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 § 103
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 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 2020/0332701 A1 in view of Mou et al., US 2022/0057091 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an air cleaner 10, which reads on the claimed “air purifier for an indoor pollution purification and prevention system.” See Park Fig. 1, [0034]. The air cleaner 10 comprises:
A “main body,” which is the body of the air cleaner 10 seen in Fig. 1. The “main body” is configured to form an “airflow path,” which is the airflow path from suction portions 202 to outlet 305. See Park Figs. 1, 22 [0045], [0054].
A second fan 260 (the “air guiding fan”) disposed in the airflow path and configured to guide an air convection, as claimed. See Park Fig. 3, [0097]. The limitation of the air guiding fan being configured to guide an air convention with “a clean air delivery rate (CADR) over 600 m3/h” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
A filter 220 (the “filtering component”) disposed in the airflow path and configured for filtering an air pollution in the air convection guided by the fan 260. See Park Fig. 3, [0091].
A third fan 330 in flow adjusting device 300 (the “circulation fan”) is further disposed in the airflow path, as claimed. See Park Fig. 3, [0136]. The third fan 330 is configured to guide a gas convection on the main body, as claimed. Id. The third fan 330 is also configured to be moved up and down (in direction B) and rotated multi-dimensionally (in direction A) on the main body to guide the gas convection in a specific direction, as claimed. Id. at Fig. 14, [0182]–[0183].
PNG
media_image1.png
940
959
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park differs from clam 1 because it is silent as to the air cleaner comprising a networking controller configured for receiving a control command through wireless communication to perform an activation operation of the second fan 260, as claimed.
But, Park teaches that the air cleaner 10 can comprise various dust sensors for sensing the amount of dust in the air. See Park [0064], [0114].
With this in mind, Mou teaches an air purifier comprising a gas detection module 4 that is used to detect the particle concentration of suspended particles in the air around the air purifier. See Mou Fig. 2A, [0037], [0041]. The gas detection module 4 is configured to transmits detection datum of the particle concentration to an external device 6, such as a mobile phone. Id. at [0042]. When the particle concentration in the datum is higher than a set threshold, the gas detection module 4 is also configured to receive a signal from the external device to adjust the airflow rate of a gas guider 3 of the air purifier (e.g., a fan) (id. at [0042]), and to control enablement and disablement of the gas guider 3 (id. at [0044]). The gas detection module 4 is beneficial because it is able to control operation of the gas guider 3 to ensure that relatively safe purified gas is provided to a user for breathing. Id. at [0037].
It would have been obvious to use the gas detection module 4 with the air cleaner 10 of Park to operate the fans (including second fan 260) to ensure that relatively safe purified gas is provided to a user for breathing. With this modification, the gas detection module 4 reads on the “networking controller configured for receiving a control command through wireless communication to perform an activation operation of the air guiding fan.”
Returning to the limitation of the air guiding fan (second 260 of Park) being—“configured to guide an air convection with a clean air delivery rate (CADR) over 600 m3/h”—as noted, this limitation fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. But, even if this limitation received patentable weight, Mou teaches that the airflow rate produced by a gas guider 3 (e.g., a fan) of an air purifier is result effective because it impacts the ability of the air purifier to remove particles from air. See Mou [0042]. Mou teaches a suitable airflow rate of 800 ft3/min, which converts to about 1,359 m3/h. Id. It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal air flow rate (i.e., clean air delivery rate) of the second fan 260 (the “air guiding fan”) to achieve desired particulate removal from air. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieve the claimed range of over 600 m3/h because Mou teaches that a suitable air flow rate through an air purifier can be 1,359 m3/h. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches that the air pollution is dust (particulate matter) and bacteria. See Park [0003].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the limitations of the air guiding fan (the second fan 260 of Park) being—“configured to operate with the clean air delivery rate (CADR) of 600 m3/h (or over 1,000 m3/h) in the air purifier”— these limitation fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art because they describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art). But, even if the limitations received patentable weight, Mou teaches that the airflow rate produced by a gas guider 3 (e.g., a fan) of an air purifier is result effective because it impacts the ability of the air purifier to remove particles from air. See Mou [0042]. Mou teaches a suitable airflow rate of 800 ft3/min, which converts to about 1,359 m3/h. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal air flow rate (i.e., clean air delivery rate) of the second fan 260 (the “air guiding fan”) to achieve the desired residence time through the filter member 220. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieve the claimed range of 600 m3/h or over 1,000 m3/h because Mou teaches that a suitable air flow rate through an air purifier can be 1,359 m3/h. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 5, Mou teaches that the gas detection module 4 (the “networking controller”) is a switch configured to receive the control command through wireless communication to control activation or shutdown mechanism of the gas guider 3 (the “air guiding fan”), as claimed, because communicator 4d receives instructions from the external device 6 to adjust the airflow rate of the gas guider 3, which includes turning the gas guider 3 on. See Mou [0042].
Regarding claim 6, Mou teaches that the gas detection module 4 (the “networking controller”) is a detection microcontroller including a gas detection module, which is configured to receive the control command through wireless communication, detect the air pollution and outputs gas detection data, as claimed. See Mou [0042]. Also, the gas detection data is configured to be used in a monitoring mechanism status to compare and issue a driving instruction to control activation or shutdown mechanism of the second fan 260 of Park (the “air guiding fan”) and control air volume adjustment of the second fan 260, as claimed. This is because the gas detection module 4 sends particle concentration data to the external device 6 which can then use the data to monitor whether the particle concentration data is higher than a set threshold to then send an alarm to a user and adjust the airflow rate of the gas guider 3 (a fan of the air purifier). Id.
Regarding claim 7, Mou teaches that the “monitoring mechanism status” is configured to perform a monitoring mechanism in a connection of the gas detection module and the air purification device for determining if the gas detection data of the air pollution detected exceeds a safety detection value, as claimed, because the external device 6 determines whether the particle concentration in the detection datum is higher than a set threshold. See Mou [0042].
Regarding claim 8, Mou teaches that the threshold of particle concentration (the “safety detection value”) is a concentration of PM2.5 of 0.75 µg/m3, which is within the claimed range of less than 15 µg/m3. See Mou [0042], [0059].
Regarding claim 9, Mou teaches that the gas detection module 4 comprises a controlling circuit board 4a (the “controlling circuit board”), a gas detection main part 4b (the “gas detection main part”), a microprocessor 4c (the “microprocessor”) and a communicator 4d (the “communicator”). See Mou Figs. 5A, 5C, [0042]. The gas detection main part 4b, the microprocessor 4c and the communicator 4d are integrally packaged on the circuit board 4a and electrically connected to the circuit board 4a. Id. The microprocessor 4c controls the detection of the gas detection main part 4b. Id. The gas detection main part 4b detects the air pollution and outputs a detection signal. Id. The microprocessor 4c receives and processes the detection signal to generate the gas detection data and provides it to the communicator 4d for external communication transmission. Id. Note that the communicator 4d is capable of transmitting the data to an indoor air pollution complete purification and prevention system because the communicator 4d transmits the data to an external device 6. Id.; MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 10, Mou teaches that the gas detection module 4 (the “detection microcontroller”) receives the command control from the external device 6 through wireless communication, and wherein the control command is received by the communicator 4d, as claimed. See Mou [0042]. The control command could be issued by an indoor air pollution complete purification and prevention system because the control command is issued by the external device 6. Id.
Regarding claim 11, Mou teaches that the gas detection main part 4b comprises a base 41 including a first surface 411, a second surface 412 opposite the first surface 411 and a laser loading region 413 hollowed out from the first surface 411 to the second surface 412. See Mou Fig. 5C, [0057]. The base 41 also comprises a gas-inlet groove 414 concavely formed from the second surface 412 and disposed adjacent to the laser loading region 413. Id. The gas-inlet groove 414 comprises a gas-inlet 414a and two later walls. Id. The gas-inlet 414a is in communication with an environment outside of the base 41, and a transparent window 414b is opened on the two lateral walls and is in communication with the laser loading region. Id.
Also, a gas-guiding-component loading region 415 concavely formed from the second surface 412 and in communication with the gas-inlet groove 414, wherein a ventilation hole 415a penetrates a bottom surface of the gas-guiding-component loading region 415 See Mou Figs. 6A, 6B, [0058].
Further, a gas-outlet groove 416 concavely formed from the first surface 411, spatially corresponding to the bottom surface of the gas-guiding-component loading region 415, and hollowed out from the first surface 411 to the second surface 412 in a region where the first surface 411 is not aligned with the gas-guiding-component loading region 415, wherein the gas-outlet groove 416 is in communication with eh ventilation hole 415a, and a gas-outlet 416a is disposed in the gas-outlet groove 416. See Mou Figs. 6A, 6B, [0058].
Also, a piezoelectric actuator 42 is accommodated in the gas-guiding-component loading region 415. See Mou Figs. 8A, 8B, [0060].
Further, a driving circuit board 43 is covering and attached to the to the second surface 412 of the base 41. See Mou Figs. 5B, 5C, [0061].
Also, a laser component 44 is positioned and disposed on the driving circuit board 43 and is electrically connected to the driving circuit board 43, and accommodated in the laser loading region 413. See Mou Figs. 5C, 7, [0059]. A light beam emitted from the laser component 44 passes through the transparent window 414b and extends in a direction perpendicular to the gas-inlet groove 414 thereby forming an orthogonal direction with the gas-inlet groove 414. Id.
Further, a particulate sensor 45 is positioned and disposed on and electrically connected to the driving circuit board 43 and is disposed at an orthogonal position where the gas-inlet groove 414 intersects the light beam path of the laser component 44 in the orthogonal direction, so that suspended particles contained in the air pollution passing through the gas-inlet groove 414 and irradiated by a projecting light beam emitted from the laser component 44 are detected. See Mou Figs. 5C, 7, [0059].
Also, a volatile-organic-compound sensor 47a (the “gas sensor”) is positioned and disposed on the driving circuit board 43 and electrically connected to the driving circuit board 43, and accommodated in the gas-outlet groove 416, so as to detect the air pollution introduced into the gas-outlet groove 416. See Mou Figs. 5C, 12, [0070].
Further, an outer cover 46 covering the base 41 comprising a side plate 461, wherein the side plate 461 has an inlet opening 461a and an outlet opening 461b, where the inlet opening 461a spatially corresponds to the gas-inlet 414a of the base 41 and the outlet opening 461b spatially corresponds to the gas-outlet 416a of the base 41. See Mou Fig. 5C, [0057], [0061].
The outer cover 46 covers the base 41 and the driving circuit board 43 covers the second surface 412, thereby an inlet path is defined by the gas-inlet groove 414 and an outlet path is defined by the gas-outlet groove 416, so that the air pollution is inhaled from the environment outside the base 41 by the piezoelectric actuator 42, transported into the inlet path through the inlet opening 461a, and passes through the particulate sensor 45 to detect the particle concentration of the suspended particles contained in the air pollution, and the air pollution transported through the piezoelectric actuator 42 is transported out of the outlet path through the ventilation hole 415a, passes through the volatile-organic-compound sensor 47a for detecting and then is discharged through the outlet opening 461b. See Mou Fig. 5C, [0068], [0070].
Regarding claim 12, Mou teaches that the particulate sensor 45 is for detecting suspended particulate information. See Mou [0059].
Regarding claim 13, Mou teaches that the volatile-organic-compound sensor 47a (the “gas sensor”) comprises a volatile-organic-compound sensor for detecting gas information of volatile organic compounds. See Mou [0070].
Regarding claim 14, Mou teaches that the gas sensor can comprise a formaldehyde sensor used for detecting gas information of formaldehyde. See Mou [0070].
Regarding claim 15, Mou teaches that the wireless communication can be Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, a radio frequency identification communication or a near field communication. See Mou [0042].
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches that the filter 220 is a filter screen to clean the air pollution through a physical way of blocking and absorbing, as claimed. See Park [0115].
Regarding claim 17, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Park as modified differs from claim 17 because it is silent as to the filter 220 being coated with a decomposition layer to clan the air pollution through a chemical way.
But Park teaches that the filter 220 is used to remove dust and bacteria from air moving through the air purifier. Also, Mou teaches an air purifier comprising a purification unit 2 comprising a HEPA filter screen 2a (a dust filter) that is coated with silver ion to inhibit viruses and bacteria in the gas introduced into the air purifier (a decomposition layer to clean the air pollution through a chemical way). See Mou [0045]. It would have been obvious to coat the filter 220 of Park with the silver ions of Mou to inhibit viruses and bacteria in the gas introduced into the air cleaner.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Park as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Park as modified differs from claim 18 because it is silent as to the filter 220 being combined with a light irradiation element to clean the air pollution through a chemical way. Park differs from claim 19 because it is silent as to the filter 220 being combined with a decomposition unit to clean the air pollution through a chemical way. But Park teaches that the filter 220 is used to remove dust from air moving through the air purifier. Also, Mou teaches an air purifier comprising a HEPA filter screen (a dust filter) combined with a photocatalyst unit 2b that combines a photocatalyst 21b with an ultraviolent lamp 22b. See Mou Fig. 2B, [0046]. The photocatalyst unit 2b is beneficial because it decomposes harmful gases and disinfects bacteria. Id. It would have been obvious to combine the filter 220 of Park with the photocatalyst unit 2b of Mou to provide a mechanism to decompose harmful gases and disinfect bacteria.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al., US 2022/0010799 A1 (air cleaner with air circulator); Oh et al., US 2021/0063036 A1 (air purifier with movable circulator); Combs et al., US 2017/0087500 A1 (air purifier where user interface can be on the casing of the air purifier or can be an app on a mobile phone, [0050]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights