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 .
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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.
Claims 2 and 8 recite limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
“an air-flow resistance member for impeding air from passing through the air passage”
This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it recites the generic placeholder “member” coupled with functional language “for impeding air from passing through the air passage” without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function. Note also that the language “air-flow resistance” describes the function rather than the structure of the “member.”
Because this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), its broadest reasonable interpretation is the structure, material or act for performing the entire claimed function, and equivalents. The disclosure says that the air-flow resistance member comprises opening and closing valves. See Spec. [0043]. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation for the “air-flow resistance member” limitation is opening and closing valves, and equivalents.
Claim 8 recites the “air-flow resistance member” limitation because it depends from claim 2. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for claim 8 because the claim fails to recite sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1–3 and 8 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:
1. An air purifier comprising:
a plurality of air passages;
a plurality of antimicrobial function parts, each antimicrobial function part being placed in one of the air passages and configured to inactivate pathogens;
a blower fan configured to cause air to pass through the air passages; and
a staying-time adjusting unit,
wherein the staying-time adjusting unit is
used as an air-blowing power regulating unit for regulating air-blowing power of the blower fan, and
configured to iteratively switch between a stagnating state and an air-flowing state, wherein a first staying time of air in each air passage in the stagnating state is longer than a staying time of air in each air passage in the air-flowing state,
the staying-time adjusting unit is configured to:
adjust the first staying time and the second staying time of air in each of the air passages individually, and
perform cycle control in which some of the air passages are brought into the stagnating state and the remaining air passages are brought into the air-flowing state, while some of the air passages targeted for the stagnating state are shifted in sequence,
the antimicrobial function part is an ultraviolet lamp or an electric heating plate, and
the cycle control turns on the antimicrobial function parts only in the air passages that are in the stagnating state. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear which of the plurality of antimicrobial function parts is referenced by “the antimicrobial function part is an ultraviolet lamp or an electric heating plate” (in the second to last paragraph of the claim).
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is unclear whether “a plurality of air passages” can include only two air passages. This is because the claim initially indicates that the air purifier can comprise only two air passages, by describing “a plurality of air passages.” But then the claim implies that the air purifier includes more than two air passages, by saying “perform cycle control in which some of the air passages are brought into the stagnating state and the remaining air passages are brought into the air-flowing state” (without explicitly stating that the air purifier has more than two air passages). For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 1 is interpreted such that “a plurality of air passages” only requires two air passages.
Claim 2 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 3 and 8 are indefinite because they depend from claims 1 or 2.
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.
Claims 1–3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinha et al., US 2020/0141608 A1 in view of Reisfeld et al., US 2003/0021720 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Sinha teaches an indoor unit 504, which reads on the claimed “air purifier.” See Sinha Fig. 7, [0117].
The indoor unit 504 comprises an air passage into Zone 1 and an air passage leading into Zone 1 (collectively the “plurality of air passages”). See Sinha Fig. 7, [0135].
The indoor unit 504 also comprise an indoor fan 638 configured to cause air to pass through the passages, which reads on the “blower fan.” See Sinha Fig. 7, [0134].
PNG
media_image1.png
606
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sinha differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the indoor unit 504 comprising a plurality of antimicrobial functional parts, each being in one of the air passages and configured to inactivate pathogens, with each antimicrobial functional part being an ultraviolet lamp or an electric heating plate. Siha also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the indoor unit 504 comprising a “staying-time adjusting unit” configured as described in claim 1.
But Reisfeld teaches system for purifying air to an air conditioned space 210. See Reisfeld Fig. 7, [0035]. The system comprises ductwork 40, 42 for circulating air into the space 210. Id. The system also comprises an air purifier 10 comprising UV lamps located within the ductwork. Id. The system further comprises a damper 211 for controlling the flow of air through the ductwork. Id. The space 210 comprises sensors 212 located within the space 210 that send information to a control module 213 about whether bacterial contaminants are located within the space 210. Id. at Fig. 7, [0035]–[0036]. The control module 213 is configured to turn the UV lamps on when it is determined that the space 210 and to move the damper 211 to a more closed position when the control module 213 determines that the space 210 is contaminated. Id. at [0041]–[0042]. The control module 213 is also configured to turn off the lamps and to open the damper 211 to a fully open position when the control module 213 determines that the space 210 is not contaminated. The control module 213 is also configured to regulate the speed of a fan 32 used to move air through the ductwork. Id. at [0042]. The system of Reisfeld is beneficial because it provides a mechanism for purifying the air within the space 210.
PNG
media_image2.png
784
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify Sinha such that each of Zones 1 and 2 comprises an air purification system of Reisfeld to improve the air quality in each zone. With this modification, the air passage to each of Zones 1 and 2 would include an air purifier 10 of Reisfeld, reading on “a plurality of antimicrobial function parts, each antimicrobial function part being placed in one of the air passages and configured to inactivate pathogens.” Also, each of Zones 1 and 2 would include sensors 212 of Reisfeld communicating with a single control module 213. The control module 213 reads on the “staying-time adjusting unit.” The control module 213 would be “used as an air-blowing power regulating unit for regulating air-blowing power of the” fan 638 of Siha, as claimed, because the control module 213 is configured to modulate the speed of fan 32. See Reisfeld [0042].
Also, in Siha, each vent 708, 706 is a damper that allows air to flow independently into each of Zones 1 and 2, respectively. See Siha Fig. 7, [0137]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the control module 213 to operate each vent 708, 706 in the same way as the damper 211. This results in each vent 708, 706 being in a more closed position (for a longer dwell time) when the control unit 213 determines that the UV lamps in the air purifier 10 for a particular zone needs be turned on (because the zone is contaminated). See Reisfeld [0042]. And in each vent 708, 706 being in a fully open position when the control unit 213 determines that the air purifier 10 for that particular zone does not need to be turned on (because the zone is not contaminated). The state where the vent 708 or 706 is in a more closed position (longer dwell time) reads on the “stagnating state” and the state where the vent 708 or 706 is fully open reads on the “air-flowing state.” The control unit 213 is “configured to iteratively switch between” the more closed state and the fully open state, as claimed, because the control unit 213 would open or close a particular vent 708, 706 depending on whether its zone (Zone 1 or Zone 2) is contaminated. Also, a “first staying time of air in each air passage in the stagnating state is longer than a second staying time of air in the air passage in the air-flowing state” because air in the “stagnating state” has a longer dwell time than in the “air-flowing state.” See Reisfeld [0042].
The control unit 213 is also configured to “adjust the first staying time and the second staying time of air in each of the air passages individually,” as claimed, because each vent 708, 706 is controlled independently of each other. See Siha [0137].
The control unit 213 is further configured to “perform cycle control in which some of the air passages are brought into the stagnating state and the remaining air passages are brought into the air-flowing state, while the some of the air passages targeted for the stagnating state are shifted in sequence,” as claimed. This is because, for instance, vent 708 could be in the more closed position (longer dwell time) when Zone 1 is contaminated while vent 706 is fully open when Zone 2 is not contaminated. Then, vent 708 could be moved to the fully open position (when Zone 1 is no longer contaminated) while vent 706 is moved to the more closed position (when Zone 2 becomes contaminated). See Reisfeld [0042]. Also, the air purifier 10 (the “antimicrobial function part”) is an ultraviolent lamp, as claimed, because the air purifier 10 comprises UV lamps. Id. at [0022]. Also, the “cycle control turns on the antimicrobial function parts only in the air passages that are in the” more closed position (longer dwell time), as claimed, because the control unit 213 is configured to turn on the UV lamps only when the sensors detect that the space 210 (i.e., Zone 1 or Zone 2) is contaminated. Id. at [0041].
Regarding claim 2, Sinha teaches an indoor unit 504, which reads on the claimed “air purifier.” See Sinha Fig. 7, [0117].
The indoor unit 504 comprises an air passage into Zone 1 and an air passage leading into Zone 1 (collectively the “plurality of air passages”). See Sinha Fig. 7, [0135].
The indoor unit 504 comprises a vent 708, 706 configured to impede flow of air through each air passage into its respective zone (Zone 1 or Zone 2). See Sinha Fig. 7, [0135]. The vents 708, 706 collectively read on the “air-flow resistance member.”
PNG
media_image1.png
606
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sinha differs from claim 2 because it is silent as to the indoor unit 504 comprising a plurality of antimicrobial functional parts, each being in one of the air passages and configured to inactivate pathogens, with each antimicrobial functional part being an ultraviolet lamp or an electric heating plate. Siha also differs from claim 2 because it is silent as to the indoor unit 504 comprising a “staying-time adjusting unit” configured as described in claim 2.
But Reisfeld teaches system for purifying air to an air conditioned space 210. See Reisfeld Fig. 7, [0035]. The system comprises ductwork 40, 42 for circulating air into the space 210. Id. The system also comprises an air purifier 10 comprising UV lamps located within the ductwork. Id. The system further comprises a damper 211 for controlling the flow of air through the ductwork. Id. The space 210 comprises sensors 212 located within the space 210 that send information to a control module 213 about whether bacterial contaminants are located within the space 210. Id. at Fig. 7, [0035]–[0036]. The control module 213 is configured to turn the UV lamps of the air purifier 10 on when it is determined that the space 210 and to move the damper 211 to a more closed position when the control module 213 determines that the space 210 is contaminated. Id. at [0041]–[0042]. The control module 213 is also configured to turn off the lamps and to open the damper 211 to a fully open position when the control module 213 determines that the space 210 is not contaminated. The system of Reisfeld is beneficial because it provides a mechanism for purifying the air within the space 210.
PNG
media_image2.png
784
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify Sinha such that each of Zones 1 and 2 comprises an air purification system of Reisfeld to improve the air quality in each zone. With this modification, the air passage to each of Zones 1 and 2 would include an air purifier 10 of Reisfeld, reading on “a plurality of antimicrobial function parts, each antimicrobial function part being placed in one of the air passages and configured to inactivate pathogens.” Also, each of Zones 1 and 2 would include sensors 212 of Reisfeld communicating with a single control module 213. The control module 213 reads on the “staying-time adjusting unit.”
Also, in Siha, each vent 708, 706 is a damper that allows air to flow independently into each of Zones 1 and 2, respectively. See Siha Fig. 7, [0137]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the control module 213 to operate each vent 708, 706 in the same way as the damper 211. This results in each vent 708, 706 being in a more closed position (for a longer dwell time) when the control unit 213 determines that the UV lamps in the air purifier 10 for a particular zone needs be turned on (because the zone is contaminated). See Reisfeld [0042]. And in each vent 708, 706 being in a fully open position when the control unit 213 determines that the air purifier 10 for that particular zone does not need to be turned on (because the zone is not contaminated). This reads on the control unit 213 being “used as an opening closing operation unit for changing air-flow resistance of the air-flow resistance member.”
The state where the vent 708 or 706 is in a more closed position (longer dwell time) reads on the “stagnating state” and the state where the vent 708 or 706 is fully open reads on the “air-flowing state.” The control unit 213 is “configured to iteratively switch between” the more closed state and the fully open state, as claimed, because the control unit 213 would open or close a particular vent 708, 706 depending on whether its zone (Zone 1 or Zone 2) is contaminated. Also, a “first staying time of air in each air passage in the stagnating state is longer than a second staying time of air in the air passage in the air-flowing state” because air in the “stagnating state” has a longer dwell time than in the “air-flowing state.” See Reisfeld [0042].
The control unit 213 is also configured to “adjust the first staying time and the second staying time of air in each of the air passages individually,” as claimed, because each vent 708, 706 is controlled independently of each other. See Siha [0137].
The control unit 213 is further configured to “perform cycle control in which some of the air passages are brought into the stagnating state and the remaining air passages are brought into the air-flowing state, while the some of the air passages targeted for the stagnating state are shifted in sequence,” as claimed. This is because, for instance, vent 708 could be in the more closed position (longer dwell time) when Zone 1 is contaminated while vent 706 is fully open when Zone 2 is not contaminated. Then, vent 708 could be moved to the fully open position (when Zone 1 is no longer contaminated) while vent 706 is moved to the more closed position (when Zone 2 becomes contaminated). See Reisfeld [0042]. Also, the air purifier 10 (the “antimicrobial function part”) is an ultraviolent lamp, as claimed, because the air purifier 10 comprises UV lamps. Id. at [0022]. Also, the “cycle control turns on the antimicrobial function parts only in the air passages that are in the” more closed position (longer dwell time), as claimed, because the control unit 213 is configured to turn on the UV lamps only when the sensors detect that the space 210 (i.e., Zone 1 or Zone 2) is contaminated. Id. at [0041].
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Siha as modified teaches that the control module 213 (the “staying-time adjusting unit”) is configured to group the air passages and the air purifiers 10 (the “antimicrobial function parts”) into a plurality of groups, as claims, because one group is the air passage/air purifier 10 of the ductwork to Zone 1 while another group is the air passage/air purifier 10 of the ductwork to Zone 2. The control module 213 is also configured to perform the cycle control on each of the groups separately according to the staying time different for each group, as claimed, because the vent 708, 706 for each zone will be moved to the more closed position or opened to the fully open position independently of the other, depending on whether the sensors 212 in each zone detect contamination.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation
The “antimicrobial function part” limitation no longer invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because claims 1 and 2 are amended to describe the structure by specifying that the “antimicrobial function part” is an ultraviolet lamp or electric heating plate.
The “air-flow resistance member” limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the reasons stated above.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the Non-Final Rejection dated November 04, 2025. But the claims remain rejected as indefinite for the reasons stated above.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776