DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the temperature detection device (claims 7 and 17), one or more heat exchanger metal fins, ventilation fan and heat exchange pipeline (claims 9 and 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 10-19 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.
Regarding claim 10:
The claim limitation “an air pumping device” in line 11 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “an air pumping device” in line 4 of the claim which raises a question of if two of the air pumping devices are required by the claim or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one air pumping device is required by the claim.
Claims 11-19 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 10.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20050129571 A1 to Centanni as evidenced by US 5286447 A to Fannin et al. (Fannin).
Centanni discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
An ozone catalytic elimination device (figure 1), comprising;
an air pumping device (82; pumps carrier gas identified as including air in ¶0028);
a catalytic device (94/98; ¶0003);
a heating device (116); and
a cooling device (112; the structure is identified as an air dryer which is a cooler heat exchanger since it removed humidity from the carrier fluid as further evidenced by Fannin which indicates dehumidifiers, air cooling systems and air conditioners are one and the same (see Fannin column 1, lines 10-20)),
wherein:
an air inlet end (see inlet end B in figure 1 below) of the air pumping device (82) is configured to communicate with an ionization cavity (interpreted as intended use since the structure of the ionization cavity is not positively claimed) of the ozone catalytic elimination device;
an air outlet end (see outlet end A in figure 1 below) of the air pumping device (82) is configured to communicate (fluid from the pump 82 ultimately flows through 94/98) with the catalytic device (94/98); and
the air pumping device (82) is configured to pump, to the catalytic device (94/98), an ozone (ozone form device 34) generated by the ionization cavity (as indicated above this has been interpreted as intended use since the structure of the ionization cavity has not been positively claimed), and
wherein the catalytic device (94/98) is configured to catalyze the ozone into oxygen (¶0029 and 0030), the heating device (116) is configured to heat the ozone (heats the carrier gas in line 46 which also includes ozone that is recycled to the isolation room), the cooling device (112) communicates with (carrier gas from 112 is ultimately communicated with 94/98 and carrier gas from the 94 is sent to 112) an interior of the catalytic device (94/98), and the cooling device (112) is configured to cool the oxygen (cools the oxygen that is part of the air in the carrier gas).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – figure 1 of Centanni, annotated by the examiner
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050129571 A1 to Centanni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5603215 A to Sung et al. (Sung).
Regarding claim 2:
Centanni discloses:
The ozone catalytic elimination device according to claim 1, wherein the catalytic device (94/98) comprises;
a first housing (see the housing of the catalytic device 94/98 as shown in figure 1).
Centanni fails to disclose:
A porous catalytic structure,
wherein the porous catalytic structure is disposed within the first housing,
wherein the air pumping device and the cooling device are configured to communicate with both ends of the first housing, respectively,
wherein the porous catalytic structure comprises a catalytic structure capable of catalyzing the ozone into the oxygen; and
wherein the porous catalytic structure includes a plurality of pore channels, and both ends of each pore channel are arranged opposite to both ends of the first housing, respectively.
Sung teaches:
A catalytic device that includes a porous catalytic structure (honeycomb substrate containing fine gas flow channels) made from manganese oxide (column 4, line 59-column 5, lines 23). See the catalytic structure (34) in figure 1a.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centanni to further include a porous catalytic structure/honeycomb substrate containing fine gas flow channels made from manganese oxide as taught by Sung. This is a simple substitution of one known element (catalytic device of Centanni) for another (catalytic device of Sung) to obtain predictable results (to treat the carrier gas in Centanni).
Regarding claim 3:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 2 by Centanni and Sung:
The ozone catalytic elimination device according to claim 2, wherein the porous catalytic structure comprises a honeycomb structure (see the honeycomb of the catalytic structure of Centanni incorporated into Sung).
Regarding claim 4:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 2 by Centanni and Sung:
The ozone catalytic elimination device according to claim 2, wherein the porous catalytic structure includes a catalytic material comprising manganese oxide (see the manganese oxide of the catalytic structure of Centanni incorporated into Sung).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050129571 A1 to Centanni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5206002 A to Skelley et al. (Skelley).
Regarding claim 6:
Centanni fails to disclose:
The ozone catalytic elimination device according to claim 1, wherein the heating device comprises a heating pipe.
Skelley teaches:
An elimination device (figure 1) that includes a heater (28) and a cooler (50). The heater further includes a pipe (48) that includes the heating medium for heating the gas that is treated (column 3, line 59- column 4, line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centanni to include a heating pipe for a heating medium passing through heater as taught by Skelley in order to heat the carrier gas within the heater of Centanni. Centanni is silent as to how the heater functions and Skelley provides a heater that uses a heating pipe to heat the fluid/gas in the heater. Further, this is a simple substitution of one known element (replacing the heating mechanism in the heater of Centanni) for another (heating pipe in the heater as taught by Skelley) to obtain predictable results (to heat the carrier gas in the heater of Centanni).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7-9 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach “a plasma generator, wherein the main body is provided with an ionization cavity, the plasma generator is disposed within the ionization cavity” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 10.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant' s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following is pertinent prior art:
US-20110262327-A1
Dillon
See the dehumidifier 204
US-20190160529-A1
Silidker
See catalytic converter 960
US-20110117000-A1
Nakatani
See the catalytic device 34
US-5334355-A
Faddis
See the catalytic device 65
US-20120277662-A1
Golkowski
See the plasma device 30
EP-1538312-A1
LENDRESSE
See the catalytic device 3 and the ionization device 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-5pm.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783