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
The limitation of “the medium” and “gaseous medium” are interchangeably used in claims 1–2. Please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion. Additionally, the term “gaseous medium flow” and “the medium flow” are interchangeably used throughout the claim set, please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Claim 6 is objected because the limitation of “is and/or can be operated without a filter” is difficult to understand.
Claim 10 is objected because the limitation of “on the one hand…on the other hand” and “and/or” seems redundant.
Claim 13 is objected because the limitation of “the cyclone separator” should be “the plurality of cyclone separators.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16 is rejected because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is a use claim without reciting any steps.
Claim 17 is rejected because it depends on claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the limitation of “(as of April 2023)”. It is unclear what this limitation means, and how does this limitation structurally limit the claimed “air conditioning system.” Claim 1 is also indefinite because the limitation of “the cyclone separator” lacks antecedent basis. Similar issues with claims 2, 7–10, 13 because they have the limitation. The limitation of “the irradiation device” in claims 1–3, 7, 11–12, 14–15, 17–18 is also indefinite.
Claims 2–18 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 2 is indefinite because the limitation of “the particles” lacks antecedent basis. The limitation of “the continuous discharge” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the term “the medium” is referring to “the gaseous medium” or “transport medium.”
Claims 4–5 are indefinite because it depends on claim 3.
Claim 4 is indefinite because the term “the first inlet” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is indefinite because the claimed wavelength range include broad and narrow range in the same limitation and it is unclear if the narrower range meant to further limit.
Claim 10 is indefinite because the term “the forced flow” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 11 is indefinite because the term “the thermal room climate” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 13 is indefinite because the limitation of “the case of a serial arrangement” lacks antecedent basis. It is also unclear what the term “each case” refers to. The limitation of “each first gas outlet” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 14 is indefinite because the term “the thermal room climate” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 15 is indefinite because the claimed flow velocity of the medium flow has both broad and narrow range in the same claim. It is therefore unclear if the recited narrow range meant to further limit.
Claim 16 is indefinite because it is a use claim without reciting steps.
Claim 17 is indefinite because it depends on claim 16. Claim 17 is also indefinite because it includes both broad and narrow range in the same claim and therefore it is unclear if the narrow range meant to further limit.
The claims set is replete with indefiniteness issues. Please proofread and make sure all of the issues are taken care of before resubmitting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu, CN 105135532 A (“Hu”)1.
Regarding claim 1:
Hu discloses that an air conditioning system (Hu’s device as shown in Fig. 1) for air purification of residential, office, administrative and/or industrial buildings (Hu discloses its air cleaner can be used in commercialization, industry building, Hu Fig. 1, p. 1), in accordance with DIN 1946 (as of April 2023), for arrangement in air purification systems for buildings (intended use, and Hu’s device is an air cleaner used in building, Hu Fig. 1, p. 1),
the air conditioning system having:
at least one cyclone separator (Hu’s cyclone separating device 1, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2) for separating solid and/or liquid particles of a gaseous medium (Hu’s cyclone separator 1 separates solid particle polluter in air, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2), and at least one irradiation device (Hu’s sterilizing device, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2) associated with the cyclone separator for UV irradiation (Hu’s sterilizing device is Ultraviolet germicidal lamp, Hu p. 2), of the gaseous medium (Hu’s polluted air, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2) flowing through the irradiation device for inactivating microorganisms present in the medium (Hu p. 2).
Regarding claim 16:
Hu discloses that use of the air-conditioning system according to claim 1 for air purification of residential, office, administrative and/or industrial buildings (the process of using Hu’s device read on this claim).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2–4, 7–8, 11–12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hu in view of Wei, CN 111102672 A (“Wei”)2.
Regarding claim 2:
Hu discloses that the air conditioning system according to claim 1, wherein the cyclone separator (1 of Hu) has a cyclone housing (where label 1 points, Hu Fig. 1) through which the medium can flow and which has a first inlet (where Hu’s inlet pipe 3 connects to Hu’s housing 1, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2), and a gas outlet (where Hu’s tracheae 4 enters Hu’s cyclone housing 1, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2) for the medium flow freed from the separated particles (polluted air enters Hu’s tracheae 4 after passing through cyclone separator 1, and therefore, the gas entering tracheae 4 is freed from the separated particles).
Hu does not disclose a particle outlet for the particles separated from the medium flow. Hu does not disclose that wherein a discharge device for the continuous discharge of the separated particles is associated with the particle outlet. Hu does not disclose wherein a transport medium can be used to discharge the particles in the discharge device.
In the analogous art of air condition systems comprising cyclone separator, Wei discloses a cyclone separator 15, Wei Fig. 1, p. 4. Wei discloses its cyclone separator 15 has a particle outlet (Wei’s drain tube immersed in drain groove 17, Wei Fig. 1, p. 4) for the particles separated from the medium flow (Wei discloses its drain groove is a pollution discharge groove, Wei, Fig. 1, p. 4); wherein a discharge device (Wei’s drain pipe 27, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5) for the continuous discharge of the separated particles is associated with the particle outlet (Wei’s drain pipe 27 is capable of continuous drain if the blow-down valve 21 is open, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5); wherein a transport medium (Wei discloses as water, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5) can be used to discharge the particles in the discharge device. Wei discloses its device improves treatment efficiency, and the treatment efficiency can reach about 99. 99 percent for dust, toxicity, harm, odor and other volatile organic compounds (TVOC) in the air and the like such as formaldehyde, toluene, ammonia and the like; the aims of eliminating toxic, odorous and harmful gases in the air and the like are fulfilled, Wei p. 5. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Wei’s cyclone design for the benefits of improved treatment efficiency.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Hu discloses that the air conditioning system according to claim 2, wherein the irradiation device (10 of Hu) has a housing (Hu’s casing above pipe 4, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2) having a housing inlet (where Hu’s pipe enters Hu’s casing above pipe 4, Hu Fig. 1) and a housing outlet (Hu’s air outlet pipe 11, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2) for the medium and at least one radiation source (Hu discloses as ultraviolet germicidal lamp, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2) which is arranged inside the housing and emits UV radiation for irradiating the medium flowing through the housing (Hu’s lamp is ultraviolet germicidal lamp, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Hu discloses that the air conditioning system according to claim 3, wherein the first inlet and/or the housing outlet is designed for arrangement on at least one air pipe (Hu’s first inlet is connected to Hu’s inlet pipe 3, which is an air pipe, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2) and/or air hose.
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Hu discloses that the air conditioning system according to claim 3, wherein the irradiation device (10 of Hu) is connected upstream and/or downstream of the cyclone separator (Hu’s device 10 is connected downstream of its cyclone separator 1, Hu Fig. 1) and/or is at least partially integrated into the cyclone separator and
wherein the gas outlet opens into (Hu’s gas outlet 4 opens into the housing 9 inlet, Hu Fig. 1) or forms the housing inlet and/or wherein the housing inlet is arranged in the gas outlet.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Hu discloses that the air conditioning system according to claim 3, wherein an immersion tube (Hu’s pipe 4, Hu Fig. 1, p. 2) of the cyclone separator (1 of Hu) having the gas outlet is provided for discharging the medium flow from the cyclone housing (where label 1 points in Hu Fig. 1) and
wherein the immersion tube (4 of Hu) forms and/or has the housing inlet of the housing (Hu’s upper end of pipe 4 is the housing inlet, Hu Fig. 1) and/or wherein a depth of the immersion tube projecting into the cyclone housing is variable.
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Hu does not disclose that the air conditioning system according to claim 1, wherein a tempering device is provided for regulating the thermal room climate in a building for heating and/or cooling the medium flow,
wherein the tempering device is arranged upstream and/or downstream in the irradiation device; and
wherein the tempering device has at least one infrared lamp and/or wherein the tempering device has at least one heat exchanger.
However, Wei discloses that the air conditioning system according to claim 1, wherein a tempering device (Wei’s intelligent automatic centralized control device 31 with the connected refrigerating and heating integrated machine 41, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5) is provided for regulating the thermal room climate in a building for heating and/or cooling the medium flow (Wei’s intelligent automatic centralized control device 31 is connected to refrigerating and heating integrated machine 41 to control heating and cooling, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5),
wherein the tempering device is arranged upstream and/or downstream in the irradiation device (31 of Wei is arranged upstream of an ultraviolet lamp group 12, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5); and
wherein the tempering device (31 of Wei) has at least one infrared lamp and/or wherein the tempering device has at least one heat exchanger (Wei’s tempering device is mapped to label 31, 41 and 41 is a heat exchanger, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5).
It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Wei’s intelligent automatic centralized control device 31 with the connected refrigerating and heating integrated machine 41 in modified Hu such that Hu’s air purifier not only purifies air but also functions as a HVAC system for the building.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Hu does not disclose that the air conditioning system according to claim 3, wherein an injection device for injecting a liquid is provided for humidity regulation and/or for disinfection of the medium flow, wherein the injection device is connected upstream of the irradiation device and/or is arranged in the housing inlet.
However, Wei discloses the air conditioning system according to claim 3, wherein an injection device (Wei’s water inlet 3, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5) for injecting a liquid (water, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5) is provided for humidity regulation and/or for disinfection of the medium flow, wherein the injection device (3 of Wei) is connected upstream of the irradiation device and/or is arranged in the housing inlet (3 of Wei is arranged at housing inlet, Wei Fig. 1).
It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing t include Wei’s water inlet at modified Hu’s housing inlet to provide humidified air.
Regarding claim 14:
Hu does not disclose that the air conditioning system according to claim 1, wherein:
a tempering device is provided for regulating the thermal room climate in a building for heating and/or cooling the medium flow;
an injection device for injecting a liquid is provided for humidity regulation and/or for disinfection of the medium flow; and
the tempering device, the injection device and/or the irradiation device can be controlled and/or regulated by a control and/or regulating device independently of one another.
However, Wei discloses:
a tempering device (Wei’s refrigerating and heating integrated machine 41, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5) is provided for regulating the thermal room climate in a building for heating and/or cooling the medium flow (Wei’s refrigerating and heating integrated machine 41 is for temperature control, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5);
an injection device (Wei’s water inlet 3, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5) for injecting a liquid (Wei’s water, Wei Fig. 1, p. 5) is provided for humidity regulation and/or for disinfection of the medium flow (Wei p. 50); and
the tempering device (41 of Wei), the injection device (3 of Wei) and/or the irradiation device can be controlled and/or regulated by a control (Wei’s intelligent automatic centralized control device 31 is connected to 41 and water pump 20, which is connected to water inlet 3, Wei fig. 1, p. 5) and/or regulating device independently of one another.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hu in view of Wei, and in further view of Siess et al., US 2004/0005252 A1 (“Siess”).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Hu does not disclose that the air conditioning system according to claim 3, wherein the at least one radiation source emits UV radiation in a wavelength range selected from one of the following: from at least 240 nm to 300 nm, from 250 nm to 285 nm; from 270 nm to 280 nm; from 254 nm +/- 10 %; and from 278 nm +/- 10 %.
In the analogous art of air purifier comprising cyclone separator and UV lamps, Siess discloses its UV light has a wavelength of about 254 nm, Siess [0050]. Siess discloses its design prevent spread of harmful airborne agents through the ventilation system, Siess Fig. 1, [0075]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Hu’s UV radiation in the wavelength as disclosed by Siess to prevent spread of harmful airborne agents through the ventilation system. With such modified, modified Hu would have a wavelength range falls within the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hu.
Regarding claim 6:
Hu does not explicitly disclose that the air conditioning system according to claim 1, wherein the air conditioning system is and/or can be operated without a filter.
However, Hu discloses its filter serves the function of “improving the purifying effect.” And Hu’s cyclone separator 1 cause solid particle impurity to drop, Hu p. 2. Hu’s device can be operated without its filter as a less efficient filter. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Hu’s device without filters when the filters are clogged and replacement is not available and there is an urge to prevent virus spreading. Having a certain level of filtration effect is always better than nothing.
Regarding claim 15:
While Modified Hu does not disclose that the air conditioning system according to claim 1, wherein the air conditioning system is designed in such a way that a flow velocity of the medium flow in the irradiation device is selected from between 2 and 20 m/s, and between 2.5 and 10 m/s (noted here that “flow velocity” is directed to physical structure of the claimed air conditioning system, rather, it is directed to a way of operating the claimed air conditioning system, such limitation are only given patentable weight insofar as it affects the claimed structure, and here, the exmainer is interpreting Hu’s air condition system as being capable of have a different flow velocity depending on user preference by adjusting fan speed of Hu’s air introduced machine 2, Hu FIG. 1, p. 2) and ; and/or
wherein the air conditioning system is designed in such a way that a turbulent flow of the medium flow is present in the irradiation device and wherein a Reynolds number of the flow in the irradiation device is greater than 2300.
Claims 9–10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hu in view of Wei as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Strauser et al., US 2007/0295209 A1 (“Strauser”).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Hu does not disclose that the air conditioning system according to claim 3, wherein the cyclone separator is designed as an axial separator and/or co-current separator; and/or
wherein the cyclone separator has a swirl generator arranged in the cyclone housing for generating a rotation of the medium, wherein the swirl generator is a rotatable and/or adjustable swirl generator having a plurality of deflection blades.
In the analogous art of cyclone separators, Strauser discloses an axial cyclone separator 52, Strauser Fig. 2, [0021]. Strauser discloses its axial cyclone separator can be used in arrays and in parallel, which is good for maintaining optimal operating efficiency, Strauser Fig. 2, [0002]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hu’s cyclone separator to be axial cyclone separator as disclosed by Strauser for an optimal separation efficiency by allowing a parallel array configuration.
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Hu discloses that the air conditioning system according to claim 9, wherein a blower device (Strauser’s turbine 54, Strauser Fig. 2, [0020]) is provided for outside air and/or inside air intake and/or blow-out (Strauser’s turbine 54 introduce intake air, Strauser Fig. 2, [0022]), on the one hand for outside air intake and inside air intake and/or on the other hand for outside air blow-out and inside air blow-out;
wherein the blower device (54 of Strauser) is associated with the cyclone separator (as shown in Strauser Fig. 2) and/or the irradiation device in such a way that the medium flow flows through the housing and/or the cyclone housing; and
wherein the blower device (54 of Strauser) is arranged in the cyclone separator (as shown in Strauser Fig. 2) and/or in wherein the swirl generator additionally forms the blower device and/or wherein the swirl generator generates the forced flow.
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Hu does not disclose that the air conditioning system according to claim 2, wherein a plurality of cyclone separators and/or irradiation devices is provided, wherein the cyclone separators are connected in series and/or parallel to one another; and/or
wherein, in the case of a serial arrangement of the cyclone separators, an irradiation device is arranged in each case between two cyclone separators arranged one behind the other; and/or
wherein, in the parallel arrangement of the cyclone separators, an irradiation device is assigned to each first gas outlet of a cyclone separator, or wherein, in the parallel arrangement of the cyclone separators, a plurality of first gas outlets of cyclone separators is assigned to an irradiation device, wherein a single irradiation device is provided for all cyclone separators.
However, as discussed in claim 9, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hu’s cyclone separator to be axial cyclone separator as disclosed by Strauser for an optimal separation efficiency by allowing a parallel array configuration. With such modification, modified Hu would read on the limitation of “a plurality of cyclone separators and/or irradiation devices is provided, wherein the cyclone separators are connected in series and/or parallel to one another”.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hu in view of Johnson et al., US 2011/0171090 A1 (“Johnson”).
Regarding claim 17:
Hu does not disclose that use of an air conditioning system according to claim 16, wherein a flow velocity of the medium flow in the irradiation device is selected from between 2 and 20 m/s and between 2.5 and 10 m/s.
In the analogous art of ultraviolet light equipped air purifiers, Johnson discloses an air cleaning system comprising a second zone where air is subjected to ultraviolet light, Johnson [0013]. Johnson also discloses that a flow velocity of 5 m/s in the second zone ensuring the required treatment times in the second zones, Johnson [0087]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Johnson’s flow velocity in its irradiation device to ensure a required treatment time. With such modification, modified Johnson would have a flow velocity falls within the claimed range.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hu in view of Lee et al., US 2018/0185538 A1 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 18:
Hu does not disclose use of an air conditioning system according to claim 1, wherein a turbulent flow of the medium flow is present in the irradiation device, and wherein a Reynolds number of the flow in the irradiation device is greater than 2300.
In the analogous art of air purifier comprising ultraviolet light, Lee discloses its device could have a turbulent flow and a Reynolds number between 2300 and 4000, Lee [0047]. Lee discloses such air distribution mechanism is suitable for air conditioner with ultraviolet lamps, Lee [0047]–[0048]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use such air distribution mechanism in Hu because it is suitable for an air cleaner with ultraviolet lamps.
Conclusion
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/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Hu’s original document is the 6-page FOR dated Jun. 04, 2024. Hu’s machine translation is the 4-page FOR dated Jun. 04, 2024. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text.
2 Wei’s original document is the 11-page FOR dated Jun. 04, 2024. A copy of Wei’s machine translation is provided with the office action, because the translation provided by the applicant is not legible. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text
Prosecution Insights