DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06 August 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 April 2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
FIG. 3C employs two vertical axis scales without sufficient explanation regarding how the scales are reflected in the plotted data.
FIG. 6B includes scanned text that is unreadable.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In par 0004 (line 32), “(High-efficiency particulate air Filter) should be deleted, as the acronym has already been properly defined.
In par 0006, “UVGI is the potential” should read –UVGI has the potential--.
In par 0008, “Deep-Ultraviolet emitted by LEDs (light-emitting diodes), 405 nm blue light” appears to be a sentence fragment that is missing meaning.
In pars 0018 and 0026, “reflected materials” should read –reflective materials--.
In par 0023 (line 33), “wherein the UV radiation source comprises Far-UVC source emits light” should read --wherein the UV radiation source comprises a Far-UVC source that emits light--.
In par 0039, “there are two numeric,” should read –there are two numbers,--.
In par 0069, stray numerals “34” and “35” should be deleted.
The use of the trade names Ushio® and Millipore® has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is a Far-UVC source emits light” should read –is a Far-UVC source that emits light--, and “222 nm, the Far-UVC source comprises” should read --222 nm, and wherein the Far-UVC source comprises--.
7. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “reflected materials” should read –reflective materials—, in all instances.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-11 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.
10. Regarding claim 1, the limitation wherein the disinfection system is “filter-free” is understood by the Examiner to exclude a HEPA-type or equivalent particulate filter per the Specification pars 0043-0044, but it is unclear whether this filter-free requirement is intended to also exclude optical filters such as those indicated as part of the light source per Specification pars 0050 and 0068. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is indefinite.
11. Claims 2-11 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 1.
12. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the rectangular lamp" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear how the structure is limited when the Far-UVC source comprises only a tubular lamp as recited in claim 2.
13. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the tubular lamp" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear how the structure is limited when the Far-UVC source comprises only a rectangular lamp as recited in claim 2.
Claim 4 further recites the limitation "the treatment part" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear whether this is supposed to refer to “the treatment zone” as introduced in claim 1 or to a different part.
14. The term “high UV irradiation” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. A definite metric of the irradiation should be provided to resolve the indefiniteness of the term “high”, or the term should be deleted such that the airflow passes through a region with “UV irradiation”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sood et al (US 20220008605 A1) in view of Gutsol et al (US 20100168499 A1).
17. Regarding claim 1, Sood teaches a filter-free single-pass air disinfection system (FIGS. 24-29, UV disinfection system 100) for disinfection of contaminated airflow or bioaerosols (inactivating airborne pathogens in the airflow, Abstract and par 0160), wherein the filter-free single-pass air disinfection system comprises:
a disinfection chamber (FIG. 24, UV disinfection system 100 has interconnected fluid passageway 2308, par 0152) comprising:
a premixing zone (FIG. 24, fan 500 and intake opening 2310 area, pars 0153-0156), wherein the premixing zone comprises at least one air inlet for introducing the contaminated airflow or the bioaerosols into the disinfection chamber (intake opening 2310 to direct the airflow 1616 through the chamber 2312, par 0155);
a treatment zone (FIGS. 24-27, chamber 2312 having UV light sources 102, par 0159), wherein the treatment zone comprises an ultraviolet irradiation source configured to irradiate the contaminated airflow or the bioaerosols within the disinfection chamber (UV light source 102 may be secured within the chamber 2312…to emit UV light to at least partially inactivate pathogens in the airflow 1616 passing through, par 0159);
at least one vent outlet for cleaned air (FIGS. 24 and 27, exhaust opening 2314);
one or more exhaust fans equipped on one side of the disinfection chamber (FIG. 24, fan 500) to facilitate airflow through the disinfection chamber (receive airflow 1616 from the fan 500 via an intake opening 2310 and direct the airflow 1616 through a chamber 2312 of the fluid passageway 2308 to an exhaust opening 2314, par 0152).
Although Sood teaches for a related embodiment that a pathogen sensor can advantageously be placed after the disinfection zone to measure pathogen levels in the airflow (par 0198, FIG. 30, sensor 3046), Sood does not specifically teach for the primary embodiment a sampling zone, wherein the sampling zone comprises a liquid impinger connected to a vacuum pump for air sampling.
Gutsol teaches an analogous device for disinfection and sterilization of air (FIG. 1, Title, pars 0023-0024) wherein the air sampling ports 9 are connected to a set of liquid impingers and a vacuum source (par 0024), a demonstrated method to detect and remediate pathogens (par 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position a pathogen sensor in the sampling zone downstream from the disinfection zone as taught by Sood, and to use for this pathogen sensor a liquid impinger connected to a vacuum pump as taught by Gutsol, because this sensor configuration would predictably collect an air sample in the same way to provide an output for pathogen concentration in the air, the modification involving combining prior art elements from different embodiments of Sood according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)) and a simple substitution of one known element for another (air sampling mechanisms for analogous pathogen sensors) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Sood further teaches for the primary embodiment as modified above wherein the premixing zone, the treatment zone and the sampling zone are interconnected (FIG. 24, airflow travels via passageway 2308 through all three zones), wherein at least one partition is positioned between the premixing zone and the treatment zone (FIGS. 25 and 27, upper lip 2416 of cowling 2410).
The FIG. 24-29 embodiments of Sood do not specifically teach the device as portable, only modular, though Sood teaches other air sterilization devices that are portable and still provide sterilization of the air (e.g., FIG. 14). Further, the courts have held that the fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results, see In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the filter-free single-pass air disinfection system of Sood to be portable because doing so would predictably enable the air disinfection system to be readily moved between spaces for facile installation. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(A).
18. Regarding claim 2, Sood as modified by Gutsol teaches the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system of claim 1, wherein the UV irradiation source is a Far-UVC source that emits light at a wavelength of between 200-250 nanometers or 200-220 nanometers (Sood par 0189), and the Far-UVC source comprises a tubular lamp (Sood FIG. 26, UV light source 102) or a rectangular lamp (UV light source 102 may include a UV light emitting diode, Sood par 0189; pictured as a rectangular lamp in e.g., Sood FIG. 19).
Although the wavelength ranges of Sood are not sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed wavelength of approximately 222 nm, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.05(I). Given the ranges taught by Sood, particularly the narrower range that overlaps with the FWHM of the claimed emission peak (par 0189) as disclosed in Specification par 0069, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose an emission wavelength of approximately 222 nm because this wavelength would be expected to inactivate the pathogens in the same manner as taught by Sood (par 0189).
19. Regarding claim 3, Sood as modified by Gutsol teaches the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system of claim 2. The limitation wherein the rectangular lamp is positioned externally to the disinfection chamber, by further limiting the structure of the rectangular lamp which is an alternative that is not required by claim 2, is not considered to distinguish the claim from the scope rejected above for claim 2. Examiner further notes that Sood teaches an embodiment wherein UV light source 102 is positioned exterior to the space being disinfected and emits the UV light through a UV transparent window (FIG. 18, par 0135), evidencing obviousness were this arrangement required by the claim.
20. Regarding claim 4, Sood as modified by Gutsol teaches the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system of claim 2. The limitation wherein the tubular lamp is positioned internally within the treatment part, by further limiting the structure of the tubular lamp which is an alternative that is not required by claim 2, is not considered to distinguish the claim from the scope rejected above for claim 2. Examiner notes that Sood teaches this structure in the primary embodiment (FIGS. 26-27, tubular lamp 102 positioned within treatment zone 2312).
21. Regarding claim 5, Sood as modified by Gutsol teaches the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system of claim 1, wherein the at least one partition re-directs the contaminated airflow or the bioaerosols to extend an airflow pathway to a region with high UV irradiation (Sood FIGS. 25 and 27, upper lip 2416 of cowling 2410 extends airflow path through chamber 2312).
22. Regarding claim 6, Sood as modified by Gutsol teaches the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system of claim 1, wherein the at least one partition and internal walls of the disinfection chamber are covered with reflected materials with a reflectivity of at least 70% to enhance UV reflectance (interior surfaces 2408, 2410 may include an aluminum material configured to reflect the UV light emitted via the UV light source 102, the aluminum material may generally reflect at least 70% of UV light, Sood par 0160), the reflected materials comprise aluminum foil (interior surfaces 2408/2410 may include the UV reflective material 2500 e.g., aluminum, Sood par 0164).
Although the >70% reflectivity of the aluminum surface of Sood is not sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed reflectivity of at least 90%, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), see MPEP 2144.05(I). Given that Sood extols the advantage of a high reflectivity to increase effectiveness of the UV pathogen disinfection system 100 in inactivating airborne pathogens in the airflow (par 0160), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose a reflective aluminum surface having a reflectivity of at least 90% because this reflectivity would be expected to promote UV inactivation of pathogens in the same manner as taught by Sood (par 0160).
23. Regarding claim 7, Sood as modified by Gutsol teaches the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system of claim 1, wherein the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system has an airflow rate of at least 100 m³/h (airflow 1616 passing through the chamber 2312 at 1800-2200 CFM, Sood par 0156, which is equal to 3058-3737 m³/h).
24. Regarding claim 8, Sood as modified by Gutsol teaches the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system of claim 7, wherein the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system inactivates pathogens in the contaminated airflow or bioaerosols (inactivating airborne pathogens in the airflow, Abstract and par 0160).
25. Regarding claim 9, Sood as modified by Gutsol teaches the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system of claim 7. The limitation wherein the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system achieves an inactivation rate of at least 80% for Salmonella enterica, at least 15% for Staphylococcus epidermidis, and at least 20% for MS2 bacteriophage recites an intended use and/or operational condition of the apparatus, which does not carry patentable weight per MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of optimizing non-critical operational parameters (e.g., airflow rates and UV irradiation intensity) for a desired pathogen reduction through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)), though this person could also consult the prior art to readily obtain data regarding UVC inactivation of Staphylococcus epidermidis using the IDS-submitted reference to Nunayon et al (“Comparison of disinfection performance of UVC-LED and conventional upper-room UVGI systems”, Indoor Air, 2020, 30(1), 180-191; Figure 7) and data regarding UVC inactivation of MS2 bacteriophage and Salmonella enterica using the IDS-submitted reference to Kim et al (“UVC LED irradiation effectively inactivates aerosolized viruses, bacteria, and fungi in a chamber-type air disinfection system”, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2018, Vol. 84, 17, 1-11; Figures 1a and 2a, Table 3, Abstract).
26. Regarding claim 10, Sood as modified by Gutsol teaches the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system of claim 1, further comprising an input terminal connected to a current input device for controlling current of the one or more exhaust fans (fan may be configured to continuously or intermittently modulate the fan speed during operation, Sood par 0153; controller i.e. input terminal configured to adjust fan speed via a fan motor i.e. current input device, Sood pars 0115 and 0117).
27. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sood et al (US 20220008605 A1) and Gutsol et al (US 20100168499 A1), and further in view of Sahu et al (US 20220031904 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sood as modified by Gutsol teaches the portable and filter-free single-pass air disinfection system of claim 1, but Sood is not specific regarding the plate base material except that it supports the aluminum reflective material and/or a UV absorptive material (pars 0160-0168). Thus, the combination does not teach wherein the disinfection chamber is made of at least one acrylic plate with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm.
Sahu teaches an analogous UVC air sanitizer (Abstract, FIG. 1) wherein the walls 411 are made of acrylic plates (par 0030) which enables covering with a reflective material (par 0017) and also advantageously permits a safe visual indicator without exposing the outside environment to UVC by fluorescent dye loading (par 0057), the acrylic plate having one-eighth inch thickness equal to 3.175 mm (par 0057).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ for the disinfection chamber walls of modified Sood at least one acrylic plate with a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm as taught by Sahu, as these acrylic plates would predictably provide the same functions of supporting reflective material and/or permitting safe visual indication of operation in the same manner with a reasonable expectation of success, the modification entailing simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights