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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1, filed 7 April 2026, with respect to the restriction requirement dated 11 February 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the previous claim set which was restricted was based on an incorrect claim set image which has now been corrected. The restriction of 11 February 2026 has been withdrawn.
On review of the current claims, restriction is deemed unnecessary. Examiner thanks the Applicant for the quick resolution of the issue and appreciates Applicant’s work to identify and correct the problem.
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.
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.
Claim(s) s 1-11, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel (US 4,509,960) in view of Pick et al. (CA 2,106,743).
With regards to Claim 1 and 14:
Engel teaches:
A dust collector, part 100, which reads on applicant's claimed air purifier comprising a housing, part 102, which reads on applicant's claimed air purifier housing. The housing, part 102, comprises a tengential port, part 150, which reads on applicant's claimed air inlet, an inlet chamber, part 126, which reads on applicant's claimed air treatment chamber, a clean air chamber, part 128, which has an exhaust port, part 152, which reads on applicant's claimed air outlet. An access door assembly, part 114, which reads on applicant's claimed filter access panel. The clean air drum, part 140, is connected to and holds filter elements, parts 142, and the clean air drum which reads on applicant's claimed rotatable filter assembly as it is rotated by a drive mechanism and is disposed in the air treatment chamber. The clean air drum includes enclosure, part 194, which has openings, parts 198, and perimeteral elements, part 200 which provide a contact for the face of the filter element as well as channel members, parts 204 which receive the upper and lower protruding portions, part 206, of each filter element, part 142, this construction reads on applicant’s claimed filter assembly frame configured to receive a plurality of replaceable air treatment panels. The clean air drum, part 140, is configured to rotate about a rotation axis. (See Engel Col. 4 lines 7-20 housing and door, 25-27 housing, 39-56 clean air drum, 62-68 rotation of drum, Col. 5 lines 1-2, 17-22, 47-65 filter attachment to chamber See Engel Fig. 1-8)
A bearing mechanism, part 228, attached to the bottom, part 196, of the clean air drum, which rotatably supports the air filter assembly which reads on applicant's claimed filter assembly support movably coupled to the rotatable filter assembly support configured to support he rotation of the rotatable filter assembly. (See Engel Fig. 3 and Col. 6 lines 31-60)
Air moves from the inlet to the outlet through the rotatable air filter assembly. (See Engel Col. 4 lines 48-56)
The door, part 114, which reads on applicant's claimed filter access panel is moveable between a closed position and an access position. The panel in the access position provides maintenance access to the rotatable filter assembly, and a different position of the rotatable filter assembly is accessible as the rotatable filter assembly rotates. (See Engel Col. 4 lines 17-25, and line 64 to Col. 5 line 7)
Engel does not explicitly teach:
A blower system within the air purifier housing configured to move air from the air inlet to the air outlet through the rotatable filter assembly.
Pick teaches:
A germicidal air purifier with a filter support drum, part 44, surrounded by a cylindrical filter medium, part 28, and which comprises a fan, part 42, within the filter support drum which reads on applicant's claimed blower system within the air purifier housing. (See Pick Fig. 1 and 2 and Pg. 9 and 10)
Engel discloses the claimed invention except for the location of the blower is not specified as within the air filter housing. Pick teaches that it is known to locate a fan which reads on applicant's claimed blower within a filter support drum, part 44, similar to the central column or clean air drum of Engel, part 140. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Engel to include such a fan system as taught by Pick, since Pick states at pg. 3 lines 16-17 that such a modification would protect the ultraviolet lamp, and therefore also the fan, from accumulating airborne particulate matter as they are both located within the air filter and air is blown through the filter past the fan and then through the outlet. See MPEP 2144
With regards to Claim 2 and 15 Engel further teaches:
A bearing mechanism, part 228, attached to the bottom, part 196, of the clean air drum, which rotatably supports the air filter assembly which reads on applicant's claimed filter assembly support movably coupled to the rotatable filter assembly support configured to support he rotation of the rotatable filter assembly is a platform that the rotatable filter assembly sits atop as the bolts of the bearing mechanism are seen below the bottom of the rotatable filter assembly. (See Engel Fig. 3 and Col. 6 lines 31-60)
With regards to Claims 3-5, 16 and 20 Engel further teaches:
The filter assembly support further includes a pipe, part 218, which reads on applicant's claimed rotation channel which is attached to the hub, part 250, and sprocket, part 234, with a plunger part 170, which reads on applicant's claimed lower coupling protrusion which engages with stops, parts 168, which reads on applicant's claimed at least one motion aid and at least one detent configured to ease the rotation of the rotatable filter assembly all extending from a bottom surface, part 196 through flange, part 166, and flange part 164 and upper bearing portion, part 144, of the filter assembly frame to cause the clean air drum to move. (See Engel Fig. 3 and 8 and Col. 5 lines 3-35, Col. 6 lines 35-60)
With regards to Claim 6 and 17-19 Engel further teaches:
The filter assembly support further includes an assembly, part 172, with a cylindrical support member, part 180, which reads on applicant's claimed stationary outer raceway. An outwardly extending flange, part 162, which reads on applicant's claimed rotatable subfloor including an inner raceway configured to rotate against the bearings, parts 184, located on top of the right angular members, parts 182. the inner raceway is substantially aligned with the outer raceway (See Engel Fig. 8) and at least one bearing, part 184, which reads on applicant's claimed at least one ball bearing which provides a low coefficient of sliding friction which reads on applicant's claimed at least one motion aid. The bearing is in contact with the inner raceway and the outer raceway. The inner raceway and the bearing are rotatable as the rotatable filter assembly is rotated. (See Engel Fig. 3 and 8 and Col. 5 lines 3-35, Col. 6 lines 35-60)
Engel discloses the claimed invention except for the shape of the bearing. The shape of the bearing is considered a design choice dependent on desired contact area and does not appreciably affect the function of the bearing and thus one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to change the shape to another suitable shape as there is no structural benefit and another shape would perform substantially identically to reduce friction. See MPEP 2144(IV-B)
With regards to Claim 7 and 8 Engel further teaches:
A bracket, part 248, which reads on applicant's claimed rotation arm extending from the crossbar attached to a hub, part 250, which reads on applicant's claimed crossbar of driven sprocket, part 234, that operates a plunger, part 170, which reads on applicant's claimed filter coupling protrusion configured to couple to the rotatable filter assembly. (See Engel Fig. 3 and Col. 6 lines 45-60)
A partition, part 130, which reads on applicant's claimed platform configured to support the rotatable filter assembly. (See Engel abstract and Fig. 3)
With regards to Claim 9 Engel further teaches:
The filter elements, parts 142, which reads on applicant's claimed plurality of replaceable air treatment panels are removably coupled to the clean air drum, part 140, which reads on applicant's claimed filter assembly frame. The panel in the access position provides maintenance access to the rotatable filter assembly, and a different position of the rotatable filter assembly is accessible as the rotatable filter assembly rotates. (See Engel Col. 4 lines 17-25, and line 64 to Col. 5 line 7)
With regards to Claim 10:
Engel does not teach:
A germicidal light source disposed within the air treatment chamber wherein the rotatable filter assembly is configured to at least partially surround the germicidal light source.
Pick teaches:
A germicidal air purifier with a filter support drum, part 44, surrounded by a cylindrical filter medium, part 28, and which comprises a fan, part 42, within the filter support drum which reads on applicant's claimed blower system within the air purifier housing. (See Pick Fig. 1 and 2 and Pg. 9 and 10)
The filter support drum surrounds one or more ultraviolet lamps, parts 34, which reads on applicant's claimed germicidal light source (See Pick. Pg. 8 lines 20-25)
Engel discloses the claimed invention except for Engel does not teach inclusion of a germicidal light source such as an ultraviolet lamp. Pick teaches that it is known to locate an ultraviolet lamp which reads on applicant's claimed germicidal light source within a filter support drum, part 44, similar to the central column or clean air drum of Engel, part 140. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Engel to include such an ultraviolet lamp as taught by Pick, since Pick states at pg. 8 lines 20-25 that such a modification would destroy microorganisms which penetrate deeply into the filter medium. See MPEP 2144
With regards to Claim 11 Engel further teaches:
The filter elements, parts 142, which reads on applicant's claimed plurality of replaceable air treatment panels are removably coupled to the clean air drum, part 140, which reads on applicant's claimed filter assembly frame. The panel in the access position provides maintenance access to the rotatable filter assembly, and a different position of the rotatable filter assembly is accessible as the rotatable filter assembly rotates. (See Engel Col. 4 lines 17-25, and line 64 to Col. 5 line 7)
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel (US 4,509,960) in view of Pick et al. (CA 2,106,743) further in view of Koga (US 6,391,073).
With regards to Claim 12 and 13
Engel teaches:
Using blown air to remove dust from the air filter panels. (See Engel Abstract)
Collecting the dust cake in a conical portion, part 106, which reads on applicant's claimed debris receptacle disposed below the cleaning mechanism for removal from the collector, part 100,
Engel in view of Pick does not teach:
The cleaning is done by a brush rather than by blown air.
Koga teaches:
A filter, part 20, with plastic mesh elements, parts 24, which reads on applicant's claimed plurality of replaceable air treatment panels which are cleaned by means of contact with a brush, part 40. (See Koga Fig. 1-3 and Col. 4 lines 40-65)
Engel discloses the claimed invention except for Engel utilizes compressed air to clean the filter rather than a brush. Koga teaches that it is known to clean an air filter with panels which are capable of being removed with a brush either individually or in combination with cleaning by compressed air. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the filter of Engel to comprise a cleaning brush as taught by Koga to remove stuck on debris not capable of being removed solely by the compressed air of Engel, since Koga states at Col. 4 lines 40-65 that such a modification would improve removal of dust from a filter. See MPEP 2144
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIT E ANBACHT whose telephone number is (571)272-9876. The examiner can normally be reached on M, T, R, F 11 am - 4 pm.
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 571-273-9876.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BRIT E. ANBACHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
BRIT E. ANBACHT
Examiner
Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights