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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/04/25 has been entered.
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 11-13, 17-19, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu (US 2010/0129267) in view of Rioux (US 2008/0051736) in view of Waldman (JP 2018/523517) in view of Masaoka (US 2015/0202608) in view of Drake (US 2020/0289985).
Regarding claim 11, Akutsu (US 2010/0129267) teaches a fan device (See figs. 1-3), comprising:
one or more fan blades (fins 1011);
a rotatable fan shaft (shaft above drive module 104 shown in fig. 1);
a housing (drive module 104);
a photosensitizer formulation that is disposed on one or more of the fan blade, the rotatable fan shaft, and an interior surface of the fan housing, wherein the photosensitizer formulation comprises at least one organic photosensitizer (photocatalyst layer 102 on the external surface of the fins 1011; Paragraph [0013] discloses carbon being part of the photocatalyst which is considered an organic compound); and
wherein the fan device generates a flow of air that is directed towards an exterior surface (Paragraph [0013] discloses the fan spins and airflow is generated, which is necessarily directed towards some surface that is exterior to the fan); and
wherein the photosensitizer formulation is activated by light to inactivate pathogens disposed on the one or more of the fan blade, the rotatable fan shaft, the surface of the housing and the exterior surface (Paragraph [0013]).
Akutsu appears to be silent with regards to the formulation emitting singlet oxygen into the air, and a container that is configured as a reservoir for the photosensitizer formulation, the singlet oxygen inactivating the interior surface of the fan housing, the photosensitizer being eluted into the fan housing over time to maintain an amount of formulation therein and thereon, and the fan housing including a hollow cavity that is configured as an inferior aspect of an eyeglass shaped frame having an opening to eject a flow of air towards one or more of a mouth or nose of a user, the rotatable shaft and fan blades being integrated within the hollow cavity.
Rioux (US 2008/0051736) discloses an organic photosensitizer including methylene blue that when activated by light, emits singlet oxygen to inactivate pathogens (abstract, par. 32 disclosing methylene blue, which according to lines 1-20 on page 3 of the instant specification as filed performs this function). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akutsu such that the photosensitizer includes methylene blue such that singlet oxygen is emitted into air to inactivate pathogens in air and in contact with portions of the exterior surface, fan blade, shaft, and interior of the fan housing to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so use a combination of photosensitizers to broaden the spectrum of microorganisms that are inactivated as disclosed by Rioux to arrive at an improved sterilizing device. The combination of familiar prior art elements for the same purpose together as separate, like photosensitizer compositions, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding the limitation directed towards a container that is configured as a reservoir: Waldman (JP 2018/523517) discloses a system for disinfecting using a photosensitizer (par. 11), wherein a container that is a reservoir for the photosensitizer (Figs. 3-4 injection device 90, pars. 29-30 disclosing the photosensitizer 20 being supplied by the injection device 90 and pump, requiring or acting as the container which is a reservoir) elutes the photosensitizer formulation in a controlled manner over time onto the surface to be treated (pars. 29-30 disclose the amount of photosensitizer supplied is controlled) to maintain a controlled amount of photosensitizer thereon to allow for an efficient use of the photosensitizer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akutsu such that the device includes a container acting as a reservoir for the photosensitizer to elute the photosensitizer formulation over time to maintain a desired amount of formulation on the one or more fan blades, fan shaft, or surface of the housing as taught by Waldman to arrive at an improved air treatment fan device that uses photosensitizer more efficiently.
Regarding the limitation directed towards the singlet oxygen inactivating pathogens in contact with the interior surface of the housing: Masaoka (US 2015/0202608) teaches an air disinfection device (title, abstract) wherein a housing is provided to encompass a fan device (Figs. 1 and 3-4, fan 50 in housing 10) for the treatment of the air therein (par. 56-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akutsu such that the disinfection device is placed in a housing such that the housing encompasses the fan as taught by Masaoka such that the interior surface of the fan housing is inactivated via singlet oxygen to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to protect the fan from damage or interference and to protect operators from the rotating blades of the fan to arrive at a safer and more reliable disinfecting fan device.
Regarding the limitation directed towards a hollow cavity Drake (US 2020/0289985) discloses a cleaning device using UV photocatalytic means (Paragraph [0069]) that is disposed inside the frame of a helmet and/or gas mask to protect a user from contaminants (Paragraph [0043], see also fig. 25 where the cleaning device 500 is within the enclosed space 700 for treatment), the helmet including necessarily a hollow cavity for ejecting air towards a mouth or nose of a person for inhalation, the cavity necessarily or at least obviously containing the shaft and fan blades for treating the air therein. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akutsu such that the photocatalytic fan for sterilizing air is included in an hollow cavity that is part helmet or gas mask for the purpose of decontaminating the air breathed in by a user and therefore emits singlet oxygen towards a mouth or nose of a user when the device is worn on a face of the user as taught by Drake to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known-effective air-sterilizing means in an environment where air sterilizing is a known need, such as in a gas mask or helmet. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Regarding more specifically that the cavity is configured as an inferior aspect of an eyeglass shaped frame: the modification of the hollow cavity to be part of an interior aspect of a frame shaped like an eyeglass is nothing more than a change in shape, which has no patentable significance unless the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Drake discloses the hollow cavity being part of a gas mask or other headwear that would enclose the face and eyes of a user, and the particular configuration of the hollow cavity to be shaped like an eyeglass frame is not expected to affect the manner in which the device performs. Therefore, the limitation is obvious.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Akutsu is set forth above with regards to claim 11 but appears to be silent with regards to one or more secondary fan blades that are operable to relay the flow of air towards the exterior surface with photosensitizer disposed thereon.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akutsu such that there is a secondary fan blade and a secondary rotatable fan shaft with photosensitizer disposed thereon that is activated by the light to emit singlet oxygen and relay directed flow towards the exterior surface to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so as this modification is the mere duplication of parts, and the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). The addition of a further fan to act on the same flow of air to merely relay the air similarly to said first fan would not amount to any result that is anything other than predictable, and the application of singlet oxygen therefrom would similarly only be expected and predictable.
Regarding claim 17, modified Akutsu further teaches at least one of the fan blades is disposed contiguously along a length of the rotatable fan shaft (the fins 1011 extend contiguously with the center 1010 of the rotating fan body reading on part of the fan shaft).
Regarding claim 18, modified Akutsu further teaches a plurality of the fan blades are disposed intermittently along a length of the rotatable fan shaft (the base 1010 has a discontinuous external surface 1012 because the fans are intermittent in a direction reading on a length of the rotatable fan shaft including rotating base 1010).
Regarding claim 19, modified Akutsu further teaches the eyeglass shaped frame further comprises a frame for one of a pair of eye glasses, goggles, a headband, a helmet, or a necklace to enclose the fan device (par. 43 of Drake); and wherein the activated photosensitizer formulation emits singlet oxygen in the flow of air that is emitted from the frame towards the face of the user (see the rejection of claim 11 above incorporating the singlet oxygen emission into the device of Akutsu).
Regarding claim 22, modified Akutsu further teaches one or more light sources to emit the light for activation of the photosensitizer formulation (fig. 1 light source 103), wherein the one or more light sources include a laser, a laser diode, a light emitting diode, a fluorescent lamp, an incandescent lamp, ambient outdoor light (light emitting elements 1032 which is a LED; Paragraph [0014]), and wherein one or more portions of the one or more light sources emit a light spectrum that provides an overlap of an absorption band of the photosensitizer formulation (Paragraphs [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Akutsu further teaches the one or more organic photosensitizers comprises methylene blue (par. 32 of Rioux).
Regarding claim 24, modified Akutsu is set forth above with regards to claim 11, and Akutsu further teaches a light source external to the fan device arranged to shine light onto the fan blades and shaft (Fig. 3 shows the light source module 203 provided separate from and facing the air cleaning device), but Akutsu appears to be silent with regards to one or more portions of the fan housing including a transparent material to admit light from the external source onto the photosensitizer formulation.
Masaoka further discloses an air cleaning device (par. 22) wherein the housing of the device is formed from a transparent material to admit light into the housing for treatment of the surfaces and substances therein (Figs. 3A-B, cylinder 12 is formed from light transmissive materials; par. 73, see also Fig. 2 and par. 68 disclosing a container 10 made from a transparent material). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akutsu such that one or more portions of the housing are formed from a transparent material to admit light from the external source onto the photosensitizer formulation for treatment thereof to arrive at an improved device. One would have been motivated to do so to successfully treat the desired surfaces with light from a single source to arrive at an improved air treatment device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including light transmissive materials being used for the components of light disinfection-based systems to treat said components, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu (US 2010/0129267) in view of Rioux (US 2008/0051736) in view of Waldman (JP 2018/523517) in view of Masaoka (US 2015/0202608) in view of Drake (US 2020/0289985) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Keith (US 10,786,592).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, modified Akutsu is set forth above with regards to claim 11, but appears to be silent with regards to the fan blades forming a screw shape and the fan shaft including one or more curved shapes.
Keith (US 10,786,592) discloses a photocatalytic fan device (abstract, claim 1) including fan blades that form a screw shape (Figs. 5, 7-8 see blades formed in a radially spiraling configuration around the shaft which is understood in the art to read on the limitation of “screw shape”) and the rotatable fan shaft including one or more curved shapes (fig. 1 at least retainers 115 read on the limitation of a curved shape included with the fan shaft). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akutsu such that the fan blades form a screw shape and such that the fan shaft includes one or more curved shapes as taught by Keith to arrive at the invention of claims 14 and 15. One would have been motivated to form the fan blades in this way to take advantage of the higher efficiency of light use enabled by the fan blade shape (Column 11 lines 47-59) to arrive at an improved device. Furthermore, the combination of familiar prior art elements, including known fan shapes and types, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu (US 2010/0129267) in view of Rioux (US 2008/0051736) in view of Waldman (JP 2018/523517) in view of Masaoka (US 2015/0202608) in view of Drake (US 2020/0289985) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2022/0096703).
Regarding claim 16, modified Akutsu is set forth above with regards to claim 11 but appears to be silent with regards to a photosensitizer disposed on the external surface and activating said photosensitizer composition on said surface.
Chen (US 2022/0096703) discloses a fan device (Fig. 2 fan 250) including an external surface with a photosensitizer disposed thereon (filter 220) and activating said photosensitizer disposed on said external surface (Paragraph [0058]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akutsu such that the fan is used in a unit 200 disclosed by Chen such that the external surface has a photosensitizer formulation disposed thereon that is activated by light to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a photocatalytic fan device for its known and intended purpose in an environment where a fan device of that type is required. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 20, Akutsu is set forth with regards to claim 11 above, but appears to be silent with regards to one or more ports in the fan housing.
Chen further teaches one or more ports in the fan housing that are operable to reapply the photosensitizer formulation to the one or more of a fan blade, fan shaft, and interior surface of the housing (Paragraph [0056]; Fig. 5 opening 660 is well capable of performing the claimed function is reasonably expected to do so and therefore all the claim limitations are met, MPEP 2114, II). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akutsu such that the fan is used in a unit 200 disclosed by Chen such that there is one or more port for reapplying the photosensitizer to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a photocatalytic fan device for its known and intended purpose in an environment where a fan device of that type is required. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu (US 2010/0129267) in view of Rioux (US 2008/0051736) in view of Waldman (JP 2018/523517) in view of Masaoka (US 2015/0202608) view of Drake (US 2020/0289985) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Drayton (US 2019/0192719).
Regarding claim 21, modified Akutsu is set forth above with regards to claim 11 but appears to be silent with regards to an antimicrobial formulation selected from the list being disposed on the fan blade, shaft, or housing.
Drayton (US 2019/0192719) discloses disposing antimicrobial formulations on a fan blade including menthol and eucalyptus oil (Paragraph [0018]; Fig. 5 compounds 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Akutsu such that there is an antimicrobial formulation including menthol and eucalyptus oil disposed on the fan blade as taught by Drayton to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to enhance the antimicrobial and sterilization properties of the fan device as desired to arrive at an improved disinfection device. The combination of familiar prior art elements according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards claim 11 are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Akutsu, Rioux, Waldman, and Masaoka fail to teach the limitation which was included in the amendment after final on 11/17/25 and entered with the mailing of this rejection, however those references are not relied upon for teaching the newly added limitation and those arguments are not persuasive. Drake, previously relied upon in the rejection of claim 19, is relied upon for teaching this limitation.
Applicant fails to specifically point out of how Drake fails to teach the newly added limitation, and broadly alleges patentability in view of the reference. Drake discloses a mask and helmet structure, which would include some eye-protecting structure according to the uses described by Drake (see par. 43, disclosing suits that are for treating hazmat’s, bombs, fires, carcinogens, etc.). The fan device as disclosed by Drake is fluidically connected to the hollow space of the suit and mask device and exists in a part of it, and therefore is structured as a part of a frame that covers a user’s eyes. Therefore, the claim limitation directed towards the device including a fan housing being a hollow cavity that is an eyeglass shaped frame is obvious in view of Drake, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 11. Claim 11 remains rejected.
Applicant’s remarks directed towards the remaining claims are not persuasive as Applicant does not attack the references for any of the reasons they are relied upon in the rejections above. The remaining claims remain rejected similarly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758