not appear to disclose explicitly a sound-reducing media positioned within a plurality of sound-reducing chambers positioned on either side of the discharge channel, the sound-reducing media configured to absorb sound emitted by the blower within the discharge channel through a plurality of perforations in at least one baffle defining the discharge channel; and a discharge grille configured to allow the air to flow from the discharge channel into an outlet. However, Derks does teach a supply plenum 317, which is the exhaust path of air flow from the blower (see Fig. 6), that may be lined with sound reducing materials (col. 8, ll. 20-29; Fig. 6). Lind teaches a sound-reducing media positioned within a plurality of sound-reducing chambers positioned on either side of the discharge channel, and the sound-reducing media is configured to absorb sound emitted by the blower within the discharge channel through a plurality of perforations in at least one baffle defining the discharge channel (col. 6, l. 23-col. 7, l. 5; Figs. 2A-C). Jones teaches an outlet opening 42 covered with an outlet grate 44 to prevent debris from entering the air duct formed within the housing (col. 3, ll. 13-18); in other words, a discharge grille that is configured to allow the air to flow from the discharge channel into an outlet. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the supply plenum 317 of Derks, i.e., the discharge channel configured with the grille, i.e., grate of Jones, to prevent debris from entering the outlet and the sound-reducing media of Lind to absorb acoustic energy to arrive at the invention disclosed in claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Jones further discloses a control module configured to control an operation of the blower and to circulate air through the device (Abstract; col. 4, ll. 43-52). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to have the control module disclosed in Jones and configured as claimed to circulate air through the device.
Regarding claim 10, prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Lind discloses wherein the sound-reducing media is enclosed by an inner casing within the sound reducing chambers to create a narrow-to-wide discharge channel that constricts air entering the channel to force air sound into the sound-reducing media (col. 1, l. 52-col. 2, l. 4; col. 6, l. 23-col. 7, l. 5; Abstract; Figs. 2A-C).
Regarding claim 11, prior art to is relied upon as indicated above. Lind disclose further wherein the discharge channel is oriented to expel air on a top surface of the sound-reducing air purification unit (col. 6, l. 23-col. 7, l. 5; Figs. 2A-C).\
Claim(s) 3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derks (US 9004995 B1), Lind (US 9305539 B2), and Jones (US 5925320) in view of Smith (US 20210236978 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above but does not explicitly teach a bipolar ionization unit. Smith is analogous art and discloses an ionization unit (needlepoint bipolar ionization, or NPBI; “ozone free technology”; pars [0003], [0006], [0010], [0023], [0026], [0052]) for sound-reducing air purification further comprising a bipolar ionization unit configured to produce ions that mix with the air expelled by the blower. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the bipolar ionization unit of Smith with the device taught by the combined teaching of the prior art for the ionize particles to react and remove contaminants from the air.
Regarding claim 9, prior art is relied upon as indicated above and teaches the at least one slot and the at least one bracket comprises a plurality of brackets. Smith further discloses wherein the at least one slot comprises a plurality of slots (the silencer duct defines four channels A, B, C, D in Figs. 6, 7; pars [0069]- [0070]) and the at least one bracket comprises a plurality of brackets (baffles 66a, 66b, 66c in Figs. 6, 7; pars [0069]-[0070]), wherein each of the slots is associated with a respective bracket (Figs. 6, 7), wherein each respective bracket is configured to provide a visual obstruction (front plate 52) through a respective one of the slots while allowing air to pass around the bracket and into the sound reduction unit (Fig. 3). Said plurality of slots and brackets are considered duplication of parts. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention duplicate the at least one slot and the at least one bracket since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In the instant case this is obviously beneficial because duplication of these parts would include further sound reduction and protection from ultraviolet radiation. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI‐B).
17. Claim(s) 4-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derks (US 9004995 B1), Lind (US 9305539 B2), and Jones (US 5925320) taken with Knuth (US 5997619 A).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above but does not explicitly teach an ultraviolet lamp configured to treat the air expelled from the blower. Knuth is analogous art and discloses further discloses an ultraviolet lamp (UV lamp 50; Figs. 3-5; col. 10, ll. 44-67) configured to treat the air expelled from the blower. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the teaching of Knuth with the combined teaching of the prior art and arrive at the current invention in order to remove contaminants from the airflow.
Regarding claim 5, the prior is relied upon as indicated above and discloses an upper housing at least partially enclosing the discharge channel and the sound-reducing media but does not explicitly specify wherein an upper housing at least partially enclosing an ultraviolet lamp. Knuth teaches air purification unit comprising an upper housing (Figs. 3-5) at least partially enclosing an ultraviolet lamp (UV lamp 50). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the sound-reducing air purification unit as indicated here within for the prior art to Derks, Lind, and Jones with the teaching of Knuth having the upper housing at least partially enclosing the ultraviolet lamp since Knuth discloses motivation for this teaching to kill bacteria (col. 10, ll. 44-67).
Regarding claim 7, prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Knuth teaches a lower housing at least partially enclosing the at least one filter and the blower (Figs. 3-5; col. 7, ll. 58-67); whereas, the at least one filter is replaceable. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to have a lower housing at least partially enclosing the at least one filter and the blower as disclosed in Knuth in order to replace the at least one filter.
Regarding claim 8, prior art is relied upon as indicated above and teaches the sound reduction unit. The prior art does not appear to disclose at least one slot comprises a plurality of slots. However, the limitation a plurality of slots is considered duplication of parts. The mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI‐B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the teaching of Knuth with the apparatus of the combined teaching of the prior art in order to discharge the purified air and preventing harm from the ultraviolet radiation.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derks (US 9004995 B1), Lind (US 9305539 B2), Jones (US 5925320) and Knuth (US 5997619 A) taken with Smith (US 20210236978 A1).
Regarding claim 6, prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Smith is analogous art and discloses further a second plurality of sound reducing chambers respectively positioned adjacent to the discharge channel, wherein the sound-reducing media is integrated into the second plurality of sound reducing chambers (Figs. 1, 6, 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the second plurality of sound reducing chambers respectively positioned adjacent to the discharge channel, wherein the sound-reducing media is integrated into the second plurality of sound reducing chambers as taught in Smith with the combined teaching of the prior art to decrease the noise generation further with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (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 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 July 2, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights