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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 8-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/6/26.
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-7, 10-11 in the reply filed on 8/6/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112/102
Rejections withdrawn.
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.
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(s) 1-7,10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0063036 to Oh as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0113050 to Douglas.
Oh teaches
1. An air purifier (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 94-170) comprising: an air filter (paragraphs 112, 118, 123-125, 129-130, 136-154, 166-168; claims 1-19); a processor being part of the air purifier or remote from the air purifier (Fig. 2, controller 210), a fan and a motor (Fig. 2, airflow generators, paragraph 112, 118, 146); an air inlet and an air outlet (Fig. 3A, 3B, inlet 320 and outlet 360); a removable particulate or gas filter (Fig. 3A, 3B, filter 330, paragraphs 112, 118, 123-125,129-130,136-154,166-168), a sound sensor and at least one further sensor (Fig. 2, sensor unit 230, paragraph 113-120, 126, 129-138, 144-159, 164-166) selected from a carbon dioxide sensor, a particulate sensor, a humidity sensor and a volatile organic carbon sensor (paragraph 113-125, 135-169); means for transmitting information from the sound sensor and the further sensor to the processor for processing input from the sound sensor and the at least one further sensor (paragraph 105-108, 36-92, 116-121); and means for controlling the fan based on a calculation by the processor (paragraph 111-112, 118-123, 141-146, 157-159), wherein
the processor is configured to determine whether a sound has occurred in the immediate environment of the air purifier (paragraph 101-102, 113-114, 126-135, 146-147, 164-165).
2. The air purifier according to claim 1 wherein the processor compares input from the sound sensor with sounds in a database in order to ascertain the occurrence of a predetermined sound in the detectable environment (Fig. 4B, paragraphs 128-131, paragraphs 36-92).
3. The air purifier according to claim 1 where the processor is in a device remote from the purifier (paragraphs 96-109, 116-121, 134-135, 143-147, 159, 164-170).
4. The air purifier according to claim 1 wherein the processor is can self-calibrate based on noise caused by the air purifier in operation (paragraph 17, 44-59, 70-72, 88-92, 130).
5. The air purifier according to claim 1 wherein said controlling the fan comprises increasing fan speed (paragraph 146).
6. The air purifier according to claim 1 comprising two further sensors (Fig. 2, sensor unit 230, paragraph 113-120, 126, 129-138, 144-159, 164-166).
7. The air purifier according to claim 1 comprising three further sensors (Fig. 2, sensor unit 230, paragraph 113-120, 126, 129-138, 144-159, 164-166).
10. The air purifier according to claim 1 wherein the processor is remote from the air purifier and part of a mobile electronic device (paragraphs 105-107, 116, 121-122).
11. The air purifier according to claim 10 wherein the mobile electronic device is a mobile telephone (paragraph 99).
1,2. Oh fails to teach whether the sound correlates with a cough or sneeze, and the predetermined sound is a cough or sneeze.
1,2. Douglas teaches the processor is configured to determine whether a sound has occurred in the immediate environment of the air purifier which correlates with a cough or a sneeze (Abstract, paragraphs 128, 437, 447, 454, 484); the processor ascertains the occurrence of a cough or sneeze in the detectable environment (Abstract, paragraphs 128, 437, 447, 454, 484).
Oh and Douglas are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, environment management.
Since Douglas teaches cough or sneeze detection that enables providing clean filtered air to the user that coughed or sneezed to suppress the coughing or sneezing (paragraph 447, 484), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the technique of cough or sneeze detection as taught by Douglas to improve the environment management of Oh for the predictable results of enabling providing clean filtered air to the user that coughed or sneezed to suppress the coughing or sneezing (paragraph 447, 484).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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
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 SEAN P SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3754. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm, 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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/Sean Shechtman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights