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 Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because the claim is awkwardly written, please proofread and correct.
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.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 11–13, 21, 33–34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fu et al., CN 105561685 A (“Fu”)1 in view of Gottschall et al., US 2021/0370210 A1 (“Gottschall”), and in further view of Gonze et al., US 2011/0214569 A1 (“Gonze”).
Regarding claim 11:
Fu discloses that an air purifying device (Fu’s air purifier system 300, Fu, Fig. 3, p. 2) comprising a housing (Fu discloses its air purifying system comprising a housing, Fu p. 9) on which an air inlet and an air outlet are formed (Fu’s housing would necessarily include opening to allow air to enter, which reads on the claimed “inlet” and opening allowing air to exit, which reads on the exit),
which are fluidically interconnected via a flow path extending in the housing (as that shown by Fu’s air arrow 230, Fu Fig. 3, p. 6),
an air conveying device (Fu’s air blowing device 340, Fu Fig. 3, p. 6) configure to convey the air along the flow path and an air filter (Fu’s HSF structure 310 and 320, Fu Fig. 3, p. 6) configure to filter foreign particles out of the air in the flow path (as shown in Fig. 3),
wherein the air filter has at least one filter body of a motor vehicle particle filter made of a ceramic material (Fu discloses its honeycomb particulate filter comprises ceramic, Fu Fig. 3, p. 8).
Fu does not disclose that its honeycomb filter having a lipophilic surface.
However, Fu discloses its honeycomb filter could comprises at least one coating layer, comprising adsorbent, catalyst or combination thereof, Fu p. 8.
In the analogous art of ceramic honeycomb particulate filters, Gottschall discloses a similar ceramic honeycomb filter structure that are configured to filter particles, Gottschall [0113]. Gottschall discloses a polymer mesh adsorbent that comprising lipophilic groups, Gottschall [0257]–[0258]. Gottschall discloses its polymer mesh adsorbent is configured to bind contaminants from a gas mixture, which may exhibit allergenic or toxic properties. Gottschall [0016] and [0004]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Gottschall’s polymer mesh adsorbent in Fu’s honeycomb filter such that modified Fu’s ceramic filter could filter both particulates and toxic and allergenic contaminants.
Fu as modified does not teach a heating device located between the air inlet and the air filter, wherein the heating device is configured to regenerate the at least one filter body.
In the analogous art of air purifies, Gonze discloses a heating device (Gonze’s inlet heater 35, Fig. 5, [0041]) located between the air inlet (Gonze 214, Fig. 5, [0042]) and air filter (Gonze’s filter 202, Fig. 5, [0041]), wherein the heating device is configured to regenerate the filter, Gonze [0043]. Gonze discloses its filter allows regenerating the filter efficiently while reducing energy use and avoiding substrate damage, Gonze [0027]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Gonze’s heater 35 in modified Fu for the benefits disclosed above.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Fu discloses that the air purifying device according to claim 11, wherein the at least one filter body has multiple flow channels fluidically arranged in parallel, which respectively pass completely through the at least one filter body, wherein each of the flow channels is closed by a closure (Fu’s Fig. 2 shows a honeycomb structure 200, which comprising the claimed multiple flow channels arranged in parallel and pass completely through the filter body and each flow channel is closed by a closing means 240, Fu Fig. 2, p. 6).
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Fu discloses that the air purifying device according to claim 11, wherein the multiple flow channels (as shown in Fu Fig. 2, pointed by label 230) comprise first flow channels (closed by 240 on the right) and second flow channels (closed by 240 on the left),
wherein each closure (240 of Fu) in the first flow channels is arranged at a first axial position with respect to a longitudinal center axis of the at least one filter body and each closure in the second flow channels is arranged at a second axial position different from the first axial position (as shown in Fu Fig. 2, p. 6).
Regarding claim 21:
Modified Fu discloses that the air purifying device according to claim 12, wherein the multiple flow channels (as shown in Fu Fig. 2, pointed by label 230) comprise first flow channels (closed by 240 on the right) and second flow channels (closed by 240 on the left),
wherein each closure (240 of Fu) in the first flow channels is arranged at a first axial position with respect to a longitudinal center axis of the filter body and each closure in the second flow channels is arranged at a second axial position different from the first axial position (as shown in Fu Fig. 2, p. 6).
Regarding claim 33:
Modified Fu discloses the air purifying device of claim 11, wherein the heating device is provided as a heating coil (Gonze discloses its heating element could be heating coil, Gonze [0006]) which overlaps an end face of the at least one filter body by at least 50% (the same way as shown in Fig. 5 of Gonze).
Regarding claim 34:
Modified Fu discloses the air purifying device of claim 11, wherein the heating device is provided as a heating coil (Gonze discloses its heating element could be heating coil, Gonze [0006]) which overlaps an end face of the at least one filter body by at least 70% (the same way as shown in Fig. 5 of Gonze).
Claims 15–16, 24–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fu in view of Gottschall, and in further view of Shao et al., CN 104697079 A (“Shao”)2.
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 11, wherein a bypass channel is formed in the housing, and arranged fluidically in parallel to the air filter and fluidically in series with the air conveying device.
In the analogous art of air purifying device comprising honeycomb structure, Shao discloses an air purifying device (Shao’s haze air removing device, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) comprising a housing (Shao’s box body 1, Id.) and a honeycomb structure 16 (Shao Fig. 2-1, [0065]). Additionally, Shao discloses a bypass channel (Shao’s bypass passage 17, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) formed in the housing (1 of Shao), Shao’s bypass channel 17 is arranged fluidically in parallel to the air filter (Shao’s device 16, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) and fluidically in series with an air conveying device (Shao’s fan 19, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]). Shao discloses that including a bypass passage reduces power consumption electricity and high wind resistance air purification, air quality is maximized to achieve energy saving purpose of introducing clean air and prolongs the service life of the primary filters and no ozone purifier core, Shao Fig. 6, [0030]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Shao’s bypass channel in modified Fu for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 11, wherein the housing has a maintenance opening for removing the air filter, which is at least temporarily closed by a lid.
However, Shao discloses that the housing 1 has a maintenance opening for removing the air filter, which is at least temporarily closed by a lid (see annotated Fig. 1 of Shao below). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Shao’s maintenance opening and the covered lid in modified Fu so that Fu’s filter could be accessed via such opening when necessary.
PNG
media_image1.png
817
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 12, wherein a bypass channel is formed in the housing, and is arranged fluidically in parallel to the air filter and fluidically in series with the air conveying device.
In the analogous art of air purifying device comprising honeycomb structure, Shao discloses an air purifying device (Shao’s haze air removing device, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) comprising a housing (Shao’s box body 1, Id.) and a honeycomb structure 16 (Shao Fig. 2-1, [0065]). Additionally, Shao discloses a bypass channel (Shao’s bypass passage 17, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) formed in the housing (1 of Shao), Shao’s bypass channel 17 is arranged fluidically in parallel to the air filter (Shao’s device 16, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) and fluidically in series with an air conveying device (Shao’s fan 19, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]). Shao discloses that including a bypass passage reduces power consumption electricity and high wind resistance air purification, air quality is maximized to achieve energy saving purpose of introducing clean air and prolongs the service life of the primary filters and no ozone purifier core, Shao Fig. 6, [0030]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Shao’s bypass channel in modified Fu for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding claim 25:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 13, wherein a bypass channel is formed in the housing, and is arranged fluidically in parallel to the air filter and fluidically in series with the air conveying device.
In the analogous art of air purifying device comprising honeycomb structure, Shao discloses an air purifying device (Shao’s haze air removing device, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) comprising a housing (Shao’s box body 1, Id.) and a honeycomb structure 16 (Shao Fig. 2-1, [0065]). Additionally, Shao discloses a bypass channel (Shao’s bypass passage 17, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) formed in the housing (1 of Shao), Shao’s bypass channel 17 is arranged fluidically in parallel to the air filter (Shao’s device 16, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) and fluidically in series with an air conveying device (Shao’s fan 19, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]). Shao discloses that including a bypass passage reduces power consumption electricity and high wind resistance air purification, air quality is maximized to achieve energy saving purpose of introducing clean air and prolongs the service life of the primary filters and no ozone purifier core, Shao Fig. 6, [0030]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Shao’s bypass channel in modified Fu for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding claim 26:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 14, wherein a bypass channel is formed in the housing, and is arranged fluidically in parallel to the air filter and fluidically in series with the air conveying device.
In the analogous art of air purifying device comprising honeycomb structure, Shao discloses an air purifying device (Shao’s haze air removing device, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) comprising a housing (Shao’s box body 1, Id.) and a honeycomb structure 16 (Shao Fig. 2-1, [0065]). Additionally, Shao discloses a bypass channel (Shao’s bypass passage 17, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) formed in the housing (1 of Shao), Shao’s bypass channel 17 is arranged fluidically in parallel to the air filter (Shao’s device 16, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]) and fluidically in series with an air conveying device (Shao’s fan 19, Shao Fig. 2-1, [0064]). Shao discloses that including a bypass passage reduces power consumption electricity and high wind resistance air purification, air quality is maximized to achieve energy saving purpose of introducing clean air and prolongs the service life of the primary filters and no ozone purifier core, Shao Fig. 6, [0030]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Shao’s bypass channel in modified Fu for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding claim 27:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 12, wherein the housing has a maintenance opening for removing the air filter, which is at least temporarily closed a lid.
However, Shao discloses that the housing 1 has a maintenance opening for removing the air filter, which is at least temporarily closed by a lid (see annotated Fig. 1 of Shao in claim 16). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Shao’s maintenance opening and the covered lid in modified Fu so that Fu’s filter could be accessed via such opening when necessary.
Regarding claim 28:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 13, wherein the housing has a maintenance opening for removing the air filter, which is at least temporarily closed by a lid.
However, Shao discloses that the housing 1 has a maintenance opening for removing the air filter, which is at least temporarily closed by a lid (see annotated Fig. 1 of Shao in claim 16). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Shao’s maintenance opening and the covered lid in modified Fu so that Fu’s filter could be accessed via such opening when necessary.
Regarding claim 29:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 14, wherein the housing has a maintenance opening for removing the air filter, which is at least temporarily closed by a lid.
However, Shao discloses that the housing 1 has a maintenance opening for removing the air filter, which is at least temporarily closed by a lid (see annotated Fig. 1 of Shao in claim 16). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Shao’s maintenance opening and the covered lid in modified Fu so that Fu’s filter could be accessed via such opening when necessary.
Regarding claim 30:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 15, wherein the housing has a maintenance opening for removing the air filter, which is at least temporarily closed by a lid.
However, Shao discloses that the housing 1 has a maintenance opening for removing the air filter, which is at least temporarily closed by a lid (see annotated Fig. 1 of Shao in claim 16). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Shao’s maintenance opening and the covered lid in modified Fu so that Fu’s filter could be accessed via such opening when necessary.
Regarding claim 31:
Modified Fu does not disclose the air purifying device of claim 15, wherein the bypass channel is configured to set a temperature of the air downstream of the at least one filter body is set to a target temperature. However, modified Fu’s bypass channel would be capable of seting a temperature of air downstream of the at least one filter body because when air in the bypass channel merges with air pass through the filter, temperature of air downstream of the at least filter body will change if the two streams of air have different temperature. Since modified Fu includes a heating unit upstream of the filter element, the air in the bypass channel would necessary be different from the heated air temperature and the downstream air temperature after two stream merge would change.
Claims 14, 22–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fu in view of Gottschall and Gonze, and in further view of Park et al., US 2007/0000219 A1 (“Park”).
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 11, wherein an air inlet grille is arranged in the air inlet and the air inlet grille consists of multiple struts.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Park discloses an air inlet 11 which is shown as a grill and the air inlet grill consists of multiple struts as shown in Fig. 1, Park Fig. 1 [0035]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Fu’s air inlet to look like Fu’s air inlet grill because such design is known in the art.
Regarding claim 22:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 12, wherein an air inlet grille is arranged in the air inlet and the air inlet grille consists of multiple struts.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Park discloses an air inlet 11 which is shown as a grill and the air inlet grill consists of multiple struts as shown in Fig. 1, Park Fig. 1 [0035]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Fu’s air inlet to look like Fu’s air inlet grill because such design is known in the art.
Regarding claim 23:
Modified Fu does not disclose that the air purifying device according to claim 13, wherein an air inlet grille is arranged in the air inlet and the air inlet grille consists of multiple struts.
In the analogous art of air purifiers, Park discloses an air inlet 11 which is shown as a grill and the air inlet grill consists of multiple struts as shown in Fig. 1, Park Fig. 1 [0035]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Fu’s air inlet to look like Fu’s air inlet grill because such design is known in the art.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fu in view of Gottschall and Gonze as applied in claim 11, and in further view of Paukner et al., US 2019/0376432 A1 (“Paukner”).
Regarding claim 32:
Modified Fu does not disclose the air purifying device of claim 11, wherein the regeneration of the at least one filter body is carried out when a pressure difference across the at least one filter body measured by at least one pressure sensor exceeds a threshold value.
In the analogous art of air purifier relies on heating for regeneration, Paukner discloses pressure sensors 40, 42, which are configured to determine a load level of the filter and initiate regeneration accordingly, Paukner [0037]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Fu’s air purifier to include Paukner’s pressure sensor to determine if a regeneration of the filter should be initiated because such pressure difference is known in the art to determine a filter load level as disclosed by Paukner.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The examiner drops the current objection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 112(b) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Newly introduced amendments are rejected in view of new prior art presented above. Please see details in the rejection section above.
Conclusion
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Fu is the 17-page FOR dated Mar. 15, 2024. A copy of Fu’s machine translation is provided with the office action. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text.
2 A copy of Shao’s original document and machine translation are provided with the office action. The examiner relies n the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text.
Prosecution Insights