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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jianqing (Document Identification No. CN 106862249 A) in view of An (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0220766).
It is first noted that the English Translation of Jianqing will be referenced herein.
Jianqing discloses a food waste disposer (Figure 1), comprising:
A chamber (1-6) configured to accommodate food waste (page 2, lines 10-13); and
A deodorizer (13) including:
A photocatalytic filter (18);
A light source unit (14) configured to irradiate light having a specific range of frequencies to the photocatalytic filter (page 2, lines 14-17); and
An activated carbon filter (20) configured to deodorize the gas passed through the photocatalytic filter (page 2, lines 13-30) as shown in Figures 1-3.
Dependent upon the orientation of the deodorizer (13), the photocatalytic filter can be configured to be inclined so as to form an acute angle from a direction of gravity, and as such, said orientation of said photocatalytic filter is nothing more than a mere matter of engineering design choice. Nonetheless, Jianqing does not appear to specifically disclose that the photocatalytic filter is inclined so as to form an acute angle from a direction of gravity. However, evidence is provided by An to disclose that the orientation of the photocatalytic filter is nothing more than a mere matter of engineering design choice; wherein the reference discloses a food waste disposer that includes a chamber for food waste with a deodorizer that is provided with a photocatalytic filter (300) as shown in Figures 1-7 (Abstract; paragraphs 38-41). The reference continues to disclose that said photocatalytic filter (300) is inclined so as to form an acute angle from a direction of gravity (Figures 3 & 4) in order to provide said filter in an orientation that is predictably successful and mutually beneficial for an environment and configuration of the food waste disposer (paragraphs 30-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the photocatalytic filter of Jianqing so that said filter is inclined so as to form an acute angle from a direction of gravity in order to provide said filter in an orientation that is predictably successful and mutually beneficial for an environment and configuration of the food waste disposer as exemplified by An. Such is considered nothing more than a mere matter of engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill.
As such, claim 1 is not patentable over Jianqing in view of An.
With respect to claims 6 & 7, Jianqing in view of An does not appear to disclose the angle the photocatalytic filter (18) is inclined by, or the distance from the light source unit (14) to said photocatalytic filter (18). However, such is considered a result effective variable to one of ordinary skill. As such, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Thus, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the angle of the photocatalytic filter to be inclined by 30-60 degrees from the direction of gravity, and the distance between the light source unit (14) and the photocatalytic filter (18) by 15-25 mm in order to provide a successful and compact deodorizer for the food waste disposer that is configured with an orientation that is mutually beneficial for an environment and configuration of the food waste disposer; as such are considered result effective variables that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill during routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, claims 6 & 7 are not patentable over Jianqing in view of An as well.
Claims 2 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jianqing (Document Identification No. CN 106862249 A) in view of An (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0220766) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asano et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0268927).
Jianqing is relied upon as set forth above. While Jianqing discloses that the light source unit includes a first light source unit (14) configured to irradiate light on a lower/first surface of the photocatalytic filter (18) as shown in Figure 2; the reference does not appear to disclose a second light source unit configured to irradiate light to a second/upper surface of the photocatalytic filter. Asano discloses a deodorizer for removing contaminants from air, wherein the deodorizer includes a chamber with a photocatalytic filter (51) and a light source (60A) configured to irradiate a first/lower surface photocatalytic filter (paragraphs 33-37) as shown in Figure 1. The reference continues to disclose a second light source unit (60B) configured to irradiate light to a second/upper surface of the photocatalytic filter (51) in order to ensure photocatalytic light reaches all sides of said photocatalytic filter (paragraphs 64-70) as shown in Figure 2. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the deodorizer of Jianqing with a second light source unit configured to irradiate light to a second/upper surface of the photocatalytic filter in order to ensure photocatalytic light reaches all sides of said photocatalytic filter as exemplified by Asano.
Thus, claim 2 is not patentable over Jianqing in view of An and Asano.
Regarding claim 8, while Jianqing discloses that the light source unit (14) are UV lights (page 2, lines 13-15) that are disposed to irradiate light in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the photocatalytic filter (18) as shown in Figure 2; the reference does not appear to disclose that the light source unit includes a plurality of UV-LEDs. Nonetheless, Asano continues to disclose that the light source unit is an LED light source unit because UV LEDs are more efficient and provide for controlled directionality of the light (paragraphs 45 & 21). Therefore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize UV LEDs as the UV light sources in Jianqing because UV LEDs are more efficient and provide for controlled directionality of the light as exemplified by Asano as well.
Thus, claim 8 is also not patentable over Jianqing in view of An and Asano.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jianqing (Document Identification No. CN 106862249 A) in view of An (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0220766) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohya et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0046947).
Concerning claims 3-5, Jianqing is relied upon as set forth above. Jianqing does not appear to disclose a cover surface between the light source unit and the photocatalytic filter that is formed of a material through which light is transmitted. Ohya discloses an apparatus for storing food, wherein the apparatus includes a deodorizer comprising a photocatalytic filter (17) and a light source unit (19) to irradiate said filter (paragraphs 59 & 60). The reference continues to disclose a cover surface (22) between the light source unit (19) and the photocatalytic filter (17) that is formed of a material through which light is transmitted (paragraph 75); wherein the cover surface (22) is inclined so that condensate generated from gas passing through the photocatalytic filter is discharged by gravity along the cover surface (paragraph 80) or is parallel to the photocatalytic filter (Figure 23) as set forth in paragraphs 75-80. Ohya discloses that the cover is provided in order to protect the light source unit from dirt and debris traveling with the gas through the filter and past the light source (paragraphs 75-80). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cover surface formed of a material through which light is transmitted between the light source unit and the photocatalytic filter in Jianqing; wherein the cover surface is inclined so that condensate generated from gas passing through the photocatalytic filter is discharged by gravity along the cover surface, or is parallel to the photocatalytic filter in order to protect the light source unit from dirt and debris traveling with the gas through the filter and past the light source as exemplified by Ohya.
Thus, claims 3-5 are not patentable over Jianqing in view of An and Ohya.
Claims 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jianqing (Document Identification No. CN 106862249 A) in view of Ohya et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0046947).
Concerning claims 9 & 10, Jianqing discloses a food waste disposer (Figure 1), comprising:
A chamber (1-6) configured to accommodate food waste (page 2, lines 10-13); and
A deodorizer (13) including:
A photocatalytic filter (18) configured so that gas from inside the chamber passes through the photocatalytic filter (Figures 1-3; page 2, lines 10-30);
A light source unit (14) configured to irradiate light having a specific range of frequencies to the photocatalytic filter (page 2, lines 14-17); and
An activated carbon filter (20) configured to deodorize the gas passed through the photocatalytic filter (page 2, lines 13-30) as shown in Figures 1-3.
Jianqing does not appear to disclose a cover surface inclined from a direction of gravity between the light source unit and the photocatalytic filter and having a material through which at least a portion of light passes. Ohya discloses an apparatus for storing food, wherein the apparatus includes a deodorizer comprising a photocatalytic filter (17) and a light source unit (19) to irradiate said filter (paragraphs 59 & 60). The reference continues to disclose a cover surface (22) inclined from a direction of gravity (Figure 24; paragraph 80) between the light source unit (19) and the photocatalytic filter (17) having a material through which at least a portion of light passes (paragraphs 75-80). Ohya discloses that the cover is provided in order to protect the light source unit from dirt and debris traveling with the gas through the filter and past the light source (paragraphs 75-80). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cover surface inclined from a direction of gravity between the light source unit and the photocatalytic filter of Jianqing and having a material through which at least a portion of light passes in order to protect the light source unit from dirt and debris traveling with the gas through the filter and past the light source as exemplified by Ohya.
As such, claims 9 & 10 are not patentable over Jianqing in view of Ohya.
Concerning claims 11 & 12, Jianqing discloses an optical filter module, comprising:
A case (13);
A photocatalytic filter (18) in the case (13);
A light source unit (14) configured to irradiate light having a specific range of frequencies to the photocatalytic filter (Figures 1-3; page 2, lines 13-30).
Jianqing does not appear to disclose a cover surface inclined so that condensate generated inside the optical filter module is discharged by gravity along the cover surface, wherein said cover surface is located between the photocatalytic filter and the light source unit to cover the light source unit. Ohya discloses an optical filter module that includes a photocatalytic filter (17) and a light source unit (19) to irradiate said filter (paragraphs 59 & 60). The reference continues to disclose a cover surface (22) that is inclined so that condensate generated inside the optical filter module is discharge by gravity along the cover surface (paragraph 80; Figure 24), wherein said cover surface (22) is located between the photocatalytic filter (17) and the light source unit (19) to cover the light source in order to protect the light source unit from dirt and debris traveling with the gas through the filter and past the light source (paragraphs 75-80). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cover surface located between the photocatalytic filter and the light source unit of Jianqing to cover the light source unit; wherein said cover surface is inclined so that condensate generated inside the optical filter module is discharged by gravity along the cover surface in order to protect the light source unit from dirt and debris traveling with the gas through the filter and past the light source as exemplified by Ohya.
Thus, claims 11 & 12 are not patentable over Jianqing in view of Ohya as well.
Concerning claim 14, Jianqing does not appear to disclose the distance between the light source unit (14) and the photocatalytic filter (18). However, such is considered a result effective variable to one of ordinary skill. As such, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Thus, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance between the light source unit (14) and the photocatalytic filter (18) by 15-25 mm in order to provide a successful and compact deodorizer for the optical filter module that is configured with an orientation that is mutually beneficial for an environment and configuration of said optical filter module; as such is considered a result effective variable that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill during routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, claim 14 is also not patentable over Jianqing in view of Ohya.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jianqing (Document Identification No. CN 106862249 A) in view of Ohya et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0046947) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of An (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0220766).
Jianqing is relied upon as set forth above. Jianqing does not appear to disclose that the photocatalytic filter is inclined so as to form an acute angle from a direction of gravity. However, dependent upon the orientation of the deodorizer (13), the photocatalytic filter can be configured to be inclined so as to form an acute angle from a direction of gravity. As such, said orientation of said photocatalytic filter is nothing more than a mere matter of engineering design choice. Evidence is provided by An to disclose that the orientation of the photocatalytic filter is nothing more than a mere matter of engineering design choice; wherein the reference discloses an optical filter module that is provided with a photocatalytic filter (300) as shown in Figures 1-7 (Abstract; paragraphs 38-41). The reference continues to disclose that said photocatalytic filter (300) is inclined so as to form an acute angle from a direction of gravity (Figures 3 & 4) in order to provide said filter in an orientation that is predictably successful and mutually beneficial for an environment and configuration of the optical filter module (paragraphs 30-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the photocatalytic filter of Jianqing so that said filter is inclined so as to form an acute angle from a direction of gravity in order to provide said filter in an orientation that is predictably successful and mutually beneficial for an environment and configuration of the optical filter module as exemplified by An. Such is considered nothing more than a mere matter of engineering design choice to one of ordinary skill.
As such, claim 13 is not patentable over Jianqing in view of Ohya and An.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jianqing (Document Identification No. CN 106862249 A) in view of Ohya et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0046947) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0193299).
Jianqing is relied upon as set forth above. Jianqing does not appear to disclose that the case includes a plurality of heat dissipation holes for discharging heat to outside the optical filter module. Lee discloses an optical filter module that includes a case (Figure 2), photocatalytic plates (40 and 42), and a light source unit (52) configured to irradiate said photocatalytic plates (Abstract; Figures 1-3). The reference continues to disclose that the case includes a plurality of heat dissipation holes (46 & 48) for discharging heat to outside the optical filter module in order to extend the service life of said light source unit (paragraph 26). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the case of Jianqing with a plurality of heat dissipation holes for discharging heat to outside the optical filter module in order to extend the service life of said light source unit as exemplified by Lee.
Therefore, claim 15 is not patentable over Jianqing in view of Ohya and Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights