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 .
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed 12 May 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-8 are presently pending and being examined herein.
2. All rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
3. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the ‘wherein’ clause from lines 7-15 reads as a grammatically incorrect run-on sentence. To properly construct this portion of the claim as a series of wherein clauses (construed for limitations that affect device structure per MPEP 2111.04), Examiner recommends revising to “wherein the disinfection and sterilization unit is centrally arranged in the housing, wherein a plurality of air inlets are circumferentially and uniformly arranged to form a peripheral portion of the housing, wherein the housing is also provided with an air outlet corresponding to the air intake of the air conditioner, and wherein the air intake of the air conditioner forms negative pressure…”.
5. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a outer surface” should read --an outer surface--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “disinfection and sterilization unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Accordingly, the disinfection and sterilization unit is interpreted herein as one or more ultraviolet lamps, ozone generators, silver ions, or others i.e., equivalents, per page 5 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al (KR 20220155143 A, references herein made to English Machine Translation) in view of Oh et al (US 20220023789 A1).
11. Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses an air conditioning disinfection and sterilization device (sterilization and deodorization functions of the photocatalyst module…in an airflow passage, par 0003), wherein the device is detachably installed at an air intake of an air conditioner (photocatalyst module 10 can be assembled in a simple fitting manner on the support rib 4 of the HVAC housing 2, pars 0020-0022) and covers the air intake (FIG. 5, device 10 covers intake to blower 3), the air conditioning disinfection and sterilization device comprising:
a housing (HVAC housing 2 with assembly passage 8 for photocatalytic module 10, par 0022), and a disinfection and sterilization unit (photocatalyst unit 21 and the light source 13, par 0017; light source capable of irradiating ultraviolet rays, par 0019),
wherein the disinfection and sterilization unit is centrally arranged in the housing (FIG. 3, photocatalyst unit 21 and light source 13 centrally arranged with reference to top view of housing 2),
the housing is also provided with an air outlet (FIG. 3, air passage 7 inside HVAC housing to blower 3, pars 0020 and 0022), which corresponds to the air intake of the air conditioner (the air flowing through the HVAC system 1 can be introduced into the blower 3 after passing through the photocatalyst module 10, par 0015, FIGS. 1 and 5);
Although Hwang teaches that the housing may have a structure having a plurality of air flow holes to allow air to flow in at the air inlet (FIG. 5, par 0015) and that the photocatalyst module within may be configured to have a circular shape instead of a polygonal shape (par 0017), Hwang is silent regarding a specific arrangement of these inlet holes and thus does not teach that the plurality of air inlets are circumferentially and uniformly arranged to form a peripheral part of the housing.
Oh teaches an analogous air sterilization unit using UV light to sterilize air inside a housing (FIGS. 4-5; pars 0098-0099, 0112, 0211) wherein inlet holes are arranged circumferentially and uniformly around a peripheral part of the housing (FIGS. 4-5, inlet 22) to guide a flow of air entering the first case 20 in a spiral shape (par 0106, FIG. 22), a flow arrangement that Oh teaches improves air purification efficiency (par 0107) and reduces the resistance of a flow path of the sanitizing portion (par 0207).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the plurality of inlet holes in the device of Hwang circumferentially and uniformly around a peripheral part of the housing to form a spiral air passage as taught by Oh, because this flow arrangement would predictably improve air purification efficiency and reduce the flow resistance in a similar manner with a reasonable expectation of success and involves simple substitution of one known element (inlet hole arrangement) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
The limitation wherein the air intake of the air conditioner forms negative pressure, causing air outside the plurality of air inlets to enter the housing and pass through the disinfection and sterilization unit to complete disinfection and sterilization before entering the air intake of the air conditioner describes an intended use of the device, therefore does not carry patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that in normal operation of the device of Hwang, air flowing through the HVAC system 1 can be introduced into the blower 3 after passing through the photocatalyst module (par 0015) i.e. disinfection/sterilization unit housing, thus the blower can demonstrably provide the claimed negative pressure condition such that the air enters the photocatalyst housing and passes through the unit to complete disinfection and sterilization.
12. Regarding claim 2, Hwang as modified by Oh teaches the air conditioning disinfection and sterilization device according to claim 1, wherein the air inlets form a spiral air passage extending from the sidewall of the housing towards the center of the housing (inlet holes 24 guide the flow of air entering the first case 20 in a spiral shape, Oh par 0106, Oh FIG. 22) such that after passing through the spiral air passage, the air forms an air vortex at a central position of the housing (a flow of air that rotates in a spiral and moves upward may be facilitated, Oh par 0107) where the disinfection and sterilization unit is located (photocatalyst module installed in the air inlet, Hwang par 0015; light source arranged on the outside of the photocatalyst unit i.e. both components of located at central position within air inlet, Hwang par 0019 and FIG. 2).
13. Regarding claim 3, Hwang as modified by Oh teaches the air conditioning disinfection and sterilization device according to claim 1, wherein the disinfection and sterilization unit is an ultraviolet lamp unit (light source 13 may be a light source capable of irradiating ultraviolet rays, Hwang par 0019; Hwang FIG. 2, light source 13 depicted as lamp unit).
14. Regarding claim 4, Hwang as modified by Oh teaches the air conditioning disinfection and sterilization device according to claim 3, but Hwang does not teach that the ultraviolet lamp unit is an ultraviolet LED.
Oh further teaches wherein the sanitizing light source 182 may be an ultraviolet-C light emitting diode (par 0211), which effectively sterilizes the filter i.e. the upper side of the inlet where it is installed (par 0211).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the generic ultraviolet lamp of Hwang in favor of an ultraviolet LED as taught by Oh, as doing so would predictably provide ultraviolet light sufficient for sterilizing the area within the housing in the same manner as taught by Oh and involves simple substitution of known elements to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
15. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang and Oh as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kang et al (US 5,230,220 A).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang as modified by Oh teaches the air conditioning disinfection and sterilization device according to claim 3, wherein the device including the ultraviolet lamp unit is accessible through a transparent hole (Hwang FIG. 5), which would accomplish the intended use of displaying a working status of the ultraviolet lamp to a user equipped to see in ultraviolet. The combination does not teach a transparent window provided at a center of the housing.
Kang teaches an analogous sterilization/deodorization apparatus using ultraviolet light to sterilize air (col 2 line 35 to col 3 line 12, FIGS. 2-5) wherein the housing has an indicating window to the center of the housing (FIG. 2, window 19) which permits the user to visually confirm the operating states of the discharge lamp (col 3 lines 33-36). When such a window is applied to the base device of Hwang, a logical placement of the window would direct the view toward the center of the housing where the UV lights converge (Hwang FIG. 3, light sources 13), reading upon a transparent window provided at a center of the housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include at a center of the housing of Hwang a transparent window as taught by Kang, because doing so would predictably provide the user the ability to visually confirm the operation of the UV lamp in a similar manner.
16. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang and Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vialle et al (WO 2020079359 A1, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
17. Regarding claim 6, Hwang as modified by Oh teaches the air conditioning disinfection and sterilization device according to claim 1 , and Hwang further teaches that the device has a cover 103 to block the assembly passage (FIG. 5, par 0022) but no such structure between the photocatalytic part and blower part. Thus, the combination does not teach wherein a perforated plate covers the air outlet of the housing.
Vialle teaches an analogous air purification device using UV light and photocatalysis (Abstract, FIG. 1) wherein the air outlet is covered by a perforated plate in which openings on said plate determine passages of air and UV radiation towards the air outlet (par 0032), advantageously limiting the amount of UV radiation to which the outlet will be exposed (par 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include covering the air outlet of the housing of Hwang a perforated plate as taught by Vialle because the perforated plate would predictably determine air flow and limit UV radiation towards the air outlet while thoroughly exposing filtration components to UV radiation (Vialle pars 0054-0055).
18. Regarding claim 7, Hwang as modified by Oh and Vialle teaches the air conditioning disinfection and sterilization device according to claim 6, but the combination is silent regarding dimensions. Vialle further teaches that the dimensions between the openings are adapted to the spacing between the lamps (par 0056), and when modifying Hwang a skilled artisan would adopt the spacing between the lamps of Hwang such that the system is known to fit within the intake of a conventional vehicle HVAC system (Hwang pars 0005-0007). Although the combination does not specifically teach that a distance between the ultraviolet LED and a bottom surface of the perforated plate is 5-100mm, this distance is not deemed critical and falls within the range that would be expected from the lamp spacing necessary to fit within a vehicle HVAC system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose a dimension between 5-100 mm for the distance between the ultraviolet LED and a bottom surface of the perforated plate in the device of modified Hwang, as such a dimension would be a reasonable spacing to achieve Vialle’s UV restriction and fit within the vehicle HVAC intake duct of Hwang.
19. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, Oh, and Vialle as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al (US 20220023789 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang as modified by Oh and Vialle teaches the air conditioning disinfection and sterilization device according to claim 6, wherein the housing comprises a photocatalyst for disinfection and sterilization (when photocatalytic material is irradiated with ultraviolet rays, active oxygen with functions such as sterilization and deodorization is generated, Hwang par 0002). The combination does not teach wherein an outer surface of the perforated plate is coated with a photocatalytic coating.
Watanabe teaches an analogous air cleaning device using UV light and photocatalysis to disinfect air (FIG. 1, Abstract, pars 0055-0059) wherein the photocatalyst is advantageously attached to positions irradiated with ultraviolet rays in the middle of flow paths (par 0056), including a perforated plate coated with the photocatalyst (par 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the perforated plate in the device of modified Hwang such that an outer surface of the perforated plate is coated with a photocatalytic coating as taught by Watanabe because this photocatalyst coating would predictably provide the same effective photocatalysis to the positions in the middle of flow paths as taught by Watanabe.
Response to Arguments
20. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 12 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made over Hwang in view of Oh to address the newly recited limitation requiring that the plurality of air inlets are circumferentially and uniformly arranged to form a peripheral portion of the housing, all as necessitated by the amendment. Examiner notes that the deficiencies of Hwang particularly argued by applicant, namely that the photocatalyst unit is separated from the frame thus the holes therein do not form a peripheral portion of the frame, are addressed by the teachings of Oh regarding the circumferential arrangement of air inlet openings (see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 above).
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Obermeyer (US 20230181787 A1) discloses an analogous spiral airflow UV sterilization device (Abstract, FIGS. 3 and 5) which can incorporate a photocatalyst inlet grating (pars 0017-0018), the device also applicable to air drawn through HVAC applications (par 0071).
22. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights