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
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 Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-5 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.
Concerning claims 1-5, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, claim 1, line 1 begins with “Anegative”, line 3 of claim 1 discloses “atleast”, line 4 of claim 1 discloses “nano-compositephoto-catalytic”, line 5 of claim 1 discloses “casing102” just to name a few. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 1 as well, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “short-wavelength ultraviolet” in claim 1 is used by the claim to apparently mean “long-wave UV,” (i.e., UV light with a wavelength range from 315-400) while the accepted meaning is “UV light with a wavelength range from 100-280 nm”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Furthermore, with respect to claim 1, said claim discloses the limitation, “plurality of sensors provided at inlet and outlet…” It is unclear if a plurality of sensors are provided at the inlet, and a plurality of sensors are provided at the outlet; or a single sensor is provided at the inlet, and a single sensor is provided at the outlet (Thus combining to produce a “plurality” of sensors). As such, said limitation is rejected for being vague and unclear. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the harmful ozone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (Document Identification No. KR 101594142 B1) in view of Chen (Document Identification No. CN 103538301 A).
It is first noted that nano-composite photo-catalytic oxidation material has not been positively recited, but merely a short-wavelength ultraviolet (UV) light source to activate the photo-catalytic oxidation material. As such, the claims will be examined accordingly.
It is also noted that the English translation of Document Identification No. KR 101594142 to will be referenced herein.
Choi discloses a negative ion based air filtration system, comprising:
An internally hollow casing (110) having an air inlet (111) and an air outlet (113);
The casing (110) supporting at least one short-wavelength ultraviolet (UV) light source (131) to activate photo-catalytic oxidation of a nano-composite photo-catalytic oxidation material placed on all internal faces of the casing (110) to generate negative ion and reactive oxygen species (ROS) ions (page 3, line 36 to page 4, line 21);
A negative ion blower unit (160) placed on the air outlet (113) to pump out the negative ion and reactive oxygen species (ROS) ions (page 3, lines 3-10);
Plurality of sensors provided at inlet and outlet for performing real time microbial load detection and air quality measurement (page 4, line 22 to page 5, line 7); and
An IOT module application that performs monitoring and controlling operation (page 5, line 8 to page 7, line 5); wherein
The arbitrary unclaimed photo-catalytic oxidation material is capable of comprising a mesh with TiO₂ nano-spindled structures placed over aluminum foil coated with a composite mixture of ZnO-TiO₂, in the ratio of 1:4.
While Choi discloses an exit filter (120) that controls the discharge of UV photons (page 3, lines 28-30; page 5, lines 5-8), the reference does not appear to disclose that the exit filter comprises a fiberglass filter coated with ZnO/MnO₂ composite mixture. Chen discloses an air purification filter that removes harmful substances while being simple to manufacture, saves on production costs, and has a series of energy saving and consumption reducing effects (Abstract). The reference continues to disclose that said filter comprises a fiberglass filter coated with a ZnO/MnO₂ composite mixture (paragraphs 8 & 9) in order to produce a cost-efficient filter that can remove harmful components such as benzene and formaldehyde to protect human health (paragraph 20). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a fiberglass filter coated with a ZnO/MnO₂ composite mixture as the filter in Choi in order to produce a cost-efficient filter that can remove harmful components such as benzene and formaldehyde to protect human health as exemplified by Chen.
Thus, claim 1 is not patentable over Choi in view of Chen.
Concerning claim 3, Choi when modified by Chen continues to disclose that the exit filter will act as a catalyst to convert back the harmful ozone to oxygen (paragraphs 8 & 9 of Chen).
With respect to claim 4, said claim is an intended use recitation. As such, Choi continues to disclose that the system is capable of being used for treating waste gases in the air through irradiating UV light on the surface of photo-catalytic materials to generate free electron and electron hole pairs which decompose organic (carbon based) impurities in the air into harmless products (page 3, line 30 to page 4, line 21).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (Document Identification No. KR 101594142 B1) in view of Chen (Document Identification No. CN 103538301 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0348455).
Choi is relied upon as set forth above. Choi does not appear to disclose that the UV light source is configured to emit UV light at 365 nm. Kim discloses an air filtration system that includes an internally hollow casing that supports a UV light source that activates photo-catalytic oxidation of a photocatalyst (Abstract; Figures 3-6). The reference continues to disclose that the UV light source is configured to emit UV light at 365 nm because UV light at 365 nm provides the most efficient photocatalytic activation of said photocatalyst (paragraph 86). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to emit UV light at 365 nm from the UV light source of Choi because UV light at 365 nm provides the most efficient photocatalytic activation of a photocatalyst as exemplified by Kim.
Thus, claim 2 is not patentable over Choi in view of Chen and Kim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Should the Applicant overcome the 112(b) rejection noted above to claim 5, then said claim would be in condition for allowance. It is also noted that should the Applicant positively recite the nano-composite photo-catalytic oxidation material in claim 1 (along with overcoming the 112(b) rejections noted above), then said claim 1 would be in condition for allowance as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799