DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election with traverse of Group I claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 8/17/26 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that the Examiner did not identify a materially different apparatus capable of performing the method of claims 8-14. This is not found persuasive because the claimed method may be performed using a materially different arrangement such a central HVAC filtration system by having an external particle sensor and a separate display. Such an arrangement may perform the claimed steps of detecting particle concentrations, determining variations for particle sizes, and providing filter cleaning information without having the air purifier structure in claims 1-7.
Applicant further argues that the three groups share the feature of providing filter cleaning information based on concentration changes for particles of different sizes. However, the presence of a common feature does not, by itself, establish that the inventions must be examined together. Claims 1-7 require examination of physical air purification system structures and the relationship among those components. Claims 8-14 are directed at the steps of the control method and may be performed using different hardware. Claims 15-20 are directed to a computer readable recording and storing instructions and therefore require searching computer program areas distinct from the apparatus or method claims. The method of claims 8-14 may be implemented by other control circuitry without using the medium of claims 15-20. Conversely, the claimed medium may be stored or executed by a computer or distributed control systems that are separate from the air purifier in claims 1-7
The requirement is still deemed proper and made FINAL.
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:
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. US Patent 10,695,706 in view of Kim et al. KR 101927587.
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches an apparatus for measuring particulate matter comprising:
An air cleaner 200, comprising an inlet for dirty air and an outlet for purified air (column 8 lines 15-33);
A display unit (column 6 lines 54-56);
An air quality sensor 220 (column 6 lines 40-49, column 8 line 20);
A filter 110 configured to filter the dust from the input air (column 6 lines 55-58, column 8 lines 23-26);
A fan 240 that is configured to draw in the dirty air through the filter then discharge clean air through the output (column 8 lines 21-22); and
A processor that is configured to:
Distinguish fine particulate matter of a first size PM2.5 form larger particulate matter of a second size PM10 and estimate the concentration or accumulated amount of each particle size category over time (column 8 lines 25-38); and
Control the display information related to filter cleaning (column 7 lines 45-50 and column 8 lines 49-53) based on the ratio of the accumulated amounts with a predetermined threshold (column 5 lines 34-39).
Cho calculates time accumulated size concentrations and compares the accumulated amounts. Cho adds up the detected PM2.5 and PM10 and compares the ratio to tell the user when the filter should be replaced.
Cho does not explicitly teach calculating a temporal concentration variation for each particle size class and displaying the filter cleaning information when the difference between those variations exceeds a predetermined value
Kim, however, teaches an air cleaning apparatus with a filter between an inlet and outlet, a dust concentration sensor, a filter-performance determining unit, and a fan driving the air through the inlet, filter, and outlet. Kim also teaches providing visual notification when filter cleaning or replacement is required. Kim calculates how quickly the overall dust concentration in the room drops while the purifier is active by the equation ([0045]).
P
=
-
(
V
/
t
)
l
n
(
C
t
C
0
)
Where C0 is the dust concentration when the purifier starts, t is the run time, Ct is the concentration of the dust after the run time t, V is volume of the room. Kim explains that the slope of the dust concentration changes as dust accumulates in the filter and that this metric can be compared with a threshold to determine when the filter can be replaced. Kim further teaches that this method provides an efficient and economical route to indicate filter replacement notices without additional or expensive airflow sensors ([0036]-[0045] and [0051]-[0057]; pages 3 and 4 of the attached translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the air purifier in Cho with the dust concentration calculation method in Kim because the modification would provide an accurate way to determine a filter replacement without additional or expensive airflow sensors. One would find it obvious to apply Kim’s metric to each of the PM2.5 and PM10 concentration channels in Cho. Cho expressly teaches that the relative quantities of differently sized particles provide useful filter-condition information while Kim teaches that the temporal reduction of sensed dust concentration provides an accurate indication of filter cleaning abilities.
Regarding claim 3, Cho and Kim teach that the filters are for fine and ultrafine airborne particles. Fine airborne dust sizes are known to range from about 0.1 to 2.5 µm.
Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art that the different sizes of the particles being filtered and detected include 0.5 µm and 2.5 µm.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Cho teaches the filter may comprise a pre-filter, and a HEPA, or ULPA filter which are dust collection filters to remove dust from the air after passing the pre-filter (column 4 line 67-column 5 line 2).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches determining an initial filter cleaning performance when the filter is first used and determining the current filter performance during later operation. Kim compares the current performance with a threshold based on the initial performance and provides a cleaning or replacement notification when the performance has decreased ([0052]-[0057]; page 4 of the translation).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. US Patent 10,695,706 in view of Kim et al. KR 101927587 and in further view of Usami JP 3079142.
Regarding claim 2, Cho and Kim teach the air purifier as discussed for claim 1 above. Cho and Kim do not explicitly teach calculating each variation by dividing the difference between a maximum concentration by the time interval between those concentrations.
Usami teaches that detected dust concentration decreases after reaching a peak and calculates the rate of concentration decrease during a predetermined interval beginning at the peak as ΔTSa/ΔT. This attenuation rate is compared to a reference rate ΔTS/ΔT ([0026]-[0028] and Figure 2). Because the concentration sequentially decreases during the selected interval, the peak is the maximum concentration, and the end of the interval is the minimum concentration. Usami’s calculation therefore represents the difference between the maximum and minimum concentration divided by the elapsed time.
Thus, it would have been obvious to use Usami’s calculation method in Cho and Kim to provide a simple measure of how quickly the concentration of each particle decreases.
Regarding claim 7, Cho and Kim teach the combination above. Kim further teaches a third filter performance variation during initial operation and a corresponding fourth filter performance variation during later operation. Usami teaches calculating a dust concentration variation as the difference between a maximum and minimum divided by a time interval.
It would have been obvious to use Usami’s concentration change calculation to calculate both Kim’s initial and later filter performance variation. This would provide the same consistent calculation for comparing the original performance of the filter with its performance after use. Accordingly, the combination teaches both the third variation and fourth variation as the difference between a maximum and minimum dust concentration divided by the time interval detection of those concentrations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights