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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, 21 and 24, in the reply filed on 3 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination can be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the Restriction Requirement mailed 3 December 2025 showed how the claims had two-way distinctiveness which is proof of a search and/or examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 and 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3 March 2026.
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 3-4, and 10-11 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “hydroxyl generator” in claim 4 is used by the claim to mean “atmospheric water collector,” while the accepted meaning is “structure for create hydroxyl radicals.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It is noted that the specification makes clear that the ultraviolet radiation source is the structure which actually creates the hydroxyl radicals. See at least [0138].
In regard to claims 3 and 10-11, the claims are rejected based upon the dependency on claim 4.
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 1-2, 6-9, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley (CA 2,763,901) in view of Barnes (US 8,048,370).
In regard to claim 1, Hurley discloses an adaptive air quality control system (air purification apparatus 1) comprising: a manifold (elongated housing) defining an airflow pathway (interior chamber 7); an internal air guide (baffle 23) positioned within the manifold, the internal air guide configured to direct air along the airflow pathway during operation of the adaptive air quality control system, the internal air guide comprising one or more curved or angled portions (baffle 23 is depicted as a spiral or coil shape) and having a length and geometry that produces a dwell time (“provides resistance to the flow of air;” page 9, lines 5-6) for air flowing therethrough during operation of the adaptive air quality control system; an ultraviolet (UV) radiation source (ultraviolet light source 17) positioned along the airflow pathway, and configured to irradiate the air traversing the airflow pathway during the dwell time; wherein, during operation of the adaptive air quality control system, the dwell time and UV irradiation cooperatively deliver a pathogen-neutralizing dose during a single pass of air through the airflow pathway (at least some pathogens would be necessarily neutralized). See page 6, line 23 through page 8, line 26 and Figures 1-3.
Hurley is silent in regard to an air mover configured to drive air through the airflow pathway as Hurley teaches that the apparatus is to be installed in an HVAC system.
Barnes discloses a germicidal generator of ozone and ozonites which uses ultraviolet lamps 10,12 and one or more fans 18, 20 for promoting airflow through the chamber 11. See col. 9, lines 48-58 and Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined one of more fans as taught by Barnes with the apparatus of Hurley for the purpose of driving air though the airflow pathway.
In regard to claim 2, it is held that the fans of Barnes are necessarily equivalent to a blower which is configured to drive the air flow through the adaptive air quality control system.
In regard to claim 6, Hurley discloses wherein the one or more curved or angled portions device a serpentine air path as Hurley teaches that the baffles 23 can alternatively be stepwise baffles 23 which would necessarily form a serpentine air path as the baffles would project from opposite sides of the chamber. See page 9, line 11.
In regard to claim 7, Hurley discloses wherein the one or more curved or angled portions device a helical air path as baffle 23 is a spiral which forms a helical path. See Figures 1-3.
In regard to claim 8, Hurley discloses wherein the helical air path forms a spiral, as baffle 23 is in the form of a spiral, and the UV radiation source (lamp 17) is located within the spiral. See Figures 1-3 and page 9, lines 5-22.
In regard to claim 9, Hurley discloses wherein the air guide (baffle 23) comprises a coating comprising titanium dioxide. See page 11, lines 10-18.
In regard to claim 21, Hurley does not explicitly disclose wherein the pathogen-neutralizing dose during the single pass of air through the airflow pathway removes at least 99% of contaminants in the air. However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Therefore, as the structure of the combined apparatus of Hurley and Barnes is substantially identical to that of the claims, it is held that at least 99% of contaminants are removed in a single pass of air through the airflow pathway.
In regard to claim 24, Hurley teaches that the baffles 23 can alternatively be stepwise baffles 23 which would necessarily form a first passage, a second passage parallel to the first passage and a bend passage connecting the first passage to the second passage and configured to redirect air flowing through the first passage and second passage as stepwise baffles are understood to be flat panels oppositely located in the interior of the airflow pathway and perpendicular to the flow of air. See page 9, line 11.
Claims 3-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley in view of Barnes and Tanaka et al. (EP 1,460,348; hereinafter “Tanaka”).
In regard to claims 4 and 11, Hurley is silent in regard to a hydroxyl generator besides the use of an ultraviolet lamp 17.
Barnes discloses that ultraviolet lights can create ozonites, such as hydroxyl radicals, which is more reactive than ozone. See col. 5, lines 26-64. Additionally, Barnes teaches that increasing the water vapor in the air stream through the use of humidifiers will create conditions which will benefit the destruction of spores of mold and fungus. See col. 6, lines 30-63.
Barnes does not disclose a hydroxyl generator which scavenges water from the air.
Tanaka discloses an air conditioning unit for deactivating allergens wherein water is scavenged from the atmosphere using a heat exchangers 13-15 at the upstream portion of the air conditioning unit which necessarily chill the airflow below a dew point to accumulate moisture, as recited in claim 11, in a drain pan 22. The drained water can then be selectively heated and evaporated to achieve high humidity within the apparatus. See [0084], [0086], [0087] and Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the heat exchangers which scavenge water from the air as disclosed by Tanaka with the above combined apparatus of Hurley and Barnes and upstream of the UV radiation source for the purpose of allowing for the selective humidification of the air within the apparatus so as to allow for the increased destruction of mold and fungus.
In regard to claim 3, Hurley is silent in regard to a filter.
Barnes discloses wherein filters (filters 55 and 57) are placed at the inlets of the chamber to catch at least some airborne particles that would otherwise enter the housing 58. See Figure 8 and col. 17, line 20 through col. 18, line 3.
Tanaka discloses a prefilter 19 for removing impurities from the air which passes through the intake grill 11. See Figure 1 and [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the filter of either Barnes or Tanaka with the above combined apparatus for the purpose of filtering particles out of the incoming airflow.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley in view of Barnes and Kim et al. (US 2020/0384146; hereinafter “Kim”).
In regard to claim 5, Hurley and Barnes are silent in regard to an ion generator.
Kim discloses a deodorization module which includes an ion generator 150 downstream of a UV light source module 140 and photocatalyst filter 130. See Figure 2 and [0061]-[0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the ion generator of Kim with the above combined apparatus for the purpose of providing enhanced deodorization to the airflow.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley in view of Barnes, Tanaka and Rho (KR 100671232 with reliance upon the machine translation).
In regard to claim 10, Hurley and Barnes are silent in regard to the hydroxyl generator.
Tanaka disclose wherein the hydroxyl generator comprises a cooler (air conditioning unit 30 having compressor 31), a power supply (necessarily present to operate the compressor 312 for cooling refrigerant) and a heat exchanger (heat exchangers 13-15). See Figure 2 and paragraphs [0048] and [0053].
Tanaka does not teach wherein the cooler is a thermoelectric cooler.
Rho discloses that thermal conductors 41 are attached to the cooling surfaces of the thermoelectric elements 40 and 42 to make up a dehumidifier. See the second full paragraph of page 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the thermoelectric cooler of Rho for the compressor of Tanaka in the above combined invention without creating any new or unexpected results as the structures are functionally equivalent.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley in view of Barnes and Hunter et al. (US 2003/0170151; hereinafter “Hunter”).
In regard to claim 24, this rejection is included in case it is viewed that the stepwise baffles of Hurley are not equivalent to the claimed arrangement.
Hurley teaches a biohazard treatment apparatus using ultraviolet light that the baffles 30, 32 and 34 within a conduit 12 can cause an airflow to go in a circuitous route such that a first passage, second passage parallel to the first passage and a bend passage as recited is formed. See [0041] and Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the baffles of Hurley in the above combined apparatus in the form of the baffles of Hunter as both arrangements produce the same effect of increasing residence time within the chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774