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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/06/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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: “fluid control structure” 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. The corresponding structure for “a fluid control structure” includes an air duct such as 140/640 and/or a plate-shaped structure 644/645 and/or a spherical structure 647 and/or a UV LED unit 648 (i.e. a UV LEDS 648c-648d mounted on PCB 648a) and/or a structure 740/770 comprised of air ducts 741/771+742/772 with a control structure 743/773 and (see Specification, Figures 1-2, 4, 6, 8 and 10A-13A, p. 5 [0031]-[0032], p. 14 [0067], p. 15 [0073], p. 17 [0083]-[0084], p. 18 [0087], pp. 19-20 [0093]-[0094], p. 21 [0099]-[0100]).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ultraviolet (UV) light emitting diode (LED) unit” and “filter unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamanaka (5919422).
Yamanaka (‘422) discloses an air purifier (see Figure 10) comprising:
a case (101) having an air inlet (111) and an air outlet (114);
a fan (106) disposed inside the case (101) and adjacent to the air inlet (111) (see Figure 10);
an ultraviolet (UV) light emitting diode (LED) unit (105) and a filter unit (104) arranged inside the case (101) and over the fan (106) along a flow path of air; and
a fluid control structure (117) disposed inside the case (101) between the fan (106) and the filter unit (104),
wherein the fluid control structure (117) controls an air flow along the flow path of air between an outlet of the fan (106) and the filter unit (104) (see Figure 10).
In the event that the filter unit (104) of Yamanaka is not deemed to adequately disclose a filter unit, the following rejection will apply.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhard (8017073) in view of Bohlen (20110030560).
Engelhard ('073) discloses an air purifier (100) (see Figures 1 and 8) comprising:
a case (102) having an air inlet (101) and an air outlet (104);
a fan (108) disposed inside the case (see Figures 1 and 8) and adjacent to the air inlet (101) (see Figures 1 and 8);
an ultraviolet (UV) light unit (122) and a filter unit (116, 118) arranged inside the case and over the fan (108) along a flow path of air; and
a fluid control structure (110, 114) disposed inside the case between the fan (108) and the filter unit (116, 118);
wherein the fluid control structure (110, 114) controls an air flow along the flow path of air between an outlet of the fan (108) and the filter unit (116, 118).
Engelhard ('073) does not appear to specifically teach that the UV light unit is an ultraviolet (UV) light emitting diode (LED) unit.
It was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide various types of UV light sources such as UV LED in an air purifier. Bohlen ('560) discloses an air purifier (100) (see Figures 1-5) comprising:
a case (106) having an air inlet (110) and an air outlet (160) (see Figures 1-4);
a fan (180) disposed inside the case (see Figures 3-4) (see Figures 1 and 8); and
an ultraviolet (UV) light emitting diode (LED) unit (150) and a filter unit (120, 140/700) arranged inside the case (106) along a flow path of air (see Figures 1-5),
in order to irradiate, sanitize, and disinfect a variety of infestation agents that may be present within airflow (see p. 6 [0061] - lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an UV LED unit as the UV light source in the air purifier of Engelhard as a known alternate UV light source in order to irradiate the airflow so as to sanitize/disinfect the airflow as shown by Bohlen.
Thus, Claim 1 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Engelhard ('073) and Bohlen ('560).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: KR20030048989 and BR9610260 and WO2006042740 and JP2006026239 (air cleaner without a fluid control structure), 20150064061 (air cleaner without a fluid control structure or a filter unit located after the fan), 20100143205 (air purifier with a UV light source in the form of a mercury lamp) .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights