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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (KR 102289453 B1) (cited in previous office action) in view of Dunkley (US 20150182649 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches of:
An air purifier (Fig. 1, A) comprising:
a first body (Fig. 5, 210) having an inlet (Fig. 3, 112a), and an outlet that is open upward (Fig. 4, 211);
a fan (Fig. 4, 140) provided inside the first body and below the outlet (Figs. 4-5, 140 is inside 210 and below the upper opening of 152); and
a second body (Fig. 5, 260) coupled to the first body and provided above the outlet (Fig. 5, upper opening of 152),
wherein the second body includes:
a post (Fig. 5, lower surface of 260 connected to 251 is the post) connected to the first body (the post is connected to the first body 210); and
a lower wall (see annotated Fig. 5 below) located above the outlet and extending outward toward an outside edge of the second body (lower wall is above upper opening of 152 and extends outward to the outside edge of 210),
wherein the lower wall is inclined upward toward the outside edge of the second body (lower wall is inclined upward toward the outside edge of 210)
Jang fails to explicitly teach:
wherein a region of the lower wall that vertically overlaps with the outlet has an angle of inclination with respect to a horizontal direction that increases as the region extends radially outward.
Dunkley teaches of:
wherein a region of the lower wall (Fig. 6, see lower wall of 74) that vertically overlaps with the outlet (Figs. 6-7, 72 is connected to 52 which and the upper opening of 52 defines the outlet at the center of 72) has an angle of inclination with respect to a horizontal direction that increases as the region extends radially outward (lower wall of 74 has an angle of inclination that increases with respected to the horizontal direction).
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify 260 and the surface of the first body that defines discharge path H1 so that they both form convex discs and the discharge path H1 is shaped in an upward incline instead of the “fallopian tube” shape originally recited in Jang and so that the lower wall of the second body of Jang has a smaller angle of inclination than the surface of the first body that defines the discharge flow path H1, see annotated version of Fig. 5 of Jang below showing the new shapes of the lower wall and the surface of the first body after the modification with Dunkley
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would prevent condensation from forming on the surfaces of the air purifier (Dunkley, ¶ [0036], “The design of the cover plate, top disc and spacer element are such as to minimise lamination of the expelled air onto the cover plate and surrounding body work respectively. A reduction in laminar flow of the expelled air stream prevents or minimises hugging of the bodywork of the machine by the air and water droplets which cause condensation to run off the machine and puddle on the floor”)
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach of the air purifier of claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the lower wall is spaced apart upward from the outlet and extends upward toward the outside edge of the second body (see annotated version of Fig. 5 of Jang below, the lower wall is spaced from the upper opening of 152 and extends upward toward the outside edge of 260).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach of the air purifier of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein an angle at which the lower wall is inclined with respect to a horizontal direction is within a range of 30 degrees to 35 degrees.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the angle at which the lower wall is inclined to be within the above claimed range and to modify the angle of surface of the first body to be slightly larger than the angle of the lower wall based on the following rationale:
It has been held that “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), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of the combined teachings would not operate different with an angle of inclination within 30 to 35 degrees as long as the 72 has a slightly larger inclination as the only criticality claimed within Dunkley is the difference in angles between 72 and 74 and not the particular size of each angle (Dunkley, ¶ [0035], “The difference in these angles may vary but it has been found that the lower disc having an angle of inclination that is between 1-5 degrees greater than the upper disc provides sufficient acceleration of the air flow that is discharged from the delivery tube through the outlet to create a cushion of air that supports the atomised water droplets discharged through the nozzles 80 whilst they are absorbed into the atmosphere before they can drop out onto surrounding surfaces and dampen then”). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the claimed range, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed range (¶ [0083] of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach of the air purifier of claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the lower wall includes:
a first lower wall region facing the outlet in a vertical direction (See annotated version of Fig. 5 below); and
a second lower wall region extending toward the outside edge of the second body from the first lower wall region and located outside of the outlet in a radial direction (see annotated version of Fig. 5 of Jang below, the second lower wall region extends beyond the edge of the outlet 152).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach of the air purifier of claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the lower wall extends curvedly toward the outside edge of the second body (see annotated version of Fig. 5 below. Lower wall extends curvedly toward the outside edge of 260), and
wherein a radius of curvature of the lower wall decreases toward the outside edge of the second body (the angle of inclination of the lower wall increases towards the outside edge of 260 which decreases the radius of curvature at the same time).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (KR 102289453 B1) (cited in previous office action) in view of Dunkley (US 20150182649 A1) and in further view of Hwang (KR 20180065164 A) (cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach of the air purifier of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
further comprising a button configured to control operation of the fan and protruding toward a lower side of the lower wall.
Hwang teaches of:
further comprising a button (Fig. 3c, 134a and 134b) configured to control operation of the fan and protruding toward a lower side of the lower wall (buttons 134a and 134b must protrude some amount towards a lower side of the lower wall).
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add the power button 134b to the outer edge of 261 as it is shown in Fig. 3c of Hwang and connect it to a PCB module disposed within the second body so that 134b protrudes downward and toward the lower side of the lower wall and further connect 134b to the controller of Jang so that the operation of the button turns the system on or off and thus controls the fan
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
Jang is silent as to how to power on and off apparatus of Jang, a modification of Jang to include an on/off button as is done above with Hwang allows a user to turn on and off the system of Jang as needed
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach of the air purifier of claim 7, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the button is located between an outer wall of the first body and the outside edge of the second body.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the diameter of the second body so that its outer edge, which carries the button as described above, extends beyond the outer wall of the first body based on the following rationale:
it has been found that when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the relative size of the structure, applicant has placed no criticality on the size of the structure and a modification of the corresponding structure in the prior art would not adversely affect the operation of the prior art, then such a modification would be obvious (see MPEP 2144. 04.IV.A). In the instant case, with the claim language utilized in claim 8, applicant claims that outside edge of the second body is beyond the outer wall of the first body, therefore it would have been obvious to modify the second body of Jang so that its outer edge of the second body, as shown in the annotated version of Fig. 5 below, is outside the outer wall of the first body, and as such the button of Hwang added to the second body of Jang would be between the outer wall of the first body and the outside edge of the second body. Such a modification would not adversely affect the intended operation of Jang and no criticality has been placed by applicant on such a feature.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach of the air purifier of claim 1, and the combine teachings further teach:
the lower wall being inclined upward in a direction away from the center axis of the first body (see annotated Fig. 5 of Jang below, the lower wall is inclined upward and away from the center axis of the first body).
The combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
further comprising an outlet grille provided below the lower wall and at the outlet
Hwang teaches of:
further comprising an outlet grille (Fig. 4, 92) provided below the lower wall and at the outlet (Fig. 4, 92 is below second body 102 and at the outlet)
Further, it would be obvious to modify the 92 so that it is inclined downward and away from the center axis based on the following rationale:
It has been found that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the rearrangement of parts, and the rearrangement of the parts in the prior art would not adversely affect the intended operation of the part, then such a rearrangement would be obvious (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C). In the instant case, the only difference between the combined teachings and the claimed invention is the inclination angle of the outlet grille. However, rearranging the outlet grill within the combined teachings so that it is inclined down an away from the center axis would not adversely affect the intended operation of the system of the combined teachings, the operation being the facilitation of clean air flow out of the outlet and the prevention of objects from falling into the outlet via the grille. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the orientation of the grill so that it is inclined down and away from the central axis of the system.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (KR 102289453 B1) (cited in previous office action) in view of Dunkley (US 20150182649 A1) and in further view of Wennerstrom (US 20150231542 A1) (cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach of the air purifier of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
further comprising:
a coupler provided inside the second body and configured to connect the first body and the second body; and
a coupling device button configured to operate the coupling device and protruding toward a lower side of the lower wall.
Wennerstrom teaches of:
further comprising:
a coupler (Figs. 6-7, 12) provided inside the second body and configured to connect the first body and the second body (Figs. 6-7, 12 is inside the second body 5 and connects the first body 6 to the second body 5); and
a coupling device button (Figs. 6-7, 11) configured to operate the coupling device and protruding toward a lower side of the lower wall (11 operates 12 to facilitate detachment of the two bodies).
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add the coupler with its corresponding button of Wennerstrom to the bottom portion of the lower wall of Jang that abuts 251 and provide a corresponding receiver for the coupler on 251 so that in operation the second body can be lowered and coupled onto the first body via the positive connection at 251 and can further be detached from the first body be operation of the button that would be provided on the outside surface of the lower wall adjacent to 251, further see annotated Fig. 5 with exact location of the coupling device of Jang
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would allow for the first and second body 260 to be detachably connected to one another, allowing for easy assembly and disassembly
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach of the air purifier of claim 9, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the second body includes a boundary region located inward of the outlet in a radial direction and spaced apart from an outer wall of the first body (see annotated version of Fig. 5 of Jang below), and
wherein the coupling device button is located between the outer wall of the first body and the boundary region (See annotated version of Fig. 5 of Jang below)
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
1034
1508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Jang
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights