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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 07 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20220046053 A).
Regarding claims 1, Lee teaches an air purifier with a function of inactivating collected pathogens in a filter portion (device for removing bacteria, odors, and viruses, paragraph [0005]), the air purifier comprising: a tubular body portion having an air intake port (Figure 1 housing “100” with inlet “101”); a plasma filter portion provided behind the air intake port (Figure 1 plasma reactor “400”); a pathogen collection filter portion provided on at least one side of the plasma filter portion (Figure 1 HEPA filter “300” to one side of plasma reactor “400”); and a bypass passage guiding an air flow and including an ozone decomposition portion (air flow is driven from the inlet to the outlet and supplied to the ozone filter to remove untreated ozone, paragraph [0047]), the air flow containing ozone generated during operation of the plasma filter portion and passing through the pathogen collection filter portion (air circulates to further supply ozone and active oxygen species generated in the plasma reactor to the HEPA filter to further remove bacteria and viruses on the HEPA filter, paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches wherein the bypass passage included a fan guiding the air flow to the bypass passage and discharging air passing through the ozone decomposition portion indoors (Figure 1 fan “F1” guides air from inlet “101” to outlet “102” passing through ozone filter “600”, and removing bacteria, odors, and viruses from indoor air, paragraph [0005]), the air flow containing ozone generated during operation of the plasma filter portion and passing through the pathogen collection filter portion (fan draws in air to supply ozone and active oxygen to the HEPA filter, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches where in the pathogen collection filter portion includes a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter (HEPA filter further filters virus-containing droplets, paragraph [0023]).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of KR 20210059095 A.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches wherein the plasma filter portion includes a plasma generation module including a first electrode, a second electrode, and a dielectric between the first electrode and the second electrode (Figure 2 first electrodes “401” and second electrodes “402” separated by dielectrics “403” and “404”), and the first ground electrode and the high voltage electrode are formed of a grid-shaped or porous metal (Figure 2 first electrodes “401” and second electrodes “402” formed in a grid pattern), but does not teach wherein the first electrode is a ground electrode, the second electrode is a high voltage electrode, and the dielectric is a porous ceramic electrode. However, KR 20210059095 A teaches wherein the first electrode is a ground electrode (a first ground electrode, paragraph [0021]), the second electrode is a high voltage electrode (a high voltage electrode, paragraph [0021]), and the dielectric is a porous ceramic electrode (plasma generator comprising a porous dielectric, paragraph [0001]).
Lee and KR 20210059095 A are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of plasma air purifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to combine the plasma generation unit taught by Lee with the structural features of the plasma generator taught by KR 20210059095 A because KR 20210059095 A such a construction causes effective ozone generation with minimal pressure while increasing air purification capacity (paragraph [0069]).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lin (TW I585349 B).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the air purifier comprises: a tubular body portion having the air intake port (Figure 1 housing “100” with inlet “101”); the plasma filter portion provided behind the air intake port (Figure 1 plasma reactor “400”); the pathogen collection filter portion provided on at least one side of the plasma filter portion (Figure 1 HEPA filter “300” to one side of plasma reactor “400”); a second fan guiding air passing through the pathogen collection filter portion to a second portion is in operation to inactivate the pathogens collected in the pathogen collection filter portion (second fan circulates air to supply ozone generated to HEPA filter, paragraph [0016]); a second air discharge port discharging air passing through the second passage indoors (Figure 1 air discharged through outlet “102”); and the ozone decomposition portion included in the second passage and decomposing ozone generated in the plasma filter portion before the air is discharged through the second air discharge port (Figure 1 fan “F1” guides air from inlet “101” to outlet “102” passing through ozone filter “600”), but does not teach a first fan guiding air passing through the pathogen collection filter portion to a first passage when the plasma filter portion is not in operation; a first air discharge port discharging air passing through the first passage indoors. However, Lin teaches a first fan guiding air passing through the pathogen collection filter portion to a first passage when the plasma filter portion is not in operation (Figure 4 motor “31” directs air through filter “321” without plasma filter module “221”); a first air discharge port discharging air passing through the first passage indoors (Figure 2 auxiliary air outlet “13”).
Lee and Lin are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of plasma air purifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the air purifier taught by Lee with the additional air passage without the plasma filter because Lin teaches the auxiliary filter module provides a larger air volume than the plasma filter to advantageously provide clean air with a high air exchange rate (page 3 paragraphs [0001]-[0002]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Lin in view of Johnston (US 20220241451 A1).
Regarding claim 5, while combination of Lee and Lin does not explicitly teach wherein the first fan is operated at 1000 to 1500 CMH when the plasma filter portion is not in operation, Lin teach wherein the auxiliary filter module provides a large air volume (page 3 paragraph [0002]), and gives an example of a total air volume exchange of 1000 CMH and explains that the auxiliary filtration module has a volumetric rate of more than 1.9 times that of the plasma filtration module (paragraph [0001] page 6]). Lin teaches the necessity of high air exchange rates to effectively purify the air (page 3 paragraph [0002]). Additionally, Johnston teaches that it is known in the art that air treatment units, such as HVAC systems, are capable of using blowers with a volumetric flow rate of between 1000 to 1500 CMH (HVAC at an air flow rate of 750 CFM (~1274.26 CMH), paragraph [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the auxiliary motor taught by Lin with the blower taught by Johnston through a simple substitution of part to obtain the desired air flow rate (See MPEP 2143 I (B)).
Johnston is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of air purification devices.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Lin in view of Garner (US 20100178196 A1).
Regarding claim 6, a combination of Lee and Lin teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the second fan is operated at 10 to 200 CMH when the plasma filter portion is in operation. However, Garnet teaches wherein the second fan is operated at 10 to 200 CMH when the plasma filter portion is in operation (air flow rate was about 69 CFM or ~163.11 CMH, paragraph [0072]).
Lee, Line, and Garner are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of plasma air purifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the plasma filter fan as such a flow rate was shown in an example by Garner to reduce CFUs of a bacterium in the air stream to zero (paragraph [0069]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Crowe (US 7192553 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the ozone decomposition portion includes an ozone decomposition catalyst. However, Crowe teaches wherein the ozone decomposition portion includes an ozone decomposition catalyst (Figure 1 catalyst media “125” downstream of plasma discharge device “105” and ozone catalyst media, column 8 line 58).
Lee and Crowe are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of plasma air purifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the ozone decomposition portion as taught by Lee with the ozone decomposition catalyst taught by Crowe because Crowe teaches the use of such a catalyst can advantageously further reduce the concentrations of undesirable compounds in the fluid such as ozone (column 7 lines 12-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights