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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a control device” cited in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 limitations are:
“a guiding means” in claim 1;
“a further guiding means” in claim 1;
“an actuating means” in claim 12.
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 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 1-20 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 phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a radiation source" in line 4 and “at least one radiation source” in line 6. It is not clear if “a radiation source” is one of or different from “at least radiation source”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the partial flow" in line 5 and “a partial flow” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-11, 13-14, and 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Law (PG-PUB US 20160271550).
Regarding claim 1, Law discloses an air purification apparatus (ABSTRACT). The apparatus comprises at least one UV sterilizer 29 in a gas treatment section 9 for receiving a portion of air flow 15, wherein at least another portion of air flow 15 does not flow through the gas treatment section 9 (i.e., a irradiation device …, at least one/a radiation source…, a guiding means …, at least one further guiding means …, Figures 3 & 5, paragraphs [0027], [0056], [0081], & [0085]).
Law teaches that the UV sterilizer 29 irradiates UV light within the apparatus (paragraph [0085]). It is known that the wavelength of UV radiation is in a range of 100 to 400 nm. It has been held that the disclosure in the prior art of any value within the claimed range is an anticipation of that range. And a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed range overlaps range disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90.
“a guiding means” and “at least one further guiding means” are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Thus, they are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The instant specification discloses that the guiding means 9 is designed as a flow channel while the further guiding means is designed as a flow channel that does not open or by-pass the irradiation device (paragraphs [0114] – [0115], & [0122]).
Law teaches that a flow path/channel flows through the UV sterilizer 29 while at least another flow path/channel does not pass through the UV sterilizer 29 (Figures 3 & 5, paragraphs [0027], & [0081]), reading on “a guiding means” and “at least one further guiding means”, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Law teaches that the gas treatment section 9 is provided in an enclosure extending from an inlet and an outlet (Figures 3 & 5, paragraphs [0027] & [0081]).
Regarding claim 3, Law teaches that the UV sterilizer 29 is provided within the gas treatment section 9 extending from the inlet and the outlet and the another portion of the split air flow 15 flows from the inlet and the outlet (Figures 3 & 5, paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 4, Law teaches a plurality of flow path/channels by-passing the UV sterilizer (Figures 3 & 5).
Regarding claim 5, Law teaches that the inlet includes a plurality of apertures and is coupled to the flow path/channel to the UV sterilizer 29 (Figures 3 & 5, paragraph [0081] & [0085]).
Regarding claim 6, Law teaches that the flow path/channel from the UV sterilizer 29 combines with the flow path/channel by-passing the UV sterilizer 29 downstream thereof (Figures 3 & 5, paragraph [00856] & [0085]).
Regarding claim 7, it should be noted that velocity of the partial flow is not a structural limitation, rather a process-limiting parameter which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Moreover, Law teaches that the blower 12 and/or 17 is provided and a central processing mechanism is used to control the speed of the blowers to achieve desired velocity for properly operating the apparatus (paragraphs [0031] –[0036] & [0084]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Law teaches that the device comprises a particle filter which may be HEPA (Figures 3 & 5, paragraphs [0041], [0055] & [0081]).
Regarding claim 10, Law teaches that at least one blower 12 is provided (Figures 3 & 5, paragraphs [0027], & [0081]).
Regarding claim 11, Law teaches that blowers 12 and 17 are provided (Figures 3 & 5, paragraphs [0027], & [0081]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, it should be noted that volumetric flow of the partial flow is not a structural limitation, rather a process-limiting parameter which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Moreover, Law teaches that the blower 12 and/or 17 is provided and a central processing mechanism is used to control the speed of the blowers to achieve desired volumetric flow rate for properly operating the apparatus (paragraphs [0031] –[0036] & [0084]).
Regarding claims 16, and 19-20, it should be noted that volumetric flow or velocity of the partial flow is not a structural limitation, rather a process-limiting parameter which does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Moreover, Law teaches that the blower 12 and/or 17 is provided and a central processing mechanism is used to control the speed of the blowers to achieve desired volumetric flow rate for properly operating the apparatus (paragraphs [0031] –[0036] & [0084]).
Regarding claim 17, Law teaches that the device comprises a particle filter which may be HEPA (Figures 3 & 5, paragraphs [0041], [0055] & [0081]).
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.
Claims 12, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law (PG-PUB US 20160271550) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Goswami et al (PG-PUB US 20190120508).
Regarding claim 12, Law teaches that the airflow rate and/or speed of the blower may be controlled by a central processing unit for properly operating the apparatus (paragraphs [0031] – [0036], & [0084]), but does not teach an actuating means for controlling the flow rate, However, Goswami et al disclose an air purification apparatus (ABSTRACT). Goswami teaches that the apparatus comprises a filter assembly 120, a flow control mechanism 140 , and a photo source 130, wherein a controller 150 is coupled to the flow control mechanism 140, which may include at least one valve, for properly control the operation of the system (Figure 1, paragraphs [0021], [0088] – [0089], & [0099]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a valve along the flow path as suggested by Goswami in order to properly control the operation within the device of Law.
“an actuating means” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Thus, it is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The instant specification discloses that the actuating means is designed as a valve (paragraph [0127]).
Goswami teaches that valves may be used for controlling the flow rate of air flow (paragraph [0099]), reading on “an actuating means”.
Regarding claim 15, Law teaches a central processing unit to control the speed of the blowers (paragraphs [0031] – [0036]). Goswami teaches a controller 150 provided for controlling the flow control mechanism 140 which may include valves (paragraphs [0021], [0088] – [0089], & [0099]).
Regarding claim 18, Goswami teaches valves for controlling the flow rate of airflow (paragraphs [0021], [0088] – [0089], & [0099]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights