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 amendments filed 2/10/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-5, 7, 11-16, 18, 20, and 24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been considered.
As to the duplication of parts, there need not be a teaching that a device is deficient without the duplicated parts. The duplication of parts logic relies on the duplication achieving predictable results (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.). Adding more lamps/lamp boxes on other sides of the duct yield only predictable results (more light from more locations).
“Arranged for removable attachment to a ducting section” is still intended use. The box with lamps is capable of being removed if one wants to. No structure is claimed that addresses the desired removability such as how the casings attach or detach. In the instance the applicant continues to assert that the new claim language does provide a structural limitation, an alternative rejection is also presented along with the maintained one.
The applicant alleges there is no teaching of replacing an HVAC duct but does not address the obviousness logic.
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) 1-5, 7, 11-16, 18, 20, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2004/0166018).
With regards to claim 1, Clark teaches an air cleaning system comprising: a ducting section (1504) comprising an inlet (1508) and an outlet (1509) and a plurality of walls (it is generally a rectangular prism); at least one source of UV radiation (lamps 1503) into an interior volume of the ducting section, the interior volume between the inlet and the outlet; and a reflective surface (at least one surface is lined with a diffuse reflective material) arranged to reflect UV radiation emitted by the source of the UV radiation within the interior volume of the ducting section, wherein the reflective surface is capable of reflecting at least 60% of the incident UV radiation (para [0019], [0121], [0122]; fig 5; abstract).
Clark teaches further comprising a removable casing (lamp multiplier box 1502; is removable with at least enough effort), wherein the source of UV light is disposed within the removable casing (fig 5).
Clark teaches that the ducting section has a plurality of walls (it is a box shape; fig 5) that define the interior volume but does not teach multiple of the removable casings each with a source of UV radiation.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have duplicated the number of casings (box 1502) with UV lamps in order to provide the predictable result of more UV light energy in the treatment zone as desired. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed the duplicated casings and lamps on different walls as desired in order to get the desired irradiation from multiple angles/directions for uniform/complete coverage.
With regards to claim 2, wherein the at least one source of UV radiation is provided in a recess (lamp multiplier box 1507) so as to mitigate obstruction of airflow through the ducting section (is offset to the side) (fig 5; para [0121], [0122]).
With regards to claims 3-5, the reflective surface can be made of PTFE (para [0019]) which the instant specification says is a material that can reflect about 97% of incident UV radiation (page 11, lines 23-25). Additionally, Clark teaches DRP with 99.4-99.9% reflectivity (para [0064], [0122]).
With regards to claim 7, the removable casings further comprises the reflective surface (para [0122]).
With regards to claim 11, each of the sources of UV light includes multiple UV lamps (fig 5B; para [0122]).
With regards to claim 12, adjacent ones of the plurality of UV lamps are spaced apart from one another to provide a gap between adjacent ones of the plurality of UV lamps (fig 5).
With regards to claim 13, a portion of the reflective surface is exposed to the UV radiation through the gap between the adjacent ones of the plurality of lamps (all of the duct and box can have reflective lining including the box wall behind the lamps; this results in the same arrangement as seen in fig 5B as that in the instant application fig 5 showing the gap arrangement).
With regards to claims 14 and 15, fig 5B shows gaps between spaced apart UV lamps but Clark does not specify the ratio of gaps to lamp area. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have sized the box (including the reflective back wall) as desired in order to achieve the desired sized treatment device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have sized the UV lamps as desired in order to achieve the desired amount of lamps in the desired space. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the number of UV lamps in order to provide the desired amount of UV light.
All of these obvious modifications effect the ratio of gap to lamp area and thus the claims are obvious.
With regards to claim 16, each of the plurality of UV lamps comprises a longitudinal axis, therein the longitudinal axis of each of the plurality is parallel to a flow path from inlet to outlet (air flow arrow is parallel to the long length of the lamps; fig 5).
With regards to claims 18 and 20, Clark teaches that the UV light emits in the overlapping range of 200nm to 300nm light to kill microorganisms and destroy harmful chemicals (para [0147]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used UV wavelengths within the taught range motivated by an expectation of successfully killing microorganisms and destroying harmful chemicals.
With regards to claim 24, Clark teaches the system of claim 1 (as above) as part of an HVAC duct (fig 5). It is not clear whether it is replacing a duct of an air handler system or if it is just part of the system. Clark does teach that one of the benefits of the system is retrofitting it into buildings (para [0009]). In the background, it is discussed that air sterilizers can replace one or more sections of duct in an air duct (para [0006]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have replaced a regular duct in a retrofit or when making a new air handler system with the air cleaning system of Clark (fig 5) in order to kill microorganisms and destroy harmful chemicals in the air.
The modification results in a method of constructing an air handling system as claimed.
Additional and alternative rejection
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-16, 18, 20, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2004/0166018) in view of Zhang (US 2004/0213714).
With regards to claim 1, Clark teaches an air cleaning system comprising: a ducting section (1504) comprising an inlet (1508) and an outlet (1509) and a plurality of walls (it is generally a rectangular prism); at least one source of UV radiation (lamps 1503) into an interior volume of the ducting section, the interior volume between the inlet and the outlet; and a reflective surface (at least one surface is lined with a diffuse reflective material) arranged to reflect UV radiation emitted by the source of the UV radiation within the interior volume of the ducting section, wherein the reflective surface is capable of reflecting at least 60% of the incident UV radiation (para [0019], [0121], [0122]; fig 5; abstract).
Clark teaches further comprising a casing (lamp multiplier box 1502), wherein the source of UV light is disposed within the removable casing (fig 5).
Clark teaches that the ducting section has a plurality of walls (it is a box shape; fig 5) that define the interior volume but does not teach multiple of the removable casings each with a source of UV radiation.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have duplicated the number of casings (box 1502) with UV lamps in order to provide the predictable result of more UV light energy in the treatment zone as desired. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed the duplicated casings and lamps on different walls as desired in order to get the desired irradiation from multiple angles/directions for uniform/complete coverage.
As to making the casing removable, Zhang teaches an external mounting housing for a UV sterilizer and teaches making the external housing of the lamp removable in order to allow for replacement of the lamp as needed (para [0024] and fig 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the lamp casings removable in order to allow for repair and replacement of the lamps.
With regards to claim 2, wherein the at least one source of UV radiation is provided in a recess (lamp multiplier box 1507) so as to mitigate obstruction of airflow through the ducting section (is offset to the side) (fig 5; para [0121], [0122]).
With regards to claims 3-5, the reflective surface can be made of PTFE (para [0019]) which the instant specification says is a material that can reflect about 97% of incident UV radiation (page 11, lines 23-25). Additionally, Clark teaches DRP with 99.4-99.9% reflectivity (para [0064], [0122]).
With regards to claim 7, the removable casings further comprises the reflective surface (para [0122]).
With regards to claim 11, each of the sources of UV light includes multiple UV lamps (fig 5B; para [0122]).
With regards to claim 12, adjacent ones of the plurality of UV lamps are spaced apart from one another to provide a gap between adjacent ones of the plurality of UV lamps (fig 5).
With regards to claim 13, a portion of the reflective surface is exposed to the UV radiation through the gap between the adjacent ones of the plurality of lamps (all of the duct and box can have reflective lining including the box wall behind the lamps; this results in the same arrangement as seen in fig 5B as that in the instant application fig 5 showing the gap arrangement).
With regards to claims 14 and 15, fig 5B shows gaps between spaced apart UV lamps but Clark does not specify the ratio of gaps to lamp area. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have sized the box (including the reflective back wall) as desired in order to achieve the desired sized treatment device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have sized the UV lamps as desired in order to achieve the desired amount of lamps in the desired space. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the number of UV lamps in order to provide the desired amount of UV light.
All of these obvious modifications effect the ratio of gap to lamp area and thus the claims are obvious.
With regards to claim 16, each of the plurality of UV lamps comprises a longitudinal axis, therein the longitudinal axis of each of the plurality is parallel to a flow path from inlet to outlet (air flow arrow is parallel to the long length of the lamps; fig 5).
With regards to claims 18 and 20, Clark teaches that the UV light emits in the overlapping range of 200nm to 300nm light to kill microorganisms and destroy harmful chemicals (para [0147]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used UV wavelengths within the taught range motivated by an expectation of successfully killing microorganisms and destroying harmful chemicals.
With regards to claim 24, Clark teaches the system of claim 1 (as above) as part of an HVAC duct (fig 5). It is not clear whether it is replacing a duct of an air handler system or if it is just part of the system. Clark does teach that one of the benefits of the system is retrofitting it into buildings (para [0009]). In the background, it is discussed that air sterilizers can replace one or more sections of duct in an air duct (para [0006]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have replaced a regular duct in a retrofit or when making a new air handler system with the air cleaning system of Clark (fig 5) in order to kill microorganisms and destroy harmful chemicals in the air.
The modification results in a method of constructing an air handling system as claimed.
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 DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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 Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799