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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The following action is in response to the applicant’s Amendment dated 3/26/2026, that was in response to the Office action dated 12/30/2025. Claims 1-8, 10-23 are pending, claim(s) 1 has/have been amended, while claim(s) 9 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 3/26/2026, with respect to 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(1)/103(a) rejections of 1-20 has been withdrawn.
As an initial matter, the 112(b) rejection regarding claim 1 has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 with respect to claims 21-23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons for the applicant’s remarks not being persuasive are given below.
Applicant respectfully submits that the cited art does not teach claim 21’s requirement that “at least one source of UV radiation” is located in said conduit. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding Applicant’s analysis of Galassi, the examiner agrees with the assessment given on pages 12-13, however it is believed that the UV source is located in the air conduit duct despite the use of the deflector as pointed out by the applicant. The UV lamp of Galassi functions as claimed, is located as claimed, and is considered in the duct when considering the housing as a whole as seen in figure 4 of Galassi and compared to applicant’s figure 7 where the source of radiation 22 is located proximate a divider 46. The difference therefore in the art and the claims is seen in figure 8 of the application, regarding the extractor space and the sanitizing space. For these reasons, the applicant’s remarks regarding claims 21-23 are not persuasive, and the previous ground of rejection will be maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galassi [5632806].
With respect to claim 21, Galassi discloses: An air sanitiser, comprising an air inlet (at 42) and an air outlet (12), said air inlet and said air outlet are connected by an air conduit (20) in which a fan 919) is located for drawing in air through the inlet and for discharging air from the outlet, at least one source (37) of UV radiation, for sanitising the air is located in said conduit, the fan comprises an impeller that is rotatable around a fan axis, such that the air is drawn in along said fan axis and discharged orthogonally with respect to said axis, and source of UV radiation is located downstream of said fan [see FIG 2], said air sanitizer (36) being integrated into a housing or cabinet, said housing or cabinet having a plurality of side walls, a front wall and a back wall, wherein a) the inlet and the outlet are arranged in at least one of the side walls; or b) the inlet and the outlet are arranged in the front wall [see FIGs 1 and 2, col 4, line 56-col 5, line 28].
Galassi further discloses:
{cl. 23} The air sanitizer according to claim 21, wherein said cabinet or housing is configured for fixing to a ceiling or wall of a room [see FIGs 1-4].
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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galassi [5632806], further in view of Benedek [2019240371].
With respect to claim 22, Galassi substantially discloses the invention as claimed, however lacks certain details of the arrangement of components as claimed.
Benedek makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 22} The air sanitiser according to claim 21, further comprisinq wherein a mechanical filter inserted in the air inlet to reduce fouling of the source of UV radiation [paragraph 0128].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Galassi with the teachings of Benedek because Benedek provides a known arrangement that is capable of effectively cleaning exhaust air at an outlet of air supply.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are allowed. The amendments to claim 1 show a distinction between the prior art applied.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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 Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
5/15/2026
Prosecution Insights