DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. The amendment filed 5/14/2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-20 are presently pending.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
The newly cited prior art of Han (KR 20210017155A) discloses the new limitations added in the amendment filed 5/14/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-5, 9-11, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (KR 20210017155 A – English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses (figure 5; English Translation) a system capable of thermal inactivation of pathogens, comprising: an air duct (see figure 5 – housing 110 is an air duct) configured to deliver air to an indoor space; an air filter (120) disposed within the air duct (110); a heat element (140 or 141) disposed within the air duct proximate the air filter (120), the heat element (140, 141) configured to heat the air filter (120) and maintain the air filter at a threshold temperature for a microbial inactivation time period (see English translation – “In this case, the additional heater 141 may be driven to heat the filter 120. In this way, when the air is heated and oxidized and circulates through the passage part 112 and the regeneration circulation chamber 150, the filter 120 is removed as foreign substances such as soot collected in the filter 120 during the daytime are burned and removed. May be regenerated, and the regenerated contaminated air in the passage part 112 may be regenerated and purified again.”); and a separator element (damper 171) disposed within the air duct (110) proximate the heat element (140 or 141), the separator element (171) configured to selectively isolate the heat element (140 or 141) and the air filter (120) from surrounding airflow during a thermal inactivation cycle to define an isolated treatment region of the air duct within which heated air is retained for heating the air filter (see figure 5; see English translation – when dampers 171, 172 are closed the heat element and air filter are isolated from the surrounding air flow).
Regarding claim 2, Han discloses that the separator element (171) is operable between a first operating mode in which the separator element allows the surrounding airflow to flow through the air filter and the separator element (see figure 4), and a second operating mode in which the separator element (171) at least partially blocks air from flowing through a portion of the air duct that extends from the separator element to the filter (see figure 5; damper 171 is capable of being opened or closed).
Regarding claim 3, Han discloses wherein the separator element (171) is a first damper disposed in the air duct, the heat element (141) disposed between the first damper and the air filter (120) (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Han discloses wherein the separator element further comprises a second damper (172) disposed in the air duct on an opposite end of the air filter (120) as the first damper (171), the first damper and the second damper together configured to substantially isolate the air filter from the surrounding airflow (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Han discloses an air driver (Fan 160) configured to circulate air within a space between the heat element (140 or 141) and the air filter (120) when the separator element (171) is in the second operating mode (see figure 5; English translation).
Regarding claim 9, Han discloses wherein the heat element (141) is positioned to heat both an upstream side and a downstream side of the air filter (120) (heat element is positioned next to the air filter and provides heat sufficient for both sides of the filter – see figure 5; English translation).
Regarding claim 10, Han discloses a heat element (140 or 141) capable of achieving a threshold temperature that is within a range between 140°F and 200°F, inclusive, and wherein the microbial inactivation time period is within a range between 15 seconds and 20 minutes, inclusive (see English translation – “In this state, the heater 140 and the circulation fan 160 are driven. Then, the air in the passage part 112 may be sucked into the regeneration circulation chamber 150 by the circulation fan 160 and then heated by the heater 140 to be discharged into the passage part 112. The heated air delivered into the passage part 112 is oxidized by the oxidation catalyst 130 and heated to a high temperature while passing through the filter 120. In this case, the additional heater 141 may be driven to heat the filter 120. In this way, when the air is heated and oxidized and circulates through the passage part 112 and the regeneration circulation chamber 150, the filter 120 is removed as foreign substances such as soot collected in the filter 120 during the daytime are burned and removed.”)
Furthermore, these claim limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Han and the apparatus of Han is capable of functioning as claimed. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Han (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the heating element (H) is capable of providing heat at a time and temperature within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, Han discloses a microbial inactivation control unit (controller 180 and operation panel 182) communicably coupled to the heat element (141) and the separator element (171) (see English translation – controller 180 is sued to control operation of both the heater and the dampers), the microbial inactivation control unit (180) configured to coordinate operation of the heat element and the separator element to block off the isolated treatment region from airflow therethrough and activate the heat element in response to a command for germicidal treatment.an
Regarding claim 12, Han discloses (figure 5) a system capable of thermal inactivation of pathogens, comprising: an air duct (see figure 5 – air duct 110) configured to deliver air to an indoor space; an air filter (120) disposed within the air duct (110); and a heat element (141) disposed within the air duct and engaging the air filter (120) (heating element 141 heats the air filter 120), the heat element (141) capable of controlling the temperature of the air filter and maintain the air filter at a threshold temperature for a microbial inactivation period (see English translation – controller 180 is used to control operation of the heating element 141); and a separator element (171) configured to selectively close off a region of the air duct (110) that extends from the separator element (171) to the air filter (120) from airflow therethrough during a thermal inactivation cycle (see figure 5; English translation).
Regarding claim 13, the heating element (141) is shaped to match the shape of the air filter (120) to provide heat substantially along the entire vertical side of the filter (see figure 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 1 above, and further Ma (CN 205031603 U – English Translation).
Han is set forth above with regards to claim 1 and discloses a wire shaped heating element (140 or 141) but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the heating element is in an x-shaped pattern or an infrared heater.
Ma discloses an air sterilizer that utilizes several infrared heaters (8) located on an upstream and downstream side of the air filter (7) (see figure 1; English translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Han and substitute the wire heating elements (140, 141) with a functionally equivalent alternative such as the infrared heating elements disclosed by the air sterilizer of Ma in order to yield the predictable result of heating the air filter to regenerate the filter. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrange the heating elements in any pattern suitable for heating the air filter as the courts have held that rearrangement of parts for the same operation (heating in this instance) would be an obvious matter of design choice.
8. Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hourani.
Han is set froth above with regards to claim 12, but does not appear to teach a heat element that is one of a resistance wire grid, a resistance mesh, a wire mesh, or a conductive fabric; or treated with an antimicrobial agent; or a heat element that comprises first and second heating panels on opposite sides of the filter.
Hourani discloses an air purification device that includes a heat element (140) that is a heating panel (see figure 6A) which can be positioned anywhere within an HVAC system (see para [0088]). Hourani also discloses wherein the heat element (140) is a metal wire mesh panel shaped to match a shape of the air filter (120) so as to provide heating along substantially an entire length of the air filter (see figure 4B; para [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the heating element (141) of Han with a functionally equivalent alternative such as the metal wire mesh heating panel taught by Hourani in order to yield the predictable result of heating the filter.
Han nor Hourani explicitly disclose a second heating panel on an opposite side of the filter. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a second heating panel on the opposite side of the filter to further increase heating of the filter as it has been held to be obvious as duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144).
9. Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Blanchard (CA 3029221 A1 – English translation).
Han is set forth above with regards to claim 5 but does not appear to disclose that the air driver and separator element together comprise a single transverse air driver configured to produce an air curtain proximate the heat element or the air filter that extends laterally across the air duct.
Blanchard discloses a damper control assembly for an HVAC system wherein the damper (30) and the system blower fan (142) are housed together in a single unit (120) (see figures 10-12). This enables the air flow from fan (142) to be precisely controlled by adjusting the damper (30) at the source of flow before it comes into contact with other structures of the duct (see English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Han and combine the air driver (fan) and separator element (damper D4) into a single transverse air driver as taught by Blanchard in order to provide an air curtain proximate the heat element (H) or the air filter (ACF).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the system as recited in independent claim 17. Specifically, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in the claimed environment, where the microbial inactivation control unit is configured to coordinate operation of the heat element and the separator element to isolate the heat element from surrounding airflow during a thermal inactivation cycle to define an isolated treatment region within which heated air is retained for heating in response to the data indicating that an HVAC system is in an idle state.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
11. 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 SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Marcheschi can be reached on 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 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).
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights