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 .
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 control unit must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 6 discloses a “control unit”. The specification clarifies the control unit is not shown:
PNG
media_image1.png
28
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 discloses “wherein said blowing means (4) are provided with a operating adjustment drive.” The use of “a” in the claim is improper. Instead claim 3 should state “wherein said blowing means (4) are provided with an operating adjustment drive.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following Claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
1. Blowing means disclosed in claim 1, line 13 and claim 3, line 2
The corresponding structure for the blowing means is a fan.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
Blowing unit disclosed in claim 4, line 2 and claim, line 4
The corresponding structure for the blowing unit is a fan.
Speed adjustment drive disclosed in claim 4, line 2
The corresponding structure for a speed adjustment drive is one of the following: a tachometric dynamo, an encoder or a resolver.
Operating adjustment drive disclosed in claim 3, line 3
The corresponding structure for an operating adjustment drive is a control.
Control unit disclosed in claim 6, line 2
The corresponding structure for a control unit is a commercial-type processor
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 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 2 discloses “wherein the housing cavity (la) has a surface roughness Ra less than about 0.9 pm, preferably less than 0.6 pm.” The term “preferably” is exemplary language (see MPEP 2173.05(d). It is not clear whether the claimed narrower range (preferably less than 0.6 pm) is a limitation, rendering scope of claim 2 unclear.
Claim 3 discloses the “operating adjustment drive” is “determined as a function of a signal from an anemometric sensor”. It is not clearly expressed how a physical “drive” or control (as interpreted under112(f)) can be determined as a function of a “signal”. Therefore, it is unclear what function is disclosed in claim 3. For the purposes of examination, claim 3 is found to mean the fan speed can be manipulated based on signals from an anemometric sensor.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said blowing unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, claim 1 discloses a “blowing means”, referred to in the specifications using reference number 4 (page 6; line 7). Reference number 4 is also used in the specifications to refer to the “blowing unit” (page 15, line 7). For the purposes of examination, the blowing unit will be taken to be the same as the “blowing means”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said speed adjustment drive" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 further discloses “wherein said blowing unit (4) is driven by said speed adjustment drive so as to adjust an air flow speed within the housing cavity (la) which is a function of the length of said lamps of the bundle of lamps (2) and of a lamp efficiency signal coming from said power (radiation level) detection sensors (L).” It is unclear if the applicant is claiming the flow speed, or the speed adjustment drive, is a function of the length of said lamps, and the lamp efficiency signal. For the purposes of examination claim 4 will be interpreted to mean the fan speed can be manipulated based on a lamp efficiency signal.
Moreover, under MPEP 2111.04 “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” The phrase “so as to” in claim 4 implies a result of the blowing unit being driven by the speed adjustment drive and therefore does not further limit the disclosed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said blowing unit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, claim 1 discloses a “blowing means” referred to in the specifications using reference number 4. Reference number 4 is also used in the specifications to refer to the “blowing unit”. For the purposes of examination, the blowing unit will be taken to be the same as the “blowing means.”
Claim 5 is understood to mean that “said blowing unit is driven” “as a function of said anemometric sensor signal and a signal from said power detection sensors” “so that the dose of UVC delivered….” Claim 4 however, discloses the ‘blowing unit” is driven by the speed adjustment drive” which is not disclosed to be driven by said anemometric sensor signal and a signal from said power detection sensors. Claim 3 discloses that the “blowing means”, taken to be the same as the “blowing unit”, is provided with an “operating adjustment drive”, which is determined a s a function of a signal from an “anemometric sensor.” It is unclear how a control can be driven as a function of something. Moreover, it is not clear what the blowing unit/blowing means is a function of, or what drives it. The progression of claims 3-5 is unclear and therefore the scope of the invention is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, claims 3, 4, and 5 are understood to mean the fan speed can be adjusted based on signals from UV sensors and an anemometric signal.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said control unit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 further discloses an open list of alternatives by stating “(current, voltage,…)”. It is unclear what the energy absorption is. See MPEP 2173.05.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN211584454U), hereinafter referred to as Liu, and in further view of Palmer (US 20150359921 A1), hereinafter referred to as Palmer, Al-Thallab et al. (US 20100233019 A1), hereinafter referred to as Al-Thallab, and Soon (KR 101685170 B1), hereinafter referred to as Soon.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an air sanitation module comprising a housing body (fig. 2 as annotated below) and at least a UV source (fig. 2 as annotated below) hit by an air flow to be sanitized (The air is sterilized by the ultraviolet lamp tube 6 (page 3; para. 9)).
wherein said housing body is of elongated shape (fig. 2 as annotated below) and has a housing cavity aligned according to a longitudinal axis (fig. 2 as annotated below),
said housing cavity has an inlet end opening (fig. 1 as annotated below) and an outlet end opening (fig. 5 as annotated below) outlet on the two opposite sides of said longitudinal axis (fig. 1 and fig. 5 as annotated below),
said UV source is in the shape of a bundle of parallel, elongated UVC radiating lamps, said bundle of lamps being fully housed longitudinally within said housing cavity (fig. 2 as annotated below),
and wherein blowing means are further included at one of said ends of the housing cavity (fig. 1 as annotated below) for establishing an air flow longitudinally to said housing cavity (wherein the speed regulating fan is used for sucking outside air into the machine body, and for blowing the dust attached on the surface of the ultraviolet lamp tube (page 2; para. 3) (fig. 1 as annotated below),
characterized in that said housing cavity has a circular cross section (fig. 1 as annotated below) and has an inner surface provided with a surface treatment … reflecting UVC radiation (the reflecting layer 4 is covered on the inner wall of the machine body),
and said lamps of the bundle of lamps (2) are equally spaced apart (fig. 3 as annotated below) so as to maintain a mutual maximum effective distance between a longitudinal axis of said lamps and between said longitudinal axis of the lamps to said inner surface of the housing cavity (the ultraviolet lamp tubes are provided with a plurality of 6 ultraviolet lamp tubes, so that the space in the machine body 1 has no dead angle and is full of ultraviolet rays (page 3; para. 7)).
and in that said inlet and outlet end openings are free of filtering elements (there is no filter disclosed in Liu).
Liu does not teach where said inlet and outlet end openings are provided with a filtering element (3) suitable to let particulate matter of dimensions less than 100 pm pass through.
However, Palmer teaches where said inlet and outlet end openings are provided with a filtering element (As discussed above, some embodiments of the present invention can include a HEPA filter 410 located at one or both ends of the germicidal radiation chamber 140. For example, as shown in FIGS. 14, 17, and 19, the HEPA filter 410 may be located at the outlet of the germicidal radiation chamber 140 (e.g., just behind the front cover 1322 and control panel 330). Additionally, upstream of the HEPA filter 410, some embodiments of the present invention can also include an additional carbon filter (e.g., main carbon filter 1390). As discussed in greater detail below, the filters (e.g., the HEPA filter 410, main carbon filter 1390, and pre-filter and carbon filter 1350) may be used to further clean and sterilize the air flowing through the system 1310 (para. [0119])).
Further, Al-Thallab teaches (The filter assembly includes a second high efficiency particulate air filter for removing air borne allergens and other particles having particle size of about 10 microns to about 75 microns before directing filtered air into an enclosed or semi-enclosed space (para. [0009]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include filters at the inlet and outlet of the device as disclosed in Palmer, and to include the teachings of Al-Thallab by making the filters, taught by Palmer, suitable to let particulate matter of dimensions less than 100 pm pass through. By incorporating the teachings of Palmer, Liu is able to “remove volatile organic compounds from the drawn air, and the introduced air may contain substantially no particles (e.g., dust mites, animal dander, bacteria, lead paint, household dust, cooking smoke and grease, wood and tobacco smoke, and smog) between 5.0 microns and 0.3 microns (Palmer, para. [0006]).” Further, by replacing the filters disclosed in Palmer with the filters taught by Al-Thallab, “inhalable particles” ranging from 10-75 microns are removed from the air. Al-Thallab allows for the range of particles filtered to be increased.
Liu also does not explicitly teach a surface treatment having antioxidant properties.
However, Soon teaches a surface provided with a surface treatment having antioxidant properties (The case 200 is preferably formed of a metal material, and the surface of the case 200 may be coated with a zinc coating or an antioxidant (para. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu so the reflecting layer 4 covered on the inner wall of the machine body, disclosed in Liu, is coated with an antioxidant “to prevent the light emitted from the ultraviolet ray generator of the ultraviolet ray generator from being deformed by heat and to be dried by heat when moisture is generated to prevent corrosion (Soon, para [0040]).”
PNG
media_image2.png
400
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
368
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
711
1151
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, and Soon, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Nakamura et al. (WO2013084485A1), hereinafter referred to as Leap.
Regarding claim 2, Liu does not explicitly teach an air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein the housing cavity (la) has a surface roughness Ra less than about 0.9 pm, preferably less than 0.6 pm, and said surface treatment of the housing cavity (la) is a chemical nickel plating or PVD.
Leap teaches an air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein the housing cavity (la) has a surface roughness Ra less than about 0.9 µm, preferably less than 0.6 µm , and said surface treatment of the housing cavity (la) is a chemical nickel plating or PVD (At least the inner wall surface of the sealing container 201 has unevenness, and the sealing container 201 is made of a metal that functions as a catalyst during ozonolysis. As such a metal, aluminum, copper, nickel, palladium, silver, tin, lead, titanium, iron, or a mixture thereof (para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device described in Liu to include the teachings of Leap, such that the reflective layer 4 on the inner surface of the machine body, as disclosed in Liu, is a chemical nickel plating, as taught by Leap. Doing so provides the benefit of a treatment that has high reflectivity of electromagnetic radiation and is not degraded by it at the same time. The use of nickel in combination with UV can enhance the degradation of pollutants and can serve a catalyst during ozone decomposition.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain a surface roughness of less than about 0.6 µm because doing so is a result of routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 II B). It is commonly known to one of ordinary skill in the art that flatter surfaces allow for more specular reflection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try to maintain a reflective surface with a roughness less than 0.6 µm, to achieve specular reflection within the machine body, so the light could be evenly distributed throughout the chamber.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, and Soon, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Heinz et al. (WO 2004062700 A1), hereinafter referred to as Heinz.
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches power (radiation level) detection sensors (L) of said UV source are further included (Ultraviolet sensor 8).
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein said blowing means are provided with a operating adjustment drive determined as a function of a signal from an anemometric sensor (A)
Heinz teaches wherein said blowing means (4) are provided with a operating adjustment drive determined as a function of a signal from an anemometric sensor (air speed sensor 6) (In the presence of a fan for conveying the air, the output signal of the air speed sensor can additionally be used to compensate to a certain extent for the decrease in the air volume flow associated with increasing clogging of the particle filter by regulating the fan voltage (Page 5, Para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu, in view of Palmer and Al-Thallab, to include an air speed sensor. By doing so, the air speed sensor detects when the air volume flow is below the desired level due to a clogged filter. In turn, the speed sensor can be used to send a signal to increases the fan voltage and maintain a predetermined airflow volume. This way, the desired purification intensity is maintained. Further, the signal from the air speed sensor “can be sent to a service computer and displayed accordingly. If a limit value is exceeded, the necessary filter change can be displayed. The filter monitoring ensures that the filter clogging is noticed in good time (Heinz; page 4, para. [0005]).”
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, and Soon, as applied to claim 1 above, Heinz as applied to claim 3, and in further view of Palmer.
Regarding claim 4, Liu does not teach wherein said blowing unit (4) is driven by said speed adjustment drive so as to adjust an air flow speed within the housing cavity (la) which is a function of the length of said lamps of the bundle of lamps (2) and of a lamp efficiency signal coming from said power (radiation level) detection sensors (L).
Palmer teaches the air sanitation module according to claim 3, wherein said blowing unit (variable speed fan 130) is driven by said speed adjustment drive (microprocessor 360) so as to adjust an air flow speed within the housing cavity (la) which is a function of the length of said lamps of the bundle of lamps (2) and of a lamp efficiency signal coming from said power (radiation level) detection sensors (L). (The UV level sensor 610 can transmit a signal to the microprocessor, which may control the fan speed or indicator lights based on the UV level sensor signal (Para. [0105])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu to include the teachings of Palmer such that the control panel (Liu, control panel 9) electrically connected to the power detection sensors (Liu, ultraviolet sensor 8), is configured to adjust the fan speed. This way, ”when the ultraviolet intensity that ultraviolet sensor 8 discerned is less than the default, control panel (Liu; page 7, para [0007])” may adjust the fan speed so that “the exposure time may be increased by slowing down the air flow within the germicidal radiation chamber 140. A laminar air flow through chamber 140 can assure that the resident time and exposure is uniform and equal throughout chamber 140 (Palmer, para [0087]).”
Regarding claim 5, Liu does not teach Air sanitation module according to claim 3, wherein, as a function of said anemometric sensor signal (A) and a signal from said power (radiation level) detection sensors (L), said blowing unit (4) is driven so that the "dose" of UVC delivered is from 30 to 38 mJ/cm2.
However, Palmer teaches Air sanitation module according to claim 3, wherein, as a function of said anemometric sensor signal (solid state anemometer (para. [0089])) (A) and a signal from said power (radiation level) detection sensors (L) (UV level sensor 610), said blowing unit is driven so that the "dose" of UVC delivered is from 30 to 38 mJ/cm2 (The UV level sensor 610 can transmit a signal to the microprocessor, which may control the fan speed (para. [0105])) (The closed-loop controller may include a microprocessor configured to compare an output from the solid state anemometer and a setpoint value, and adjust the speed of the fan based on the difference between the solid state anemometer output and the setpoint value (para. [0018])) ( In some embodiments, the flow rate can be dependent upon the size of the room/home, the level of contamination within the home, the time desired to clean the room and/or home, and/or the expected level of contamination of the air outside the home (e.g., the air being drawn into the system 1310 (para. [0131]))). By adjusting the feed of the span, as disclosed in Palmer, the blowing unit can be driven to deliver a wide range of UVC doses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu to include the teachings of Palmer such that the such that the control panel (Liu, control panel 9) electrically connected to the power detection sensors (Liu, ultraviolet sensor 8), also receives a signal from the solid state anemometer disclosed in Palmer and is configured to adjust the fan speed so the “that “the exposure time may be increased by slowing down the air flow within the germicidal radiation chamber 140 (Palmer, para [0087])” to ensure “contaminated air is displaced and replaced by clean/sterile air (Palmer; para. [0129])”
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, and Soon, as applied to claim 1 above, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Palmer.
Regarding claim 6, Liu does not teach the air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein said control unit is arranged to determine, based on a signal proportional to an energy absorption (current, voltage, ...) of said blowing unit (4) and on a speed signal of said anemometric sensor (A), a saturation level of said filtering element.
However, Palmer teaches the air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein said control unit (microprocessor 360) is arranged to determine, based on a signal proportional to an energy absorption (current, voltage, ...) of said blowing unit (4) and on a speed signal of said anemometric sensor (A), a saturation level of said filtering element (Additionally or alternatively, the microprocessor may…and/or (2) monitor a power of level of the fan and determine, based at least in part on the power level of the fan, if the at least one filter is clogged (para. [0023])) (The air velocity sensor may measure the velocity of the air passing over the baffle, and may be electrically connected to the microprocessor. The microprocessor may monitor the measured air velocity and determine if a filter is clogged based upon the measured velocity (para. [0045]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu, in view of Palmer and Al-Thallab, to include the teachings Palmer such that the control unit can determine the saturation level of the filtering element through the use of an anemometric sensor and the energy absorption of the blowing unit so that the “The control panel may have a display, and the microprocessor may send a message to the control panel indicating that the system is operating out of specifications (e.g., if a signal level of an air velocity sensor is substantially different from stored value and/or the power consumption of the system is substantially not equal to the stored value) (para. [0023]), and the user can be made aware the filter needs to be changed.
Regarding claim 9, Liu does not explicitly disclose an air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein a shielding grid is provided at said outlet end opening of the cylindrical housing cavity (la), to prevent said UV radiation from escaping.
However, Palmer teaches an air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein a shielding grid is provided at said outlet end opening of the cylindrical housing cavity (la), to prevent said UV radiation from escaping (fig. 2 as annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu to include the shielding grid disclosed in Palmer to “to help prevent accidental exposure to UV light (Palmer, para. [0088]).”
PNG
media_image5.png
608
675
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, and Soon, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Beehler et al. (US 6621990 B1), hereinafter referred to as Beehler.
Regarding claim 7, Liu does not teach the air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein said speed adjustment drive of the blowing unit (4) is a tachometric dynamo, an encoder or a resolver.
However, Beehler teaches wherein said speed adjustment drive of the blowing unit (4) is a tachometric dynamo, an encoder or a resolver (The controller 22 controls a fan input 40 which drives the fan motor 38. The fan input 40 may be a variable voltage or current supplied by an amplifier, or it may be a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal or duty cycle. An encoder 42 is coupled between the fan motor 38 and the controller 22 in order to provide angular velocity feedback 44 to the controller 22 for the fan 32. (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu such that the control unit (Liu, controller in the control panel (2)) is an encoder, as disclosed in Beehler, used to adjust the speed of the fan (Liu, fan 3). Doing so allows for continuous monitoring of the speed of the fan, and precise, and consistent speed regulation. Further, by accurately matching the speed of the fan to the necessary speed, the system only consumes the necessary energy.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, and Soon, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mou et al. (US 20210188050 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mou, and Singh et al. (US 20220072187), hereinafter referred to as Singh.
Regarding claim 8, Liu does not teach Air sanitation module according to claim 1 wherein said cylindrical housing cavity (la) has a diameter of about 125 mm and said bundle of lamps (2) is about 530 mm long.
However, Mou teaches wherein said cylindrical housing cavity (la) has a diameter of about 125 mm (Therefore, the bottom portion of the housing 1 may be of a round cylinder structure (as shown in FIG. 1A) or of a rectangular cylinder structure (as shown in FIG. 1B). Moreover, in the case that the bottom of the housing 1 is of a round cylinder structure, the diameter D of the housing 1 is in a range between 40 mm and 120 mm (para. [0037]))
Further, Singh teaches and said bundle of lamps (2) is about 530 mm long (The lamp 102L may have a length of 457 mm (para. [0058])).
Although Mou and Singh do not teach the exact same proportions as the disclosed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu to include the teachings of Mou and Singh such that the cylindrical housing cavity (Liu, machine body 1) has a diameter of 125mm and a length of 530 mm, because the claimed relative invention would not perform differently than Liu, in view of Mou and Singh, given only minor diameter and length adjustments (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). All differences correlated with changing the size of Liu are predictable aspects with well-known math correlations such as air flow intensity, turbulence, and pressure differentials. Adjusting the size of the body slightly to have a larger diameter and longer lamps allows more air to be sterilized at a given time.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, and Soon, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Deheng (CN 109200323 A), hereinafter referred to as Deheng.
Regarding claim 10, Liu does not teach the air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein said housing body (1, T) is an aluminium extruded body.
However, Deheng teaches wherein said housing body is an aluminium extruded body (In this embodiment, the cover 1 is made of aluminum (Page 8; para. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include the teachings of Deheng such that the housing body is aluminum because “aluminum material has strong thermal conductivity (Deheng; page 8, para. [0037]).”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, and Soon, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Keutenedijan (EP 0220050 A2), hereinafter referred to as Keutenedijan.
Regarding claim 11, Liu fails to teach Sanitation assembly, characterised in that it comprises a plurality of modules according to claim 1, arranged adjacent to each other with the relative parallel longitudinal axes.
However, Keutenedijan teaches a sanitation assembly, characterised in that it comprises a plurality of modules according to claim 1, arranged adjacent to each other with the relative parallel longitudinal axes (Apparatus as claimed in any preceding claim, in which an individual housing is provided only with either infra-red lamps (2) or ultra-violet lamps (3), and a plurality of these housings form a set, arranged in series so that the outlet of one housing is connected to the inlet of the next adjacent housing (claim 8)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to incorporate the teachings of Keutenedijan to include a plurality of modules arranged adjacent to each other with relative parallel longitudinal axes because doing so only involves the mere duplication of parts through which no new or unexpected result is produced. Duplicating the parts produces the predictable result of sanitizing more air at one time.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, and Soon, as applied to claim 1 above, and Keutenedijan as applied to claim 11, and in further view of Keutenedijan and Scheir (US 20040208799 A1), hereinafter referred to as Scheir.
Regarding claim 12, Lius fails to teach the assembly according to claim 11, wherein at least two modules are provided and it is installed integrated in a conduit of or directly inside an ATU (Air Treatment Unit) or CMV (Controlled Mechanical Ventilation).
However, Keutenedijan teaches wherein at least two modules are provided (Apparatus as claimed in any preceding claim, in which an individual housing is provided only with either infra-red lamps (2) or ultra-violet lamps (3), and a plurality of these housings form a set, arranged in series so that the outlet of one housing is connected to the inlet of the next adjacent housing (claim 8)).
Further, Scheir teaches and it is installed integrated in a conduit of or directly inside an ATU (Air Treatment Unit) or CMV (Controlled Mechanical Ventilation) (the enclosure 340 may be part of an air carrying duct or an air treatment unit which includes the germicidal system (para. [0023]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu to include the duplication of parts taught by Keutenedijan, and to put the duplicate parts in combination with an ATU as taught by Scheir. Doing so, produces the predictable result of allowing the air being brought in to the machine body, disclosed in Liu, to be distributed throughout a room or building.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mica Einhorn whose telephone number is (571) 272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached on (571) 272-2293. 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881