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
This is a first action on the merits for this regular application filed on 09/08/2023
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, lines 15-17; Applicant states “the air pollution is rapidly guided to pass through the filter multiple times for filtration and complete purification and through the sterilization component for sterilization,”. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of claim 1 since it is not clear what the term “rapidly guided to pass” represents? And one of skilled in the art after reading the disclosure will be unable to determine what the word “rapidly” precisely represents. It is respectfully requested that the term “rapidly guided to pass” be amended with a more clear and concise terms.
The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of claim 1 since it is not clear what the term “to pass through the filter multiple times” represent since the disclosure shows air is passing one time through the filters (see Fig.2B). Does the applicant mean that the air pass through multiple filters? It is respectfully requested that the term “to pass through the filter multiple times” be replaced with the term “to pass through the multiple filters”. The same applies to claims 3 and 5-13.
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.
Claims 1-4, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma et al. (US 2021/0372637 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sharma et al. discloses an indoor air cleaning system (Fig.5F:500), comprising:
at least one gas detector [0217] disposed in an indoor field for detecting air pollution and outputting to form air pollution information;
at least one cleaning device comprising a fan [0059], a filter [0177]and a sterilization component [0184], wherein the fan is enabled to guide the air pollution to pass through the filter for filtration, and pass through the sterilization component for sterilization, wherein the fan has a specific clean air delivery rate (CADR) for [0153] generating a directional circular airflow, and the filter comprises a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter screen [0177]; and
a cloud computing server[02202] receiving the air pollution information, storing the air pollution information to a database, and intelligently computing and selecting according to the air pollution information to output a control command to the fan of the cleaning device for actuation operation, whereby the fan of the cleaning device generates the directional circular airflow, and the air pollution is rapidly guided to pass through the filter multiple times [0045] for filtration and complete purification and through the sterilization component for sterilization, so that gas state in the indoor field generated by the Sharma et al. system is capable of reaching a cleanliness of clean room class.
Regarding claim 2, Sharma et al. discloses that the air pollution is particulate matter (Fig.11B:1132).
Regarding claim 3, Sharma et al. discloses that the ([0153] and Table 1) specific CADR of the fan is capable of being greater than CADR 1500, the filter is a nanometer filter, the fan of the cleaning device is actuated to generate the directional circular airflow in the indoor field, and the air pollution is rapidly guided to pass through the filter multiple times [0045] for filtration and complete purification and through the sterilization component for sterilization, so that the gas state in the indoor field is capable of reaching the cleanliness of clean room class 1.
Regarding claim 4, Sharma et al. discloses that the nanometer filter comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a nano fiber [0177], a nano activated carbon, a nano film and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 14, Sharma et al. discloses that the sterilization component comprises a decomposition layer coated on the filter [0195 and 0210], wherein the layer uses chemical means to sterilize.
Regarding claim 16, Sharma et al. discloses that the sterilization component comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a light irradiation element [0184], a decomposition unit and a
combination thereof, which is combined with the filter to sterilize in chemical means.
Regarding claim 17, Sharma et al. discloses that that the light irradiation element is at least one selected from the group consisting of a photo-catalyst unit [0210] comprising a photo catalyst and an ultraviolet lamp, a photo-plasma unit comprising a nanometer irradiation tube and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 18, Sharma et al. discloses that the decomposition unit is at least one selected from the group consisting of a negative ion unit [0045 and 0152], a plasma ion unit and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 19, Sharma et al. discloses that the cloud computing server comprises a wireless network cloud computing service module [0220], a cloud control service unit, a device management unit and an application program unit, wherein the gas detector comprises a controlling circuit board, a gas detection main part, a microprocessor and a communicator [0220], and the gas detection main part, the microprocessor and the communicator are integrally packaged on the controlling circuit board and
electrically connected to the controlling circuit board, wherein the microprocessor controls the detection of the gas detection main part, the gas detection main part detects the air pollution and outputs the air pollution information, and the microprocessor receives, processes and provides the air pollution information to the communicator for a wireless communication transmission externally [0220].
Regarding claim 20, Sharma et al. discloses that the wireless communication transmission is one selected from the group consisting of a Wi-Fi communication transmission [0220], a Bluetooth communication transmission, a radio frequency identification communication transmission and a near field communication (NFC) transmission.
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.
Claims 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2021/0372637 A1).
Regarding claims 5-13, Sharma et al. discloses various different CADR values ([0153]; Table 1; [0257]) and also teaches the use of ULPA and HEPA filters [0177].
Sharma et al. appears silent to disclose the various different classes of ULPA (U17, U16, U15) and HEPA (H14, H13, H12, H11, H10) filters.
Sharma et al. discloses (Table 1 and Table 2B) various different CADR values as related to the size of rooms and also discloses different air purifying values as related to high or low occupancies. Therefore, depending on the size of rooms, rooms with high/low occupancy values, and the required degree of the room air purification, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize employing different classes of ULPA and HEPA filters in order to reduce the level of infectious or noxious pathogens in room ambient air [0006]. 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 to employ different classes of ULPA and HEPA filters in order to reduce the level of infectious or noxious pathogens in room ambient air.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 2021/0372637 A1) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2005/0103327 A1).
Sharma et al. teaches the use of photocatalytic filters [0045 and 0179] and also teaches the use of activated carbon [0208].
Sharma et al. appears silent to teach the use silver ions.
Lee et al. discloses using photocatalyst to purify air within buildings [0004] where the photocatalyst includes nanometer silver ions [0037] in order to generate hydroxyl free radical with powerful oxidation to catalyze, decompose and remove any toxic substances [0037]. 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 to add silver ions to Sharma et al. photocatalytic filters in order to generate hydroxyl free radical with powerful oxidation to catalyze, decompose and remove any toxic substances.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 21 is the inclusion of a gas sensor, a particulate sensor, and a piezoelectric actuator in an air cleaning system. The closest art of record found (Sharma et al. and Lee et al.), and upon further searches do not teach or fairly suggest adding a gas sensor, a particulate sensor, and a piezoelectric actuator to an air cleaning system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights