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 .
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.
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 1-9 and 11-21 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 claims 1, 5 and 16-18, the phrase "xxx-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodge (US 6174340) in view of EP 1440734 (hereinafter EP ‘734).
As regarding claim 1, Hodge discloses the claimed invention for a device for air purification (fig. 1) comprising: at least one base which may comprise skids, feet or end pieces enabling it not to be in direct contact with the surface on which it is placed, at least four side walls each comprising at least one filter (28), at least one upper wall, on the side opposite to the base, at least one electrical power source, at least one air overpressurization means (18) connected to the power source (fig. 4) and enabling the of air to flow through the device.
Hodge does not disclose at least one pre-filter type filter made of a flexible foam-like material or a fabric. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide at least one pre-filter type filter made of a flexible foam-like material or a fabric in order to enhance device performance, 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.
Hodge as modified does not disclose wherein: the device has a height of between 250 mm and 900 mm, a width of between 200 mm and 700 mm and a depth of between 300 mm and 600 mm; the surface of the upper wall is openwork for at least 70% of the total surface of this upper wall; the surface of each of the four side walls is openwork for at least 70% of the total surface of this side wall; and the overpressurization means makes it possible to obtain an operating flow rate of between 400 and 3,000 m3/h.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein: the device has a height of between 250 mm and 900 mm, a width of between 200 mm and 700 mm and a depth of between 300 mm and 600 mm; the surface of the upper wall is openwork for at least 70% of the total surface of this upper wall; the surface of each of the four side walls is openwork for at least 70% of the total surface of this side wall; and the overpressurization means makes it possible to obtain an operating flow rate of between 400 and 3,000 m3/h in order to enhance device performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen height, width, depth, openwork, operating flow rate or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen height, width, depth, openwork, operating flow rates are critical and unexpected results.
Hodge as modified does not disclose to ensure that the air is sucked through the at least one pre-filter type filter located on the upper wall towards the air overpressurization means, and then flows from the overpressurization means through each of the at least one filters present in each of the four side walls before being discharged to the outside of the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide to ensure that the air is sucked through the at least one pre-filter type filter located on the upper wall towards the air overpressurization means, and then flows from the overpressurization means through each of the at least one filters present in each of the four side walls before being discharged to the outside of the device in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in EP 1440734 (hereinafter EP ‘734; fig. 2).
As regarding claim 2, Hodge as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Hodge as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the device is prism-shape. The shape of a structural feature is considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration is significant, see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 3-9 and 11-21 are likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those outlined with respect to claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at (571) 270-3960. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773