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 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: “air flow generator configured for producing air flow” and “an ozone generator configured for adding ozone to said air flow” in claim 1.
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. Specifically, the air flow generator is understood be a fan with a motor and equivalents (page 5, para 2) and the ozone generator is understood to be a pair of electrodes supplied with high voltage (page 5, para 3) and all equivalents.
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 19-37 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 19 recites the limitation "said characteristics" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This issue can be cured by amending the claim to recite, “said physical characteristics.”
Claims 20-37 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 19 and failure to resolve the aforementioned issues.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the operating condition" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This issue can be cured by amending the claim to recite “an operating condition.”
Claim 28 recites the limitation ""said at least one lamp capable of emitting C-type ultraviolet light" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be understood to be dependent on claim 25. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Socha (US 20040262241 A1) (disclosed in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/16/2023).
Regarding claim 19, Socha teaches a device for treating and sanitizing air in an inhabited environment (Fig. 1, [0010], [0016]) comprising:
- a hollow body (Fig. 1, device comprises a cylindrical hollow body) comprising a first opening for the entrance of an air flow (Fig. 1, inlet 1) and a second opening for the exit of said air flow (Fig. 1, outlet 11);
- an air flow generator configured for producing said air flow (Fig. 1, air drawing device 9);
- an ozone generator configured for adding ozone to said air flow within said hollow body (Fig. 1, ozone generator 15);
- a reaction chamber positioned inside said hollow body downstream of the ozone generator, wherein said reaction chamber is configured for changing one or more physical characteristics of said air flow within said hollow body (Fig. 1, mixing chamber 6), wherein said reaction chamber comprises means for compressing and expanding said air flow F within said hollow body (Fig. 2, baffles 21 understood to expand and compress air flow) , and wherein said characteristics include pressure, temperature, enthalpy, velocity, turbulence, dew point (Fig. 2, mixing chamber configured to optimize mixing efficiency of ozone and air and contains baffles 21= changes turbulence of air flow, [0023]); and
abating means configured for abating the ozone contained in the air flow exiting said reaction chamber (Fig. 1, catalytic chamber 7 reduces ozone concentration [0026]).
Regarding claim 20, Socha teaches the device according to claim 19, wherein the reaction chamber is configured through appropriate shaping, for changing one or more of said physical characteristics (Fig. 2, mixing chamber configured to optimize mixing efficiency of ozone and air via the arrangement of baffles 21= changes turbulence of air flow, [0023]).
Regarding claim 21, Socha teaches the device according to claim 19, wherein the abating means comprise a catalytic filter (Fig. 1, catalytic chamber 7 reduces ozone concentration [0026] and can be shaped as a mesh [0034] = understood to be a filter).
Regarding claim 22, Socha teaches the device according to claim 21, further comprising a second sensor, positioned downstream of said catalytic filter and capable of detecting a second ozone concentration (Fig. 1, ozone monitor 13 measures concentration of ozone [0039]).
Regarding claim 23, Socha teaches the device according to claim 22, further comprising a control unit in communication with said second sensor and configured for controlling the operation of said device on the basis of said second ozone concentration (Fig. 1, computer 25 understood to be control unit configured to control device based on ozone concentration [0039]).
Regarding claim 24, Socha teaches the device according to claim 23 including a control unit (Fig. 1, computer 25, [0039]), wherein the control unit comprises communication means ([0039]). The limitation “wherein the control unit is in communication with a first sensor positioned upstream of the catalytic filter and capable of detecting a first ozone concentration in communication with said first sensor, and is configured for:
- detecting a signal produced by said first sensor;
- determining, on the basis of said signal, a quantity of ozone to be processed by said catalytic filter; and
- transmitting, via the communication means, an alert message when the quantity of ozone to be processed exceeds a first threshold value” is optional since claim 23 recited “a control unit in communication with first sensor and/OR said second sensor…” The disclosure of Socha teaches a control unit with communication means [0039] and therefore meets claim 24.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 25-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Socha (US 20040262241 A1) in view of Benedek (WO 2011084121 A2) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/16/2023).
Regarding claim 25, Socha teaches the device according to claim 19, but does not teach wherein the abating means comprise at least one lamp capable of emitting C-type ultraviolet light.
One having ordinary skill in the art would contemplate further ways to destroy to ozone contained in the air stream, motivating one to turn towards Benedek. Benedek teaches an air treatment apparatus comprising a UV light source (Fig. 16, 50) configured to remove ozone from the treatment apparatus by emitting UV radiation at 254 nm (Fig. 11, page 11, lines 18-20) which is well-understood to be a UV-C wavelength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abating means as taught by Socha to include the UV-C light bulb as taught by Benedek because Benedek teaches the light bulb to destroy ozone contained in an air stream and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 26, Modified Socha teaches the device according to claim 25, but does not explicitly teach wherein the lamp is configured for emitting C-type ultraviolet light independently of the operating condition of the ozone generator.
One having ordinary skill in the art would seek greater control over the ozone generation and destruction means, motivating one to turn towards Benedek. Benedek teaches a UV light bulb configured to emit at 187 nm to generate ozone upstream of a UV light bulb emitting at 254 nm to destroy ozone, wherein a control system (60) can be used to control any operating parameter or function of the disinfection unit (40) (page 12, lines 4-17). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the control system would be capable of actuating the UV light bulb emitting at 254 (UVC lamp) independently of the ozone generator (UV bulb emitting at 187 nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abating means as taught by Modified Socha to include the control system as taught by Benedek to selectively control the operation of the ozone generator and the ozone destructing UV bulb such that they operate independently in order to achieve a greater destruction of ozone contained in the air stream and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 28, Modified Socha teaches the device according to claim 25, including a control unit (Socha, Fig. 1, computer 25, [0039]), wherein the control unit is configured for:
- deactivating the ozone generator (Socha, [0039]);
- activating said at least one lamp capable of emitting C-type ultraviolet light (Benedek, page 12, lines 4-17) and the air flow generator (Socha, [0038-0040]);
- detecting the signal emitted by said second sensor, generating a sample associated with ozone absence (Socha, [0040-0041]);
- generating calibration data on the basis of the sample associated with ozone absence (Socha, [0040-0041]); and
wherein the control unit is configured for determining the quantity of ozone to be processed by said catalytic filter also on the basis of said calibration data (Socha, [0040-0041]).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Socha (US 20040262241 A1) in view of Benedek (WO 2011084121 A2) and Dayton (US 20170112954 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Socha teaches the device according to the claim 23, wherein said second sensor comprises an ozone sensor (Fig. 1, ozone monitor 13 measures concentration of ozone [0039]) but does not teach wherein the second sensor comprises a photoreceiver sensitive to C-type ultraviolet rays.
One having ordinary skill in the art would contemplate further ways to destroy to ozone contained in the air stream, motivating one to turn towards Benedek. Benedek teaches an air treatment apparatus comprising a UV light source (Fig. 16, 50) configured to remove ozone from the treatment apparatus by emitting UV radiation at 254 nm (Fig. 11, page 11, lines 18-20) which is well-understood to be a UV-C wavelength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abating means as taught by Socha to include the UV-C light bulb as taught by Benedek because Benedek teaches the light bulb to destroy ozone contained in an air stream and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Modified Socha does not teach wherein the second sensor comprises a photoreceiver sensitive to C-type ultraviolet rays. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine how much UV-C light is being emitted to ensure optimal ozone destruction, motivating one to turn towards Dayton.
Dayton teaches a decontamination device (abstract) comprising UV-C sensors that can be positioned in a room to detect the level of exposure to UVC light and transmit information to a central connection point [0040-0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Modified Socha to include the UV-C sensors as taught by Dayton to determine how much UV-C light is being emitted to ensure optimal ozone destruction and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Socha (US 20040262241 A1) in view of Metteer (US 20130183214 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Socha teaches the device according to claim 19, but does not teach wherein the abating means comprise at least a first portion and a second portion, and wherein each one of said portions can be separated from the hollow body.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with performing maintenance and cleaning the abating means, motivating one to turn towards Metteer. Metteer teaches a modular air disinfection device (abstract) comprising a series of treatment modules coupled together via fittings to allow a user to customize the treatment device to their specific needs [0042-0043] and perform maintenance and cleaning (understood to be separable from the hollow base, [0067]). Metteer further teaches wherein the modules can include UVC lamps (understood to be capable of destroying ozone, [0056]) and an ozone destruct module [0063], wherein the modules are understood to be a first and second portion of ozone abatement means.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the abating means as taught by Socha to be modular as taught by Metteer because Metteer teaches the modular system to allow a user to customize the treatment device to their specific needs [0042-0043] and perform maintenance and cleaning [0067] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 30-34 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Socha (US 20040262241 A1) in view of Krosney (US 20180021471 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Socha teaches the device according to claim 19, but does not teach wherein the reaction chamber comprises a turbine configured to be actuated by the air flow generated by the air flow generator.
One having ordinary skill in the art would contemplate ways to ensure energy efficiency of the sanitization device, motivating one to turn towards Krosney. Krosney teaches a UV sterilization apparatus for air systems (abstract) comprising a treatment chamber (Fig. 2, 210), UV LEDs (Fig. 3, 310), wherein the chamber is connected to a fan (Fig. 2, 284) via a tube (Fig. 2). Krosney teaches wherein turbines can be placed inside the treatment chamber to generate electricity via the rotational motion caused by the fan and recharge the power means for the device [0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the treatment chamber as taught by Socha with the turbines as taught by Krosney because Krosney teaches the turbines to generate electricity and recharge the power means of a sterilization device [0037] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 31, Modified Socha teaches the device according to claim 30, further comprising a propeller coupled to said turbine and positioned outside the hollow body (Krosney, Fig. 2, fan 284 understood to be a propeller coupled to treatment chamber 210 = understood to also be coupled to turbine within the chamber and outside of the hollow body).
Regarding claim 32, Modified Socha teaches the device according to claim 30, wherein the reaction chamber is divided into a first section, in which the air flow generator is located and a second section, in which the turbine is located, wherein said device comprises a tube that mutually connects said first section and said second section of the reaction chamber (Socha, Fig. 1, air flow generator 9 is separate from treatment chamber 6 where the turbine is located and they are mutually connected via a cylindrical tube).
Regarding claim 33, Modified Socha teaches the device according to claim 32, comprising
- a tank which can contain air at a pressure higher than an atmospheric pressure, and which is positioned along the tube (Socha, Fig. 1, discharge duct 19 understood to be a tank that can be at a pressure higher than atmospheric), wherein said tube comprises a drain duct in communication with the tank and the turbine (Socha, Fig. 1, cylindrical tube contains discharge damper 10 = drain duct); and
- a valve positioned along said drain duct (Socha, discharge damper 10 is also a valve than can be opened or closed [0036-0037]).
Regarding claim 34, Modified Socha teaches the device according to claim 33, wherein the valve comprises an actuator capable of actuating said valve, and a control unit is configured for controlling said actuator (Socha, discharge damper 10 is controlled by damper motor 26 = actuator [0037] and the actuator can be controlled by computer 25 = control unit [0037-0038]).
Regarding claim 36, Modified Socha teach the device according to claim 32, but does not teach wherein the tube comprises one or more turbinators positioned inside said tube.
One having ordinary skill in the art would seek to generate turbulence within the air flow to increase the residence time within the disinfecting device.
Krosney further teaches turbulators (Fig. 3, 320) within the treatment chamber to transform laminar flow into turbulent flow [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindrical tube as taught by Modified Socha with the turbulators as taught by Krosney because Krosney teaches the turbulators to convert laminar flow into turbulent flow and increases the residence time within the disinfecting device ([0050], [0075]) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 37, Modified Socha teaches the device according to claim 32, comprising a valve that comprises an inlet in communication with the tube and an outlet in communication with said environment (Socha, Fig. 1, cylindrical tube contains discharge damper 10 = valve in communication with environment and tube [0036-0037]).
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Socha (US 20040262241 A1) in view of Krosney (US 20180021471 A1), as applied to claim 33 above, further in view of New et al. (US 20070053188 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Modified Socha teaches the device according to claim 33, but does wherein the tank comprises one or more cooling fins.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with regulating the temperature of the air ejected to the environment caused by the electrical circuitry within the sanitizing device, motivating one to turn towards New. New teaches an air sterilizing light fixture (abstract) comprising a plurality of cooling fins (Fig. 6, 134) located within a housing (Fig. 6, 132) to dissipate heat generated by the electrical components within the device [0049].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tank as taught by Modified Socha to include the cooling fins as taught by New because New teaches the cooling fins to dissipate heat caused by electrical components within an air sanitizing device [0049] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights