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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perunicic (US 20080295271 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Perunicic teaches an air purifier (cleaning apparatus, abstract) comprising: a housing (protective housing, abstract) including an air inlet (suction nozzle, abstract), air treatment chamber (dust container, abstract), and an air outlet (outlet located outside the dust container, paragraph [0059]); an airflow path fluidly connecting the air inlet, air treatment chamber, and the air outlet; a blower disposed within the housing (incorporates a fan, abstract), the blower configured to draw air into the housing, through the air inlet, along the airflow path, and push air out of the housing through the air outlet (fan sucks air through the through the dust filter and obtaining purification of air, abstract); and an air treatment basket supported by the housing and disposed within the air treatment chamber (dust container incorporates centrifugal dust filter, abstract), wherein the air treatment basket is configured to at least one of filter, clean, and purify air flowing through the airflow path (separating particles from air, abstract), the air treatment basket including: an air treatment basket frame defining a plurality of air treatment panel seats (comprises a circular or cylindrical grating and plurality of disposed slots, paragraph [0057]); and a plurality of selectively removable air treatment panels configured to removable couple to the air treatment basket frame (grating supports paper filters, paragraph [0059]), the plurality of air treatment panels each including a filer media (made of filtrating material, paragraph [0048]), wherein the plurality of air treatment panels are disposed in the airflow path (sucks air through the grating with the paper filter, paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 2, Perunicic teaches a germicidal light source supported by the housing, the germicidal light source disposed at least partially within the air treatment basket frame (UV germicidal lamp for destroying micro-organisms inside dust container, abstract), wherein the germicidal light source is configured to treat air in a portion of the air flow path (UV germicidal lamp sterilizes air that is sucked in the dust container, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Perunicic teaches wherein the germicidal light source is an ultraviolet light (UV germicidal lamp fixture, abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Perunicic teaches wherein the plurality of air treatment panels are nonparallel to the housing (Figure 2b dust filter “54” in cylindrical cone shape).
Regarding claim 12, Perunicic teaches wherein the air treatment basket frame having a conical frustum shape with an airflow non-permeable base (Figure 3a dust filter “54 in cylindrical cone shape with circular backplate “57”).
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.
Claims 4-6, 8-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perunicic in view of Bang (US 20230135626 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Perunicic teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the germicidal light source is configured to generate a photocatalytic oxidation in the filter media of the plurality of air treatment panels. However, Bang teaches wherein the germicidal light source is configured to generate a photocatalytic oxidation in the filter media of the plurality of air treatment panels (photocatalytic reaction generated on the side facing the UV light source, paragraph [0008]).
Perunicic and Bang are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of UV air purification devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filtration device taught by Perunicic with the photocatalytic reaction taught by Bang because Bang teaches the photocatalytic technique decomposes harmful substances and bacteria (paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, Perunicic teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except a supplementary air treatment device disposed in the air treatment chamber, the supplemental air treatment device configured to at least partially surround the air treatment basket. However, Bang teaches a supplementary air treatment device disposed in the air treatment chamber, the supplemental air treatment device configured to at least partially surround the air treatment basket (Figure 1 air “A1” flows through pre-filter “1”, carbon filter “2”, and HEPA filter “3” before being introduced to photocatalytic filter “4”).
Perunicic and Bang are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filtration device taught by Perunicic with the supplemental filters taught by Bang because teaches that the supplemental filters remove intermediate size dust and mold before interaction with the photocatalytic filter (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Perunicic and Bang teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the supplemental air treatment device is a 3-in-1 filter including a pre-filter and a combination of carbon and HEPA filter (Figure 1 air “A1” flows through pre-filter “1”, carbon filter “2”, and HEPA filter “3” before being introduced to photocatalytic filter “4”.
Regarding claim 8, Perunicic teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein each of the plurality of air treatment panels includes a filter media matrix having a plurality of cells at least partially filled with the filter media. However, Bang teaches wherein each of the plurality of air treatment panels includes a filter media matrix having a plurality of cells at least partially filled with the filter media (plurality of photocatalyst accommodation spaces, paragraph [0075], and photocatalytic balls accommodated in the spaces, paragraph [0077]).
Perunicic and Bang are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filtration device taught by Perunicic with the filter matrix taught by Bang because Bang teaches the vortex formed in the photocatalyst accommodation space advantageously allows the air to stay in contact with the photocatalyst to sufficient time to be sterilized (paragraphs [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Perunicic and Bang teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein each of the plurality of air treatment panels includes a retaining mesh configured to retain the filter media in the plurality of cells of the filter media matrix (photocatalyst module includes a mesh-shaped cover unit, paragraph [0025], Bang).
Perunicic and Bang are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filtration device taught by Perunicic with the mesh cover taught by Bang because Bang teaches the mesh cover prevents the photocatalytic balls from separating from the filter (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Perunicic and Bang teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the filter media is at least one of a granulate, particulate, and pelletized filter media or any combination thereof (photocatalytic ball accommodated in space, abstract, Bang).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Perunicic and Bang teaches wherein a filter media fill percentage for the plurality of air treatment panels is selected to provide a suitable filter media distribution and airflow profile through the filter media matrix (volume of ball accommodated is 0.5 to 0.75 the volume of the space to maintain air flow rate, paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Perunicic teaches an air treatment basket for use with an air purifier (dust container incorporates centrifugal dust filter, abstract), the air treatment basket comprising: an air treatment frame defining an exit aperture (air outlet, paragraph [0059]), a plurality of air treatment panel seats (comprises a circular or cylindrical grating and plurality of disposed slots, paragraph [0057]), and a base (circular ring front-plate, paragraph [0059]); a plurality of selectively removable air treatment panels configured to be seated and retained in the air treatment basket frame seats (grating supports paper filters, paragraph [0059]), the plurality of air treatment panels each including a filer media (made of filtrating material, paragraph [0048]), but does not teach wherein the panels include a filter media matrix having a plurality of cells containing filer media, and wherein while the plurality of air treatment panels are seated in the air treatment basket frame seats and the air treatment basket is operably installed within an air treatment system, the air treatment panels are inclined such that the filter media contained within the plurality of cells of filter media matrix of the plurality of air treatment panels gather toward the bottom of the cells permitting airflow adjacent the filter media in the plurality of cells. However, Bang teaches wherein the panels include a filter media matrix having a plurality of cells containing filer media (plurality of photocatalyst accommodation spaces, paragraph [0075], and photocatalytic balls accommodated in the spaces, paragraph [0077], and wherein while the plurality of air treatment panels are seated in the air treatment basket frame seats and the air treatment basket is operably installed within an air treatment system, the air treatment panels are inclined such that the filter media contained within the plurality of cells of filter media matrix of the plurality of air treatment panels gather toward the bottom of the cells permitting airflow adjacent the filter media in the plurality of cells (Figure 7 photocatalytic balls “B” gathered at the bottom of housing “100”).
Perunicic and Bang are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine filter device taught by Perunicic with the filter matrix and orientation taught by Bang because Bang teaches the vortex formed in the photocatalyst accommodation space advantageously allows the air to stay in contact with the photocatalyst to sufficient time to be sterilized (paragraphs [0081]-[0082]), and accommodating spaces that are too full will suppress fluid flow through the device (paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Perunicic and Bang teaches all aspects of the current invention as described above including wherein the air treatment basket frame is shaped as a conical frustum (Figure 2b dust filter frame “62” in cylindrical cone shape, Perunicic).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Perunicic and Bang teaches all aspects of the current invention as described above including wherein the air treatment basket frame is shaped as a cylinder (Figure 2a dust filter frame “62” in a cylinder shape, Perunicic).
Regarding claim 16, while the combination of Perunicic and Bang does not explicitly teach wherein the base has a smaller diameter than the exit aperture, Perunicic teaches the dust filter grating can be in a cone shape (paragraph [0057]). Additionally, Figure 3e of Perunicic shows the cone shape of the dust filter grating “62” with the bottom being larger where air enters the filter being smaller than the top of the fan “56” where the air exits.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Perunicic and Bang teaches all aspects of the current invention as described above except wherein each of the plurality of air treatment panels further including a retaining mesh configured to retain the filter media in the plurality of cells. However, Bang further teaches wherein each of the plurality of air treatment panels further including a retaining mesh configured to retain the filter media in the plurality of cells (photocatalyst module includes a mesh-shaped cover unit, paragraph [0025], Bang).
Perunicic and Bang are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the filtration device taught by Perunicic and Bang with the mesh cover taught by Bang because Bang teaches the mesh cover prevents the photocatalytic balls from separating from the filter (abstract).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Perunicic and Bang teaches all aspects of the current invention as described above including wherein the filter media is at least one of a granulate, particulate, and pelletized filter media or any combination thereof (photocatalytic ball accommodated in space, abstract, Bang).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perunicic and Bang as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yang (US 20220176291 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Perunicic and Bang teaches all aspects of the current invention as described above except the base including a base frame removably couplable to the air treatment basket frame, the base frame including a base filter matrix at least a portion including a filter media, wherein the base frame permits airflow into the air treatment basket. However, Yang teaches the base including a base frame removably couplable to the air treatment basket frame (grille plate detachably mounted on the casing, paragraph [0062]), the base frame including a base filter matrix at least a portion including a filter media (grille plate supports screen, paragraph [0062], and screen convers air inlet to filter, paragraph [0061]), wherein the base frame permits airflow into the air treatment basket (screen covers the air inlet, paragraph [0061]).
Perunicic, Bang, and Yang are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of air filtration devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air filtration device taught by Perunicic and Bang with the detachable inlet covering taught by Yang because Yang teaches the additional filter advantageously reduces dust, hair, and other impurities entering the case (paragraph [0061]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang in view of Bae (US 20210001262 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Bang teaches an air treatment panel for use in an air treatment basket of an air purifier (photocatalyst filter module, abstract), the air treatment panel comprising: an air treatment panel frame (housing having an inner space opened so that fluid passes through, abstract); a filter media matric extending across the frame, the filter media matrix including a plurality of cells at least partially filled with a filter media (plurality of photocatalyst accommodation spaces, paragraph [0075], and photocatalytic balls accommodated in the spaces, paragraph [0077]); a retaining mesh coupled to the air treatment panel frame and configured to retain the filter media in the plurality of cells of the filter media matrix (mesh cover unit to prevent the photocatalyst ball from being separated, abstract), but does not teach a coupler configured to removably couple the air treatment panel frame to the air treatment basket. However, Bae teaches a coupler configured to removably couple the air treatment panel frame to the air treatment basket (filter separation prevention rib serve as a stopper for holding a position of the filter member, paragraph [0097]).
Bang and Bae are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of air filter devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air filter taught by Bang with the coupler taught by Bae because Bae teaches the mounting aspect of the filter frame allows the filters to be disposed in multiple different direction (paragraph [0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799