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 Interpretation
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.
In that regard, this application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of a door” in claim 1, and “catalyst means” also in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
However, the claim limitations “means of irradiation” and “radiation means”have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a non-structural term “means” coupled with functional language “of irradiation” or “radiation” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 7 and 15-17 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“means of irradiation” and “radiation means” equaling a UV radiation source as set forth in paragraph 40 of the Applicant’s instant specification.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-4, 15 and 16 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the base region" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the upper region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the upper side" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the front region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the central region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the controller of the assembly" in line 4 to line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the radiation means" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the blower" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the radiation means" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0269965) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0262883).
Kim discloses a laundry treatment cabinet (Figures 1 & 2), comprising:
A housing (11);
At least one interior space (10a) for receiving laundry with an access opening that is closable by means of a door (20);
An assembly (50/51) to produce or convey process air through the interior space (paragraph 63);
A device (30) to treat the interior air, wherein the device (30) comprises a reactor chamber with a catalyst means (31) attached therein (paragraphs 67-95); and
A control apparatus (paragraphs 125-142).
A flow generator (40) to convey the air through the reactor chamber (paragraphs 58-62).
Kim does not appear to disclose that the control apparatus activates and deactivates the assembly to generate the process air. Yang discloses a laundry treatment cabin that includes a housing with an interior space for receiving laundry (Figure 1), an assembly to produce process air through the interior space (paragraph 29), and a device with a reactor chamber and catalyst means to treat the interior air (paragraphs 51-65). The reference continues to disclose a control apparatus that activates and deactivates the assembly to generate process air (paragraphs 29-41), and control the device to treat the interior air (paragraphs 51-65) in order to provide a single control apparatus that controls the entirety of the operational components of the laundry treatment cabinet (paragraphs 29-41 and 51-65; Figures 6-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the control apparatus of Kim to activate and deactivate the assembly to generate process air, and control the device to treat the interior air in order to provide a single control apparatus that controls the entirety of the operational components of the laundry treatment cabinet as exemplified by Yang.
Thus, claim 1 is not patentable over Kim in view of Yang.
Concerning claim 2, Kim continues to disclose that the assembly (50/51) is arranged in the base region of the cabinet (Figure 2), below the interior space (10a), and the device (30) to treat the interior air is arranged in the upper region of the cabinet (Figure 2), above the interior space (10a), wherein the interior space (10a) comprises an inlet (13) in the upper region or on the upper side for extracting the air to be treated (shown by arrows in Figure 2), and an air outlet (14) in the upper region of the interior space (10a) for discharging the treated air into the interior space (paragraphs 56-58).
With respect to claim 3, Kim also discloses that the air inlet (13) is locate at a distance from the air outlet (14), wherein the air outlet (14) is arranged in the front region or in the central region on the upper side of the interior space (Figure 2).
Concerning claim 4, Kim when modified by Yang (herein referred to as modified Kim) continues to disclose that the control apparatus is further configured to activate and deactivate the device (30) to treat the air independently of the controller of the assembly (paragraphs 125-142 of Kim; paragraphs 10-16 and 36 of Yang).
Therefore, claim 4 is not patentable over Kim in view of Yang as well.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim further discloses that the control apparatus is configured to activate and deactivate the flow generator (40) of the device independently of the activation of the assembly (50/51) to provide process air (paragraphs 125-132 of Kim; paragraphs 10-16 and 36 of Yang).
As such, claim 5 is also not patentable over Kim in view of Yang.
With respect to claim 6, Kim continues to disclose an operating device (21) configured to provide user input to activate the device (30) and to transmit said user input to the control apparatus (paragraphs 51 and 52).
Concerning claim 7, Kim further discloses that the device for air treatment comprises:
A reactor chamber (13);
At least one activatable catalyst mat (31) arranged in the reactor chamber (31), wherein the at least one activatable catalyst mat (31) is activatable by means of irradiation (paragraphs 68-86);
A blower (42) to convey the air out of the interior space (paragraphs 59-62);
A radiation means (32) to activate the at least one activatable catalyst mat (paragraph 68);
Wherein the blower (42) and the radiation means (32) is configured to be switched on and off or controlled by the control apparatus (paragraphs 20-26).
With respect to claim 8, Kim does not appear to disclose a sensor to detect the air quality connected to the control apparatus. Nonetheless, Yang continues to disclose a sensor (23) to detect the air quality connected to the control apparatus in order to determine the appropriate time to operate the device for treating the interior air (paragraphs 29, 31, 33, 39 and 40). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a sensor to detect the air quality connected to the control apparatus in Kim in order to determine the appropriate time to operate the device for treating the interior air as exemplified by Yang.
As such, claim 8 is further not patentable over Kim in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 9, Kim also discloses that the radiation means comprise at least one ultraviolet light emitting diode (UV LED) and the at least one activatable catalyst mat (31) comprises titanium dioxide or titanium dioxide as the catalyst material (paragraphs 78-82 and 97-99).
With respect to claim 10, Kim continues to disclose that the at least one activatable catalyst mat (31) comprises an open-pore foam support layer (paragraphs 74-76), wherein the support layer is coated on one or both sides with the catalyst material (paragraphs 79-82).
Concerning claim 15, Kim also discloses that the radiation means (32) is activatable with different powers and the control apparatus is configured to switch the corresponding power to the radiation means (paragraphs 20-24).
Regarding claim 16, Kim further discloses that the control apparatus is configured to activate the blower (42) and the radiation means (32) for a time period of between 10-80% based on an entire treatment time for the laundry (paragraphs 20-26, 51, 52 and 126-142).
With respect to claim 17, Kim also discloses that the control apparatus is configured to activate the blower (42) and radiation means (32) depending on a laundry type to be treated (paragraphs 51, 52 and 126-142).
Concerning claim 18, Kim continues to disclose that the control apparatus is configured to activate the blower (42) and radiation means (32) depending on a duration and/or intensity of treatment (paragraphs 126-142).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0269965) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0262883) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kokubo (Document Identification No. JP 2005343427 A).
It is first noted that the English translation of Kokubo will be referenced herein.
Concerning claims 11-13, Kim is relied upon as set forth above. Kim does not appear to disclose that multiple pleated catalyst mats are attached at a distance to each other in the reactor chamber longitudinally in the flow direction such that the air to be treated is able to flow through the intermediate spaces between the spaced-apart catalyst mats. Kokubo discloses a device to treat interior air, wherein the device comprises a reactor chamber with a catalyst means (8) that is activated by UV light from a UV light source (7) as set forth in the abstract (Figures 1-18). The reference continues to disclose that multiple pleated (Figures 6-16) catalyst mats (16) are attached at a distance to each other in the reactor chamber (Figures 3 & 4) longitudinally (as shown specifically in Figure 11) in the flow direction such that the air to be treated is able to flow through the intermediate spaces between the spaced-apart catalyst mats (Figure 11) in order to create a turbulent airflow with a greater contact surface size while minimizing flow resistance to provide maximal purification of the air (page 4, last paragraph to page 5, line 7). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple pleated catalyst mats that are attached at a distance to each other in the reactor chamber longitudinally in the flow direction such that the air to be treated is able to flow through the intermediate spaces between the spaced-apart catalyst mats in Kim in order to create a turbulent airflow with a greater contact surface size while minimizing flow resistance to provide maximal purification of the air as exemplified by Kokubo.
Thus, claims 11-13 are not patentable over Kim in view of Yan and Kokubo.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0269965) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0262883) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0041617).
Kim is relied upon as set forth above. Kim does not appear to disclose that the reactor is arc-shaped, and the activatable catalyst mat is shaped in an arc-shaped manner as well according to the reactor space. Lee discloses a device to treat interior air, wherein the device comprises a reactor chamber (numeral 2 in Figures 1 & 2) with a catalyst mat means (3) that is activated by UV light from a UV light source (4) as set forth in paragraphs 13 & 14 (Figures 1 & 2). The reference continues to disclose that the reactor (2) is arc-shaped, and the activatable catalyst mat (3) is shaped in an arc-shaped manner as well according to the reactor space (Figures 1 & 2) in order to provide a suitable design an angled reactor chamber. Because Kim discloses an angled reactor configuration as set forth in Figure 4, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an arc-shaped reactor in conjunction with an arc-shaped catalyst mat in Kim because Lee discloses that an arc-shaped reactor in conjunction with an arc-shaped catalyst mat provides for successful air purification when in need of an angled reactor chamber.
As such, claim 14 is not patentable over Kim in view of Yang and Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799