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(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.
The limitation of “the supporting portion” in claim 7 lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if it is the same as the “the support portion” recited in claim 6. Additionally, claim 6 recites each blower include “a support portion.” Assuming the “supporting portion” is the same as “the support portion” in claim 6, it is unclear which one is the claimed “the supporting portion” because there are two of them.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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, 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araki et al., JP 01168316 A (“Araki”)1.
Regarding claim 1:
Araki discloses that an air purifier (Araki’s air purifier as shown in Fig. 4B, Araki Fig. 4B, [0001]) comprising:
a housing (Araki’s cylindrical housing 13, Araki Fig. 4B, [0001]) having an air inlet (Araki’s suction port 4, Araki Fig. 4, [0001]), an air outlet (Araki’s discharge port 17, Araki Fig. 4B, [0001]), and a cavity portion (interior of Araki’s housing 13, Araki Fig. 4B, [0001]) connecting the air inlet (4 of Araki) and the air outlet (17 of Araki);
two blowers (Araki’s fan block 15, Araki Fig. 4B, p. 5, ll. 38) disposed in the cavity portion (13 of Araki) and each including a fan (Araki’s fan 20, Araki Fig. 4B, ll. 44) rotatable to generate a flow of air; and
a filter (Araki’s filter block 14, Araki Fig. 4B, p. 5, ll. 43) disposed in the cavity portion (13 of Araki),
wherein the two blowers (15 of Araki) are each configured to, during rotation of the fan, suck in air from outside of the housing through the air inlet (4 of Araki) into the cavity portion (interior of 13 of Araki), and blow the air having passed through the filter (14 of Araki) from the air outlet (17 of Araki) to the outside of the housing (as indicated by arrow in Fig. 4B),
wherein a direction in which the air inlet is open crosses a direction in which the air outlet is open (Araki’s inlet 4 is horizontal in Fig. 4B, and outlet is vertical in Fig. 4b, and a horizontal direction crosses vertical direction, Araki Fig. 4B), and
wherein an opening area of the air outlet is smaller than an opening area of the air inlet (Araki shows its outlet area 17 is smaller than inlet area 4, Araki Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 2:
Araki discloses that the air purifier according to claim 1, wherein the two blowers (15 of Araki) face each other in the direction in which the air outlet is open (as shown in Araki Fig.4B).
Regarding claim 3:
Araki discloses that the air purifier according to claim 1, further comprising a louver (Araki’s rectifying plate 141, Araki Fig. 6, p. 6, ll. 90) engaged in the air outlet (Araki’s outlet 103, which is alternative of discharge port 17) and configured to guide the air blown from the air outlet in a direction away from the housing (as indicated by arrow in Araki Fig. 6, p. 6).
Regarding claim 6:
Araki discloses that the air purifier according to claim 1, wherein
the two blowers (15 of Araki) each include a support portion (structure pointed by label 15 in Fig. 4B of Araki) supporting the fan,
the housing includes a partition wall (see annotated Fig. 4B of Araki below) dividing the cavity portion into a first cavity portion and a second cavity portion (see annotated Fig. 4B of Araki below),
one of the two blowers is disposed in the first cavity portion (see annotated Fig. 4B of Araki below),
the filter is disposed in the second cavity portion (see annotated Fig. 4B of Araki below),
the partition wall has a protrusion protruding toward the fan (partition is a protrusion protruding toward the fan 21), and
the protrusion has a distal end (where the protrusion ends, Araki annotated Fig. 4B) spaced from the fan (20 of Araki).
PNG
media_image1.png
625
1026
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16:
Araki discloses that the air purifier according to claim 1, wherein
the housing (13 of Araki) has a duct that is tubular and bent (Araki discloses housing 13 is cylindrical, and therefore it is a tubular bent duct, Araki Fig. 4B, p. 5),
the duct (13 of Araki) has an inside space that is the cavity portion (interior of Araki’s housing 13, Araki Fig. 4B, p. 5),
the duct has an opening (Araki’s outlet 17, Araki Fig. 4B, p. 5) located above a lower surface of the housing (as shown in Fig. 4B),
the opening (17 of Araki) of the duct (13 of Araki) is the air outlet (Araki Fig. 4B, p. 5), and
the two blowers (15 of Araki) each include an exhaust portion facing the air outlet and each configured to blow the air from the air outlet to the outside of the housing downward (see Fig. 4B, also note that Araki discloses multiple embodiments, where air flow out direction changes, for example, Araki Fig. 14B).
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.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 4–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Araki in view of Pfannenberg et al., US 2004/0077304 A1 (“Pfannenberg”).
Regarding claim 4:
Araki discloses that the air purifier according to claim 1, further comprising:
a louver engaged in the air outlet (Araki’s rectifying plate 141 arranged at air outlet 103 in an alternative embodiment, Araki Fig. 6, p. 6, ll. 90).
Araki does not disclose a first elastic member located between and in contact with the louver and one of the two blowers.
In the analogous art of air filtering units, Pfannenberg discloses airflow unit comprising a fan 50 and an outlet louver structure 10. Pfannenberg Fig. 1, [0044]. Pfannenberg discloses a first elastic member (Pfannenberg’s foamed IP seal 40, Pfannenberg Fig. 1, [0044]) located between and in contact with Pfannenberg’s ventilating grating 10 and Pfannenberg’s fan 50, Pfannenberg Fig. 1, [0044]. Pfannenberg discloses IP seal 40 protects from splash water and spray water and achieve high IP protection, Pfannenberg Fig. 1, [0055]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Araki to include such a seal to achieve IP protection.
Regarding claim 5:
Araki does not disclose that the air purifier according to claim 3, further comprising a first elastic member located between and in contact with the louver and one of the two blowers.
In the analogous art of air filtering units, Pfannenberg discloses airflow unit comprising a fan 50 and an outlet louver structure 10. Pfannenberg Fig. 1, [0044]. Pfannenberg discloses a first elastic member (Pfannenberg’s foamed IP seal 40, Pfannenberg Fig. 1, [0044]) located between and in contact with Pfannenberg’s ventilating grating 10 and Pfannenberg’s fan 50, Pfannenberg Fig. 1, [0044]. Pfannenberg discloses IP seal 40 protects from splash water and spray water and achieve high IP protection, Pfannenberg Fig. 1, [0055]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Araki to include such a seal to achieve IP protection.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Araki in view of Nagai et al., CN 100368739 C (“Nagai”)2.
Regarding claim 7:
Araki does not disclose that the air purifier according to claim 6, wherein the partition wall includes a contact portion protruding toward the supporting portion, the contact portion having a distal end in contact with the supporting portion, and a length from the partition wall to the distal end of the protrusion is shorter than a length from the partition wall to the distal end of the contact portion.
In the analogous art of fan/filter partition for air purifiers, Nagai discloses a partition wall (Nagai’s partition plate 5, Nagai Fig. 2, p. 3) includes a contact portion (see annotated Fig. 2 of Nagai below) protruding toward the supporting portion (of Nagai’s fan structure 6), the contact portion having a distal end (where contact occurs in Nagai’s Fig. 2) in contact with the supporting portion, and a length from the partition wall to the distal end of the protrusion is shorter than a length from the partition wall to the distal end of the contact portion (see annotated Fig. 2 of Nagai below). Nagai discloses its design does not increase body thickness, but can effectively improve ability of purifying air, and allow better air circulation without increasing body thickness, Nagai Abstract. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Araki to have the design disclosed by Nagai for the benefits disclosed above.
PNG
media_image2.png
835
904
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Araki in view of Conrad et al., US 4,756,728 A (“Conrad”).
Regarding claim 8:
Araki does not disclose that the air purifier according to claim 1, further comprising a second elastic member, wherein the housing has a support surface on which the second elastic member is located.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Conrad discloses an air purifier (Conrad Fig. 3) comprising a filter housing support surface (Conrad’s rectangular base frame 10, Conrad Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 36–40), wherein a second elastic member (Conrad’s rubber feet 24, Id.) is located on said support surface 10. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Conrad’s rubber feet 24 at the bottom of Araki’s air purifier as shown in Fig. 4B to act as a vibrational cushion for the potential vibration caused by the fan rotation.
Regarding claim 11:
Araki does not disclose that the air purifier according to claim 1, wherein the housing includes a case having an opening for attaching and detaching the filter, and a cover attachable to the case to cover the opening, and the cover has the air inlet and includes a grip portion for removing the cover from the case.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Conrad discloses an air purifier housing (Conrad’s tunnel shaped housing 17, Conrad Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 22–26) which includes a casing having an opening (where Conrad’s filter 14 occupies, Conrad Fig. 1) for attaching and detaching the filter. Conrad discloses a cover (Conrad’s hinged movable frame member 12, Conrad Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 6–14) attachable to the case (17 of Conrad) to cover the opening (Conrad’s Fig. 2 showing the frame member 12 attached to the opening). Conrad also discloses that the cover has an air inlet (as shown by arrow in Conrad Fig. 3) and includes a grip portion (see annotated Fig. 1 of Conrad below). Conrad discloses its design form the mounting for the replaceable air filter element will stand the effects of partial vacuum when the device is in use, Conrad, Figs. 1–2, col. 2, ll. 6–14. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Conrad’s design in Araki for the benefits disclosed.
PNG
media_image3.png
495
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Araki in view of Conrad as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Morse et al., US 2007/0044438 A1 (“Morse”).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Araki does not disclose that the air purifier according to claim 8, wherein the second elastic member has a static friction coefficient greater than a static friction coefficient of the support surface.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Morse discloses that an air purifier housing could be made of stainless steel. Morse Fig. 2, [0034]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Araki’s filter housing to be made of stainless steel because it is rust resistant and it is known to be used as filter housing material. Stainless steel has a static friction coefficient of (0.5-0.8)3 and Rubber has a static friction coefficient of (1.16)4. And therefore, meets the claimed limitation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Araki in view of Conrad as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of EPDM Rubber Physical Data sheet (hereinafter “EPDM”).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Araki does not disclose that the air purifier according to claim 8, wherein the second elastic member has a 25 percent compression-deflection value of 0.133 N/mm2 or less per unit area.
However, EPDM discloses an EPDM rubber which is a durable and resilient foam rubber with excellent resistance to heat, ozone and weathering. EPDM rubber has a 25% compression deflection of 12 psi (equivalent to 0.083 N/mm2), falling within the claimed range. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Araki’s rubber to be made of EPDM rubber for its excellent resistance to heat, ozone and weathering. With such modification, modified Araki’s second elastic member would have the claimed 25 percent compression-deflection value.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Araki in view of Conrad as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Byun et al., KR 20160015083 A (“Byun”)5.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Araki does not disclose that the air purifier according to claim 11, wherein
the housing (13 of Araki, Fig. 4B, p. 4, ll.38) has a support surface on which the second elastic member is located (as modified in claim 11, the support surface would be the bottom of Araki’s housing 13 accommodating Conrad’s rubber similar to that shown in Conrad, Conrad Fig. 1).
Modified Araki does not disclose that the opening is defined in a surface of the housing opposite to the support surface.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Byun discloses an air purifier comprising two fan 12 and filters 40, Byun Fig. 1, [0020]. Byun discloses its air purifier comprising a cover 17 located on a top surface, Byun Fig. 2, [0018]. Byun disclsoes the cover can be open to replace filter element and replace or repair other components, Byun Fig. 1, [0044]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Araki’s opening to be located on a top surface for easy replacement or repair of filter or other components. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a top opening when the air purifier is close to the floor for a better vison and easy access.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Araki in view of Conrad as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zheng et al., WO 2020/216678 A1 (“Zheng”).
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Araki discloses that the air purifier according to claim 11, wherein the housing has an affixture portion (where Conrad’s grip portion located on modified Araki’s case would be the claimed affixture portion).
Modified Araki does not disclose such affixture portion for affixing a sticker to cover the grip portion.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Zheng discloses its filter 106, 107 could comprises a grip, which is a tag or similar to facilitate taking out of filter by dragging the filter holding the grip, Zheng p. 7, ll. 1–5. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Araki’s grip to be a tag because a tag is known in the art to be suitable for dragging. With such modification, the grip portion would be covered by the sticker/tag because the sticker is the claimed “grip portion.” Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a tag as a gripping portion because a tag could perform additional functions such as providing necessary product info for user.
Claims 14–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Araki in view of Wang et al., CN 107303450 A (“Wang”) and Koto, JP 2014119224 A (“Koto”)6.
Regarding claim 14:
Araki discloses that the air purifier according to claim 1, wherein the housing has a first surface (surface of Araki’s suction guide plate 16, Araki Fig. 4B) and a second surface (where Araka’s label points in Fig. 4B, Araki Fig. 4B) opposite to the first surface, the first surface having the air inlet (4 of Araki, Araki Fig. 4B, p. 5).
Araki does not disclose in the embodiment of Fig. 4B, that the second surface having a second air outlet.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Wang discloses an air purifier with a first fan 1 and a second fan 2 located on two ends of an air purifier casing, Wang Fig. 1, p. 3. Wang discloses an air inlet 6 located on a first surface (Wang’s bottom surface as shown in Fig. 2) and an air outlet 5 located on a second surface (Wang’s top surface as shown in Fig. 1). Wang’s first surface is opposite the first surface and comprising both air outlets 5, Wang Fig. 1, p. 3. Wang also discloses that the second air outlet 5 is smaller than the opening area of the air inlet 6, Wang Figs. 1–2, p. 3. Wang discloses its filter assembly greatly improves filtering effect, Wang p. 1. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Araki with Wang’s configuration for the benefits disclosed.
Such modification does not disclose a further blower, wherein the further blower includes an exhaust portion facing the second air outlet.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Koto discloses an air purifier comprising three fans 61–63, with all of the exhaust port facing the same air outlet. Koto Fig. 3, p. 2. Koto discloses such design increasing air purifying capability while does not require a large installation space, Koto Fig. 3, p. 2. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a further fan on one side of the original fan in Araki as disclosed by Koto in modified Araki for the benefits disclosed. Such modification could for example
Regarding Claim 15:
Araki as modified discloses that the air purifier according to claim 14, wherein
the housing has a partition wall dividing the cavity portion into a first cavity portion and a second cavity portion,
one of the two blowers is configured to suck in the air through the air inlet and the filter into the first cavity portion, and
the further blower is configured to suck in the air through the air inlet and the filter into the second cavity portion (see annotated Fig. 4B of Araki below, as discussed in claim 14, there would be a stack of two fans either on the left or right side, that side would be the first cavity portion and the other side would be the second cavity portion, Araki annotated Fig. 4B).
PNG
media_image4.png
461
845
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Araki is the 36-page FOR dated Oct. 26, 2023. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the figure.
2 A copy of Nagai is provided with the office action. The examiner relies on the original document for the text and original document for the figure.
3 The Engineering ToolBox (2004). Friction - Coefficients for Common Materials and Surfaces. [online] Available at: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html
4 The Engineering ToolBox (2004). Friction - Coefficients for Common Materials and Surfaces. [online] Available at: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html
5 Byun is the 23-page FOR dated Oct. 26, 2023. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text.
6 A copy of Wang and Koto’s original document and machine translation are provided with the Office Action. The examiner relies on the original documents for the figure and machine translations for the figure.