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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benedek (US 20190240371 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Benedek teaches a purification device (FIG. 1, air treatment system 100), comprising: a housing (FIG. 1, the housing of the air treatment system 100), wherein the housing is provided with an airflow channel (FIG. 1, air space 144), air inlet holes (FIG. 1, air inlet section 112) and air outlet holes (FIG. 1, paragraph 43, the assembly has outlet holes as well), the air inlet holes are disposed at a lower part of the housing, the air outlet holes are disposed at an upper part of the housing (FIG. 1, air comes in at the bottom of the assembly and exits at the top of the assembly), and the airflow channel communicates the air inlet holes with the air outlet holes (FIG. 1); a purification assembly (FIG. 1, the interior of the air treatment system 100), wherein the purification assembly comprises ozone generation assemblies (FIG. 1, the parts making up the ozone generator 120) and ultraviolet lamps (FIG. 1, UV light sources 122), the ozone generation assemblies and the ultraviolet lamps are sequentially arranged in the airflow channel along an airflow direction of the airflow channel (FIG. 1), and the ozone generation assemblies are used to generate ozone (the ozone generator 120 generates ozone); an electrical assembly (FIG. 1, the assembly of components along the walls of the air treatment system 100 above the ozone generator 120), wherein the electrical assembly is mounted at the upper part of the housing (see above), the electrical assembly comprises lamp holders (FIG. 1, the holding apparatus for the UV slight sources 120), the ultraviolet lamps are mounted on the lamp holders (FIG. 1), and the electrical assembly is electrically connected with the ozone generation assemblies (FIG. 1, the assembly of electronics above the ozone generator 120 is electrically connected to the ozone generator 120, as the whole assembly is electrically self-contained).
Regarding claim 6, Benedek teaches that the housing comprises a housing body (FIG. 1, the portion of the housing above the ozone generator 120) and an air inlet (FIG. 1, the portion of the housing at the ozone generator 120 and below) casing, the air inlet casing is mounted at a lower part of the housing body, the air outlet holes and a part of the airflow channel are disposed in the housing body (FIG. 1, the outlet is on the top of the assembly), the air inlet holes and a part of the airflow channel are disposed in the air inlet casing (FIG. 1, air inlet section 112 is on the bottom part of the assembly), and the ozone generation assemblies are mounted inside the air inlet casing (FIG. 1, ozone generator 120 is on the bottom part of the assembly).
Regarding claim 7, Benedek teaches that the purification assembly comprises a cover plate (FIG. 1, the top surface of the assembly), an accommodation space (FIG. 1, the interior volume of the assembly beneath the fan) is formed between the cover plate and the air inlet casing (FIG. 1, the interior volume of the assembly lies between the top surface and the bottom surface of the casing), the ozone generation assemblies are located in the accommodation space (FIG. 1), and the accommodation space is in communication with the airflow channel (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Benedek teaches a range hood (paragraph 97, the assembly of FIG. 1 may be built into a ventilation hood), comprising: a host machine (paragraph 97, the mechanical part of the ventilation hood); the purification device of claim 1 (see above), wherein the purification device is mounted on the host machine (paragraph 97); and, a fan (FIG. 1, fan 162) connected with the purification device, wherein the fan is configured to suck gases and discharge the gases into the purification device (FIG. 1, the fan 162 pulls air into the assembly).
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 above, and further in view of Rak (JP 2019513970 A).
Regarding claim 2, Benedek fails to teach that an opening is disposed on the top of the housing, and the electrical assembly comprises a mounting casing which partially protrudes into the airflow channel and closes the opening; the lamp holders are mounted on the mounting casing.
However, Rak teaches that an opening (FIG. 1, the opening at the top of casing 1) is disposed on the top of the housing, and the electrical assembly comprises a mounting casing (FIG. 1, exhaust cover 14) which partially protrudes into the airflow channel and closes the opening (FIGS. 1 and 3); the lamp holders are mounted on the mounting casing (FIG. 1, the exhaust cover 14 contains the fan 7 (i.e., electronics), and in the combination below, the inner electronics include the lamp holders).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Benedek by having the electronics of Benedek held in place at the top by a cap mount, as taught by Rak, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Benedek with these aforementioned teachings of Rak with the motivation of making access to the interior easy.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 above, and further in view of Kang (WO 2020187187 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Benedek teaches that plural partition strips (FIG. 1, the left and right walls of the housing (i.e., strips) extend downwardly from the top surface and are attached to the ozone generator 120) are disposed on the cover plate.
Benedek fails to teach that mounting holes are formed on the partition strips, each of the ozone generation assemblies comprises a mounting column and a coil surrounding the mounting column, and the mounting column is mounted on the mounting holes.
However, Kang teaches that mounting holes are formed on the partition strips (FIG. 7, the holes on the top of smoke collecting hood 42), each of the ozone generation assemblies comprises a mounting column (FIG. 7, connecting column 7268) and a coil (FIG. 7, coil 7264) surrounding the mounting column, and the mounting column is mounted on the mounting holes (FIG. 7, the holes on top of frame 7262 align with the holes on top of the smoke collecting hood 42 for mounting).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Benedek by having the ozone generator be a mountable coil-based device, as taught by Kang, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Benedek with these aforementioned teachings of Kang with the motivation of making it easier to replace the ozone generator by using a common coil-based model that may be attached and unattached using fasteners.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek as applied to claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 above, and further in view of Segura (US 20140079597 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Benedek teaches that the plural partition strips and the cover plate form a mounting groove (FIG. 1, the groove/space formed particularly between the left and right walls).
Benedek fails to teach that the purification assembly comprises a transformer electrically connected with the ozone generation assemblies, and the transformer is disposed inside the mounting groove.
However, Segura teaches that the purification assembly comprises a transformer (FIG. 5, transformer 420) electrically connected with the ozone generation assemblies (paragraph 72, the transformer 420 and ozone generator 412 are connected.), and the transformer is disposed inside the mounting groove (FIG. 5, the transformer 420 is located within the shell, and therefore, in the combination below, within the groove of Benedek).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Benedek by having the ozone generator be a connected to a tranformer, as taught by Segura, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Benedek with these aforementioned teachings of Kang Segura with the motivation of allowing the ozone generator to work with a number of different power supply types.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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. The claims are allowable because the Examiner was unable to find art teaching an air purifier with a mounting space separate from an air channel, wherein ultraviolent lamps extend into the mounting space and are mounted within the mounting space, as recited by claim 3, which claims 4 and 5 depend on.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights