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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1–11 in the reply filed on March 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites:
“so that the sterilizing unit is operable to generate, and irradiate the ultraviolet rays, to the air flow moving through the second passage.”
The limitation has an errant comma between “rays” and “to.” To overcome this objection, the limitation could be rewritten as:
“so that the sterilizing unit is operable to generate, and irradiate the ultraviolet rays[[,]] to the air flow moving through the second passage.”
Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites:
7. The air cleaning device of claim 6, wherein,
when the sensed concentration of dust is greater than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is greater than the second reference concentration, the air cleaning device is controlled to operate in the simultaneous mode,
when the sensed concentration of dust is greater than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is less than the second reference concentration, the air cleaning device is controlled to operate in the first individual mode,
when the sensed concentration of dust is less than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is greater than the second reference concentration, the air cleaning device is controlled to operate in the second individual mode, and
when the sensed concentration of dust is less than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is less than the second reference concentration, the air cleaning device is controlled to operate in the standby mode. Emphasis added.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus (as it is to an air cleaning device) and the method steps of using the apparatus (in the italicized limitations describing how the air cleaning device is controlled). The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when an air cleaning device is created that allows the method steps to be performed or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite). To overcome this rejection, claim 7 could be amended to read:
7. The air cleaning device of claim 6, wherein,
the processor is configured:
control the air cleaning device to operate in the simultaneous mode when the sensed concentration of dust is greater than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is greater than the second reference concentration
control the air cleaning device to operate in the first individual mode when the sensed concentration of dust is greater than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is less than the second reference concentration
control the air cleaning device to operate in the second individual mod when the sensed concentration of dust is less than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is greater than the second reference concentration
control the air cleaning device to operate in the standby mode when the sensed concentration of dust is less than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is less than the second reference concentration
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myungsang et al., KR 10-2020-0127456 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Myungsang teaches an air purifier 10, which reads on the claimed “air cleaning device.” See Myungsang Fig. 1, p. 2.
The air purifier 2 comprises a first blowing device 100, which reads on the “cleaning unit.” See Myungsang Fig. 1, p. 2.
The first blowing device 100 includes a first case 101 (the claimed “first housing”) including a suction port 112 (the “first inlet”) and a discharge port 105 (the “first outlet”), and a passage from the suction port 112 to the discharge port 105 (the “first passage extending from the first inlet to the first outlet”). See Myungsang Figs. 1, 3, ps. 2, 4, 5.
The first blowing device 100 also comprises a first fan 160 (the “first fan”) configured to generate an air flow through the “first passage.” See Myungsang Fig. 3, p. 3.
The first blowing device 100 further comprises a first filter member 120 (the “dust collection filter”) in the “first passage” to collect dust from the air flow generated by the first fan 160 moving through the “first passage” so that the first blowing device 100 is operable to generate and collect the dust from the air flow moving through the “first passage,” as claimed. See Myungsang Fig. 3, p. 5.
The air purifier 10 further comprises a second blowing device 200, which reads on the “sterilizing unit.” See Myungsang Fig. 3, p. 3.
The second blowing device 200 comprises a second case 201, which reads on the “second housing.” See Myungsang Fig. 1, p. 4. The second case 201 includes a second suction part 202 (the “second inlet”), which is “connected to” the discharge port 105 (the “first outlet”), as claimed, because the suction port 202 is fluid connected to the discharge port 105 (as air could flow from the discharge port 105 to the suction port 202). Id. The second blowing device 200 also comprises a second discharge unit 305, which reads on the “second outlet” and a passage (the “second passage”) extending from the second suction part 202 to the discharge unit 305. Id.
The second blowing device 200 further comprises a second fan 260 (the “second fan”) configured to generate an air flow through the “second passage.” See Myungsang Fig. 3, p. 3.
The second blowing device 200 also comprises a second sterilization unit 258 (see Myungsang Fig. 3, p. 18, 6th full paragraph), which has the same structure as first sterilizing unit 158 (id. at Fig. 3, p. 8, 3rd full paragraph), with the first sterilizing unit 158 comprising an ultraviolet LED that generates ultraviolet rays for sterilization (id. at p. 10, 6th full paragraph). The second sterilization unit 258 reads on the “ultraviolet light source to irradiate ultraviolet rays to the air flow generated by the second fan and moving through the second passage so that the sterilizing unit is operable to generate, and irradiate the ultraviolet rays to, the air flow moving through the second passage.”
The following limitations fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art for describing the intended use instead of the structure of the claimed apparatus2:
“wherein the air cleaning device is configured to be selectively operable in a simultaneous mode in which both the cleaning unit and the sterilizing unit are operated, first and second individual modes in which one of the cleaning unit and the sterilizing unit is operated alone, and a standby mode in which neither the cleaning unit nor the sterilizing unit are operated, and
in the simultaneous mode, the first fan and the second fan each generate air flows so that air is sucked in through the first inlet, the air sucked in through the first inlet moves along the first passage and is purified by the dust collection filter, a first portion of the purified air passes through the first outlet and into the second inlet, a second portion of the purified air is discharged to an outside through the first outlet, the first portion of the purified air passed into the second inlet moves along the second passage and is sterilized by the ultraviolet light source, and the sterilized air is discharged to the outside through the second outlet.”
PNG
media_image1.png
832
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the following limitations fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art for describing the intended use instead of the structure of the claimed apparatus3:
“in the first individual mode, the cleaning unit is operated and the sterilizing unit is not operated, and in the second individual mode, the cleaning unit is not operated and the sterilizing unit is operated” (claim 2);
“when the air cleaning device is in the first individual mode, the first fan generates an air flow so that air is sucked in through the first inlet, the air sucked in through the first inlet moves along the first passage and is purified by the dust collection filter, and the purified air is discharged to the outside through the first outlet, and
when the air cleaning device is in the second individual mode, the second fan generates an air flow so that air is sucked in through the second inlet via the first outlet, the air sucked in through the second inlet moves along the second passage and is sterilized by the ultraviolet light source, and the sterilized air is discharged to the outside through the second outlet” (claim 3).
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 4–7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myungsang et al., KR 10-2020-0127456 A in view of Jeon et al., US 2020/0298161 A1 and in further view of Reisfeld et al., US 2003/0021720 A1.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Myungsang teaches that the air purifier 10 comprises a sensor device 137 configured to measure the amount of dust gas in the air surrounding the air purifier 10. See Myungsang Fig. 3, p. 7. The sensor device 137 reads on the claimed “sensor configured to measure a cleaning state of surrounding air.”
The air purifier 10 also comprises a PCB device 500 that controls operation of the air purifier 10. See Myungsang p. 19. The PCB device 500 reads on the “processor.”
Myungsang differs from claims 4 and 11 because it is silent as to the PCB 500 being configured to control the first blowing device 100 (the “cleaning unit”) and the second blowing device 200 (the “sterilizing unit”) simultaneously or individually, based on the cleaning state of the surrounding air measured by the sensor device 137, as claimed.
But Reisfeld teaches an air purifier comprising sensors that measure contaminants surrounding the air purifier, with a controller that turns the air purifier on when the measured contaminant level exceeds a threshold. See Reisfeld [0038]. This configuration is beneficial so that the air purifier is turned on as needed to reduce contamination level in the air surrounding the air purifier. Also, Jeong teaches an air purification device, having a first air purifier 1 and a second air purifier 2 (similar to the first and second blowing devices 100, 200 Myungsang) where the first and second air purifiers can be operated together (as both could be turned on at the same time) or independently. See Jeong Fig. 1, [0082], [0125]. This configuration is beneficial to provide flexibility for the amount of air being purified.
It would have been obvious for the PCB 500 to be configured so that the first and second blowers 100, 200 can be operated together or independently to increase the flexibility of the air purifier 10. It also would have been obvious for the PCB 500 to be configured so that the first and second blowers 100, 200 are turned on based on whether the sensor device 137 determines that the contamination level in the air surrounding the air purifier 10 exceeds a threshold to turn on the air purifier 10 as needed to reduce contamination level in the air.
With these modifications, the PCB 500 is “configured to control the cleaning unit (first blower 100) and the sterilizing unit (second blower 200) to operate simultaneously or individually, based on the cleaning state of the surrounding air measured by the sensor,” as claimed (claim 4). The modifications also read on “when the air cleaning device is in the standby mode, the cleaning unit and the sterilizing unit do not operate, and the sensor operates” (claim 11). because the PCB is configured not to turn on the first and second blowers 100, 200 until the sensor device 137 measures contaminants that exceed the threshold level.
Regarding claim 5, Myungsang as modified teaches that the sensor device 137 is configured to sense a concentration of dust, as claimed. See Myungsang p. 7.
Regarding claim 6, Myungsang as modified teaches that the PCB 500 (the “processor”) is configured to compare the concentration of dust sensed by the sensing device 137 with a threshold (the “first reference concentration”) to determine whether to operate both the first blower 100 (the “first cleaning unit”) and the second blower 100, because the sensing device 137 measures the amount of dust in the air (see Myungsang p. 7), with the first and second blowers 100, 200 being turned on when the concentration of dust exceeds a threshold (see Reisfeld [0038]).
Myungsang as modified differs from claim 6 because it is silent as to the PCB 500 being configured to compare the concentration of floating bacteria sensed by the sensor with a second reference concentration to determine whether to operate the second blower 200 (the “sterilizing unit”) and first blower 100.
But Reisfeld teaches an air purifier comprising sensors configured to determine the concentration of bacteria in the air surrounding the air purifier, with a controller configured to turn the air purifier on when the concentration exceeds a threshold. See Reisfeld [0035], [0038]. This configuration is beneficial so that the air purifier is turned on as needed to reduce bacterial contamination level in the air surrounding the air purifier. It would have been obvious to modify Myungsang to include a bacterial sensor for measuring the concentration of bacteria in the air surrounding the air purifier and for the PCB 500 of Myungsang to be modified so that it is configured to turn the first and second blowers 100, 200 on when the measured concentration exceeds a threshold to reduce the contamination of bacteria around the air purifier 10 as needed. This modification reads on “the processor is configured to…compare the concentration of floating bacteria sensed by the sensor with a second reference concentration to determine whether to operate the sterilizing unit.”
Regarding claim 7, the following limitations fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art because they describe the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. Note that claim 7 fails to specify that the processor is configured to carry out the following intended use limitations. Therefore, the intended use limitations are not a structural component of the claimed processor.
“when the sensed concentration of dust is greater than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is greater than the second reference concentration, the air cleaning device is controlled to operate in the simultaneous mode,
when the sensed concentration of dust is greater than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is less than the second reference concentration, the air cleaning device is controlled to operate in the first individual mode,
when the sensed concentration of dust is less than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is greater than the second reference concentration, the air cleaning device is controlled to operate in the second individual mode, and
when the sensed concentration of dust is less than the first reference concentration, and the sensed concentration of floating bacteria is less than the second reference concentration, the air cleaning device is controlled to operate in the standby mode.”
Claims 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myungsang et al., KR 10-2020-0127456 A in view of Jeon et al., US 2020/0298161 A1 and in view of Reisfeld et al., US 2003/0021720 A1 and in further view of Cheng et al., US 2022/0275960 A1.
Regarding claims 8–10, Myungsang teaches that the sensor device 137 is configured to sense a concentration of dust in the surrounding air, as claimed. See Myungsang p. 7.
Myungsang differs from claims 8 and 9 because it is silent as to PCB 500 (the “processor”) being configured to determine whether to operate the first and second blowing devices 100, 200 (the “cleaning unit” and the “sterilizing unit,” respectively), in consideration of an operation time of at least one of the first and second blowing devices 100, 200 together with the concentration of dust sensed by the sensor.
But Cheng teaches an air quality control system with a controller that activates the system when the particulate levels reach a predetermined threshold value and with a timer that operates the system until the timer expires. See Cheng [0018]. The configuration is beneficial because it allows the system to operate when the air requires filtering while ensuring that the system runs for enough time to filter the air. See Cheng [0018].
It would have been obvious for the PCB 500 of Myungsang to be configured to turn the first and second blowing devices 100, 200 on when the sensor device 137 determines that the dust concentration exceeds a threshold with the first and second blowing devices 100, 200 running for a time period set by a timer to ensure that the air purifier 10 operates when the air is dirty for enough time to filter the air.
This modification reads on “the processor is configured to determine whether to operate the cleaning unit and the sterilizing unit, in consideration of an operation time of at least one of the cleaning unit and the sterilizing unit together with the concentration of dust sensed by the sensor” (claim 8) because the PCB 500 determines whether to continue operating the first and second blowing devices 100, 200 based on whether the time set by the timer has expires, with the PCB determining to initiate the first and second blowing devices 100, 200 based on whether the dust threshold is exceeded.
The modification also reads on “the processor is configured to compare the sensed concentration of dust with a first reference concentration, and compare the operation time for which the cleaning unit has operated with a first initial driving time to determine whether to operate the cleaning unit” (claim 9) because the PCB 500 compares the sensed dust concentration to the threshold to determine whether to operate the first and second blowing devices 100, 200 while the timer compares the elapsed time (“operation time”) with the start time (“first initial driving time”) to determine whether to continue operating the first and second blowing devices 100, 200.
The modification further reads on “the processor is configured to compare the sensed concentration of dust with a first reference concentration, and compare the operation time for which the cleaning unit has operated with a second initial driving time to determine whether to operate the sterilizing unit” (claim 10) because the PCB 500 compares the sensed dust concentration to the threshold to determine whether to operate the first and second blowing devices 100, 200 while the timer compares the elapsed time (“operation time”) with the start time (“second initial driving time”) to determine whether to continue operating the first and second blowing devices 100, 200. Note that the claim fails to specify that the “second initial driving time” is different that the “first initial driving time.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matlin et al., US 2015/0306533 A1 (teaching an air purifier with sensors to determine when to operate the air purifier).
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
1 An original, untranslated copy of Myungsang is in the record as the 38-page Foreign Reference filed January 16, 2024. A translation is provided with this communication. The rejection cites to the translation for text and the original for figures.
2 See MPEP 2114, subsection II (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
3 See MPEP 2114, subsection II (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
Prosecution Insights