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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1–8 and 10–14 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 14 recite:
1. An air purifier comprising:
a housing in which a reflux chamber is formed between an intake opening and an exhaust opening;
an ultraviolet irradiation device that simultaneously generates ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 185 nm and ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 254 nm inside the reflux chamber;
an ozone decomposition member through which air passes while proceeding from the reflux chamber toward the exhaust opening; and
a reflux plate which is disposed inside the reflux chamber, is hit by a portion of the air flowing from the intake opening toward the exhaust opening, and causes the portion of the air to reflux;
wherein:
the ultraviolet rays emitted by the ultraviolet irradiation device irradiate both the air proceeding from the intake opening to the reflux plate and the portion of the air flowing back from the reflux plate. Emphasis added.
2. An air purifier comprising:
a housing in which a reflux chamber is formed between an intake opening and an exhaust opening;
an ultraviolet irradiation device that simultaneously generates ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 185 nm and ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 254 nm inside the reflux chamber; and
an ozone decomposition member through which air passes while proceeding from the reflux chamber toward the exhaust opening;
wherein:
the ultraviolet irradiation device is installed in the vertical direction of the housing; and
the ultraviolet rays emitted by the ultraviolet irradiation device irradiate the air proceeding from the intake opening toward the exhaust opening. Emphasis added.
14. A purification booth for preventing infection, comprising:
an air purifier; and
a booth forming a certain space in which the air purifier is installed as an air supply device or an exhaust device,
wherein:
the air purifier includes:
a housing in which a reflux chamber is formed between an intake opening and an exhaust opening;
an ultraviolet irradiation device that simultaneously generates ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 185 nm and ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 254 nm inside the reflux chamber;
an ozone decomposition member through which air passes while proceeding from the reflux chamber toward the exhaust opening; and
a reflux plate which is disposed inside the reflux chamber, is hit by a portion of the air flowing from the intake opening toward the exhaust opening, and causes the portion of the air to reflux; and
the ultraviolet rays emitted by the ultraviolet irradiation device irradiate both the air proceeding from the intake opening to the reflux plate and the portion of the air flowing back from the reflux plate.
Claims 1, 2 and 14 are indefinite because they are each a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. Specifically, claims 1, 2 and 14 are each to an apparatus because claims 1 and 2 are to an air purifier while claim 14 is to an air purification booth. But each claim also recites active method steps for using the device in the italicized limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a device is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement would require that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II. To overcome these rejections, claims 1, 2 and 14 could be rewritten as:
1. An air purifier comprising:
a housing in which a reflux chamber is formed between an intake opening and an exhaust opening;
an ultraviolet irradiation device that is configured to simultaneously generate
an ozone decomposition member configured for air to pass through
a reflux plate which is disposed inside the reflux chamber, which is configured to be hit by a portion of the air flowing from the intake opening toward the exhaust openingcausing the portion of the air to reflux;
wherein:
is configured such that the ultraviolet rays emitted are capable of irradiating
2. An air purifier comprising:
a housing in which a reflux chamber is formed between an intake opening and an exhaust opening;
an ultraviolet irradiation device that simultaneously generates ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 185 nm and ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 254 nm inside the reflux chamber; and
an ozone decomposition member configured for air to pass
wherein:
the ultraviolet irradiation device is installed in the vertical direction of the housing; and
is configured such that the ultraviolet rays emitted are capable of irradiating
14. A purification booth for preventing infection, comprising:
an air purifier; and
a booth forming a certain space in which the air purifier is installed as an air supply device or an exhaust device,
wherein:
the air purifier includes:
a housing in which a reflux chamber is formed between an intake opening and an exhaust opening;
an ultraviolet irradiation device that is configured to simultaneously generate
an ozone decomposition member configured for air to pass through
a reflux plate which is disposed inside the reflux chamber, which is configured to be hit by a portion of the air flowing from the intake opening toward the exhaust openingcausing the portion of the air to reflux; and
is configured such that the ultraviolet rays emitted are capable of irradiating
Claims 3–8 and 10–13 are indefinite because they depend from claims 1 or 2.
Also, claim 5 recites:
5. The air purifier according to claim 10, further comprising:
a rectifier plate that directs a flow of air that has entered the reflux chamber from the intake chamber toward the exhaust opening side. Emphasis added.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II. To overcome this rejection, claim 5 could be rewritten as:
5. The air purifier according to claim 10, further comprising:
a rectifier plate that is configured to direct
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 1–5, 7, 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knuth et al., US 5,997,619 in view of Engelhard, US 2012/0003126 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Knuth teaches an air movement system 20, which reads on the claimed “air purifier.” See Knuth Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 39–51.
The system 20 comprises a housing 24 (the “housing”) in which a germicidal chamber 33 (the “reflux chamber”) is formed between air inlets 42 (collectively the “intake opening”) and air exit louvers 48 (collectively the “exhaust opening”), as claimed. See Knuth Figs. 4, 5, col. 7, ll. 39–50, col. 8, ll. 13–23.
The system 20 also comprises ultraviolet lamps 50 (collectively the “ultraviolet irradiation device”) that generates ultraviolet rays inside the germicidal chamber 33, as claimed. See Knuth Fig. 4, col. 8, ll. 13–22.
The system 20 further comprises a downstream filter 66 (the “ozone decomposition member”) for removing ozone from air that passes while proceeding from the germicidal chamber 33 toward the air exit louvers 48, as claimed. See Knuth col. 8, ll. 57–65.
The system 20 also comprises a baffle plate 132 (the “reflux plate”) which is disposed in the germicidal chamber 33, which is hit by a portion of the air flowing from the air inlets 42 toward the air exit louvers 48, and is capable of causing a portion of the air to reflux, as the air could moved backwards in the germicidal chamber 33 when it hits the baffle plate 132, as claimed. See Knut Fig. 5, col. 11, ll. 35–50; MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Also, the ultraviolet rays emitted by the ultraviolet lamps 50 irradiate both the air proceeding from the air inlets 42 to the baffle plate 132 and the portion of air that could be refluxed from the baffle plate 132 into the germicidal chamber 33, as claimed. See Knut col. 8, ll. 1–11.
PNG
media_image1.png
800
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Knuth differs from claim 1 because, while it teaches that the ultraviolet lamps 50 (the “ultraviolet irradiation device”) are capable of generating UV rays with a wavelength around 254 nm to kill germs (see Knuth col. 10, ll. 29–42), Knuth is silent as to the ultraviolet lamps 50 being capable of simultaneously generating ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 185 nm and ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 254 nm.
But Engelhard teaches an air purifier comprising a UV light source 122 that produces light in at 254 nm range (germicidal range) and the 185 nm (ozone producing) range, which is beneficial for generating hydroxyl radicals that destroy many microbial and chemical compounds. See Engelhard [0035]. It would have been obvious to use the UV light source 122 of Engelhard as each of the ultraviolet lamps 50 of Knuth to generate hydroxyl radicals that destroy many microbial and chemical compounds.
Regarding claim 2, Engelhard teaches an air movement system 20, which reads on the claimed “air purifier.” See Knuth Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 39–51.
The system 20 comprises a housing 24 (the “housing”) in which a germicidal chamber 33 (the “reflux chamber”) is formed between air inlets 42 (collectively the “intake opening”) and air exit louvers 48 (collectively the “exhaust opening”), as claimed. See Knuth Figs. 4, 5, col. 7, ll. 39–50, col. 8, ll. 13–23.
The system 20 also comprises ultraviolet lamps 50 (collectively the “ultraviolet irradiation device”) that generates ultraviolet rays inside the germicidal chamber 33, as claimed. See Knuth Fig. 4, col. 8, ll. 13–22.
The system 20 further comprises a downstream filter 66 (the “ozone decomposition member”) for removing ozone from air that passes while proceeding from the germicidal chamber 33 toward the air exit louvers 48, as claimed. See Knuth col. 8, ll. 57–65.
Each ultraviolet lamp 50 is installed “in the vertical direction” of the housing 24, as claimed, because each lamp 50 extends upward at an angle, as seen in Fig. 4.
Also, the ultraviolet rays emitted by the ultraviolet lamps 50 irradiate both the air proceeding from the air inlets 42 to the baffle plate 132 and the portion of air that could be refluxed from the baffle plate 132 into the germicidal chamber 33, as claimed. See Knut col. 8, ll. 1–11.
PNG
media_image1.png
800
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Knuth differs from claim 2 because, while it teaches that the ultraviolet lamps 50 (the “ultraviolet irradiation device”) are capable of generating UV rays with a wavelength around 254 nm to kill germs (see Knuth col. 10, ll. 29–42), Knuth is silent as to the ultraviolet lamps 50 being capable of simultaneously generating ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 185 nm and ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 254 nm.
But Engelhard teaches an air purifier comprising a UV light source 122 that produces light in at 254 nm range (germicidal range) and the 185 nm (ozone producing) range, which is beneficial for generating hydroxyl radicals that destroy many microbial and chemical compounds. See Engelhard [0035]. It would have been obvious to use the UV light source 122 of Engelhard as each of the ultraviolet lamps 50 of Knuth to generate hydroxyl radicals that destroy many microbial and chemical compounds.
Regarding claim 3, Engelhard teaches that the ultraviolet lamps 50 (collectively the “irradiation device”) is installed in “both the horizontal direction of the housing and the vertical direction of the housing,” as claimed, because each lamp 50 is installed upwardly at an angle and therefore is in the horizontal and vertical direction of the housing 24, as seen in Fig. 4.
Each lamp 50 is modified to generate ultraviolet rays within a wavelength of 185 and 254 nm, as explained above. Because each lamp 50 is installed in the horizontal and vertical direction, this reads on—“the ultraviolet irradiation device installed in the horizontal direction of the housing generates ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of at least 185 nm” and “the ultraviolet irradiation device installed in the vertical direction of the housing generates ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of at least 254 nm.”
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Engelhard teaches a plate 106 (the “partition”) that divides the inside of the housing 24 into the germicidal chamber 33 (the “reflux chamber on an exhaust opening side”) and a chamber below the plate 106 (the “intake chamber on an intake opening side”). See Engelhard Fig. 4, col. 10, ll. 13–23. Also, a primary filter 34 comprising an innermost filter 78 with a HEPA rating is disposed in the “intake chamber” through which air that enters through the air inlets 46 (collectively the “intake opening”) passes, as claimed. See Engelhard Figs. 4, col. 8, l. 66–col. 9, l. 34. The primary filter 34 reads on the “HEPA filter.”
Regarding claim 5, Engelhard teaches a top shelf 122 (the “rectifier plate”) that is capable of directing a flow of air that enters the germicidal chamber 33 (the “reflux chamber”) from the “intake chamber” toward the side of the system 20 comprising the air exhaust louvers 48 (collectively the “exhaust opening”). See Knuth Figs. 4, 5, col. 11, ll. 35–45.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Knuth teaches that an interior surface of baffle plate 132 is reflective, which reads on “the air purifier includes a reflective member in the housing.” See Knuth col. 11, ll. 45–50.
Regarding claim 14, Engelhard teaches a local environment 22 comprising an air movement system 20 for infection control. See Engelhard Fig. 2, col. 7, ll. 39–50. The local environment 22 reads on the claimed “purification booth for preventing infection.”
The local environment 22 comprises the air movement system 20 (the “air purifier”). See Engelhard Fig. 2, col. 7, ll. 39–50.
The local environment 22 forms a space in which the system 20 is installed, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 2. The system 20 is installed as a “supply device” as claimed because the system 20 supplies purified air into the local environment. See Engelhard Fig. 2, col. 7, ll. 39–50. The system 20 is also installed as an “exhaust device” as claimed, because it suctions air from the local environment 22 into itself for purification. Id.
The system 20 comprises a housing 24 (the “housing”) in which a germicidal chamber 33 (the “reflux chamber”) is formed between air inlets 42 (collectively the “intake opening”) and air exit louvers 48 (collectively the “exhaust opening”), as claimed. See Knuth Figs. 4, 5, col. 7, ll. 39–50, col. 8, ll. 13–23.
The system 20 also comprises ultraviolet lamps 50 (collectively the “ultraviolet irradiation device”) that generates ultraviolet rays inside the germicidal chamber 33, as claimed. See Knuth Fig. 4, col. 8, ll. 13–22.
The system 20 further comprises a downstream filter 66 (the “ozone decomposition member”) for removing ozone from air that passes while proceeding from the germicidal chamber 33 toward the air exit louvers 48, as claimed. See Knuth col. 8, ll. 57–65.
The system 20 also comprises a baffle plate 132 (the “reflux plate”) which is disposed in the germicidal chamber 33, which is hit by a portion of the air flowing from the air inlets 42 toward the air exit louvers 48, and is capable of causing a portion of the air to reflux, as the air could moved backwards in the germicidal chamber 33 when it hits the baffle plate 132, as claimed. See Knut Fig. 5, col. 11, ll. 35–50; MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Also, the ultraviolet rays emitted by the ultraviolet lamps 50 irradiate both the air proceeding from the air inlets 42 to the baffle plate 132 and the portion of air that could be refluxed from the baffle plate 132 into the germicidal chamber 33. See Knut col. 8, ll. 1–11.
PNG
media_image1.png
800
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Knuth differs from claim 14 because, while it teaches that the ultraviolet lamps 50 (the “ultraviolet irradiation device”) are capable of generating UV rays with a wavelength around 254 nm to kill germs (see Knuth col. 10, ll. 29–42), Knuth is silent as to the ultraviolet lamps 50 being capable of simultaneously generating ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 185 nm and ultraviolet rays with a wavelength of 254 nm.
But Engelhard teaches an air purifier comprising a UV light source 122 that produces light in at 254 nm range (germicidal range) and the 185 nm (ozone producing) range, which is beneficial for generating hydroxyl radicals that destroy many microbial and chemical compounds. See Engelhard [0035]. It would have been obvious to use the UV light source 122 of Engelhard as each of the ultraviolet lamps 50 of Knuth to generate hydroxyl radicals that destroy many microbial and chemical compounds.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knuth et al., US 5,997,619 in view of Engelhard, US 2012/0003126 A1 and in further view of Benedek et al., US 2019/0240370 A1.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Knuth as modified teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as explained above.
Knuth differs from claims 6 and 11 because it is silent as to the filter 66 (the “ozone decomposition member”) being a manganese dioxide-based catalytic filter, as claimed. But the filter 66 is provide to remove ozone. See Knuth col. 8, ll. 57–65. Also, Benedek teaches an air treatment system comprising at least one catalyst layer comprising a manganese catalyst layer, in a downstream portion of the system, which is provided because it is an “excellent ozone removal catalyst.” See Benedek [0023]. It would have been obvious to provide a manganese oxide catalyst layer in the downstream portion of the system 20 of Knuth, to improve the ozone removal properties of the system 20.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knuth et al., US 5,997,619 in view of Engelhard, US 2012/0003126 A1 and in further view of Kim et al., US 2019/0125917 A1.
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Knuth as modified teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 7, as explained above.
Knuth as modified differs from claims 8 and 13 because it is silent as to the reflective interior surface of baffle plate 132 (the “reflective member”) being a reflective film formed on a surface part of a member in the housing, as claimed.
But Kim teaches an air cleaner comprising a reflective film that is coated to an inner surface of an inserted part to increase the reflectance of light that is emitted from a UV module. See Kim [0065]. It would have been obvious for the reflective interior surface of the baffle plate 132 of Knuth to be a reflective film that is coated to an interior surface because this is a suitable technique for applying a reflective surface in an air purifier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776