DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length exceeds 150 words and improperly includes the phrase “The present invention provides”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, line 5: “Air conditioner is” should read --The air conditioner is--.
Page 5, lines 14-15: “without producing ozone or minimizing ozone generation” should likely read --without producing ozone or while minimizing ozone generation--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the third line, “intake, comprising a housing” should read --intake, the device comprising a housing--, for clarity as to what the device comprises.
6. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the second line, “a perforated plate is covered at the air outlet” should read --a perforated plate covers the air outlet--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. 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.
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 § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-8 are 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.
11. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the disinfection and sterilization unit" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sidewall" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which causes the position of the recited air inlets to be indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the radial direction" in the fifth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no frame of reference has been established from which a radial direction could be defined.
12. Claims 2-8 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 1.
13. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the central position of the housing" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no housing geometry has been established to make such a position have definite scope.
14. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the working status" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the center of the housing" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no housing geometry has been established.
15. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the bottom surface of the perforated plate" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no geometric orientation has been established for the perforated plate. As the geometry is indefinite, the limitation “the distance” in line 1 has unascertainable scope and is interpreted herein to encompass any distance between a surface of the perforated plate and the ultraviolet LED.
16. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outer surface of the perforated plate" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no geometric orientation has been established for the perforated plate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
17. 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.
18. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al (KR 20220155143 A, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
19. 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), comprising a housing (a frame 11 in which the photocatalyst unit 21 and the light source 13 are installed, par 0017), wherein the disinfection and sterilization unit is centrally arranged in the housing (FIGS. 2 and 4, photocatalyst unit 21 and light source 13 centrally arranged in frame 11), and the sidewall of the housing is uniformly distributed with air inlets along the radial direction (FIG. 2, photocatalytic unit 21 may be composed of a storage case and a photocatalytic material filled therein, and the storage case may have a structure having a plurality of air flow holes to allow air to flow in and out, par 0018; photocatalyst module may be configured to have a circular shape instead of a polygonal shape, par 0017); the housing is also provided with an air outlet (FIGS. 2 and 4, hole 31 formed in the center to ensure smooth air flow, par 0017), which corresponds to the air intake of the air conditioner (photocatalyst module 10 can be installed in the air inlet on the upper side of the blower 3 that causes air flow, and 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);
The limitation wherein the air intake of the air conditioner forms negative pressure, causing air outside the 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.
20. Regarding claim 3, Hwang discloses 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, par 0019; FIG. 2, light source 13 depicted as lamp unit).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
21. 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.
22. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh et al (US 20220023789 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hwang teaches the air conditioning disinfection and sterilization device according to claim 1, wherein the air inlets form an air passage extending from the sidewall of the housing towards the center of the housing (photocatalyst module 10 may have a polygonal shape or circular shape with a hole 31 formed in the center to ensure smooth air flow, pars 0017-0018). Hwang does not teach that this would be a spiral air passage such that after passing through the spiral air passage, the air forms an air vortex at the central position of the housing where the disinfection and sterilization unit is located.
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 24 are arranged 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 inlet holes of Hwang in a tilted configuration to form a spiral air passage as taught by Oh. Doing so would predictably create the claimed spiral flow pattern, which Oh teaches is advantageous for reducing flow resistance and improving air purification efficiency (Oh pars 0107 and 0207).
23. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Oh et al (US 20220023789 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang 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 teaches an analogous air sterilization unit using UV light to sterilize air inside a housing (FIGS. 4-5; pars 0098-0099, 0112, 0211) 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.
24. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kang et al (US 5,230,220 A).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang 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 (FIG. 5), which would accomplish the intended use of displaying the working status of the ultraviolet lamp to a user equipped to see in ultraviolet. Hwang does not teach a transparent window provided at the 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).
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 within the center of the housing of Hwang a transparent window as taught by Kang, as doing so would predictably provide the user the ability to visually confirm the operation of the UV lamp.
25. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vialle et al (WO 2020079359 A1, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
26. Regarding claim 6, Hwang teaches the air conditioning disinfection and sterilization device according to claim 1 and that the device has a cover 103 to block the assembly passage (FIG. 5, par 0022). Hwang 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. Doing so would predictably confer the same effects taught by Vialle, namely of determining air flow and limiting UV radiation towards the air outlet while thoroughly exposing filtration components to UV radiation (Vialle pars 0054-0055).
27. Regarding claim 7, Hwang as modified by 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 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 the distance between the ultraviolet LED and the 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 the 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.
28. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang 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 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 the 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 the outer surface of the perforated plate is coated with a photocatalytic coating as taught by Watanabe. Doing so would predictably provide the same effective photocatalysis to the positions in the middle of flow paths as taught by Watanabe.
Conclusion
29. 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