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.
Claim 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what is meant by “hardly’ in “wherein the first dust collector carries a component that is hardly eluted in water and that inactivates the substance”. The specification mentions “hardly eluted” and discloses the is meant by “component” (see page 17, line 20 through page 18, line 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)91) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (CN 108731139 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wei et al. discloses an air treatment apparatus comprising: a heat exchanger (cross-flow new exhaust air heat exchanger, 26) that exchanges heat between a fluid flowing (fresh air inlet, 1) through a first flow path and air flowing (exhaust air, 38) through a second flow path; and a first dust collector (wet filtering section, 3) disposed upstream of the heat exchanger (26) in a flow of the air and that collects a substance contained in the air flowing to the heat exchanger (26), wherein the first dust collector (3) has: a surface over which water flows, or a surface on which water is retained (see Abstract; figures 1-4; and description).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 108731139 A).
Regarding claim 4, Wei et al. fails to disclose an air treatment apparatus further comprising: a second dust collector disposed downstream of the heat exchanger in the flow of the air and that collects the substance contained in the air flowing from the heat exchanger, wherein the second dust collector has: a surface over which water flows, or a surface on which water is retained.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a second dust collector, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to second dust collector disposed downstream of the heat exchanger in the flow of the air, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 12, Wei et al. fails to disclose an air treatment apparatus wherein the first dust collector carries a photocatalyst that generates a component that inactivates the substance when irradiated with light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the first dust collector carries a photocatalyst, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Wei et al. fails to disclose an air treatment apparatus wherein the first dust collector is replaceable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first dust collector is separable in order to be replaced, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (V-C)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-10, Wei et al. fails to disclose an air treatment apparatus further comprising a third flow path through which water at a predetermined temperature is supplied to the first dust collector; further comprising a third flow path through which the water flowing over the surface of the first dust collector or the water retained on the surface of the first dust collector is discharged; further comprising a third flow path through which water at a predetermined temperature is supplied to at least one of the first dust collector and the second dust collector; further comprising a filter having lower air flow resistance than the first dust collector has; wherein the air treatment apparatus supplies water heat-exchanged with a refrigerant circulating in a refrigeration cycle to the first dust collector; wherein the first dust collector forms a third flow path that allows air passing through the first dust collector to flow through and that is non-parallel to a direction of the flow of the air; wherein the water flowing over the surface of the first dust collector or the water retained on the surface of the first dust collector comprises a component that inactivates the substance.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6
Conclusion
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA E YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 6:00 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, Wang Claire can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
NATASHA E. YOUNG
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/NATASHA E YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights