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 .
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear whether “said sensing means” is referring to the primary sensing means, the secondary sensing means, or both.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 13, 15-19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu CN201920807785 [translation].
Regarding claim 13, Qiu discloses an air purifier (claim 1; figure 1) comprising: an air channel extending from an inlet to an outlet (figure 1), a fan configured to generate an air flow from the inlet to the outlet through the channel (figure 1: fans 3), purification means arranged inside the channel and configured to purify the air flow (figure 1: filter 5 and anion generator 6), main sensing means configured to measure the quality of the air flow at a point of the channel (page 4: sensors 8-12), and a control circuit in connection with the fan and the main sensing means (control: page 11), the air purifier being characterised in that the control circuit has a programming configured to compare the parameters provided by the main sensing means with preset target parameters and, from said comparison, adapt the air flow generated by the fan (page 11).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Qiu discloses communication means connected to the control circuit, the control circuit and the communication means being configured to inform the user about one or more operating parameters of the air purifier, wherein the communication means comprise a portable device wirelessly connected to the control circuit (page 11: wireless remote control system).
Regarding claim 17, Qiu discloses that the channel is configured to be vertically positioned in its condition of use, the inlet being located at the base of the air purifier and being axially symmetrical (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 18, Qiu discloses that the purification means comprise two or more mechanical filtration blocks placed in series, each mechanical purification block being suitable for the purification of a different type of particles (figure 1: filters 2 and 7).
Regarding claim 19, Qiu discloses that the purification means comprise at least one adsorption filtration block (page 9: large absorption capacity).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the fan and the control circuit of Qiu are structurally capable of generating an air flow that takes at least 0.3 seconds, or between .6 to 1 second, to cross each adsorption filtration block. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu CN201920807785 [translation] in view of Hur USPN 10,774,846 B2.
Qiu is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 14 and 24, Qiu discloses that the sensing means are configured to sense several types of particles (page 8) but does not disclose a secondary sensing means connected to the control circuit, the main sensing means being located at one end of the channel and the secondary sensing means located at the other end of the channel, the control circuit being configured to adapt at each moment the air flow generated by the fan according to the air quality measured by said sensing means, and that the control circuit is configured to analyse, from the sensed particles, whether any of the corresponding filtration blocks is not functioning correctly. Hur discloses sensors being located upstream and downstream of a filter in order to determine if the filtration blocks are functioning correctly (see Hur column 6, lines 23-43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qiu, to include a secondary sensing means connected to the control circuit, the main sensing means being located at one end of the channel and the secondary sensing means located at the other end of the channel, the control circuit being configured to adapt at each moment the air flow generated by the fan according to the air quality measured by said sensing means, and that the control circuit is configured to analyse, from the sensed particles, whether any of the corresponding filtration blocks is not functioning correctly, as disclosed by Hur, for the purpose of allowing the control circuit to determine if the filtration blocks are functioning correctly.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu CN201920807785 [translation].
Qiu is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 20, Qiu does not disclose that that at least one adsorption filtration block includes a bed of zeolite granules. Nevertheless, zeolite is a well-known adsorbent for capturing various contaminants, including VOCs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qiu so that the adsorbent is zeolite granules, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu CN201920807785 [translation] in view of Sangiovanni USPA 2006/0153747 A1.
Qiu is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 21, Qiu does not disclose that at least one adsorption filtration block is intercalated between two mechanical filtration blocks. Nevertheless, it is well-known in the art to intercalate an adsorbent bed between two mechanical filtration blocks, such as screens, for holding the adsorbent bed in place (see Sangiovanni paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qiu so that the adsorption bed is intercalated between two mechanical filtration blocks, as disclosed by Sangiovanni, for the purpose of holding the adsorbent bed in place.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776