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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 20-24 to the method were withdrawn by Applicant.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 line 2, "a [[t]] filter".
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 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 1 recites the limitations "the second filter stage" in 1d, the limitation "the second filter stages" in 1e, and the limitation "the second filter stage" in line 17. The limitations "a second filter stage" and "second filter stages" were not previously recited. Also address these limitations recited in following claims: 2-6, 9, 12, 15, and 17.
Claim 1d recites the limitation "a filtration efficiency in the second state is lower the filtration efficiency in the second state is essentially zero [emphasis added]" that is ambiguous. The limitation raises the questions—is the limitation two statements? Should the word than be inserted after the word lower, and if not, then lower than what? Regarding the phrase "is essentially zero" in line 11, the boundary for the word essentially is not defined by the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the air quality" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "[an] air quality" was not previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upstream end" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "an upstream end" was not previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first filter" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "a first filter" was not previously recited. Furthermore, regarding the limitation "the at least one filter" in line 16, if the limitation "the first filter" in line 15 were amended, then should the limitation "the at least one filter" in line 16 also be amended to read "the first filter"?
The phrases "first filter" and "at least one" are recited with "air filter" and "further air filter" in claim 1. This language introduces ambiguity and raises the questions—which filter? could at least one filter be interpreted as multiple filters and if so, which filter of the multiple filters? NOTE: Care should be taken to use conventional claim language and to include spatial references for structural elements associated with the air flow with apparatus claims. For example, an air duct for delivering an air flow from an inlet to an outlet of a device comprising a downstream and an upstream in reference to the air flow in the air duct; a first filter arranged at the upstream of the air duct; a second filter arranged at the downstream of the air duct.
Claim 1 recites "in-between" at the end of the last line of the claim that raises the question: in-between what elements—filter? stage? Claim construction is unclear.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "closer to the first state" in line 4. The word closer is unclear and raises the question, closer in what—filtration efficiency? pressure drop? position/location?, etc. Claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "(ii) the air flow passes the second filter stage essentially without being filtered and/or without passing the at least one further filter, if the second filter stage is in the second state" in lines 5-6 [emphasis added]. The word essentially fails to define an objective boundary. Therefore, the metes and bounds are unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "essentially without being filtered and/or without passing the at least one further filter" in lines 5-6 [emphasis added]. The word essentially fails to define an objective boundary; whereas, the metes and bounds are unclear.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "for example/e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a sensor for determining a proportion 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/or hydrocarbon compounds in the air flow" in lines 3-7 [emphasis added]. If said sensor functions for determining the recited limitation of "a proportion" for the listed compound (see above), then the claim language fails to provide the boundary necessary to interpret said proportion(s), and therefore is indefinite.
Consider amending the phrase as follows: 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "configured for filtering smaller particles than the first filter stage" in lines 3-4. The word smaller is a comparative term. However, a comparative boundary for filtering smaller particles is not defined, nor are small particles defined by the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the state" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "a state" was not previously recited.
Claim 15 is indefinite. The language recited in claim 15 is unconventional and the boundaries/scope of the claim are not clearly defined. For example, the recitation "there is no bulge in the air duct for accommodating the at least one further air filter" [emphasis added] fails to articulate objective structural language and is unclear. Consider using geometric terms to define the scope of the desired boundary.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a filtration efficiency in the second state is lower the filtration efficiency in the second state is essentially zero" in lines 12-14, which is similar to claim 1. The limitation is ambiguous. Refer to claim 1 above.
Claims 5-8, 11, 12, 14, and 18 that depend from claim 1 are also rejected.
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 for delivering an air flow (shown 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 a 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 of filters 83A-D in Fig. 7); wherein the second filter stage is controllable between at least two states with different filtration efficiencies, such that, with respect to a filtration efficiency in the first state, a filtration efficiency in the second state is lower the filtration efficiency in the second state is essentially zero (Fig. 7; pars [0110], [0111]); and the air treatment device further comprises an air quality sensor (one or more air quality sensors 85; pars [0105]-[0109]; Fig. 7) configured to measure the air quality of the air flow in between the first and the 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 the upstream end of the air duct, the at least one air filter of the first filter stage is the first filter in the air duct and the air quality sensor is arranged between the at least one filter of the first filter stage in the air duct and the at least one further air filter of the second filter stage without at least one of any further air filter and any further filter stage in-between. 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. 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 2, the prior art to Sharp is relied upon as indicated above and further teaches the device comprises a control unit which is configured such that if the reading of the air quality sensor is equal to or above a threshold, the second air filter stage is brought into a state with a filtration efficiency closer to the first state, switches to the first state or remains in the first state; whereas if the reading of the air quality sensor is below a threshold the second air filter stage is brought into a state with a filtration efficiency closer to 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 second filter stage is configured such that: (i) the air flow passes the at least one further filter of the second filter stage, if the second filter stage is in the first state; and (ii) the air flow passes the second filter stage essentially without being filtered and/or without passing the at least one further filter, if the 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 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 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 second air filter stage comprises a bypass, which is openable and closable with the flow control device, whereby in opened state, the bypass connects a region of the duct between the two filter stages and a region of the duct following the 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 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/or hydrocarbon compounds in the air flow (par [0108]). Sharp does not specifically state the at least one further filter of the second filter stage is a filter with adjustable filtration efficiency, e.g. an electrostatic filter. 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 and the at least one further air filter of the second filter stage both are particulate filters, wherein the second filter stage is configured for filtering smaller particles than the first filter stage (par [0104])
Regarding claim 15, Sharp is relied upon as set forth above and teaches the at least one further air filter of the 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 state of the filter and there is no bulge in the air duct 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 a 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 is present (one or more air quality sensors 85; Fig. 7), which allows for measuring the air quality of the air flow in between the first and the second air filter stages (one or more air quality sensors 85; pars [0105]-[0109]; Fig. 7). Sharp does not explicitly state wherein the second filter stage is controllable between at least two states with different filtration efficiencies, such that, with respect to a filtration efficiency in the first state, a filtration efficiency in the second state is lower the filtration efficiency in the second state is essentially zero. 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 second air filter stage comprises a drive unit for moving and/or rotating the at least one further air filter of the second filter stage from a first state, in which the air flow passes the at least one further filter of the second filter stage, to a second state in which the air flow passes the second filter stage essentially without being filtered and/or without passing the at least one further filter. Kim does disclose these features (Fig. 3; pars [0027]-[0028], [0030]-[0031])
Regrading claim 5, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Kim further discloses wherein the at least one further air filter of the 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. Applicant should consider the prior art below in response to this action.
US 20200256585
US 20040005856 A1: Fig. 7; pars [0099]-[0113], [0126]-[0127].
US 20200103127 A1: pars [0017]-[0020], [0022]-[0027]; Fig. 1.
US 20040262241 A1: Fig. 1; pars [0016]-[0021], [0037].
US 20240001053 A1: Fig. 1; pars [0061]-[0068].
US 20220282877 A1: Figs. 1, 3; pars [0055]-[0059], [0063]-[0065], [0071].
US 20040041564 A1: Figs. 7, 8; pars [0029]-[0032], [0038], [0046].
US 20140326428 A1: [0122]-[0126]; Figs. 1-11A-D.
US 20050129571 A1: Fig; pars [0027]-[0037], [0043].
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 February 20, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776