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 Arguments
In light of amendments to claim 9, the objection of claim 9 is withdrawn. Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-11, filed May 29, 2026, have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant remarks are as follows:
However, each of amended claims 1 and 17 further recites that "the at least one second filter stage is controllable between at least a first state and a second state with different filtration efficiencies, such that a filtration efficiency in the second state is lower than the filtration efficiency in the first state." However, the subsequent filter 83B of Sharp is not controllable between at least a first state and a second state with different filtration efficiencies, as recited in amended claims 1 and 17.
The examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s above remarks refer to filter 83B instead of filter 83C, whereas filter 83C is controllable between a first state and a second state with different filtration efficiencies, as claimed in claims 1 and 17 (par [0103]).
In response to Applicant's argument, see page 12, that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, Sharp discloses an embodiment of ventilation system 100 in Fig. 7 and one or more sensors 84 may be used in combination with one or more filters 83A-D in the duct of ventilation system 100 to control and/or condition return air 14 returned to room 10. Fig. 7 illustrates a first part of output 12 drawn from room 10 as return air 14. Return air 14 flows into filter 83B, return airflow device 25, and filter 83C in the bypass duct 92. When one or more sensors 84 sense a particularly high level of one or more contaminants, the dampers 90A and 90B are operated such that the return air 14 is diverted into the bypass duct 92 and hence flows through the filter 83C. In this manner, the return air 14, in which contaminants have been detected, is selectively filtered based on the contaminant level measured with one of the one or more sensors 84. The filter bypass command 88 which controls the one or more dampers 90A and 90B may be derived from the sensed contaminant level 86 and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it prima facie obvious to include one of the one or more sensors 84 between filters 83C and 83D to detect and prevent contaminants from entering the at least one air return exhaust 25 (see the top portion of Fig. 7, pars [0100] – [0110]). As such, the teaching of Sharp is within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned from the Applicant's disclosure.
The rejection of the claims is maintained and addressed further here within.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, par [0015], “[[form]] from”.
Page 14, pars [0091], [0092], “[[form]] from”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 9, “a filtration efficiency in the second state is lower than [[the]] a filtration efficiency in the first state,” since the second state filtration efficiency and the first state filtration efficiency are distinct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The subject matter not properly described in the application as filed are:
the limitations “a single inlet” and “a single outlet” in claim 26 at lines 1 and 2, and
the phrase “configured such that the air passing through the first filter stage is always passed entirely through the second filter stage” in line 2-3 [emphasis added]. The originally filed specification fails to disclose these elements as recited in claim 26.
The specification as originally filed discloses an inlet and an outlet but fails to disclose explicitly—a single inlet, a single outlet, and air passing through the first filter stage is always passed entirely through the second filter stage as recited in claim 26.
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 25 and 26 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitations "the inlet" and "the outlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitations "an inlet" and "an outlet" were not previously recited.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the second filter stage" in line 3. Claim 1 recites the limitation "at least one second filter stage." If the limitation "the second filter stage" is meant to be distinct from the limitation "at least one second filter stage," then amend limitation as follows: "[[the]] a second filter stage" to obviate indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9,11-12,14-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (US 20020072322 A1).
For claim 1, Sharp discloses air treatment device (Fig. 7) comprising: an air duct (top portion in Fig 7 where return air 14 flows) for delivering an air flow (return air 14); a first filter stage comprising at least one air filter and arranged in the air duct for filtering the air flow (filter 83B, which is one of filters 83A-D in Fig. 7); at least one second filter stage comprising at least one further air filter (filter 83C, which one of filters 83A-D in Fig. 7) and arranged downstream of the first filter stage, for filtering the air flow after having passed the first filter stage (return air 14 flows through filter 83B and 83C sequentially in Fig. 7); wherein the at least one second filter stage is controllable between at least a first state and a second state with different filtration efficiencies (pars [0110], [0116]), such that, a filtration efficiency in the second state is lower than the filtration efficiency in the first state (Fig. 7; par [0110]); and the air treatment device further comprises an air quality sensor (one of the one or more air quality sensors 84; par [0109]) configured to measure the air quality of the air flow in between the first and the at least one second air filter stages (one or more air quality sensors 84; Fig. 7; pars [0105]-[0109]). Sharp does not appear to state explicitly wherein when viewed from an upstream end of the air duct, the at least one air filter of the first filter stage is a first filter in the air duct and the air quality sensor is arranged between the first filter in the air duct and the at least one further air filter of the at least one second filter stage without at least on of any further air filter and any further filter stage between the first filter and the at least one further filter.
Sharp does disclose an embodiment of ventilation system 100 that (illustrated in Fig. 7) includes one or more sensors 84 used in combination with one or more filters 84A-D to control and/or condition the return air 14 returned to room 10. In particular, Fig. 7 shows the path of the return air 14 is controllable between at least a first state and a second state with different efficiencies, such that a filtration efficiency in the second state is lower than the filtration efficiency in the first state (pars [0109] – [0110], [0116]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the air treatment device include the air quality sensor arranged between the first filter in the air duct and the at least one further air filter of the at least one second filter stage as claimed and remove sensed contaminants from the return air flow before reaching the handling unit flow that delivers the air flow to room 10 and arrive because Sharp suggests motivations that would arrive at the present apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art to Sharp is relied upon as indicated above and further teaches the device comprises a control unit configured such that if the reading of the air quality sensor is equal to or above a threshold, the at least one second air filter stage is brought into a state with a filtration efficiency closer to the filtration efficiency of the first state, switches to the first state or remains in the first state; and wherein if the reading of the air quality sensor is below a threshold the at least one second air filter stage is brought into a state with a filtration efficiency closer to the filtration efficiency of the second state, switches to the second state or remains in the second state (pars [0109]-[0110]).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art to Sharp is relied upon as indicated above and further teaches wherein the at least one second filter stage is configured such that: (i) the air flow passes the at least one further filter of the at least one second filter stage, if the at least one second filter stage is in the first state; and (ii) the air flow passes the at least one second filter stage without being filtered and/or without passing the at least one further filter, if the at least one second filter stage is in the second state (in Fig. 7 see structures associated with filter 83C; par [0109]).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art to Sharp is relied upon as indicated above and further teaches comprising a controllable flow control device configured so as to, if present in a first state, allows for routing the air flow having passed the first filter stage through the at least one further air filter of the at least one second filter stage and, if present in a second state, allows for routing the flow having passed the first filter stage partially or completely, around the at least one further filter of the at least one second filter stage (one or more dampers 90A and 90B in Fig. 7; par [0109]-[0110]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Sharp is relied upon as set forth above and further discloses the at least one second air filter stage comprises a bypass, which is openable and closable with the flow control device and, wherein in an opened state, the bypass connects a region of the duct between the first and the at least one second filter stages and a region of the duct following the at least one second air filter stage in downstream direction, wherein the flow control device comprises at least one of a flap and a valve being arranged in at least one of parallel and adjacent to the at least one further air filter in the duct (Fig. 7).
For claim 9, Sharp is relied upon as indicated above. Sharp further teaches the air quality sensor is a sensor for determining a proportion of any one of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, ozone, particulates, toxic metals radioactive substances, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), biological molecules, pollen, bacteria, viruses, volatile organic compounds, and hydrocarbon compounds or a combination thereof in the air flow (par [0108]). Sharp does not specifically state the at least one further filter of the at least one second filter stage is a filter with adjustable filtration efficiency. Nonetheless, electrostatic filters are long known for filtration efficiency, see exemplary reference US 5954933 A, which teaches a controllable electrostatic filter device to maintain contaminant removal efficiency. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute an electrostatic filter for the at least one further filter of the second stage as an art‐recognized equivalent that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to substitute. See MPEP § 2144.06.
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Sharp is relied upon as set forth above and further discloses wherein at least one of the at least one air filter and the at least one further air filter comprise at least one of particulate filters, molecular filters, catalytic filters, photocatalytic purifiers, plasma purifiers, water washing purifiers, electrostatic filters, vortex filters, surface deposition filters, and electromagnetic wave filters (par [0104]) and wherein the at least one air filter of the first filter stage is a first particulate filter configured for filtering particles with a first size and the at least one further air filter of the at least one second filter is a second particulate filter configured for filtering particles with a second size stage, and wherein the second size is smaller than the filter size (par [0104]).
Regarding claim 15, Sharp is relied upon as set forth above and teaches the at least one further air filter of the at least one second filter stage is mounted in the air duct. The phrase “such that the at least one further air filter is completely present inside the air guiding interior part of the air duct, independently of the first state or the second state of the at least one further air filter and the air duct has a constant cross-section for accommodating the at least one further air filter and/or there is no bypass for bypassing the at least one further air filter in the air duct” is an intended result/use. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
For claim 17, Sharp discloses at least one of an air handling unit, rooftop unit, fan coil, heating system, ventilating system and an air-conditioning system comprising an air treatment device further comprising an air duct configured to deliver air flow (ventilation system 100 in Fig. 7); a first filter stage comprising at least one air filter and arranged in the air duct for filtering the air flow(one of filters 83A-D in Fig. 7); at least one second filter stage comprising at least one further air filter and arranged downstream of the first filter stage for filtering the air flow after having passed the first filter stage (one (one of filters 83A-D in Fig. 7); an air quality sensor configured for measuring (one or more air quality sensors 85; Fig. 7) the air quality of the air flow in between the first and the at least one second air filter stages (one or more air quality sensors 85; pars [0105]-[0109]; Fig. 7). Sharp does not explicitly state wherein the at least one second filter stage is controllable between at least a first state and a second state with different filtration efficiencies, such that a filtration efficiency in the second state is lower than the filtration efficiency in the first second state. Sharp does disclose an embodiment of ventilation system that is illustrated in Figure 7 can include one or more filters 84A-D at various locations and controllers (pars [0028] - [0029], [0060] - [0061], [0100], [0109] - [0111], [0114]). Sharp also teaches that one or more of the filters may be included in the embodiment (par [0102]) and one or more sensors may be used in combination with one or more filter 83A-D pars [0105] - [0109]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the embodiment of the air treatment device of Sharp to meet air flow treatment and cost requirements and arrive at the present apparatus as claimed because Sharp suggests motivations that would arrive at the present apparatus.
Regarding claim 18, Sharp is relied upon as set forth above and discloses further an inlet configured to supply fresh air from outside of a building, to an upstream side of the first filter stage of the air treatment device and an outlet configured to discharge air having passed the air treatment device into the building (pars [0007], [0145]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharp (US 20020072322 A1) in view of Kim (US 20100285731 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sharp discloses the air treatment device according to claim 1 but does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one second air filter stage comprises a drive unit for moving and/or rotating the at least one further air filter of the at least one second filter stage from the first state, in which the air flow passes the at least one further filter of the at least one second filter stage, to the second state in which the air flow passes the at least one second filter stage essentially being filtered and/or without passing the at least one second filter stage. Kim does disclose these features (Fig. 3; pars [0027] - [0028], [0030] - [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Kim further discloses wherein the at least one further of the air filter of the at least one second filter stage is rotatably mounted in the duct, such that the at least one further air filter is rotatable around an axis perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the duct and/or perpendicular to a direction of air flow in the air duct (Fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. Also, see the prior art examples provided below in response to this correspondence. Examples follow:
FR 3078562 A1: device takes fresh air outside inside the building after one or more treatments; control unit receiving the information on the air quality of the outside air and the air flow rate is able to calculate the mass of particles retained by each filter; device has sensors to measure air quality of the outside air and communicate measurements to the control unit.
US 20040041564 A1: Indoor air quality is improved by removing contaminants that proliferate indoors and/or decreasing a rate at which contaminants from outdoors flow into a dwelling; blower 26 draws outside air 28 through conduit 30 and blows the outside air into conduit 10; air flowing through conduit 10 in direction 12 may force outside air 28 through cleaning unit 22; cleaning unit 22 may include one or more filters, a turbulator, a UV source, and/or one or more humidity control units; a control device operatively connected to sensors.
US 20200103127 A1: an air filtering system (Figs. 1, 2) used in a building and an HVAC system comprises: an outside-air inlet at a first filtering stage 1; a second filtering stage 2 downstream of the first filtering stage; sensors 32, 33 for collecting outside-air quality information; and a control module 3 in communication with the sensor, wherein the control module adjusts an operation state of the first filtering stage and/or the second filtering stage based on the air quality information collected by sensor.
US 9353966 B2: rooftop heating, ventilating, and air condition unit is showing which operates as an air mixing and apparatus controlling the flow and quantity of outside air entering an enclosed space Figs. 1-5; an outside air regulating assembly 113 configured to regulate an outside air flow 114 received from outside rooftop unit 101 and enclosed space 200; the outside air regulating assembly 113 operates similarly to return air regulating assembly 105; outside air sensor 214 determine properties of the outside air and values are relayed to controller 104 through an outside data control line 217 coupled to controller 104 responsive to air sensor 214.
US 20080250800 A1: sensor air used to in conditioned space; outside air intake and outside air exhaust; filters.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying 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 SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (EST).
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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 August 10, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights