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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the main nozzle air flow” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Examiner suggests clearly defining additional limitations.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 6 “the fan impeller” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in light of “the fan impeller of a radial ventilator” and earlier when the claim recited “at least one fan inpeller”. Examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity.
Regarding claim 11, “the rib” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in light of “the air guidance ribs.” Examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity.
Claims 2-4 and 10-17 are rejected due to being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 5-9 are rejected due to being dependent on claim 4.
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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoen US-4345929-A in view of Dunberger et al. US-20230078774-A1 and in further view of Gulliksen US-20220090820-A1.
Regarding claim 1, Schoen teaches “an air purification device…comprising a housing” represented by air purifier 19 (Fig. 1, pg. 6). The air purifier 19 comprises of the following elements of the current invention:
At least one air intake region formed in an inlet plenum represented by inlet plenum 22 (Fig. 1, pg. 6).
At least one air discharge region formed in an outlet plenum represented by outlet plenum 23 (Fig. 1, pg. 6).
Main nozzle situating in the housing, upstream from the fan impeller represented by conduit 25 (Fig. 1, pg. 6).
Schoen does not teach the air purification device 19 comprising of the following elements: “at least one air filter…being situated in the housing”, “at least one fan impeller of a radial ventilator,” or “an auxiliary nozzle that is situated upstream from the main nozzle and that splits the main nozzle air flow.”
Dunberger at al. teaches “at least one air filter…being situated in the housing” represented by “provided in sequence in the housing 1 are a stage one filter 3” (Dunberger et al. [0004]). Dunberger et al. also teaches at least one fan impeller of a radial ventilator represented by “the purifier of the inventions also comprises a fan or impeller….it is preferred that the fan is a radial fan” (Dunberger et al. [0036]). The stage one filter in the housing is beneficial to help remove pollution from the air flowing through the air purifier. The impeller is beneficial to help direct the airflow through the air purifier in “an angular and substantially laminar manner, such that the efficiency of the purifier is increased (Dunberger et al. [0002]).
Dunberger does not teach an auxiliary nozzle that is situated upstream from the main nozzle and that splits the main nozzle air flow.
Gulliksen teaches an auxiliary nozzle that is situated upstream from the main nozzle and that splits the main nozzle air flow represented by a set of supply air channels 1061 that split (Gulliksen [0268-0269]). A set of supply air channels is beneficial to help evenly distribute the air flowing to the fan impeller.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schoen to incorporate the teachings of Dunberger et al. and the teachings of Gulliksen to include an air filter in the housing to help remove pollution from the air flowing through the air purifier, a fan impeller of a radial ventilator to increase the efficiency of the air purifier, and an auxiliary nozzle that splits off from the main nozzle to help evenly distribute the air flowing to the fan impeller.
Regarding claim 12, Schoen teaches the housing having a disk-or toroid -shaped design as shown by figures 1 and 6. The air intake region 22 and the air discharge region 23 are situated at the outer circumference of the housing as shown by figure 1.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoen US-4345929-A in view of Dunberger et al. US-20230078774-A1 and Gulliksen US-20220090820-A1 and in further view of Yang et al. US-20220008855-A1.
Regarding claim 3, Schoen in view of Dunberger et al. and in further view of Gulliksen teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1.
Schoen in view of Dunberger at al. and in further view of Gulliksen does not teach air guidance ribs situated in the inlet plenum and fixed to the housing.
Yang et al. teaches air guidance ribs situated in the inlet plenum and fixed to the housing represented by a plurality of guide ribs 175 (Yang et al. [0093]). The air guidance ribs 175 are beneficial as they “perform the function of guiding upwardly the air introduced in the first air flow path” (Yang et al. [0093]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schoen in view of Dunberger et al. and in further view of Gulliksen to incorporate the teachings of Yang et al. to include air guidance ribs situated in the inlet plenum and fixed to the housing to help guide the air to the first air flow path.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,4-11, and 13-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the positioning of the auxiliary nozzle to be centered coaxially and concentrically with respect to the main nozzle.
Claim 4 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the auxiliary nozzle being ring-shaped and having an inlet surface area with an increased diameter, and which via axial arched area, reduces the diameter in a nozzle-like manner merges into an outlet surface area of with a decreased diameter.
Claims 5 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 4 and because the prior art fails to teach the outlet diameter of the auxiliary nozzle is in the range between 60 and 80% smaller than the diameter of the fan impeller.
Claim 6 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 4 and because the prior art fails to teach the inlet diameter of the auxiliary nozzle is in the range between 80 and 120% of the diameter of the fan impeller.
Claim 7 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 4 and because the prior art fails to teach the height of the auxiliary nozzle corresponding approximately to 50 to 80% of the height of the inlet plenum.
Claim 8 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 4 and because the prior art fails to teach the inlet surface area of the auxiliary nozzle corresponding approximately to 80 to 120% of the main nozzle inlet surface area.
Claim 9 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 4 and because the prior art fails to teach the outlet surface area of the auxiliary nozzle corresponding to approximately 80 to 120% of the main nozzle outlet surface area.
Claim 10 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the ratio of the air guidance ribs to the height of the inlet plenum is in the range between 40 and 100%.
Claim 11 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the ratio of the air guidance ribs relative to one another is in the range between 20 and 120% of the rib height.
Claim 13 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the total height of the inlet plenum and the height of the air guidance ribs being approximately 700 mm.
Claim 14 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the diameter of the fan impeller of the radial ventilator and the inlet diameter of the axillary nozzle are approximatley 280 mm.
Claim 15 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the outlet diameter of the auxiliary nozzle being approximatley 195 mm with a preferred height of 52 mm.
Claim 16 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach the inlet diameter of the main nozzle being preferably 280 mm, the outlet diameter of the auxiliary nozzle being preferably 260 mm, and the height of the main nozzle being preferably 15 mm.
Claim 17 would be allowable as the prior art fails to teach main air flow in the inlet plenum being deflected at an angle in the range of 180 to 360 degrees in the direction of the fan impeller of the radial ventilator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776