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 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 1-20 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 “a volume within the boundary walls measured on a basis of a unit size of 1 cubic foot”. It is not clear what is meant by “measured on a basis of a unit size”, or whether “1 cubic foot” is the “unit size” or the volume within the boundary walls (or both). Amending the claim to read “a volume within the boundary walls of 1 cubic foot”, or similar language, would overcome the rejection.
Claim 1 recites “120 units of air per minute”. It is not clear what is meant by a “unit” in this limitation. Based on the specification, the language “120 cubic feet of air per minute” is suggested.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metteer (US 20100254852 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Metteer teaches a continuous disinfection device (air treatment for HVAC ductwork, [0007-0008]) for removing pathogens from an airspace ([0016]), comprising:
A housing (ductwork 20, fig. 1) having an air intake and an air output (HVAC fittings 28, [0053], fig. 1);
A treatment chamber (interior of ductwork 20) having inner boundary walls (wall of ductwork 20) protectively surrounding a source of UVC irradiance (ultraviolet lamp 21; UVC, [0016]) within said housing;
An air flow management system (baffles 23) disposed between the inner boundary walls and the source of ultraviolet irradiance to provide an exposure slot (between baffles 23) having a cross sectional area; and
An air motivator (fan module, [0051]) configured to draw air from the airspace into the air intake through the treatment chamber in a downstream direction and expel treated air out of the air output back to the airspace.
Metteer does not teach that the volume within the boundary walls is 1 cubic foot, that the exposure slot receives at least 20 kW/m2, the cross-sectional area of the exposure slot is configured and dimensioned to provide all drawn air with at least 360 ms of dwell time within the exposure slot to produce treated air with at least 99.99% of pathogens eradicated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the size of the system of Metteer to be 1 cubic foot and to treat 120 cubic feet of air per minute, as Metteer explicitly teaches that the size of the system can be easily adjusted for a particular application (“assembly..can be variously shaped to satisfy treatment and design needs”, [0050]) as can the strength of the fan which controls the air flow rate (“air stream flows at a rate as requested or desirable for the volume of recirculated air to be treated”, [0063]) and so adjusting the size and throughput of the system would be a matter of routine optimization of variables known to be result-effective to maximize the sterilization effect of the system for a given application.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the system to modify the system of Metteer to have an irradiance in the slot of at least 20 kW/m2 and a dwell time of 360ms, as Metteer teaches that the arrangement of apertures (22) in the baffles (23), which along with the fan strength and size of the system (which can be adjusted as described above) determine the flow rate and dwell time, as well as the number of UV emitters which controls the irradiance, can be adjusted for a specific application by one of ordinary skill in the art with no unexpected result ([0098]).
Regarding claim 2, Metteer teaches that the treatment chamber includes an X-Y central plane where air passes through the treatment chamber in a downstream X-direction (fig. 1, direction of air flow is X-direction, bulbs 21 extend in Y-direction), wherein the passing air encounters the air flow management system (baffles 23) that varies in height as measured in a Z direction perpendicular to the X-Y central plane to induce turbulence ([0023]) characterized by a high Reynolds number so that clumping, grouping, tailing, trailing and shadowing is avoided to maximize pathogen eradication (implicit effects of inducing turbulence in air flow).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious a continuous disinfection device having a treatment chamber and an air flow management system comprising a ramp section that originates upstream from a source of irradiance and slopes towards an inner boundary wall, wherein the ramp section is closest to the inner boundary wall at a location downstream of the source of ultraviolet irradiance, or a gate section with a terminal end which narrows the cross-sectional area of the treatment chamber by 40-60% to direct a randomized air flow away from the inner boundary wall towards the source of ultraviolet irradiance.
Prior art air flow disinfection devices are taught by Spittler (US 20220054697 A1), Clark (20080152548 A1) and Gibson (US 20040211321 A1), but the references do not teach the air flow management system having a ramp and/or gate structure which increases the turbulence of the system to maximize disinfection as described in the current specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881