DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 7, 10 – 12, 14 – 17, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0019861 to Silderhuis (hereinafter referred to as Silderhuis) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0092176 to Ding et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ding) and/or JP 2004-508693 (hereinafter referred to as JP ‘693).
In regard to claims 1 and 11, as shown in figure 1, Silderhuis discloses an air purifier (1). The air purifier (1) includes a housing (2) having an inlet (4) for receiving air and an outlet (6) for exhausting air. The inlet is capable of receiving a flow of source air and/or a flow of recirculated air. The outlet can exhaust a flow of purified air. The housing provides an air flow path for at least a portion of the flow of source air and/or at least a portion of recirculated air being purified from the inlet towards the outlet. The carbon filter (14) can be considered to form an absorbing VOC filter within the housing (2). Silderhuis does not specifically disclose the carbon filter to be an oxidizing VOC filter. Ding discloses an adsorptive filter having an adsorptive media (22), which includes activated carbon, as discussed in paragraph [0047]. The adsorptive media (22) is bound together in an adhesive; thus the activated carbon adsorptive media can be considered bonded carbon. As discussed in paragraph [0049], the media can further include oxidizing agents, such as potassium permanganate, that will react with VOCs to form carbon dioxide and water. JP ‘693 discloses a filter that can remove particulate and chemical contaminants, as discussed in the abstract. As discussed in paragraph [0032], the chemical filter can include an adsorbent, such as activated carbon, that is saturated with a further material, such as potassium permanganate. Potassium permanganate is a known oxidizing material. As generally discussed in paragraphs [0043] and [0044], the materials saturating the adsorbent, including the permanganate, react with chemical contaminants to remove them. As discussed in paragraphs [0033] and [0034] – [0035], the adsorptive material can be provided in granular, or loose, form or in a shaped form having a binder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Silderhuis to form the carbon filter as a bonded carbon filter further including potassium permanganate as suggested by Ding and/or JP ‘693 as this is a well-known sorbent material in the art and provides for the additional benefit of oxidizing VOCs and/or other chemical contaminants in the air.
The small UVC source (11) and the UVC radiation source (22), each alone or in combination, can be considered to form UV filtration within the housing (2). The HEPA filter (12) of Silderhuis can be considered to form particulate filtration. Each filtration component in the combination of Silderhuis and Ding and/or JP ‘693 is located in the housing and will receive at least some of the flow or source air and/or at least some of the flow of recirculated air.
In regard to claims 2 and 12, the air purifier of Silderhuis and Ding and/or JP ‘693 includes all of the claimed structure and can be considered an in-room unit, as broadly recited in the claim.
In regard to claims 4, 5, 14, and 15, the oxidizing and adsorbing VOC filtration in the combination of Silderhuis and Ding and/or JP ‘693 can further be considered to include blended carbon as the carbon is blended with potassium permanganate. It is noted that Ding and JP ‘693 both disclose using activated carbon as the adsorbent, and Ding recites both loose and bonded forms are known to be used for the adsorbent material.
In regard to claims 6, 7, 16, and 17, as discussed above, the UV filtration in Silderhuis includes a plurality of UV sources (11, 22).
In regard to claims 10 and 20, as discussed above, Silderhuis discloses a HEPA filter that forms the particulate filtration.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Silderhuis and Ding and/or JP ‘693, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 – 7, 10 – 12, 14 – 17, and 20 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 7,175,814 to Dionisio (hereinafter referred to as Dionisio).
The combination of Silderhuis and Ding and/or JP ‘693 is discussed above in section 3. Neither Silderhuis nor Ding or JP ‘693 disclose forming the air purifier in line with the ductwork of a HVAC system. Dionisio discloses a similar air purifier having UV filtration, a carbon filter, and a HEPA filter, as discussed in the abstract. As discussed in column 2 lines 1 – 5, the air purifier can be used as a stand-alone air treatment system or be used in a fixed HVAC system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Silderhuis and Ding and/or JP ‘693 to form the air purifier to be placed in line with the ductwork of a HVAC system as suggested by Dionisio in order to allow the air purifier to be used in a wider variety of applications.
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Silderhuis and Ding and/or JP ‘693, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 – 7, 10 – 12, 14 – 17, and 20 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0101867 to Hunter et al. (hereinafter referred to as Hunter).
The combination of Silderhuis and Ding and/or JP ‘693 is discussed above in section 3. Silderhuis discloses a UVC source (11, 22) that provides the UV filtration. Silderhuis does not disclose the specific wavelength the UHC source operates at. Hunter discloses a UV light having a wavelength of 260 – 265 nm is known to be effective for killing viruses, bacteria, and fungi.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose or optimize the UVC source of Silderhuis and Ding and/or JP ‘693 to generate radiation having a wavelength in the range of 220 to 288 nm, or more specifically at 260 nm, as suggested by Hunter in order to able to able to effectively kill viruses, bacteria, and fungi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant again argues that neither Ding nor JP ‘693 teaches “bonded carbon” as claimed and thus the combination of Silderhuis and Ding and/or JP ‘693 fails to disclose all of the claimed features. Applicant does not provide a specific definition for “bonded carbon” in the specification or in the arguments, but argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the adsorbents of Ding or JP ‘693 to include “bonded carbon”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner considers the broadest reasonable interpretation of “bonded carbon” to include carbon particles that are bound together in any manner. As discussed in paragraph [0068], Ding refers to the element (10) as having bonded adsorptive media (22). Given that Ding describes the adsorptive media as bonded and that Ding can use carbon particles in the adsorptive media, the examiner maintains that Ding can be considered to include bonded carbon and that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider an adsorbent having carbon particles bound together with a binder as bonded carbon. JP ‘693 also includes carbon particles that are bound together with a binder and is thus considered to include bonded carbon. Additionally, US Patent No. 3,721,072 to Clapham provides further evidence that applicant’s definition of “bonded carbon” is not consistent with its ordinary definition in the art. As discussed in column 1, Clapham refers to loose granular carbon that has little design flexibility for shape and bonded carbon or bonded activated carbon, that can be formed into various shapes including the generally pleated shape as shown in the figures. Therefore, the examiner considers bonded carbon to include various shapes and that honeycomb carbon filters and pleated carbon filters can be considered “bonded carbon” filters if the carbon particles are bound together.
Applicant has additionally argued there is no motivation to combine the references. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in paragraph [0049] of Ding, potassium permanganate is recited to be oxidizing agent that can additionally or alternatively used in the coating to react with VOCs. As discussed in paragraph [0032] of JP ‘693, the chemical filter can include an adsorbent, such as activated carbon, that is saturated with a further material, such as potassium permanganate. Potassium permanganate is a known oxidizing material. As generally discussed in paragraphs [0043] and [0044], the materials saturating the adsorbent, including the permanganate, react with chemical contaminants to remove them. Ding and JP ‘693 both disclose including potassium permanganate in a sorbent material to further provide an oxidizing function that will eliminate VOCs and/or other chemical contaminants. The ability to remove additional contaminants would provide the motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to additionally include potassium permanganate as part of the bonded carbon to form the oxidizing and adsorbing VOC filtration. This motivation is recited directly in Ding and JP ‘693 and is not considered a mere conclusory statement by the examiner.
It is noted that Applicant has indicated an expert declaration is forthcoming. At the time of this office action, however, no declaration has been received.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773