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 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from another multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 20 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 requires a “substantially square of rectangular cross-section”, it is unclear how to differentiate “substantially square” from “rectangular cross-section”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palmer (US 2013/0239803 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Palmer discloses a device [reference character 140] for attenuating ultraviolet radiation in an air handling system [see Fig.17], wherein the device is arranged for insertion in a ducting section [reference character 1410] of the air handling system, the device comprising: a plurality of elongate flow passages [reference character 420, described as a baffle and flow straightener, see paragraph 0074], wherein each of the plurality of elongate flow passages is configured to permit airflow through the elongate flow passage from an inlet of the device to an outlet of the device [see Fig. 22 and paragraph 0074]; wherein each of the elongate flow passages comprises one or more internal walls comprising a coating configured to absorb a proportion of incident ultraviolet radiation1 [see paragraph 0058].
With respect to claim 2 Palmer discloses that the device is arranged for insertion in the ducting section such that any airflow through the ducting section flows through the elongate flow passages of the device [see Figs. 17-22].
With respect to claim 3 Palmer discloses that the plurality of elongate flow passages are arranged such that, collectively, the plurality of elongate flow passages has a substantially square or rectangular cross-section [see Fig. 5, reference character 420 is overall substantially rectangular].
With respect to claim 4 Palmer discloses that the plurality of elongate flow passages is configured to permit air to flow substantially unimpeded through the elongate flow passage from the inlet to the outlet [Palmer discloses a “flow straightener”, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the airflow through the passages of a flow straightener is substantially unimpeded, see paragraph 0071].
With respect to claim 5 Palmer discloses that each of the plurality of flow passages is straight [note that Palmer discloses a “flow straightener”, see paragraph 0071].
With respect to claim 9 Palmer discloses that the coating is configured to absorb a proportion of incident UVC radiation [see paragraph 0058].
With respect to claim 11 although Palmer does not explicitly disclose that the black surface reflects less than 20% of incident UVC radiation; however, because Palmer discloses a black surface [see paragraph 0058] the limitation is implied because a black surface absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation.
With respect to claim 12 Palmer discloses that the coating comprises one or more coats of black paint [see paragraph 0058].
With respect to claim 13 Palmer discloses that the device is for attenuating ultraviolet radiation in a heating, ventilation and air conditioning, HVAC, system comprising a source of ultraviolet radiation, and wherein the device is arranged for insertion in a ducting section of the HVAC system [see paragraph 0074].
With respect to claim 14 Palmer discloses a ducting section [reference characters 1410] comprising a device according to any of claims 1 to 13 [see Figs. 17-22].
With respect to claim 15 Palmer discloses that the ducting section is for use in a ventilation and air conditioning, HVAC2, system comprising a source of ultraviolet radiation [reference character 210].
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palmer (US 2013/0239803 A1).
With respect to claim 21 Palmer discloses a method of manufacturing a device for attenuating ultraviolet radiation, the method comprising: providing a device comprising a plurality of elongate flow passages [reference character 420], wherein each of the plurality of elongate flow passages is configured to permit airflow through the elongate flow passage from an inlet of the device to an outlet of the device [note that reference character 420 is described as a baffle and flow straightener, see paragraph 0074]; and applying a first coat of a coating configured to absorb a proportion of incident ultraviolet radiation to one or more internal walls of each of the plurality of elongate flow passages [see paragraph 0058]3.
With respect to claim 23 Palmer discloses that the coating comprises black paint [see paragraph 0058].
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palmer (US 2013/0239803 A1).
With respect to claim 24 Palmer discloses a method of attenuating electromagnetic radiation, the method comprising: providing a device comprising a plurality of elongate flow passages [reference character 420], wherein each of the plurality of elongate flow passages is configured to permit airflow through the elongate flow passage from an inlet of the device to an outlet of the device [note that reference character 420 is described as a baffle and flow straightener, see paragraph 0074]. Palmer further discloses positioning the device between a source of the electromagnetic radiation [reference character 210] and a particular location [the location on the opposite side of 420 from 210], thereby reducing the amount of electromagnetic radiation that reaches the particular location.
With respect to claim 25 Palmer discloses that the electromagnetic radiation is ultraviolet radiation [see UV lamp, reference character 210].
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US 2013/0239803 A1).
With respect to claim 19 Palmer discloses a ducting section according to claim 14 (see rejection for claim 14); Palmer further discloses one or more baffles [see paragraph 0074, where 420 is a baffle and a flow straightener] and an ultraviolet radiation source [reference character 120], wherein the one or more baffles are configured to prevent photons emitted by the ultraviolet radiation source from entering the plurality of elongate flow passages in a direction parallel to the plurality of elongate flow passages [see paragraph 0074].
Palmer does not disclose that the baffle is arranged between the plurality of elongate flow passages and an ultraviolet radiation source. Note that Palmer does not disclose whether the baffle is upstream of downstream of the elongate flow passages.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to position the baffle between the radiation source and the elongate flow passages, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With respect to claim 22 Palmer does not disclose applying a second coat of the coating to the one or more internal walls of each of the plurality of elongate flow passages.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the filing date of the invention to provide two coats of blackening, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working
parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 “Additionally or alternatively, the airflow path of the system 110 may be blackened to prevent UV reflection through the system inlet or outlet” [paragraph 0058], since the flow straightener is part of the airflow path it is fairly interpreted as coated in black.
2 The limitation “for use in a ventilation and air conditioning, HVAC, system” is interpreted as intended use, since Palmer explicitly discloses a ventilation system [see Abstract] a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the system could be implemented in an HVAC system.
3 See footnote 1.
Prosecution Insights