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 .
FINAL ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/06/2026 has been received and claims 1 and 3-11 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, delete “each other” after “overlap”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (CN104748244) in view of Jeong (20200061231) or Hourani (20210339183) and Hendriksen (WO2022013119).
As to Claim 1, Tao (‘244) discloses an air conditioner (see Figure 1; see English translation, p. 4 – Claim 1, particularly line 1) comprising:
a casing (1, 4, 6, 7) that is provided with an air passage (i.e. within the casing where 19, 18, 11, 21, 10 are located - see Figure 2) having a suction port (16) and a blow-out port (12) (see Figures 1-2);
a fan (18) that is disposed in the air passage (i.e. within the casing where 19, 18, 11, 21, 10 are located - see Figure 2) and blows out, through the blow-out port (12), air sucked from the suction port (16);
an irradiator (19) that is disposed in the casing (1, 4, 6, 7) and emits ultraviolet light (see Figure 2); and
a filter (15) that is disposed between the suction port (16) and the irradiator (19) in the casing (1, 4, 6, 7) (see Figure 2),
wherein the blow-out port (12) of the casing (1, 4, 6, 7) is provided with a blow-out grille (i.e. at 12 - see Figure 2) having a plurality of plate-shaped members (i.e. louver-shaped shutter members) arranged in parallel with each other and spaced apart from each other (see Figure 2; see English translation, p. 2 – 5th – 6th lines from the bottom, p. 4 - Claim 6), the plurality of plate-shaped members (i.e. louver-shaped shutter members) being configured to block direct ultraviolet light from the irradiator (19) (see English translation, p. 2 – 5th – 6th lines from the bottom, p. 4 - Claim 6), and
the plurality of plate-shaped members (i.e. louver-shaped shutter members) are inclined relative to an optical axis of the irradiator in a cross-sectional view taken along a plane orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the plate-shaped members (i.e. louver-shaped; shutter members) (see Figure 2).
Tao (‘244) does not appear to specifically teach that the irradiator is a light emitting diode or that the filter is disposed between the blow-out port and the irradiator in the casing.
As to the limitation that the irradiator is a light emitting diode, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a light emitting diode for an irradiator to emit ultraviolet light. Jeong (‘231) discloses an air conditioner (100-1700) (see Figures 1-21) comprising:
a casing (110, 1190) that is provided with an air passage (i.e. within 110) having a suction port (111) and a blow-out port (113);
a fan (180) that is disposed in the air passage and blows out, through the blow-out port (113), air sucked from the suction port (111); and
a light emitting diode (141; 151; 1142) that is disposed in the casing (110, 1190) and emits ultraviolet light (see entire document, particularly Figures 1, 4-14, 16-18 and 21, p. 1 [0005], p. 8 [0136]); and
a filter (130, 120; 310, 320, 330) that is disposed between the blow-out port (113) and the light emitting diode (141; 151; 1142) in the casing,
wherein the blow-out port (113) of the casing (110, 1190) is provided with a blow-out grille (see Figures 13, 15 and 21),
in order to irradiate a filter surface to induce photocatalysis and/or to sterilize the filter surface (see entire document, particularly pp. 3-4 [0071]-[0073], p. 4 [0075]-[0076], p. 8 [0142]).
Hourani (‘183) also discloses an air conditioner (20) ) (see Figures 1-2C) comprising:
a casing (i.e. 10) that is provided with an air passage (32, 34, 36) having a suction port (30) and a blow-out port (38) (see Figures 1-2C);
an air mover (22);
a light emitting diode (130) that is disposed in the casing (10) (see Figures 1-2C and 4A-4B) and emits ultraviolet light (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0061]-[0062]); and
a filter (120) (see Figures 4A-4B);
in order to provide UV irradiation so as to kill/destroy pathogens (see entire document, particularly p. 5 [0063]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a light emitting diode as the irradiator in the air conditioner of Tan as a known alternate light source form in order to provide UV radiation for photocatalysis and/or sterilization as shown by Jeong or Hourani.
As to the limitation that the filter is disposed between the blow-out port and the irradiator in the casing, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter that is disposed between a blow-out port and an irradiator in a casing of an air conditioner. Hendriksen (‘119) discloses an air conditioner (2) (see Figures 1-2) comprising:
a casing (10 – 16, 18) that is provided with an air passage (i.e. the path shown by arrows within 10 – 16, 18 - see Figures 1 and 5) having a suction port (8) and a blow-out port (8’) (see Figures 1-2);
a fan (12) that is disposed in the air passage (i.e. the path shown by arrows within 10 – 16, 18 - see Figures 1 and 5) and blows out, through the blow-out port (8’), air sucked from the suction port (8) (see arrows of air flow from 4 to 6 – see Figure 1);
an irradiator (14) that is disposed in the casing (10, 16) and emits ultraviolet light (50) (see Figure 1 and 5); and
filters (20, 26), wherein at least one (20) of the filters (20, 26) is disposed between the blow-out port (8’) and the irradiator (14) in the casing (10, 16) (see Figures 1 and 3A-5),
wherein the blow-out port (8’) of the casing (10, 16) is provided with a shielding structure (40) configured to block direct ultraviolet light (50) from the irradiator (14) (see entire document, particularly Figures 1 and 4, p. 22 lines 2-3),
in order to trap biological contaminant particles present in the air passage and allow sufficient time for irradiation of the air and particles so as to destroy the biological contaminant particles (see entire document, particularly Figure 4, p. 20 lines 5-27 specifically lines 12-20, p. 24 lines 13-17 and 29-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter between the blow-out port and the irradiator in the casing of Tao as modified by Jeong or Hourani as a known alternate configuration in order to trap any biological contaminants and allow sufficient time for ultraviolet light irradiation so as to destroy the biological contaminants as shown by Hendriksen.
As to Claim 3, Tao (‘244) discloses that the plurality of plate-shaped members (i.e. louver-shaped shutter members) include a first plate-shaped member group (e.x. louver-shaped shutter members adjacent 20, left side of 11 and 18-21) located on one side of the optical axis of the irradiator (19) and a second plate-shaped member group (e.x. louver-shaped shutter members adjacent 13, right side of 11 and 18-21) located on another side of the optical axis in the cross-sectional view (see Figure 2), and
inclination angles of the first plate-shaped member group (e.x. louver-shaped shutter members adjacent 20, left side of 11 and 18-21) are different from inclination angles of the second plate-shaped member group (e.x. louver-shaped shutter members adjacent 13, left side of 11 and 18-21) (see Figure 2).
As to Claim 4, Tao (‘244) discloses that the first plate-shaped member group (e.x. louver-shaped shutter members adjacent 20, left side of 11 and 18-21) and the second plate-shaped member group (e.x. louver-shaped shutter members adjacent 13, right side of 11 and 18-21) are line-symmetric with respect to the optical axis in the cross-sectional view (see Figure 2).
As to Claim 5, Tao (‘244) discloses that the plurality of plate-shaped members (i.e. louver-shaped; shutter members) are configured to cause the plate-shaped members (i.e. louver-shaped; shutter members) adjacent to each other to partially overlap each other when viewed from a direction orthogonal to an opening surface of the blow-out port (see Figures 1-2).
As to Claim 6, the blow-out grille (i.e. louver at 12 - see Figure 2) of Tao (‘244) is a structure that is capable of causing the ultraviolet light emitted from the irradiator (19) to reflect twice or more and then go outside.
As to Claim 7, while neither Tao (‘244) or Jeong (‘231) or Hourani (‘183) nor Hendriksen (‘119) appears to specifically teach that a thickness of the blow-out grille is denoted by D [mm], a width between the plate-shaped members is denoted by L [mm], and an inclination angle of the plate-shaped members is denoted by θ [deg],
[Math. 1]
L
<
cos
θ
2
(
sin
θ
)
2
×
D
is satisfied, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide any desired dimensions for the blow-out grille such as a thickness of the blow-out grille is denoted by D [mm], a width between the plate-shaped members is denoted by L [mm], and an inclination angle of the plate-shaped members is denoted by θ [deg],
[Math. 1]
L
<
cos
θ
2
(
sin
θ
)
2
×
D
is satisfied as a matter of an engineering choice in the air conditioner of Tao as modified by Jeong or Hourani and Hendriksen in order to prevent emission of ultraviolet light from the blow-out grill so as to avoid any exposure to potentially harmful ultraviolet light rays from the irradiator. Only the expected results would be attained.
As to Claims 8-9, illuminance of the ultraviolet light incident on the blow-out grille (i.e. louver/shutter at 12) from the irradiator (19) is capable of being less than or equal to 0.2x(1/x)2 [mW/cm2], where x denotes reflectivity of a material of the blow-out grille (i.e. louver at 12).
As to Claim 11, in the combined teaching of Tao as modified by Jeong or Hourani and Hendriksen, Jeong (‘231) discloses that the light emitting diode (141; 151) irradiates an upstream surface of the filter (120; 130) with ultraviolet light (see Figures 1, 5, and 12). Hendriksen (‘119) also discloses that the irradiator (14) irradiates an upstream surface of the filter (20) with ultraviolet light (see Figures 1 and 5).
Thus, Claims 1, 3-9 and 11 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Tao (‘244), Jeong (‘231) or Hourani (‘183), and Hendriksen (‘119).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (CN104748244) in view of Jeong (20200061231) or Hourani (20210339183) and Hendriksen (WO2022013119) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hak (WO0226349).
Tao (‘244), Jeong (‘231) or Hourani (‘183), and Hendriksen (‘119) are relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
While Hendriksen (‘119) teaches that at least one (26) of the filters (20, 26) is detachably attached to the casing (10 – 16, 18) (see entire document, particularly Figure 1, p. 17 lines 21-24), neither Tao (‘244) or Jeong (‘231) or Hourani (‘183) nor Hendriksen (‘119) appears to specifically teach that the irradiator is configured to stop emitting the ultraviolet light in a state where the filter is removed from the casing.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an irradiator that is configured to stop emitting ultraviolet light in a state where a filter is removed from a casing. Hak (‘349) discloses an air conditioner (10) (see Figure 1) comprising:
a casing (12) that is provided with an air passage (see Figures 2 and 6-7) having a suction port (i.e. where 36/38 are located) (see Figures and 10) and a blow-out port (i.e. 34, where 37/106 are located) (see Figures 1-2 and 6-8);
a fan (78) that is disposed in the air passage and blows out, through the blow-out port (i.e. 34, where 37/106 are located), air sucked from the suction port (i.e. where 36/38 are located);
an irradiator (86, 88) that is disposed in the casing (12) and emits ultraviolet light (see Figures 6-8); and
a filter (38 – 56, 66) that is disposed between the suction port (36) and the irradiator (86, 88) in the casing (12) (see Figure 2),
wherein the blow-out port (i.e. where 37/106 are located) of the casing (12) is provided with a blow-out grille (106, 118) (see Figures 1 and 5-8) having a shielding structure (109, 136) configured to block direct ultraviolet light from the irradiator (see entire document, particularly Figure 8, p. 11 lines 18-24),
wherein the filter (38 – 56, 66) is detachably attached to the casing (12) (see entire document, particularly Figures 2, 7-8 and 10, p. 8 lines 6-7) and the irradiator (86, 88) is configured to stop emitting the ultraviolet light in a state where the filter (38 – 56, 66) is removed from the casing (12) (i.e. via 208 and/or 210 when the port(s) is/are opened so as to enable removal of the filter and/or other components or access interior of the casing - see entire document, particularly p. 16 line 2 to p. 17 line 1),
in order to provide a safety feature to the air conditioner so as to ensure safety of users from exposure to ultraviolet light (see entire document, particularly p. 16 line 2 to p. 17 line 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an irradiator that is configured to stop emitting the ultraviolet light in a state where the filter is removed from the casing in the air conditioner of Tao as modified by Jeong or Hourani and Hendriksen as a known configuration in order to provide a safety feature so as to avoid user’s exposure to ultraviolet light and ensure safety of users as shown by Hak.
Thus, Claim 10 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Tao (‘244), Jeong (‘231) or Hourani (‘183), Hendriksen (‘119), and Hak (‘349).
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 the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights