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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendment filed 27 July 2026, the rejection under §112(b) has been withdrawn, the previous prior art rejection has been slightly modified and a new prior art rejection has been entered.
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 1-2, 7-9, 21 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 200254611 with reliance upon the machine translation.
In regard to claims 1 and 27, KR 200254611 discloses an adaptive air quality control system (purifier 200) comprising: a manifold (case 7) having an inlet (inlet port 5) and an outlet (outlet port 6) defining an airflow pathway (interior of case 7); an air mover (crossflow fan 9) configured to drive air through the airflow pathway (via suction); an internal air guide (photocatalyst plate 100 having spiral interval 8) 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 and the manifold cooperate such that substantially all air driven by the air mover through the airflow pathway is constrained to travel along a treatment air path defined by the internal air guide and the manifold between the inlet and outlet (see Figure 1); the internal air guide comprising one or more curved or angled portions (spiral photocatalyst plate 100) configured to increase a dwell time (“spiral photocatalyst plate that maximizes the purification effect by extending the contact time between the subject and the photocatalyst plate by delaying the passage time by lengthening the passage distance by discharging along the spiral formed between the plates;” see the “Technical Field” paragraph on page 2) for air flowing therethrough during operation of the adaptive air quality control system; and an ultraviolet (UV) radiation source (ultraviolet lamp 4) positioned along the airflow pathway and configured to emit ultraviolet radiation into the airflow pathway to irradiate the air traversing the airflow pathway during the dwell time; wherein, during operation of the adaptive air quality control system, the ultraviolet radiation delivers a pathogen-neutralizing dose to the air during the dwell time in a single traversal through the airflow pathway (at least some pathogens would be necessarily neutralized). See pages 1-3 of the machine translation and Figures 1-2.
In regard to claim 2, it is held that the fan 9 is necessarily equivalent to a blower which is configured to drive the air flow through the adaptive air quality control system.
In regard to claim 7, KR 200254611 discloses wherein the one or more curved or angled portions device a helical air path as the plate 100 is a spiral which forms a helical path. See Figures 1-2.
In regard to claim 8, KR 200254611 discloses wherein the helical air path forms a spiral, as plate 100 is in the form of a spiral, and the UV radiation source (lamp 4) is located within the spiral. See Figures 1-2.
In regard to claim 9, KR 200254611 discloses wherein the internal air guide (photocatalyst plate 100) comprises a coating comprising titanium dioxide. See page 2 of the machine translation.
In regard to claims 21 and 25, KR 200254611 does not explicitly disclose wherein the pathogen-neutralizing dose during the single traversal of air through the airflow pathway removes at least 90% or 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 apparatus of KR 200254611 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 26, KR 200254611 discloses wherein the internal air guide extends across a width of the manifold in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the manifold as the plate 100 extends across the case 7. See Figures 1-2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 21 and 24-26 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) having an inlet and an outlet 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 and the manifold cooperating to at least partially define an airflow pathway (the baffle at least partially defines the pathway) such that air is constrained to travel along the internal air guide between the inlet and outlet (“air will be able to follow the baffle 23 along its spiraled path;” page 10, lines 10-11); the internal air guide comprising one or more curved or angled portions (baffle 23 is depicted as a spiral or coil shape) configured to increase a dwell time (“[t]he portion of air that travels through the chamber 7 along the baffle 23 will reside in the chamber 7 for a longer period of time”;” page 10, lines 12-13) for air flowing therethrough during operation of the adaptive air quality control system; and an ultraviolet (UV) radiation source (ultraviolet light source 17) positioned along the airflow pathway and configured to emit ultraviolet radiation into the airflow pathway to irradiate the air traversing the airflow pathway during the dwell time; wherein, during operation of the adaptive air quality control system, the ultraviolet radiation delivers a pathogen-neutralizing dose to the air during the dwell time in a single traversal 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 internal air guide (baffle 23) comprises a coating comprising titanium dioxide. See page 11, lines 10-18.
In regard to claims 21 and 25, Hurley does not explicitly disclose wherein the pathogen-neutralizing dose during the single traversal of air through the airflow pathway removes at least 90% or 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.
In regard to claim 26, Hurley discloses wherein the internal air guide extends across a width of the manifold in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the manifold as the baffle 23 extends around the entire internal edge of the elongated housing. Thus, the baffle 23 of Hurley meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation as the baffle is as wide as the internal space of the elongated housing. See Figures 1-3.
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 via the generation of OH radicals by UV radiation.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hurley does not disclose wherein the internal air guide and the manifold cooperate to at least partially define the airflow pathway such that air driven by the air mover is constrained to travel along the internal air guide between the inlet and the outlet. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation, Hurley discloses that the baffle 23 “at least partially” defines the airflow pathway as Hurley discloses that “air will be able to follow the baffle 23 along its spiraled path” on page 10, lines 10-11. It is noted that claim 1 does not require that all air be required to travel along the internal air guide.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights