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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 9/18/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0123624 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve the foreign priority document failed on 2/18/2025. Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2, please change every instance of the term “ozone(O3)” to “ozone (O3).”
Claim 1, please change the term “5mm” to “5 mm” in line 33.
Claim 1, please change “72 to 84mol%” to “72 to 84 mol %” in line 33.
Claim 1, please change “16 to 28mol%” to “16 to 28 mol %” in line 34.
Claim 1, please change the term “manganese dioxide(MnO2)” to “manganese dioxide (MnO2)” in lines 34-35.
Claim 1, please change the term “copper oxide(CuO)” to “copper oxide (CuO)” in lines 34-35.
Claim 1, please change the term “titanium dioxide(TiO2)” to “titanium dioxide (TiO2)” in line 36.
Claim 1, please change “the ozone(O3) concentration” to “an ozone(O3) concentration” in line 40.
Claims 1 and 3 please change every instance of the term “ultraviolet(UV)” to “ultraviolet (UV).”
Claim 2, please add the article “a” between the terms “receives” and “supply” in line 2.
Claim 2, please change “adjusts the time” to “adjusts a time” in line 2.
Claim 2, please change the term “operates(ON)” to “operates (ON)” in line 3.
Claim 3, please change “250nm to 400nm” to “250 nm to 400 nm” in line 4.
Claim 3, please change “10mW to 1,000mW” to “10 mW to 1,000mW” in line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a catalytic filter unit” and an “ultraviolet(UV) irradiation unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the limitations will be interpreted to cover the corresponding structure:
a catalytic filter unit (honeycomb filter that incorporates a catalytic agent, page 8, lns. 3-4)
an ultraviolet (UV) irradiation unit (understood to be a UV LED or lamp, page 9, lns. 16-23)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For examination purposes, the following limitations will be interpreted in light of the Drawings submitted 8/6/2024 and understood to cover the following structure and all equivalents thereof:
an air suction unit (inlet fan, Fig. 2, 31)
an air discharge unit (outlet fan, Fig. 2, 34)
atmospheric pressure plasma discharge modules (electrodes, Fig. 3, 20a-d)
a plasma reaction unit (a reaction chamber, Fig. 3, 21)
a control unit (generic processor/controller/computer/circuit architecture, Fig. 3, 42).
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.
Claims 1-3 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 recites the term “etc.” in line 5 which renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The issue can be cured by deleting the term.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the active species" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the term “rapidly” in line 19 which a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapidly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the catalytic agent" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1 and failure to resolve the issues contained therein.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the ultraviolet(UV generating device)" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Mauro (US 20240285826 A1) (eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 2/28/2023) in view of Bergeron et al. (US 20080170971 A1), Henley (US 20240001053 A1) (eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 3/15/2021), Jun (US 20200360550 A1) (same patent family as KR 10-1837132, cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 8/6/2024), and Abe et al. (US 20060234024 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Di Mauro teaches an air purifying apparatus (Fig. 1) that uses atmospheric pressure plasma to kill microorganisms and remove harmful substances (abstract, [0093-0095]), the apparatus comprising:
an air purifying apparatus main body (Fig. 1, main body 1) that sucks outside air, sterilizes floating microorganisms contained in the sucked air, removes harmful substances, etc., and then discharges them to the outside;
an air suction unit that sucks outside air into the inside of the air purifying apparatus main body (Fig. 1, apparatus 12 = fan positioned by inlet 20, [0100]);
an air discharge unit that discharges the sucked inside air to the outside (Fig. 1, apparatus 12 positioned by outlet 21 = discharges air [0107]);
a plasma reaction unit that performs the function of sterilizing microorganisms and removing harmful substances by a chemical reaction of the air sucked from the air suction part with the active species and ozone generated from the plasma discharge module (Fig. 1, disruptor 10 is a cold plasma disruptor that sterilizes microorganisms, understood to be capable of generating OH radicals and ozone [0095]);
a catalytic filter unit (Fig. 1, filter 6 is a photocatalytic stage that is configured to receive UV light [0078-0081]),
an ultraviolet(UV) irradiation unit (Fig. 1, emitters 31, 41, and 62, [0079]),
a pre-filter installed between the air suction unit and plasma reaction unit (Fig. 1, filter 8 installed between air suction unit 12 and plasma reaction unit 10).
Di Mauro teaches a plasma reaction unit (Fig. 1, disruptor 10 is a cold plasma generator) but does not teach at least two or more atmospheric pressure plasma discharge modules installed inside the air purifying apparatus main body; a power supply unit that supplies high voltage power to the plasma discharge module.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with increasing the sterilization efficiency of the air purifying apparatus, motivating one to turn towards Bergeron. Bergeron teaches an air purification device (Fig. 12) with a plurality of plasma discharge modules (Fig. 12, generators 124 and 126) configured to generate cold plasma [0043] and deactivate biological contaminants within the air [0086]. Bergeron also teaches wherein the plasma generators are powered by a DC power supply [0043-0044].
Bergeron is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air purification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifier as taught by Di Mauro with the plasma discharge modules and power supply as taught by Bergeron because Bergeron teaches the plasma discharge units to generate cold plasma [0043] and deactivate biological contaminants within an air stream [0086] and this involves the combination of elements (the air purifier of Di Mauro and the plasma discharge units of Bergeron) and to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Modified Di Mauro teaches a power supply (Bergeron, [0043]) and wherein the generation of ozone may occur as a side product of plasma generation and that the buildup of ozone can be harmful (Bergeron, [0043-0044]). However, Modified Di Mauro does not teach a control unit that controls the electric power supply of the electric power supply unit; wherein the air purifying apparatus comprises an ozone sensor unit that detects the concentration of ozone contained in inside air after a chemical reaction of the plasma reaction unit; and a HEPA filter installed between the air suction unit and the plasma reaction unit, wherein air sucked in through the air suction unit is purified by passing through the pre-filter, HEPA filter, plasma reaction unit, ultraviolet irradiation unit, and catalytic filter unit in sequence, and then discharged to the air discharge unit.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with controlling the ozone levels within an air purifier, motivating one to turn towards Henley. Henley teaches a device for sanitizing air [abstract] comprising an ion generating device (understood to be a plasma generator) configured to generate ozone ([0073], [0122]) and an ozone sensor located at the outlet of the air purifier [0065] coupled to a controller to control the amount of ozone emitted from the ion generator [0030]. Henley also teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the applied voltage/duty cycle applied to the ion generator (understood to control the power supply to a plasma generator) to control the amount of ozone supplied to the air purifier [0122]. Henley also teaches the use of a HEPA filter, which is known in the art to remove pollutants from an air stream, (Fig. 1, 106) positioned upstream of a plasma generating device (Fig. 1, 110) and another HEPA filter (Fig. 1, 112) positioned downstream of an air suction unit (Fig. 1, 108) such that the filters remove viral from the air stream [0065].
Henley is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air purifying devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifier as taught by Di Mauro with the controller and ozone sensor as taught by Henley because Henley teaches the two to work in conjunction to control the amount of ozone generated within the air purifier based on ([0065], [0073], [0122]) and this involves the combination of elements (the air purifier of Di Mauro and the controller and ozone sensor of Henley) to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Further it would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifying apparatus as taught by Di Mauro with the HEPA filters as taught by Henley to further remove large particulates in an air stream prior to being ionized by a plasma generator and this involves the combination of elements (the air purifier of DI Mauro and the HEPA filters of Henley) to yield a predictable result (an air purifier with a pre-filter and HEPA filter upstream of a plasma discharge module, and a pre-filter and HEPA filter upstream of an air suction device) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Modified Di Mauro teaches wherein the catalytic filter comprises a catalytic agent (Di Mauro, catalytic filter 6 can include a layer comprises titanium dioxide [0075-0077]) but does not teach wherein the catalytic filter unit comprises a catalytic agent that is a pellet or ball- shaped catalyst having a diameter of 5 mm or less containing 72 to 84 mol% of manganese dioxide and 16 to 28 mol% of copper oxide and includes a gas-passing catalytic filter in which a manganese dioxide-copper oxide compound catalytic agent is incorporated.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the catalytic properties of the filter unit to optimize the removal of pollutants in the air stream entering the air purifier, motivating one to turn towards Jun. Jun teaches a plasma sterilizer comprising a catalytic filter for removing harmful gas, wherein the catalyst of the catalytic filter comprises 18 mol % or more of copper oxide and 74 mol % or more of manganese dioxide and wherein the catalyst may be formed into pellets with a diameter of 3 mm to maximize catalytic efficiency [0037-0038].
Jun is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to plasma sterilizing apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the catalytic filter unit as taught by Modified Di Mauro with the catalytic filter as taught by Jun because Jun teaches the catalytic filter to comprises a copper oxide and manganese dioxide catalyst incorporated into the filter in the form of pellets to maximize the catalytic efficiency of the filter and effectively remove pollutants such as ozone [0037-0038] and this involves the combination of elements (the catalytic filter of Modified Di Mauro and the copper oxide and manganese dioxide catalyst of Jun) to yield a predictable result (a copper oxide and manganese dioxide catalytic filter) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Modified Di Mauro teaches wherein the catalytic filter comprises a catalytic agent (Di Mauro, catalytic filter 6 can include a layer comprises titanium dioxide [0075-0077]) but does not teach wherein the compound catalytic agent has a structure wherein titanium dioxide photocatalyst particles with a diameter of 100 nm or less are evenly applied or coated at 50 to 80% onto the catalyst surface.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with optimizing the photocatalytic properties of the catalytic agent, motivating one to turn towards Abe. Abe teaches a photocatalytic sheet comprises a substrate surface coated with a layer of titanium dioxide particles (understood to be evenly coated) with a diameter of 1-100 nm, wherein the particle size was selected to maximize the surface area of the photocatalytic substrate and enhance the photocatalytic effect [0070].
Abe is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the photocatalytic arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photocatalytic filter as taught by Modified Di Mauro with the photocatalytic coating as taught by Abe because Abe teaches the photocatalytic coating to have an optimized particle size that maximizes the surface area and enhances the effect of the photocatalyst [0070] and this involves the combination of elements (the photocatalytic filter of Di Mauro and the photocatalytic coating of Abe) to yield a predictable result (a titanium dioxide coated catalytic filter with a layer of titanium dioxide particles 1-100 nm) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding the following recitations, “…wherein the irradiation intensity and light quantity of ultraviolet(UV) light that promotes the ozone(O3) decomposition reaction in the catalytic filter unit are automatically adjusted based on the ozone(O3) concentration contained in the inside air detected by the ozone sensor unit,” “[a catalytic filter unit] that removes residual ozone(O3) generated in the plasma discharge module and remaining after the chemical reaction in the plasma reaction unit,” and “[an ultraviolet(UV) irradiation unit] that rapidly promotes the ozone(O3) decomposition reaction of the catalytic filter unit, the Examiner points to MPEP 2114 (II) which states “A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Therefore, the limitations are considered to be an intended use of the apparatus, will not be given patentable weight, and will be understood to be taught by Modified Di Mauro.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Mauro (US 20240285826 A1) in view of Bergeron et al. (US 20080170971 A1), Henley (US 20240001053 A1), Jun (US 20200360550 A1), Abe et al. (US 20060234024 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chunduri et al. (US 20230119625 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner points to MPEP 2114 (II) which states “A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Therefore, the limitations recited in claim 2 are considered to be an intended use of the apparatus, will not be given patentable weight, and will be understood to be taught by Modified Di Mauro. However, for compact prosecution, art will be applied to the claim.
Modified Di Mauro teaches the air purifying apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plasma discharge module receives supply of electric power at a fixed cycle and adjusts the time during which the apparatus operates within a duty ratio range of 20 to 50% based on one cycle but is automatically adjusted based on the concentration of ozone contained in the inside air detected by the ozone sensor unit.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with controlling the sterilizing performance of the plasma discharge module, motivating them to look towards Chunduri. Chunduri teaches an air purifier comprising a plasma reactor (Fig. 6A, 140) coupled to a control unit and a power source [0134], wherein the power to the plasma reactor is modulated in duty cycles such as a 50% duty cycle, to optimize the kill performance of the air purifier [0153].
Chuduri is considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are drawn to the sterilization arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifying apparatus as taught by Di Mauro with the control unit and power source as taught by Chunduri because Chunduri teaches the two to work in tandem to modulate the duty cycle of a plasma reactor to control the sterilization performance of the air purifier [0153] and this involves the combination of elements (the air purifier of Modified Di Mauro and the control unit ad power source of Chunduri) to yield a predictable result (a control unit that controls the duty cycle of a plasma generator) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Mauro (US 20240285826 A1) in view of Bergeron et al. (US 20080170971 A1), Henley (US 20240001053 A1), Jun (US 20200360550 A1), Abe et al. (US 20060234024 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fujii et al. (US 20030118476 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Di Mauro teaches the air purifying apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the ultraviolet (UV) generating device of the ultraviolet(UV) irradiation unit irradiates ultraviolet light to the catalytic filter unit (Di Mauro, [0078-0081]) by using at least four or more semiconductor LEDs having a light wavelength of 250 nm to 400 nm (Di Mauro, the emitters can be a plurality of LEDs, which are known in the art to be semiconductors, and can be up to seven in number and emit at 280 nm [0046-0048]) but does not teach an ultraviolet (UV) light emission output of 10 mW to 1,000 mW.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with the appropriate dosage of light delivered to a photocatalyst to optimize the reaction characteristics, motivating one to turn Fujii. Fujii teaches a photocatalytic device for purifying air [0005] comprising a light source configured to apply a dose of UV light to a photocatalyst, wherein the dosage ranges from 0.05-50 m/cm2 [0072-0074].
Fujii is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are drawn to the photocatalytic purification arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultraviolet emitters as taught by Modified Di Mauro to emit a UV light output at 50 mW as taught by Fujii to effectively activate a photocatalyst for air purification and this involves the combination of elements (the light emitters of Di Mauro and the emission dosage of Fujii) to yield a predictable result (effective activation of a photocatalyst) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding the limitation “so that ultraviolet(UV) light is irradiated onto the catalytic filter unit to exhibit the function of increasing the activity of the catalytic reaction and promoting the ozone(O3) decomposition reaction” the Examiner points to MPEP 2114 (II) which states “A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Therefore, the limitation described above is considered to be an intended use of the apparatus, will not be given patentable weight, and will be understood to be taught by Modified Di Mauro.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220062489 A1 teaches a photocatalytic air purifier with a microcontroller configured to control the intensity of a UV lamp based on a concentration of ozone detected by an ozone sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights