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 29 April 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-12 and 14-22 are presently pending and being examined herein.
3. Rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
4. All other rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“sterilization component” in claim 1, interpreted to refer to the disclosed examples of: a decomposition layer coated on the filter such as an activated carbon, chlorine dioxide, a herbal protective layer, silver ion, and/or a zeolite (Specification par 0049), a light irradiation element such as a photocatalyst and an ultraviolet lamp (Specification par 0049), or a negative ion unit with a dust collecting plate (Specification par 0049).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
9. Regarding claims 3-12, applicant’s definition of clean room classes in FIG. 13 is noted. Claims are interpreted following applicant’s tabulated cleanliness requirements (similar to ISO classes defined by ISO 14644-1 for classes 1-9), not FED STD 209E or any other published standards.
Claim Objections
10. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “and” before “pass through the filter” in line 7, the “and” before “pass through the sterilization component” in line 7, and the “and” before “determining whether the air pollution information exceeds a safety threshold” in line 11 should all be deleted, for grammatical flow.
Further, “the cleaning device” in lines 13, 14, 15, and 18 of the claim should read --the at least one cleaning device--, to clearly refer to the at least one cleaning device introduced in the fourth line.
11. Claims 3 and 5-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: accordingly as above, “the cleaning device” should read --the at least one cleaning device-- where the limitation appears in the claim(s).
12. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2-3, “the layer decomposition layer” should read --the decomposition layer--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
13. 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.
14. Claims 5-12 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.
15. Regarding claims 5-12, the term “rapidly guided” in line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapidly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As it is unclear what speed of air would define a lower limit to the term “rapidly”, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
16. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
17. Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a cloud computing server “intelligently computing and selecting according to the air pollution information”. The abstract idea behind the computing and selecting action does not fit neatly into one of the four statutory categories and is analyzed for patent eligibility as follows.
18. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the claims are found to recite statutory subject matter outside of the limitations in question (Step 1: Yes) and are analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (Step 2A: Prong 1). In the instant application, the “intelligently computing” and “selecting” steps in the context of this claim refer to mental processes, method steps that can be performed in the human mind and treated equally under the judicial exception to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). For the purposes of analysis, these two instances of a judicial exception are treated together in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
19. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any additional elements that reflect an improvement to technology or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (Step 2A, Prong 2: No). In the independent claim, the mental processes that are driven by the data are intended to “output a control command to the fan of the cleaning device for actuation operation”; however, this initiation is stated with a high degree of generality and would be considered generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the claim language fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished using the control method, simply amounting to a recitation of the words “apply it” to the stated control problem. See MPEP 2106.05(f). It is unclear from the claims how the specific step of “determining whether the air pollution information exceeds a safety threshold” are used in the computation and selection activities of the server, thus these appear to be insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). To overcome this, Examiner recommends reciting a specific cause-and-effect relationship between exceeding the air pollution threshold and any resultant change in operational setting (to avoid monopolizing the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(e)), rather than leaving such a determination to a black box within the cloud computing server.
20. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all elements within the air filtration controller appear well-understood, routine, and conventional within the air purification arts. (Step 2B: No). See MPEP 2106.05(h). Mou et al (US 20220196269 A1) teaches the gas detector (par 0034), HEPA filter (par 0054), sterilization component (par 0055), and cloud computing server including memory and processing capability (par 0040) as claimed. As further detailed below, the prior art indicates that the claimed elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself and, as such, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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.
22. Claims 1-2 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou et al (US 20220196269 A1) in view of Lotz et al (US 20160076780 A1).
23. Regarding claim 1, Mou discloses an indoor air cleaning system (plurality of gas processing devices, a connection device, and a cloud processing device…for filtering air pollutant in an indoor space, Abstract), comprising:
at least one gas detector (gas detection module 1 [of each gas processing device] is for detecting the air pollutant B in the environment where the plurality of gas processing devices are installed, par 0034) disposed in an indoor field (in indoor space A, par 0036, FIG. 2B) for detecting air pollution and outputting air pollution information (gas processing devices are provided for detecting air pollutant B and transmitting at least one device inner gas detection data, par 0034);
at least one cleaning device comprising a gas inlet (FIG. 2C), a gas outlet (FIG. 2C), a filter (filter unit 2 includes a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter screen 21a, par 0054) and a sterilization component (filter unit 2 includes a photo-catalyst unit 21b combined with the HEPA filter screen 21a, which includes a photo-catalyst 211b and an ultraviolet lamp 212b…disinfects bacteria contained therein, par 0055), wherein the sterilization component comprises a decomposition layer coated on the filter (HEPA filter screen 21a is coated with a chlorine dioxide or herbal protective layer or a silver ion to inhibit viruses and/or bacteria contained in the gas, par 0054), wherein the airflow generating devices are enabled to guide the air pollution to pass through the filter for filtration (generate at least one airflow…so that the air pollutant B can move towards the closest gas processing device along the air pollutant path L, and to be filtered and purified, par 0038), and pass through the sterilization component for sterilization (the filter unit 2…disinfects bacteria contained therein, par 0055), and be discharged from the gas outlet (FIGS. 2B-2C), wherein the filter comprises a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter screen (the filter unit 2 includes a photo-catalyst unit 21b combined with the HEPA filter screen 21a, par 0055); and
a cloud computing server receiving the air pollution information (cloud processing device 4 receives the device inner gas detection data of each gas processing devices transmitted, par 0035), storing the air pollution information to a database (transforming the detection data into a detecting information for storing, par 0040), and intelligently computing and selecting according to the air pollution information to output a control command to the airflow generating devices for actuation operation (cloud processing device 4 intelligently selects and controls the plurality of gas processing devices to generate at least one airflow in the convection path, par 0036), whereby the fan of the cleaning device is configured to generate a directional airflow (FIG. 2B, generate at least one airflow according to the convection path, par 0061)
The limitation whereby the air pollution flows back to the gas inlet of the cleaning device and pass through the filter multiple times for filtration and complete purification and through the sterilization component for sterilization, thereby forming a directional airflow in the indoor field by the cleaning device all directs toward an intended use of the device, which carries no patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the system of Mou is capable to “generate at least one airflow according to the convection path” (par 0061, FIG. 2B), i.e., a directional and circulating airflow, to guide the air pollution through the filter and back into the room for filtration and complete purification (par 0036, FIG. 2B) through the sterilization component (filter unit 2 includes photocatalyst unit that disinfects bacteria, par 0055) for i.e., necessarily passing air multiple times if activated for a long enough duration. The system is also configured to clean air using a HEPA filter combined with a catalytic/photocatalytic layer and/or a photoplasma unit (pars 0054-0056), with the HEPA filter alone known to purify air for filtration and complete purification as defined by the present Specification e.g., par 0064.
Mou does not explicitly teach that the air moving gas processing device 1 would comprise a fan, only that such devices would “accelerate the movement of the air pollutant along the convection path to move the air pollutant towards the closest gas processing devices” (par 0006) and could be an air-exchanger 1a, an air-cleaner 1b, an air-conditioner 1c, an exhauster 1d and a ventilator 1e (par 0034). A fan, which can be broadly defined as a machine with the primary purpose of mechanically moving air, is understood to be equivalent to, and conventionally included in, at least one of these listed air moving gas processing devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a fan within the gas processing device of Mou, because doing so would predictably provide the ability to directionally move air through the device for purification and around the indoor field (Mou par 0006).
Although Mou teaches that inner gas detection data of a plurality of gas detectors is compared to generate an airflow to move pollutants to filter units (pars 0035-0040) to obtain a clean, safe, breathable air condition (par 0006), Mou does not specifically teach determining whether the air pollution information exceeds a safety threshold.
Lotz teaches an analogous control device for operating a clean room (Abstract) wherein particle concentrations are advantageously measured at different locations and compared against a limit value (par 0014), the limit value similarly representing a cleanliness standard (par 0004), the control device controlling room ventilation/filtration systems to vary the exchange rate in response to detected particle concentration (pars 0012-0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the cloud computing server of Mou to be capable of determining whether the air pollution information exceeds a safety threshold as taught by Lotz, because this determination would predictably enable similar control of room ventilation to preclude the particle concentration from exceeding the safety threshold (Lotz par 0014) and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
24. Regarding claim 2, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the air pollution is at least one selected from the group consisting of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, total volatile organic compounds (TVOC), formaldehyde, bacteria, fungi, virus and a combination thereof (all listed in Mou par 0041).
25. Regarding claim 14, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the layer decomposition layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an activated carbon, a cleansing factor containing chlorine dioxide layer, an herbal protective layer extracted from ginkgo and Japanese rhus chinensis, a silver ion, a zeolite and a combination thereof (filter screen 21a is coated with a cleansing factor containing chlorine dioxide, herbal protective layer extracted from gingko and rhus chinensis, or silver ion, Mou par 0054).
26. Regarding claim 15, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the sterilization component comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a light irradiation element, a decomposition unit and a combination thereof (photocatalyst unit includes photo-catalyst 211b and an ultraviolet lamp 212b, Mou par 0055), which is combined with the filter to sterilize in chemical means (photo-catalyst 211b is irradiated by the ultraviolet lamp 212b to convert light energy into chemical energy, thereby harmful gases in the gas is decomposed and disinfects bacteria contained therein, Mou par 0055).
27. Regarding claim 16, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 15, wherein the light irradiation element is at least one selected from the group consisting of: a photo-catalyst unit comprising a photo catalyst and an ultraviolet lamp, a photo-plasma unit comprising a nanometer irradiation tube and a combination thereof (photocatalyst unit includes photo-catalyst 211b and an ultraviolet lamp 212b, Mou par 0055).
28. Regarding claim 17, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 15, wherein the decomposition unit is at least one selected from the group consisting of: a negative ion unit (filter unit 2 includes a negative ionizer 21d combined with the HEPA filter screen 21a, Mou par 0057), a plasma ion unit (the filter unit 2 includes a plasma ion unit 21e, Mou par 0058) and a combination thereof.
29. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou et al (US 20220196269 A1) and Lotz et al (US 20160076780 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Edwards (US 20100282083 A1).
30. Regarding claim 3, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1. The limitation wherein the fan of the cleaning device is actuated to generate the directional airflow in the indoor field, and 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, so that gas state in the indoor field reaches the cleanliness of clean room class 1 all directs toward an intended use of the device, which carries no patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II).
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the filter is a nanometer filter, only that the filter is a HEPA filter (Mou pars 0054-0059).
Edwards teaches an analogous disinfecting air filter for e.g., electronic manufacturing clean rooms (pars 0008 and 0032-0033) wherein the HEPA-type filter includes nano-fiber strands typically 2 nm in diameter and 100 nm long (pars 0049 and 0051), advantageously presenting a very large surface area of their powerful electrostatic attraction for viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and negatively charged organic and inorganic macromolecules (par 0051). Examiner notes that the system of Mou is capable of rapidly disinfecting air that is circulated (Mou par 0036), thus a sufficient number of filtration passes/air changes can be achieved so as to reasonably expect the same level of purification to ISO class 1 suitable for electronics manufacturing, as described in the present Specification par 0056.
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 HEPA filter of Mou for a nanofiber filter as taught by Edwards. Doing so would predictably enhance the fiber filter medium by electrostatically attracting contaminants in the same manner, enabling the gas state in the indoor field to reach the cleanliness of ISO class 1 in an appropriate clean room environment.
31. Regarding claim 4, Mou as modified by Lotz as modified by Edwards teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 3, wherein the nanometer filter comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a nano fiber, a nano activated carbon, a nano film and a combination thereof (nano-fiber strands mixed with original HEPA/ULPA microfibers, Edwards pars 0033 and 0051).
32. Claims 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou et al (US 20220196269 A1) and Lotz et al (US 20160076780 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haley et al (US 20140088768 A1).
33. Regarding claim 5, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a HEPA filter (Mou pars 0054-0059). The limitation wherein the fan of the cleaning device is actuated to generate the directional airflow in the indoor field, and 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, so that gas state in the indoor field reaches the cleanliness of clean room class 2 all directs toward an intended use of the device, which carries no patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II).
The combination of Mou and Lotz does not teach that the filter would comprise an ultra low particulate air (ULPA) filter of U17.
Haley teaches an analogous use of filters to achieve contaminant removal and antibacterial efficiency (par 0075) wherein the filter can comprise a U17 filter for the highest 99.999995% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles (Table 1). Examiner notes that the system of Mou is capable of rapidly disinfecting air that is circulated (Mou par 0036), and thus a sufficient number of filtration passes/air changes can be achieved so as to reasonably expect the same level of purification to ISO class 2 in a suitably designed clean room as described in the present Specification par 0057.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to exchange the general HEPA filter of Mou in favor of a U17 ultra low particulate air filter as taught by Haley, as doing so would predictably provide a 99.999995% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles for the filtration unit and similarly enable the gas state in the indoor field to reach ISO class 2 cleanliness in an appropriate clean room environment.
34. Regarding claim 6, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a HEPA filter (pars 0054-0059). The limitation wherein the fan of the cleaning device is actuated to generate the directional airflow in the indoor field, and 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, so that gas state in the indoor field reaches the cleanliness of clean room class 3 all directs toward an intended use of the device, which carries no patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II).
The combination of Mou and Lotz does not teach that the filter would comprise an ultra low particulate air (ULPA) filter of U16.
Haley teaches an analogous use of filters to achieve contaminant removal and antibacterial efficiency (par 0075) wherein the filter can comprise a U16 filter for the high 99.99995% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles (Table 1). Examiner notes that the system of Mou is capable of rapidly disinfecting air that is circulated (Mou par 0036), and thus a sufficient number of filtration passes/air changes can be achieved so as to reasonably expect the same level of purification to ISO class 3 in a suitably designed clean room as described in the present Specification par 0058.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to exchange the general HEPA filter of Mou in favor of a U16 ultra low particulate air filter as taught by Haley, as doing so would predictably provide a 99.99995% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles for the filtration unit and similarly enable the gas state in the indoor field to reach ISO class 3 cleanliness in an appropriate clean room environment.
35. Regarding claim 7, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a HEPA filter (pars 0054-0059). The limitation wherein the fan of the cleaning device is actuated to generate the directional airflow in the indoor field, and 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, so that gas state in the indoor field reaches the cleanliness of clean room class 4 to class 5 all directs toward an intended use of the device, which carries no patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II).
The combination of Mou and Lotz does not teach that the filter would comprise an ultra low particulate air (ULPA) filter of U15.
Haley teaches an analogous use of filters to achieve contaminant removal and antibacterial efficiency (par 0075) wherein the filter can comprise a U15 filter for the high 99.9995% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles (Table 1). Examiner notes that the system of Mou is capable of rapidly disinfecting air that is circulated (Mou par 0036), and thus a sufficient number of filtration passes/air changes can be achieved so as to reasonably expect the same level of purification to ISO class 4 or ISO class 5 in a suitably designed clean room as described in the present Specification par 0059.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to exchange the general HEPA filter of Mou in favor of a U15 ultra low particulate air filter as taught by Haley, as doing so would predictably provide a 99.9995% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles for the filtration unit and similarly enable the gas state in the indoor field to reach ISO class 4 or ISO class 5 cleanliness in an appropriate clean room environment.
36. Regarding claim 8, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a high efficiency particulate (HEPA) filter (pars 0054-0059). The limitation wherein the fan of the cleaning device is actuated to generate the directional airflow in the indoor field, and 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, so that gas state in the indoor field reaches the cleanliness of clean room class 6 all directs toward an intended use of the device, which carries no patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II).
The combination of Mou and Lotz does not teach that the filter would comprise a HEPA filter of H14.
Haley teaches an analogous use of filters to achieve contaminant removal and antibacterial efficiency (par 0075) wherein the filter can comprise a H14 for 99.999% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles (Table 1). Examiner notes that the system of Mou is capable of rapidly disinfecting air that is circulated (Mou par 0036), and thus a sufficient number of filtration passes/air changes can be achieved so as to reasonably expect the same level of purification to ISO class 6 in a suitably designed clean room as described in the present Specification par 0060.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to exchange the general HEPA filter of Mou in favor of a H14 high efficiency particulate air filter as taught by Haley, as doing so would predictably provide a 99.999% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles for the filtration unit and similarly enable the gas state in the indoor field to reach ISO class 6 cleanliness in an appropriate clean room environment.
37. Regarding claim 9, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a high efficiency particulate (HEPA) filter (pars 0054-0059). The limitation wherein the fan of the cleaning device is actuated to generate the directional airflow in the indoor field, and 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, so that gas state in the indoor field reaches the cleanliness of clean room class 7 to class 8 all directs toward an intended use of the device, which carries no patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II).
The combination of Mou and Lotz does not teach that the filter would comprise a HEPA filter of H13.
Haley teaches an analogous use of filters to achieve contaminant removal and antibacterial efficiency (par 0075) wherein the filter can comprise a H13 filter for the 99.99% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles (Table 1). Examiner notes that the system of Mou is capable of rapidly disinfecting air that is circulated (Mou par 0036), and thus a sufficient number of filtration passes/air changes can be achieved so as to reasonably expect the same level of purification to ISO class 7 or ISO class 8 in a suitably designed clean room as described in the present Specification par 0061.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to exchange the general HEPA filter of Mou in favor of a H13 high efficiency particulate air filter as taught by Haley, as doing so would predictably provide a 99.99% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles for the filtration unit and similarly enable the gas state in the indoor field to reach ISO class 7 or class 8 cleanliness in an appropriate clean room environment.
38. Regarding claim 10, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a high efficiency particulate (HEPA) filter (pars 0054-0059), The limitation wherein the fan of the cleaning device is actuated to generate the directional airflow in the indoor field, and 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, so that gas state in the indoor field reaches the cleanliness of clean room class 9 to class 11 all directs toward an intended use of the device, which carries no patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II).
The combination of Mou and Lotz does not teach that the filter would comprise a HEPA filter of H12.
Haley teaches an analogous use of filters to achieve contaminant removal and antibacterial efficiency (par 0075) wherein the filter can comprise a H12 filter for the 99.99% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles (Table 1). Examiner notes that the system of Mou is capable of rapidly disinfecting air that is circulated (Mou par 0036), and thus a sufficient number of filtration passes/air changes can be achieved so as to reasonably expect the same level of purification to ISO class 9 (or classes 10/11 as defined in present Figure 13) in a suitably designed clean room as described in the present Specification par 0062.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to exchange the general HEPA filter of Mou in favor of a H12 high efficiency particulate air filter as taught by Haley. Doing so would predictably provide at least a 99.9% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles for the filtration unit and similarly enable the gas state in the indoor field to reach ISO class 9 cleanliness in a designed room environment.
39. Regarding claim 11, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a high efficiency particulate (HEPA) filter (pars 0054-0059), The limitation wherein the fan of the cleaning device is actuated to generate the directional airflow in the indoor field, and 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, so that gas state in the indoor field reaches the cleanliness of clean room class 2 all directs toward an intended use of the device, which carries no patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II).
The combination of Mou and Lotz does not teach that the filter would comprise a HEPA filter of H11.
Haley teaches an analogous use of filters to achieve contaminant removal and antibacterial efficiency (par 0075) wherein the filter can comprise a H11 filter for the 98 % removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles (Table 1). Examiner notes that the system of Mou is capable of rapidly disinfecting air that is circulated (Mou par 0036), and thus a sufficient number of filtration passes/air changes can be achieved so as to reasonably expect the same level of purification to class 12-15 as defined in Figure 13.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to exchange the general HEPA filter of Mou in favor of a H11 high efficiency air filter as taught by Haley, as doing so would predictably provide a 98% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles for the filtration unit and similarly enable the gas state in the indoor field to reach class 12-15 cleanliness as defined per Figure 13.
40. Regarding claim 12, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the filter comprises a HEPA filter (pars 0054-0059). The limitation wherein the fan of the cleaning device is actuated to generate the directional airflow in the indoor field, and 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, so that gas state in the indoor field reaches the cleanliness of clean room class 2 all directs toward an intended use of the device, which carries no patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2114(II).
The combination of Mou and Lotz does not teach that the filter would comprise a HEPA filter of H10.
Haley teaches an analogous use of filters to achieve contaminant removal and antibacterial efficiency (par 0075) wherein the filter can comprise a H10 filter for 95% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles (Table 1). Examiner notes that the system of Mou is capable of rapidly disinfecting air that is circulated (Mou par 0036), and thus a sufficient number of filtration passes/air changes can be achieved so as to reasonably expect the same level of purification to class 16-20 as described in the present Specification par 0057.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to exchange the general HEPA filter of Mou in favor of a H10 particulate air filter as taught by Haley, as doing so would predictably provide a 95% removal efficiency of >= 0.3 micron particles for the filtration unit and similarly enable the gas state in the indoor field to reach the claimed level of cleanliness in a room environment.
41. Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou et al (US 20220196269 A1) and Lotz et al (US 20160076780 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramamurti (US 20190353378 A1).
42. Regarding claim 18, Mou as modified by Lotz teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 1, wherein the gas detector comprises a controlling circuit board, a gas detection main part, a microprocessor and a communicator (gas detection module 1 for detecting and transmitting the device inner gas detection data includes a controlling circuit board 11, a gas detection main part 12, a microprocessor 13 and a communicator 14, Mou par 0040, Mou FIG. 3), and the gas detection main part, the microprocessor and the communicator are integrally packaged on the controlling circuit board (Mou par 0040) and electrically connected to the controlling circuit board (electrically connected to each other, Mou par 0040), wherein the microprocessor controls the detection of the gas detection main part (microprocessor 13 controls the driving signal of the gas detection main part 12 to enable the detection operation, Mou par 0040), the gas detection main part detects the air pollution and outputs the air pollution information (microprocessor 13 receives the device inner gas detection data of the air pollutant B detected by the gas detection module 1, Mou par 0040), and the microprocessor receives, processes (transforming the detection data, Mou par 0040) and provides the air pollution information to the communicator (communicator 14 receives the device inner gas detection data outputted by the microprocessor 13, Mou par 0040) for a wireless communication transmission externally (wireless examples of communication transmission, Mou par 0040).
Mou further teaches a wireless communication mechanism for signal transmission and device management (par 0040) but the combination does not specifically teach wherein the cloud computing server comprises a wireless network cloud computing service module, a cloud control service unit, a device management unit and an application program unit.
Ramamurti teaches an analogous building management system for adjusting ventilation actions (Abstract, pars 0060-0062, FIG. 10) wherein the controller is supported by a cloud-based server (par 0194) comprising a wireless network cloud computing service module (communication interface 1028 may include a network connection, such as a BACnet network connection, par 0199), a cloud control service unit (cloud building services include services of cloud building management platform, par 0196), a device management unit (building management platform 620, par 0196) and an application program unit (agent manager 1014 manages/generates software applications, par 0198).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the cloud processing device of modified Mou to comprise a wireless network cloud computing service module, a cloud control service unit, a device management unit and an application program unit as taught by Ramamurti. Doing so would predictably provide the cloud control capability to run the system of Mou, as Ramamurti teaches the architecture suitably manages ventilation and other operations across a building i.e. indoor space (Ramamurti pars 0201-0203).
43. Regarding claim 19, Mou as modified by Lotz and Ramamurti teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 18, wherein the wireless communication transmission is one selected from the group consisting of a Wi-Fi communication transmission, a Bluetooth® communication transmission, a radio frequency identification communication transmission and a near field communication (NFC) transmission (all listed in Mou par 0040).
44. Regarding claim 20, Mou as modified by Lotz and Ramamurti teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 18, wherein the gas detection main part (Mou FIGS. 4A to 9A, gas detection main part 12; Mou pars 0042-0045) comprises:
a base (base 121, Mou par 0042, Mou FIGS. 4C and 5A) comprising:
a first surface (Mou FIG. 5A, first surface 1211);
a second surface opposite to the first surface (Mou FIG. 5A, second surface 1212, par 0042);
a laser loading region hollowed out from the first surface to the second surface (Mou FIG. 5A, laser loading region 1213 is hollowed out from the first surface 1211 toward the second surface 1212);
a gas-inlet groove concavely formed from the second surface and disposed adjacent to the laser loading region (Mou FIG. 5A, laser loading region 1213 and gas inlet groove 1214, Mou par 0042), wherein the gas-inlet groove comprises a gas-inlet (Mou FIG. 5A, gas inlet 1214a) and two lateral walls (Mou par 0042), the gas-inlet is in communication with an environment outside the base (Mou par 0042), and a transparent window (Mou FIG. 5A, transparent windows 1214b) is opened on the two lateral walls and is in communication with the laser loading region (Mou par 0042);
a gas-guiding-component loading region (Mou FIG. 5A, 1215) concavely formed from the second surface and in communication with the gas-inlet groove (Mou par 0043) wherein a ventilation hole (Mou FIG. 5A, 1215a) penetrates a bottom surface of the gas-guiding-component loading region (Mou par 0043); and
a gas-outlet groove concavely formed from the first surface (gas-outlet groove 1216 includes a first section 1216b concavely formed out from the first surface, Mou par 0043), spatially corresponding to the bottom surface of the gas-guiding-component loading region (gas-outlet groove 1216 includes a gas-outlet 1216a…spatially corresponding to the outlet opening 1261b of the outer cover 126, Mou par 0043, Mou FIG. 10A), and hollowed out from the first surface to the second surface in a region where the first surface is not aligned with the gas-guiding-component loading region (second section 1216c is hollowed out from the first surface 1211 to the second surface 1212 in a region where the first surface 1211 is extended from the vertical projection area of the gas-guiding-component loading region 1215, Mou par 0043), wherein the gas-outlet groove is in communication with the ventilation hole (the first section 1216b of the gas-outlet groove 1216 is in communication with the ventilation hole 1215a, Mou par 0043), and a gas-outlet is disposed in the gas-outlet groove (Mou FIG. 5A, gas-outlet groove 1216 includes gas outlet 1216a);
a piezoelectric actuator (Mou FIG. 4C, piezoelectric actuator 122) accommodated in the gas-guiding-component loading region (piezoelectric actuator 122 is accommodated in the square-shaped gas-guiding-component loading region 1215, Mou par 0045);
a driving circuit board (Mou FIG. 4C, driving circuit board 123) covering and attached to the second surface of the base (covers the second surface of the base, Mou par 0045, Mou FIGS. 4A-4B);
a laser component (Mou FIG. 4C, laser component 124) positioned and disposed on the driving circuit board (Mou par 0045), electrically connected to the driving circuit board (Mou par 0045), and accommodated in the laser loading region (Mou FIGS. 5B and 6, laser component 124 in laser loading region 1213), wherein a light beam path emitted from the laser component passes through the transparent window (Mou par 0044) and extends in a direction perpendicular to the gas-inlet groove, thereby forming an orthogonal direction with the gas-inlet groove (Mou par 0044);
a particulate sensor (Mou FIG. 4C, particulate sensor 125) positioned and disposed on the driving circuit board (Mou par 0045), electrically connected to the driving circuit board (Mou par 0045), and disposed at an orthogonal position where the gas-inlet groove intersects the light beam path of the laser component in the orthogonal direction (projecting light beam emitted from the laser component 124 passes through the transparent window 1214b and enters the gas-inlet groove 1214 to irradiate the suspended particles contained in the gas passing through the gas-inlet groove 1214, Mou par 0044), so that suspended particles contained in the air pollution passing through the gas-inlet groove and irradiated by a projecting light beam emitted from the laser component are detected (suspended particles contained in the gas are irradiated and generate scattered light spots that are received and calculated by the particulate sensor 125 to obtain the gas detection information, Mou par 0044);
a gas sensor (Mou FIG. 4C, gas sensor 127a) positioned and disposed on the driving circuit board (Mou par 0044), electrically connected to the driving circuit board (Mou par 0044), and accommodated in the gas-outlet groove (Mou par 0044), so as to detect the air pollution introduced into the gas-outlet groove (Mou par 0044); and
an outer cover (Mou FIG. 4C, outer cover 126) covering the base and comprising a side plate (Mou FIG. 4C, side plate 1261), wherein the side plate has an inlet opening and an outlet opening (Mou par 0042, Mou FIG. 4C, inlet opening 1261a and outlet opening 1261b), the inlet opening is spatially corresponding to the gas-inlet of the base (Mou FIG. 4C, inlet opening 1261a is spatially corresponding to the gas-inlet 1214a of the base 121, Mou par 0045), and the outlet opening is spatially corresponding to the gas-outlet of the base (Mou FIG. 4C, outlet opening 1261b is spatially corresponding to the gas-outlet 1216a of the base 121, Mou par 0045);
wherein the outer cover covers the base (Mou FIGS. 4A-4B, outer cover 126 covers the base 121, Mou par 0045), and the driving circuit board covers the second surface (Mou FIG. 4C, driving circuit board 123 covers the second surface 1212 of the base 121, Mou pars 0042 and 0045), thereby an inlet path is defined by the gas-inlet groove (Mou par 0042), and an outlet path is defined by the gas-outlet groove (gas-outlet groove 1216 and the driving circuit board 123 collaboratively define an outlet path, Mou par 0043), so that the air pollution is inhaled from the environment outside the base by the piezoelectric actuator (When the piezoelectric actuator 122 is enabled, the gas in the gas-inlet groove 1214 is inhaled by the piezoelectric actuator 122, Mou pars 0045 and 0053), transported into the inlet path defined by the gas-inlet groove through the inlet opening (through the ventilation hole 1215a, Mou par 0045), and passes through the particulate sensor to detect the particle concentration of the suspended particles contained in the air pollution (scattered light spots are received and calculated by the particulate sensor 125 for obtaining related information about the sizes and the concentration of the suspended particles contained in the gas, Mou par 0053), and the air pollution transported through the piezoelectric actuator is transported out of the outlet path defined by the gas-outlet groove through the ventilation hole (transported to the gas-outlet groove 1216, Mou par 0053), passes through the gas sensor for detecting (gas sensor 127a…accommodated in the gas-outlet groove 1216, Mou par 0044), and is then pushed to discharge through the gas-outlet of the base and the outlet opening (gas of the gas-outlet groove 1216 is pushed to discharge out through the gas-outlet 1216a and the outlet opening 1261b, Mou par 0053).
45. Regarding claim 21, Mou as modified by Lotz and Ramamurti teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 20, wherein the particulate sensor is used for detecting information of the suspended particulates (particulate sensor 125 to obtain the gas detection information from scattered light spots from suspended particles, Mou par 0044).
46. Regarding claim 22, Mou as modified by Lotz and Ramamurti teaches the indoor air cleaning system according to claim 20, wherein the gas sensor comprises one selected from the group consisting of a volatile-organic-compound sensor, a formaldehyde sensor, a bacteria sensor, a virus sensor and a combination thereof (all listed in Mou par 0044), wherein the volatile-organic-compound sensor detects information of carbon dioxide or total volatile organic compounds (Mou par 0044), the formaldehyde sensor detects information of formaldehyde (Mou par 0044), the bacteria sensor detects information of bacteria or fungi (Mou par 0044), and the virus sensor detecting information of virus (Mou par 0044).
Response to Arguments
47. Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 (see pages 17-18 of Remarks filed 29 April 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Simply assigning a computer (recited as “cloud computing server”) to execute the abstract idea, namely “intelligently computing and selecting according to air pollution information” does not elevate the computing and selecting mental processes above what can be accomplished with a human mind. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
48. Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 and its dependents under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see pages 19-22 of Remarks filed 29 April 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the limitation “whereby the fan of the cleaning device is configured to generate a directional airflow” ensures multiple air passes through a single cleaning device and consequently that Mou’s disclosure of multiple gas processing devices is totally different, Examiner respectfully disagrees, pointing to Applicant’s own recitation of “at least one cleaning device” in line 4 of claim 1 as open to employing multiple cleaning devices within the indoor field being treated. The limitation wherein “the air pollution flows back to the gas inlet of the cleaning device and pass[es] through the filter multiple times” is recited as an intended use of the apparatus (per MPEP 2114(II), the polluted air being a material worked upon per MPEP 2115) but the argument still holds: for a closed indoor space, given enough time, the directional airflow would ensure that the air in the space would flow through any of the multiple cleaning devices multiple times to read upon the claim. If a single cleaning device forming a single closed loop for filtration is intended, or if each cleaning device is intended to operate to form its own closed loop, Examiner recommends that Applicant revise the claim(s) to reflect that desired scope.
The added limitation “determining whether the air pollution exceeds a safety threshold” overcame the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, but such a comparison against a safety threshold is considered obvious in view of Lotz, as detailed above, necessitating the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
49. 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.
50. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights