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 § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eide (US 2018/0250431).
Regarding claim 1, Eide (US 2018/0250431) teaches –
An air sanitation unit (abstract, title; Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a duct including an inlet and an outlet for directing airflow through the unit (the conduit extending from inlet 118 and out of outlet 112),
one or more photocatalytic oxidation (PCO) devices (the treatment chamber 104) disposed within the duct, wherein each PCO device includes:
a frame having a length, width, and height, with a longitudinal axis extending through the length of the frame (the chamber 104 and the housing that defines it has these dimensions),
a pair of cell panels disposed opposite one another across the width of the frame (cell panels 138a-c sit opposite one another),
an interior portion of the frame between the cell panels defining an interior chamber (the space between the cell panels 138),
the cell panels including a plurality of apertures to allow air to flow into and through the interior chamber (apertures 140; par. 121), and
at least interior surfaces of the cell panels and aperture surfaces of the cell panels including a photocatalytic material (par. 121), and
an ultraviolet lamp disposed within the interior chamber and extending along the longitudinal axis (UV source 134, 136); and
a fan configured to move surrounding air into the inlet, through the one or more PCO devices, and through the outlet (fan 120, par. 118).
Regarding claim 2, Eide further teaches the fan is positioned upstream of the one or more PCO devices such that surrounding air is pushed through the one or more PCO devices (Fig. 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 3, Eide further teaches the fan is positioned downstream of the one or more PCO devices such that surrounding air is pulled through the one or more PCO devices (Fig. 1 shows blower 45 downstream of the treatment chamber, par. 54).
Regarding claim 5, Eide further teaches approximately all of the airflow through the duct passes through the one or more PCO devices (Figs. 1-2 show all the air flowing through unit 104).
Regarding claim 10, Eide further teaches one or more additional cell panels (middle cell panel 138a, or upper or lower cell panel 224 in fig. 3), the additional cell panels including a plurality of apertures to allow air to flow into and through the interior chamber, and at least interior surfaces of the additional cell panels and aperture surfaces of the additional cell panels including a photocatalytic material (par. 121 and holes 140).
Regarding claim 11, Eide further teaches one or more additional cell panels are positioned upstream of the one or more PCO devices (Fig. 3 the upper cell panel 224).
Regarding claim 12, Eide further teaches one or more additional cell panels are positioned downstream of the one or more PCO devices (Fig. 3 the lower cell panel 224).
Regarding claim 13, Eide further teaches a surface of a major plane of at least one additional cell panel is oriented at an oblique angle relative to a major plane of at least one of the cell panels of the one or more PCO devices (the cells 138/224 in figs. 2-3 have some surface, such as the apertures 226 as illustrated, that have some angle relative to the other cell panel that is oblique).
Regarding claim 14, Eide further teaches the oblique angle of the additional cell panel is within a range of greater than 0 degrees to approximately 60 degrees (the cells 138/224 in figs. 2-3 have some surface such as the apertures 226 as illustrated, that have some angle relative to the other cell panel that appears to fall in this range – further this angle and plane are arbitrarily defined).
Regarding claim 16, Eide teaches –
An air sanitation unit (Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a photocatalytic oxidation device (title, abstract) that includes:
a frame having a length, width, and height, with a longitudinal axis extending through the length of the frame (the housing of chamber 104 has these dimensions and walls),
a pair of cell panels disposed opposite one another across the width of the frame (cells 138a-c and 226),
an interior portion of the frame between the cell panels defining an interior chamber (the portion between the cells 138 defines a space being a chamber),
the cell panels including a plurality of apertures to allow air to flow into and through the interior chamber (apertures 140, par. 121), and
at least interior surfaces of the cell panels and aperture surfaces of the cell panels including a photocatalytic material (par. 121), and
an ultraviolet lamp disposed within the interior chamber and extending along the longitudinal axis (UV sources 136); wherein
the device is located within an air duct (the device falls within the duct defined by the path from fan 120 to outlet 112).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eide (US 2018/0250431) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wiese (US 2011/0155365).
Regarding claim 4, Eide is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to the type of fan.
Wiese (US 2011/0155365) teaches a system for controlling airflow (title, abstract) including a cross flow fan (par. 60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Eide to include a cross flow fan to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known and conventional fan type taught in the art for the use of blowing air in an air treatment system to arrive at a successful invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eide (US 2018/0250431) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Goswami (US 5,933,702).
Regarding claim 6, Eide is set forth with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to an inverted funnel.
Goswami (US 5,933,702) teaches an air treatment system (title) including an inverted funnel upstream of the PCO device (fig. 3 shows inverted funnel ahead of UV lamps 24 and catalyst 28; Col. 6 lines 17-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Eide such that the device includes an inverted funnel upstream of the PCO device to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to accommodate a larger PCO device in the system to allow for more air to be processed to arrive at an improved device.
Claims 7-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eide (US 2018/0250431) as applied to claim 1 and 10 above and further in view of Clark (US 2014/0091230).
Regarding claim 7, Eide is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to two or more PCO devices.
Clark (US 2014/0091230) teaches a PCO system (par. 110, Figs. 9-10 sterilization chambers 1010) including two or more PCO devices (devices 1010, 1020, 1030, in combination 1000, par. 143; par. 9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Eide such that there are multiple PCO devices as taught by Clark to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to more thoroughly treat the air to arrive at an improved treatment system.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Clark teaches both configurations where a first PCO device and a second PCO device, the first and second PCO devices being vertically aligned such that the airflow passes through either the first or second PCO device (see fig. 10), and
a first PCO device and a second PCO device, the first and second PCO devices being horizontally aligned such that the airflow first passes through the first PCO device and then through the second PCO device (fig. 9), and this combination with Eide would be obvious for the same reasons with respect to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, Eide teaches the PCO devices an the cells are at an oblique angle relative to the major planes of one another (Figs. 2 and 3 show this) and where the major planes of cell panels are obliquely oriented with one another (see figs. 2-3 where the apertures 140 and 226 are defined by some surface having some angle relative to other cell panels that is oblique), but appears to be silent with regards to upstream and downstream cell panels.
Clark teaches a plurality of PCO devices in series (see fig. 9) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Eide such that there are a plurality of PCO systems for further treatment of the air as taught by Clark such that there are additional upstream and downstream cell panels to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eide (US 2018/0250431) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Rigby (US 2023/0054225).
Regarding claim 17, Eide is set forth above with regards to claim 16 but appears to be silent with regards to the unit being configured to activate in response to an airflow.
Rigby (US 2023/0054225) teaches a germicidal air treatment system (pars. 3-4) where sensors detect an air flow rate and activates the system when the detected airflow rate is low (par. 120). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Eide such that sensors detect an air flow rate and activate the system when the detected airflow rate is low and at some minimum detected value as taught by Rigby to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better automatically control the system and to only activate the system when required to arrive at an improved and more efficient system.
Regarding claim 18, modified Eide teaches the unit is connected to an airflow sensor, and wherein the unit is configured to activate when the airflow sensor fails to detect a minimum airflow through the air duct (par. 120).
Regarding claim 19, modified Eide teaches a fan in fluid communication with the air duct (Eide teaches blower 120), the fan being configured to provide an airflow through the air duct (par. 118); wherein the air duct forms part of a ventilation system (fig. 2), the ventilation system being connected to one or more ventilation devices (sees fig. 1 where there are multiple ventilation devices, par. 25 discloses the system being part of an HVAC system); and wherein the air sanitation unit and the one or more ventilation devices are connected to a system that activates the fan of the air sanitation unit when the one or more ventilation devices do not produce an airflow through the air duct (see par. 120 of Rigby).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eide (US 2018/0250431) in view of Rigby (US 2023/0054225) as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of Martin (US 2023/0201395).
Regarding claim 20, modified Eide is set forth with regards to claim 19 above but appears to be silent with regards to an interlock system.
Martin (US 2023/0201395) teaches a sanitizing system for a space (abstract) including a safety interlock system to prevent access of the space when sanitizing is underway (pars. 99, 101). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Eide such that there is an interlock system to control access to an environment in fluid communication with the ventilation system during operation of the unit to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to prevent undesirable exposure of a person to potentially harmful chemicals released during treatment to arrive at an improved system.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eide (US 2018/0250431) in view of Meirav (US 8,690,999).
Regarding claims 13-14, should it be found Eide fails to teach the oblique angle with sufficient specificity:
Meirav (US 8,690,999) teaches an air treatment system (title) including a plurality of air treatment modules that have filter units positioned at oblique angles relative to one another (Figs. 3 and 12, inserts 330, 120; Col. 14 lines 45-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Eide such that the plurality of cell panels are arranged at oblique angles between 0 and 60 degrees relative to one another to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to allow the device to include a plurality of adjustable inserts to arrive at an improved treatment device. Furthermore, the modification of the angle of the cells relative to one another is nothing more than routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eide (US 2018/0250431) in view of Meirav (US 8,690,999) in view of Clark (US 2014/0091230).
Regarding claim 15, should it be found Eide fails to teach the oblique angle with sufficient specificity: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device or Eide to have the claimed angles to arrive at the claimed invention as suggested by Meirav and Clark for all the same reasons in the rejection of claims 13-14 in view of Meirav above and the rejection of claim 15 in view of Clark above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights