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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0038] line 6, “fans 21” should read “fans A1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5 of claim 3, “vale” should read “value.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
a wireless network cloud computing service module, a cloud control service unit, a device management unit and an application program unit in claim 19.
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.
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “a wireless network cloud computing service module, a cloud control service unit, a device management unit and an application program unit”. However, adequate structure for performing the associated functions is not specified in the as-filed specification. The specification, in paragraph [0038], simply provides further details as to the functions of these units/modules. Therefore, it is considered that these limitations lack appropriate written description.
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, 3 and 19, and also claims 2 and 4-18 and 20 by dependency, 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.
The terms “rapidly” and “close to zero” in claim 1 and claim 3 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, it is not clear what would constitute a rapid guiding of the air, that is, how rapidly must the air move in order to be considered rapid. It is also not clear what level of air pollution would be considered “close to zero”. For the purposes of this Office Action, the claims are being interpreted without the term “rapidly” and without the limitation “achieving a gas state in the kitchen unit with a level of air pollution close to zero.”
Furthermore, the term “performing an intelligent computing” in line 20 of claim 1 is not clearly defined and it is not clear what this limitation requires. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) statue requires that the claims, read in light of the specification, must reasonably apprise those skilled in the art both of the utilization and scope of the invention, and the language is required to be precise as the subject matter permits (MPEP 2173.05(a) (I, II)). For the purposes of this Office Action “intelligent computing” is interpreted to mean “computing guided or controlled by a computer.”
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “receiving the air pollution information detected by the plurality of negative pressure exhausting devices…” in line 17-18. However, it appears from the claim that the pollution information is detected by the gas detectors, which have been claimed as separate elements from the negative pressure exhausting devices, and not by the negative pressure exhausting devices. The claim also recites “a plurality of gas detectors … for … receiving a control command to enable the plurality of negative pressure exhausting devices” in line 13-16 and “the plurality of gas detectors receive the control command” in line 27-28, but also recites “issuing a control command to the plurality of negative pressure exhausting devices” in line 21-22. Since the gas detectors are claimed as separate elements from the negative pressure exhausting devices, it is not clear how the control command, when issued to the exhausting devices, is received by the gas detectors. It is not clear, for example, if the control command is routed through the gas detector, if the gas detector is intended to be a part of the exhausting device, or if the control command is meant to be received by the exhausting device. For the purposes of this Office Action, it is interpreted that the control command is issued to and received by the gas detector and then routed to the exhausting device.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Claim limitations “a wireless network cloud computing service module, a cloud control service unit, a device management unit and an application program unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification recites the functions of these modules/units in paragraph [0038], but does not disclose a corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-4, 6-10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0196277 by Mou et al (hereinafter “Mou”) and in further view of US 2018/0073744 by Ji et al (hereinafter “Ji”).
Regarding claim 1, Mou discloses an air pollution prevention system for a kitchen unit in an indoor field (Abstract, Fig 1C), comprising:
a cooking device, wherein an air pollution is generated when the cooking device is enabled to cook (implicit, a cooker would be associated with a cooker hood);
an exhausting device disposed above and in front of the cooking device and connected to an exhausting channel (Fig 1C, cooker hood 24, which includes gas exchanger 21, is connected to gas-exchange channel 217 and gas-exchange outlet 218, shown in Fig 2), wherein the negative pressure exhausting device comprises at least one fan (Fig 2 flow guiding component 214 in channel 217; paragraph [0074]) and at least one filter element (shown in Fig 2 in channel 217), and the at least one fan is controlled to generate a negative pressure for guiding the air pollution to flow into the respective exhausting channel and pass through the at least one filter element for filtration and exhausting to an outdoor (paragraph [0055]);
a gas detector disposed on the negative pressure exhausting device for detecting the air pollution and outputting air pollution information, receiving a control command to enable the plurality of negative pressure exhausting devices (Fig 1C gas detection module 3; paragraph [0042]); and
a cloud computing server receiving the air pollution information (Fig 1C cloud processing device 5; paragraph [0055]), storing the air pollution information to an air pollution database (paragraph [0061]), performing an intelligent computing for determining a concentration of the air pollution (paragraph [0061]), and issuing the control command to the plurality of negative pressure exhausting devices to enable the fans of the plurality of negative pressure exhausting devices, thereby guiding the air pollution from the kitchen unit to pass through the filter elements for filtration and purification and to exhaust to the outdoor (paragraph 0061]),
wherein after the plurality of gas detectors receive the control command, the negative pressure exhausting device is enabled, thereby the air pollution from the kitchen unit is guided to flow into the negative pressure exhausting device for exhausting to the outdoor, (paragraph [0061]).
Although Mou does not explicitly disclose a single embodiment using multiple negative pressure exhausting devices and a plurality of gas detectors, Mou teaches that there is “at least one gas processing device” in the system interacting with the gas detectors and server as outlined above and that the gas processing device may be a cooker hood (as outlined in paragraph [0061]-[0062]) or a ventilator (as outlined in paragraph [0063]-[0064]). The ventilator taught by Mou, as another example of a gas processing device, is operated similarly to the cooker hood referenced above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use both gas processing devices taught by Mou, namely the cooker hood and ventilator, along with their associated gas detectors and exhaust channels, in a single system to increase the ventilation in the room and to exhaust any cooking fumes that escape the area of the cooker hood.
But Mou does not teach that a transmission of the control command is enabled when the cooking device is enabled to cook.
However, Ji teaches a system having a cooking device (Fig 1 cook top 100) and a negative pressure exhaust device (Fig 1 range hood 200) comprising a fan (Fig 3 exhaust fan 210)and a filter element (paragraph [0067]) and configured to exhaust to the outdoors (paragraph [0067]). Ji also teaches that a transmission of a control command to enable the negative pressure exhaust device is enabled when the cooking device is enabled to cook (paragraph [0088]), thereby the air pollution from the kitchen unit is guided to flow into the negative pressure exhausting device for exhausting to the outdoor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mou such that a transmission of the control command is enabled when the cooking device is enabled to cook, so that the negative pressure exhaust devices are enabled to exhaust cooking fumes so long as the cooking device is enabled for cooking.
Regarding claim 2, Mou further teaches that the air pollution is at least one selected from the group consisting of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, total volatile organic compounds (TVOC), formaldehyde, bacteria, fungi, virus, or the combination thereof (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Mou further teaches that the air pollution information comprises a detection value of at least one selected from the group consisting of fumes, VOC and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (paragraph [0067]), and when the detection value is higher than a preset safe detection value, the cloud computing server issues the control command to enable the plurality of negative pressure exhausting devices and adjust air volumes and operation times of the fans based on the air pollution information, guiding the air pollution generated in the kitchen unit to flow into the plurality of negative pressure exhausting devices for exhausting to the outdoor (paragraphs [0042], [0061], and [0074]).
Regarding claim 4, Mou further teaches that the plurality of gas detectors are disposed on the plurality of negative pressure exhausting devices (Figs 1C and 1D; paragraphs [0061] and [0063]) and electrically connected to driving circuits of the fans of the plurality of negative pressure exhausting devices for adjusting air volumes and operation times of the fans after receiving the control command (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Mou further teaches that each of the plurality of gas detectors comprises a controlling circuit board (Fig 3 control circuit board 31), a gas detection main part (Fig 3 gas detection main body 32), a microprocessor (Fig 3 microprocessor 33) and a communicator (Fig 3 communication device 34); wherein the gas detection main part, the microprocessor and the communicator are integrally packaged on the controlling circuit board (Fig 3) and electrically connected to the controlling circuit board the microprocessor controls a detection operation of the gas detection main part, the gas detection main part detects the air pollution and outputs the air pollution information, and the microprocessor receives, processes and provides the air pollution information to the communicator for external communication transmission (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Mou further teaches that the gas detection main part comprises:
a base (Fig 4C, 321) comprising:
a first surface (Fig 4C, 3211);
a second surface opposite to the first surface (Fig 4C, 3212);
a laser loading region hollowed out from the first surface to the second surface (Fig 4C, laser configuration region 3213);
a gas-inlet groove concavely formed from the second surface and disposed adjacent to the laser loading region, wherein the gas-inlet groove comprises a gas-inlet and two lateral walls, and a transparent window is respectively opened on the two lateral walls and is in communication with the laser loading region (Fig 5B, 3214; paragraph [0044]);
a gas-guiding-component loading region (Fig 5B, 3215) concavely formed from the second surface and in communication with the gas-inlet groove, wherein a ventilation hole (Fig 5B, gas flowing hole 3215a) penetrates a bottom surface of the gas-guiding-component loading region (paragraph [0045]); and
a gas-outlet groove concavely formed from the first surface (Fig 5B, 3216), spatially corresponding to the bottom surface of the gas-guiding-component loading region, and hollowed out from the first surface to the second surface in a region where the first surface is not aligned with the gas-guiding-component loading region, wherein the gas-outlet groove is in communication with the ventilation hole, and a gas-outlet (Fig 5B, 3216a) is disposed in the gas-outlet groove (paragraph [0045]);
a piezoelectric actuator accommodated in the gas-guiding-component loading region (Fig 7A/B, 322);
a driving circuit board covering and attached to the second surface of the base (Fig 4C, 323; paragraph [0045]);
a laser component positioned and disposed on the driving circuit board (Fig 4C, 324), electrically connected to the driving circuit board, and accommodated in the laser loading region, wherein a light beam path emitted from the laser component passes through the transparent window and extends in a direction perpendicular to the gas-inlet groove, thereby forming an orthogonal direction with the gas-inlet groove (paragraph [0046]);
a particulate sensor positioned and disposed on the driving circuit board (Fig 4C, 325), electrically connected to the driving circuit board, and disposed at an orthogonal position where the gas-inlet groove intersects the light beam path of the laser component in the orthogonal direction, so that suspended particles contained in the air pollution passing through the gas-inlet groove and irradiated by a projecting light beam emitted from the laser component are detected (paragraph [0046]);
a gas sensor positioned and disposed on the driving circuit board (Fig 4C, 327a), electrically connected to the driving circuit board, and accommodated in the gas-outlet groove, so as to detect the air pollution introduced into the gas-outlet groove (paragraph [0046]); and
an outer cover covering the base (Fig 4C, outer cap 326) and comprising a side plate (Fig 4C, 3261), wherein the side plate has an inlet opening (Fig 4C, 3261a) and an outlet opening (Fig 4C, 3261b), the inlet opening is spatially corresponding to the gas-inlet of the base, and the outlet opening is spatially corresponding to the gas-outlet of the base (Fig 4C; paragraph [0045]);
wherein the outer cover covers the base, and the driving circuit board covers the second surface, thereby an inlet path is defined by the gas-inlet groove (paragraph [0044]), and an outlet path is defined by the gas-outlet groove (paragraph [0045]), so that the air pollution is inhaled from the environment outside the base by the piezoelectric actuator, transported into the inlet path defined by the gas-inlet groove through the inlet opening, and passes through the particulate sensor to detect the particle concentration of the suspended particles contained in the air pollution, and the air pollution transported through the piezoelectric actuator is transported out of the outlet path defined by the gas-outlet groove through the ventilation hole, passes through the gas sensor for detecting, and then pushed to discharge through the gas-outlet of the base and the outlet opening (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Mou further teaches that the particulate sensor is used for detecting information of the suspended particulate (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 9, Mou further teaches that the gas sensor comprises a volatile-organic-compound sensor for detecting information of at least one selected from the group consisting of carbon dioxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, and total volatile organic compounds (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Mou further teaches that the gas sensor comprises one selected from the group consisting of a formaldehyde sensor, a bacteria sensor, a virus sensor, or the combination thereof, for respectively detecting information of formaldehyde, information of bacteria or fungi, and information of virus (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 20, Mou further teaches that the plurality of negative pressure exhausting devices comprise at least one of a range hood, an exhaust fan, or a combination thereof (negative pressure exhausting devices comprise cooker hood 24 and ventilator 25).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou and Ji, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of KR 101928206 by Roh (hereinafter “Roh”).
Regarding claim 11, although Mou is silent as to the details of the filter element used in the exhaust channel, Mou teaches a filter element in the intake channel which is a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter screen which provides purification effect through physical blocking and absorption (Fig 2, 213a).
Roh teaches a filtering and purification system used in kitchen hoods (paragraph [0001], Fig 1), wherein the filtering and purification system may be used for cleaning and filtering air that is exhausted to the outdoors, in order protect the outdoor environment (paragraph [0021]). Roh teaches that the filtering and purification system may comprise a filter element which is a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter screen which provides purification effect through physical blocking and absorption (Fig 2 HEPA filter 7; paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mou/Ji by substituting the known filter element taught by Mou, labeled as 213, for the filter element in the exhaust channel, thereby making the filter element in the exhaust channel a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter screen, in order to filter out particulates from the exhaust air.
Regarding claim 12, Mou further teaches that the HEPA filter screen (Fig 2, 213a) is combined with a decomposition layer coated thereon to purify the air pollution in chemical means (paragraph [0068]).
Roh also teaches that the filter element of the filtration and purification system can be combined with a decomposition layer (Roh Fig 2 activated carbon filter 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the system of Mou/Ji with the filter element taught by Mou, that the HEPA filter screen is combined with a decomposition layer coated thereon to purify the air pollution in chemical means, as taught by Mou.
Regarding claim 13, Mou further teaches that the decomposition layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an activated carbon layer, a cleansing factor containing chlorine dioxide layer, an herbal protective layer extracted from ginkgo and Japanese rhus chinensis, or the combination thereof (paragraph [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the system of Mou/Ji with the filter element taught by Mou, that the decomposition layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an activated carbon layer, a cleansing factor containing chlorine dioxide layer, an herbal protective layer extracted from ginkgo and Japanese rhus chinensis, or the combination thereof.
Regarding claim 14, Mou further teaches that the decomposition layer comprises 28 at least one selected from the group consisting of a silver ion layer, a zeolite layer, or the combination thereof (paragraph [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the system of Mou/Ji with the filter element taught by Mou, that the decomposition layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an activated carbon layer, a cleansing factor containing chlorine dioxide layer, an herbal protective layer extracted from ginkgo and Japanese rhus chinensis, or the combination thereof.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou and Ji, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US 2002/0157661 by Kornberger (hereinafter “Kornberger”).
Regarding claim 15, although Mou is silent as to the details of the particular filter element used in the exhaust channel, Mou teaches a filter element in the intake channel which is combined with a light irradiation element to purify the air pollution in chemical means (Fig 2 photocatalyst unit 213b; paragraph [0069]-[0070]).
Kornberger teaches a filtering and purification system used in kitchen hoods (Abstract, Fig 1), wherein the filtering and purification system may be used for cleaning room air, but also for air exhausted to the outdoors, in order to avoid polluting the environment outside a building (paragraph [0013]). Kornberger teaches that the filtering and purification system may comprise a filter element (Fig 1 grease filter 4 and odor filter 6) combined with a light irradiation element to purify the air pollution in chemical means (Fig 1 UV light source 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mou/Ji to use a filtration and purification system in the exhaust channel similar to that taught by Mou for the intake channel, wherein a light irradiation element is combined with a filter element, in order to filter and purify the exhaust air and avoid polluting the environment around the outdoor exhaust.
Regarding claim 16, Mou further teaches that the light irradiation element is at least one selected from the group consisting of a photo-catalyst unit comprising a photo catalyst and an ultraviolet lamp, a photo-plasma unit comprising a nanometer irradiation tube, or the combination thereof (paragraph [0069]).
Kornberger also teaches that the photo-catalyst unit comprises an ultraviolet lamp (Fig 1 UV light source 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the system of Mou/Ji with the light irradiation element taught by Mou, that the light irradiation element is at least one selected from the group consisting of a photo-catalyst unit comprising a photo catalyst and an ultraviolet lamp, a photo-plasma unit comprising a nanometer irradiation tube, or the combination thereof, as taught by Mou.
Regarding claim 17, although Mou is silent as to the details of the filter element used in the exhaust channel, Mou teaches a filter element in the intake channel (Fig 2, 213a) which is combined with a decomposition unit to purify the air pollution in chemical means (Fig 2 photo plasma unit 213c).
Kornberger teaches a filtering and purification system used in kitchen hoods (Abstract, Fig 1), wherein the filtering and purification system may be used for cleaning room air, but also for air exhausted to the outdoors, in order to avoid polluting the environment outside a building (paragraph [0013]). Kornberger teaches that the filtering and purification system may comprise a filter element (Fig 1 grease filter 4 and odor filter 6) combined with a decomposition unit to purify the air pollution in chemical means (Fig 1 ionizing device 24; paragraph [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mou/Ji to use a filtration and purification system in the exhaust channel similar to that taught by Mou for the intake channel, wherein a decomposition unit is combined with a filter element, in order to filter and purify the exhaust air and avoid polluting the environment around the outdoor exhaust.
Regarding claim 18, Mou teaches that the decomposition unit is at least one selected from the group consisting of a negative ion unit, a plasma ion unit, or the combination thereof (paragraph [0071]-[0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the system of Mou/Ji with the decomposition unit taught by Mou, that the decomposition unit is at least one selected from the group consisting of a negative ion unit, a plasma ion unit, or the combination thereof, as taught by Mou.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou and Ji and in further view of US 2022/0349593 by Mou et al (hereinafter “US ‘593”).
Regarding claim 5, Mou, as modified by Ji, teaches the air pollution prevention system for the kitchen unit in the indoor field according to claim 4. See details in parent claim 4 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. But Mou/Ji does not teach that a valve is disposed between the respective exhausting channel and the outdoor, and the valve is simultaneously controlled by the control command which is received by the respective gas detector for enabling the respective fan.
However, US ‘593 teaches a similar system with a negative pressure exhausting device(s) having an exhausting channel to the outdoor (Fig 1B, cooker hood 4b and/or ventilator 4c, each connected to a discharge channel 32a, shown in Fig 11), wherein a valve is disposed between the exhausting channel and the outdoor (Fig 11 discharge valve 35a), and the valve is simultaneously controlled by a control command which is received by a gas detector for enabling a fan (paragraph [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mou/Ji to include a valve disposed between the respective exhausting channel and the outdoor, wherein the valve is simultaneously controlled by the control command which is received by the respective gas detector for enabling the respective fan, as taught by US ‘593, in order to prevent outdoor air from entering the device when the outdoor air is detected to have higher levels of pollution.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mou and Ji and in further view of US 2021/0164663 by Yoon (hereinafter “Yoon”).
Regarding claim 19, Mou, as modified by Ji, teaches the air pollution prevention system for the kitchen unit in the indoor field according to claim 1. See details in parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. Mou further teaches that the cloud computing server performs the functions of receiving data and transmitting control commands (paragraph [0055]), storing and computing data (paragraph [0057]), and displaying data on a mobile device (paragraph [0039]). Mou does not teach a device management unit for managing user login and device binding.
However, Yoon teaches a system having a cooking device (Fig 2 cooking appliance 600), a negative pressure exhausting device (Fig 2 range hood 400), and a gas detector (Fig 2 sensor 440), and a cloud computing server which receives and analyzes the data from the gas sensors (Fig 1 server 200; paragraph [0207]). Yoon further teaches that the cloud computing server comprises a wireless network cloud computing service module (Fig 3 communication unit 210), a cloud control service unit (Fig 3 memory 230), a device management unit (Fig 3 storage 250) and an application program unit (Fig 3 user terminal 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mou/Ji such that it includes all of the claimed modules and units of the cloud computing server, including the device management unit. The device management unit, in particular, would allow for the system to communication more securely with authorized devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0154954 by Sinur et al discloses a system having a plurality of devices, including a range hood and/or exhaust fan having gas sensors and connected and controlled via a cloud server.
US 2022/0113034 by Moore et al discloses a cooktop and vent fan and gas detectors on the vent fan, wherein the gas detectors operate the vent fan according to sensed data.
US 2022/0282873 by Frayer discloses a vent hood with gas detectors wherein the vent hood is controlled according to the sensed data.
US 2021/0172850 discloses a gas detector similar to that claimed in the instant application.
US 2022/0082267 by Schrock et al discloses a filter system for use in kitchen exhaust systems having a HEPA filter element with a carbon filter element, and/or an ultraviolet filter.
US 2016/0279556 by Law discloses a filter system for use with a kitchen exhaust system having a negative ion unit, zeolite, photocatalytic material, activated carbon, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights