DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Claims 2-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/06/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A2 in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the 2nd line of the claim, “exist portion” should be amended to “exit portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 14 and 19-21 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 14 recites the limitation “the light exit portion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “configured to reflect the light inside the catalyst part transmitted outward through a side portion of the catalyst part toward the catalyst part. It is unclear as to how the reflected light can be transmitted outwardly yet also towards the catalyst part.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the visible light" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the “reflection member” being installed at “regular intervals”, and is unclear as to how a singular reflection member can be installed at multiple regular intervals (i.e., plural). The limitation will be interpreted as if the reflection members are installed at regular intervals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 14-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20190030202 A1), further in view of Fan et al. (CN 112811506 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yi teaches a photocatalyst device (100, Fig. 1-2) for generating photocatalytic reaction (“for causing photocatalyst reaction in a photocatalyst material to cause sterilization of the air”, [0035]) and emitting superoxide radicals (“so as to generate superoxide negative ions”, [0039]) into an internal flow path of an air conditioning case (internal space of case 110, Fig. 2), the photocatalyst device comprising:
a photocatalyst body (case 110, Fig. 2);
a light source part installed on the photocatalyst body (210, Fig. 2);
a catalyst part installed on the photocatalyst body (222, Fig. 2) so as to be spaced apart from the light source part (light source 210 and photocatalyst 222 are separated, Fig. 2) and configured to cause a photocatalytic reaction by light emitted from the light source part (“for causing photocatalyst reaction in a photocatalyst material to cause sterilization of the air”, [0035]).
The limitation of “to purify air blown into a passenger room of a vehicle along the internal flow path” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Yi and the apparatus of Yi is capable of blowing purified air into a passenger room of a vehicle along the internal flow path. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, Yi teaches a photocatalyst device (100, Fig. 1-2) for generating photocatalytic reaction (“for causing photocatalyst reaction in a photocatalyst material to cause sterilization of the air”, [0035]) and emitting superoxide radicals (“so as to generate superoxide negative ions”, [0039]) into an internal flow path of an air conditioning case (internal space of case 110, Fig. 2). Knowing that the generated superoxide radicals are expelled through the fan (130, Fig. 2) and outside to the environment that the case 110 is located in, placing the apparatus into an internal flow path of a vehicle to predictably deliver said purified air to a passenger room of a vehicle is feasible.
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Yi fails to teach a light processing part configured to process the light emitted from the light source part so as to increase an irradiance rate of the light of the light source part with respect to the catalyst part. It is important to note that Yi teaches the light source part (210, Fig. 2) having a plurality of UV LEDs (212 and 213, Fig. 2).
Fan teaches a fluid sterilization system (Fig. 1), utilizing UV LEDs (radiation assembly 300, Fig. 2), utilizing a light processing part directly downstream of the LEDs (lens group 200 containing double-sided fly-eye lens 210, Fig. 1-3) in order to increase an irradiance rate of the UV LEDs via light homogenization (“compared with the traditional direct light source irradiation disinfection, the new device can provide more uniform sterilizing radiation field, sterilizing is more complete”, p.3, 11th paragraph of English translation).
Yi and Fan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of UV-based sterilization of fluids.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source part of Yi by incorporating a light processing lens part directly downstream of the light source part as taught by Fan, because in doing so would increase an irradiance rate of the UV LEDs via light homogenization (Fan, p.3, 11th paragraph of English translation).
With this modification, the Yi/Fan combination would to process the light emitted from the light source part so as to increase an irradiance rate of the light of the light source part with respect to the catalyst part as well, because the photocatalyst contains the fluid (i.e., air) to be treated and Fan’s lens group is directly downstream of the light source (Fan, lens group 200 and radiation assembly 300, Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 14, the Yi/Fan combination teaches wherein the light processing part (Fan, lens group 200, Fig. 2-3) includes a fly eye lens (Fan, 210, Fig. 3) installed between a light exit portion of the light source part (Fan, 300, Fig. 3) and the catalyst part (photocatalyst 222 of Yi is further downstream of the light source 210, Fig. 2, meaning Fan’s lens group being directly downstream of the light source part results in the photocatalyst being downstream of the lens group; thus the lens group of Fan is between the photocatalyst and light source of Yi) to improve homogeneity of the light irradiated from the light source part to the catalyst part (Fan, “wherein the fly-eye lens is responsible for homogenizing the ultraviolet”, p.4, 5th paragraph of English translation).
Regarding claim 15, the Yi/Fan combination teaches wherein the fly eye lens (Fan, 210, Fig. 2-3) includes a lens body sheet (Fan, see drawing below)
PNG
media_image1.png
504
407
media_image1.png
Greyscale
installed between the light source part (Yi, light source 210, Fig. 2) and the catalyst part (Yi, photocatalyst 222, Fig. 2), and a plurality of lens cells formed at intervals on the surface of the lens body sheet (Fan, inner and outer layer fly-eye lens cells 212 and 211, Fig. 3) to improve light homogeneity (Fan, p.3, 11th paragraph of English translation) by repeatedly overlapping the light emitted from the light source part to the catalyst part (this limitation appears to be an intrinsic result of having a fly-eye lens positioned between the light source and the photocatalyst as described above).
Regarding claim 16, the Yi/Fan combination teaches wherein the lens cells are formed on one surface of the lens body sheet corresponding to the catalyst part (Fan, outer fly-eye lens cells 211, Fig. 3) and the other surface of the lens body sheet corresponding to the light source part (Fan, inner fly-eye lens cells 212, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, the Yi/Fan combination teaches wherein the lens cells are formed on one surface of the lens body sheet corresponding to the catalyst part (Fan, outer fly-eye lens cells 211, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, the modification of Fan’s lens body onto Yi’s light source reads on the limitation of “wherein the fly eye lens is configured such that the area of the fly eye lens corresponding to the catalyst part is equal to or larger than the area of the catalyst part”, because Fan’s lens body (200, Fig. 1-3) extends from one sidewall end of the housing (protective sleeve 110, Fig. 1) to the other; thus, one of ordinary skill would similarly match Fan’s end-to-end configuration of the lens body to Yi’s sidewalls of the housing (case 110, Fig. 2), meaning the photocatalyst filter (Yi, 222, Fig. 2) would be of equal cross-sectional area to Fan’s lens body.
Regarding claim 22, the Yi/Fan combination teaches the light source part (Yi, light source 210, Fig. 2) is configured to irradiate visible light to the catalyst part (Yi, UV LEDs 213 emit rays in a spectral range from 300-400 nm, Fig. 2 and [0036], where 380-400 nm is visible to the human eye), and the light processing part (Fan, lens body 200, Fig. 1-3) is configured to process the visible light irradiated from the light source part (Fan, the resin responsible for splicing the lens body to the housing has good transmittance from “deep ultraviolet to the infrared band”, p.6, 11th paragraph of English translation, implying that the lens body that is made of quartz (“Embodiment 1” section of English translation) and the resin as a whole is fully capable of transmitting the 300-400 nm UV wavelength that includes the visible 380-400 nm range from Yi’s UV LEDs 213, Fig. 2).
7. Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al. (US 20190030202 A1), further in view of Fan et al. (CN 112811506 A), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Jeong et al. (US 20220008609 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yi teaches a light-reflective structure (214, Fig. 2) surrounding the UV LEDs (213 and 212, Fig. 2), but fails to teach reflection members configured to reflect the light inside the catalyst part transmitted outward through a side portion of the catalyst part toward the catalyst part.
Jeong teaches a photocatalyst device (deodorization module 100, Fig. 1) utilizing UV light sources (143, Fig. 1) to exhibit a photocatalytic effect on the photocatalyst layer (150, Fig. 1), further mentioning that “an inner surface of the flow path side wall may be coated with a reflective material” ([0075] and see drawing below)
PNG
media_image2.png
279
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in order to predictably reflect the emitted UV light (similar to Yi’s light reflective structure functionality: “to increase a frequency at which air flowing through the through-holes and along the flow path comes in contact with the emitted UV rays”, [0034]).
Modified Yi and Jeong are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air sterilization systems utilizing UV-light based photocatalysis and reflective surfaces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner flow path side walls of the case of modified Yi by incorporating a reflective coating on said inner flow path side walls as taught by Jeong, because in doing so would predictably reflect the emitted UV light and thus “increase a frequency at which air flowing through the through-holes and along the flow path comes in contact with the emitted UV rays” (Yi, [0034]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Yi/Jeong combination teaches wherein the reflection members are plates (Yi, inner sidewalls of case 110, Fig. 2) coated with a light reflecting material (Jeong, [0075]) and are installed on the side portion of the catalyst part (Yi’s inner side walls are on the sides of photocatalyst 222, Fig. 2) except a rear portion on which visible light emitted from the light source part is incident and a front portion from which superoxide radicals are emitted (only the sidewalls are coated with the reflective coating as shown in the modification in claim 19 rejection above, not the top/front or bottom/rear walls of Yi’s case 110, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Yi/Jeong combination teaches wherein the reflection members (Jeong, reflective coating on Yi’s Fig. 2 inner sidewalls of case 110) is installed at regular intervals on the side portion of the catalyst part (Yi, the case 110 has four sidewalls, and the coating is on all four sidewalls as shown in Fig. 1; thus, is at “regular intervals”, which include the outer sides of photocatalyst 222, Fig. 1). Each interval is one of the four sidewalls of the modified Yi/Jeong combination coated with a reflective material (i.e., reflection member), and there being four sidewalls means that the intervals are regular.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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 R. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights