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 Objections
Claims 1, 19–20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Please change the term “the core” to “the energy exchange core” in claims 1, 19 and 20 to avoid unnecessary confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Please use the term “air flow” and “airflow” consistently throughout the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4–18 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 4 is indefinite because the term “unwanted” is subjective and it is not defined in the published Spec. (hereinafter “Spec.”). It is therefore unclear what is “unwanted”.
Claims 5–18 are indefinite because they depend on claim 4.
Claims 6–8 are indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “an air stream” in those claims are the same as that recited in claim 4.
Claims 7–8 are indefinite because they depend on claim 6. Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear if the term “the air” is the same as the previously recited “air stream”.
Claim 13 is indefinite because the limitation of “the humidifier heaters” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 14–18 are indefinite because they depend on claim 13.
Claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation of “a bottom half of the desiccant wheel” is the same as that recited in claim 13. Claim 14 is also indefinite because the limitation of “the activation heaters” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 15–17 are indefinite because they depend on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lilly et al., US 2020/0061522 A1 (“Lilly”).
Regarding claim 1:
Lilly discloses the claimed limitation of that a self-regulating appliance operable as an air-exchanger, a humidifier, a dehumidifier, an air scrubber, and an air sterilizer (Lily’s desiccant dehumidifier as shown in Fig. 1, [0023]), comprising:
a cabinet (Lily’s housing 1, Fig. 1, [0024]) defining an interior with a plurality of fluid passageways (see flow path indicated by arrows, Lily Fig. 1), the cabinet comprising a first inlet (Lily’s process air inlet 2, Fig. 1, [0024]) configured to receive a first air flow from a dwelling interior (Lily discloses air in as room air, Fig. 1), a second inlet (Lily’s regeneration air inlet 4, Fig. 1, [0025]) configured to receive a second air flow from a dwelling exterior (Lily discloses as external air, [0023]), a first outlet (Lily’s process air outlet 3, Lily Fig. 1, [0024]) configured to deliver a third air flow to the dwelling interior (Lily discloses air returns to the room via air outlet 3, Lily Fig. 1, [0024]), and a second outlet (Lily’s exhaust air outlet 5, Fig. 1, [0024]) configured to deliver a fourth air flow to the dwelling exterior (Lily discloses air return to external space via exhaust air outlet 5, Fig. 1, [0024]);
at least one blower (Lily’s air fan 12, Lily Fig. 1, [0025]) fluidically coupled to the first and second outlets configured to expel the third air flow to the dwelling interior and the fourth air flow to the dwelling exterior (as indicated by air flow arrow, Fig. 1);
an energy exchange core (Lily’s air-to-air heat exchanger A and second heat exchanger B, Fig. 1, [0025]) fluidically coupled to the first and second inlets (4 and 2) and outlets (3 and 5) within the interior of the cabinet, the energy exchange core configured to transfer sensible energy between at least two air streams (Lily’s heat exchanger A and B is capable of transfer heat between the two air streams, heat is a sensible energy); and
a desiccant wheel (Lily’s motor driven wheel 6, Lily Fig, 1, [002]) fluidically coupled to the core and first and second inlets and outlets (as indicated by arrow in Lily’s Fig. 1), the desiccant wheel configured to rotate to transfer moisture and sensible energy between at least two air streams (Lily’s motor driven wheel 6 is a thermally regenerable desiccant and therefore it is capable of transfer moisture and sensible energy between the at least two air streams, Lily Fig. 1, [0025]).
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 2, 4–8 and 19–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lilly in view of Wenger et al., US 2022/0203288 A1 (“Wenger”).
Regarding claim 2:
Lilly does not disclose the claimed limitation of that the self-regulating appliance of claim 1, further comprising:
a sterilization source coupled to the cabinet interior configured to emit a prescribed amount of light to kill airborne viruses.
In the analogous art of dehumidifier system comprising heat exchanger and desiccant wheels, Wenger discloses using UV light on the contaminated media to get rid of pathogens on clean rolls, which is essentially a filter, Wenger Fig. 11, [0104]). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Wenger’s UV light in Lilly to kill pathogens to further improve filtration quality.
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Lily discloses that the self-regulating appliance of claim 2, further comprising: a filtration subsystem (Lily’s filter 21, 23 and 27, Fig. 2, [0027]) coupled to the housing interior configured to filter out unwanted airborne particulates from an air stream within the appliance (Lily’s filter is capable of filtering airborne particulates).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Lily does not disclose that the self-regulating appliance of claim 4, wherein the filtration subsystem comprises a first upstream pre-filter for removing large particulates and a second downstream filter for removing at least 99.7% of particulates greater than 0.3 microns in size.
However, Wenger discloses its filter system comprising a pre-filter that takes out bigger particles, Wenger [0103]. Wenger discloses its filter system could also include HEPA filter, Wenger [0127]. HEPA filter by industry standard is a filter removing at least 99.7% of particulates greater than 0.3 microns in size. It would have been obvious to modify Lily’s filter to have a pre-filter and a HEPA filter as disclosed by Wenger for a through filtration of both bigger particles and fine particles. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a pre-filter upstream of HEPA filter to prolong the service life of HEPA filter, because HEPA filter is more expensive.
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Lily discloses that the self-regulating appliance of claim 4, further comprising:
a heating subsystem (Lily’s regeneration segment 8, Fig. 1, [0025]) coupled to the cabinet interior for heating an air stream and reactivating desiccant wheel media (Lily discloses its regeneration segment 8 heats the desiccant and dried by an electrical heater box 9, and since air pass through the regeneration segment 8, it would heat an air stream, Fig. 1, [0025]).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Lily discloses that the self-regulating appliance of claim 6, wherein the heating subsystem comprises at least one humidifier heater configured to heat an air stream and lower a relative humidity of the air (Lily discloses electric heater box 9 heat and dry air in regeneration segment 8, Fig. 1, [0025]) and at least one reactivation heater for heating air adjacent to the desiccant wheel to reactivate the desiccant wheel media (Lily’s heater box 9 is part of Lily’s regeneration segment 8, Lily [0025], which reactivate the desiccant wheel media).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Lily does not disclose that the self-regulating appliance of claim 6, further comprising:
a humidifying subsystem coupled to the cabinet interior configured to receive a flow of water and provide moisture to an air stream within the appliance.
However, Wenger discloses that in addition to a dehumidifier, its system could include a humidifier 240 to add moisture to the air to prevent dryness that can cause irritation in many parts of human body, Wenger [0046]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Lily to include Wenger’s humidifier to ensure no irritation to human body when air is too dry.
Regarding claim 19:
Lilly discloses the claimed limitation of that a self-regulating appliance operable as an air-exchanger, a humidifier, a dehumidifier, an air scrubber, and an air sterilizer (Lily’s desiccant dehumidifier as shown in Fig. 1, [0023]), comprising:
a cabinet (Lily’s housing 1, Fig. 1, [0024]) defining an interior with a plurality of fluid passageways (see flow path indicated by arrows, Lily Fig. 1), the cabinet comprising a first inlet (Lily’s process air inlet 2, Fig. 1, [0024]) configured to receive a first air flow from a dwelling interior (Lily discloses air in as room air, Fig. 1), a second inlet (Lily’s regeneration air inlet 4, Fig. 1, [0025]) configured to receive a second air flow from a dwelling exterior (Lily discloses as external air, [0023]), a first outlet (Lily’s process air outlet 3, Lily Fig. 1, [0024]) configured to deliver a third air flow to the dwelling interior (Lily discloses air returns to the room via air outlet 3, Lily Fig. 1, [0024]), and a second outlet (Lily’s exhaust air outlet 5, Fig. 1, [0024]) configured to deliver a fourth air flow to the dwelling exterior (Lily discloses air return to external space via exhaust air outlet 5, Fig. 1, [0024]);
at least one blower (Lily’s air fan 12, Lily Fig. 1, [0025]) fluidically coupled to the first and second outlets configured to expel the third air flow to the dwelling interior and the fourth air flow to the dwelling exterior (as indicated by air flow arrow, Fig. 1);
an energy exchange core (Lily’s air-to-air heat exchanger A and second heat exchanger B, Fig. 1, [0025]) fluidically coupled to the first and second inlets (4 and 2) and outlets (3 and 5) within the interior of the cabinet, the energy exchange core configured to transfer sensible energy between at least two air streams (Lily’s heat exchanger A and B is capable of transfer heat between the two air streams, heat is a sensible energy); and
a desiccant wheel (Lily’s motor driven wheel 6, Lily Fig, 1, [002]) fluidically coupled to the core and first and second inlets and outlets (as indicated by arrow in Lily’s Fig. 1), the desiccant wheel configured to rotate to transfer moisture and sensible energy between at least two air streams (Lily’s motor driven wheel 6 is a thermally regenerable desiccant and therefore it is capable of transfer moisture and sensible energy between the at least two air streams, Lily Fig. 1, [0025]).
Lilly does not disclose the claimed limitation of that the self-regulating appliance of claim 1, further comprising:
a sterilization source coupled to the cabinet interior configured to emit a prescribed amount of light to kill airborne viruses.
In the analogous art of dehumidifier system comprising heat exchanger and desiccant wheels, Wenger discloses using UV light on the contaminated media to get rid of pathogens on clean rolls, which is essentially a filter, Wenger Fig. 11, [0104]). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Wenger’s UV light in Lilly to kill pathogens to further improve filtration quality.
Regarding claim 20:
Lilly discloses the claimed limitation of that a self-regulating appliance operable as an air-exchanger, a humidifier, a dehumidifier, an air scrubber, and an air sterilizer (Lily’s desiccant dehumidifier as shown in Fig. 1, [0023]), comprising:
a cabinet (Lily’s housing 1, Fig. 1, [0024]) defining an interior with a plurality of fluid passageways (see flow path indicated by arrows, Lily Fig. 1), the cabinet comprising a first inlet (Lily’s process air inlet 2, Fig. 1, [0024]) configured to receive a first air flow from a dwelling interior (Lily discloses air in as room air, Fig. 1), a second inlet (Lily’s regeneration air inlet 4, Fig. 1, [0025]) configured to receive a second air flow from a dwelling exterior (Lily discloses as external air, [0023]), a first outlet (Lily’s process air outlet 3, Lily Fig. 1, [0024]) configured to deliver a third air flow to the dwelling interior (Lily discloses air returns to the room via air outlet 3, Lily Fig. 1, [0024]), and a second outlet (Lily’s exhaust air outlet 5, Fig. 1, [0024]) configured to deliver a fourth air flow to the dwelling exterior (Lily discloses air return to external space via exhaust air outlet 5, Fig. 1, [0024]);
at least one blower (Lily’s air fan 12, Lily Fig. 1, [0025]) fluidically coupled to the first and second outlets configured to expel the third air flow to the dwelling interior and the fourth air flow to the dwelling exterior (as indicated by air flow arrow, Fig. 1);
an energy exchange core (Lily’s air-to-air heat exchanger A and second heat exchanger B, Fig. 1, [0025]) fluidically coupled to the first and second inlets (4 and 2) and outlets (3 and 5) within the interior of the cabinet, the energy exchange core configured to transfer sensible energy between at least two air streams (Lily’s heat exchanger A and B is capable of transfer heat between the two air streams, heat is a sensible energy); and
a desiccant wheel (Lily’s motor driven wheel 6, Lily Fig, 1, [002]) fluidically coupled to the core and first and second inlets and outlets (as indicated by arrow in Lily’s Fig. 1), the desiccant wheel configured to rotate to transfer moisture and sensible energy between at least two air streams (Lily’s motor driven wheel 6 is a thermally regenerable desiccant and therefore it is capable of transfer moisture and sensible energy between the at least two air streams, Lily Fig. 1, [0025]),
a control system (Lily’s electronic system controller 24, Fig. 2, [0027]) configured to operate the appliance in a plurality of operating modes, wherein, in a first operating mode, the first air flow (via inlet 2, Lily Fig. 2, [0027]) passes through a bottom half of the desiccant wheel (7 of Fig. 2 in Lily), the sterilization source (Wenger’s UV light as modified below), the energy exchange core (A of Fig. 2 in Lily), and the at least one blower (12 of Wenger) to the first outlet (3 of Wenger).
Lilly does not disclose the claimed limitation of that the self-regulating appliance of claim 1, further comprising:
a sterilization source coupled to the cabinet interior configured to emit a prescribed amount of light to kill airborne viruses.
In the analogous art of dehumidifier system comprising heat exchanger and desiccant wheels, Wenger discloses using UV light on the contaminated media to get rid of pathogens on clean rolls, which is essentially a filter, Wenger Fig. 11, [0104]). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Wenger’s UV light in Lilly to kill pathogens to further improve filtration quality.
Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lilly in view of Wenger as applied to claim 2, and in further view of Niemiec et al., US 2019/0292315 A1 (“Niemiec”).
Regarding claim 3:24. Modified Lily does not disclose that the self-regulating appliance of claim 2, wherein the sterilization source comprises at least one UV-C light source configured to emit ultraviolet light with a wavelength between 200 and 280 nanometers to kill the airborne viruses.
In the analogous art of UV air purifying device, Niemiec discloses a UV-C light waves with a wavelength between 200 and 280 nanometers, Niemiec [0014]. Niemiec discloses its UV-C light is optimal for irradiating airborne contaminants, Niemiec [0101]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Niemiec’s UVC light in modified Lily for an optimal antivirus effect.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lilly in view of Wenger as applied to claim 8, and in further view of Pontius, US 6,110,564 A (“Pontius”).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Lily does not disclose that the self-regulating appliance of claim 8, wherein the humidifying subsystem comprises a water pad with a mesh substrate and a water wicking material for retaining and transferring moisture to the air stream within the appliance.
In the analogous art of humidifiers, Pontius discloses a humidifier, which comprising humidifier pad with layers of wicking paper, Pontius Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 51–54. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Lily’s humidifier to include Pontius’s water pad with mesh substrate and a water wicking material as shown in Pontius’s Fig. 1 because such design is known in the art. Additionally, Pontius discloses its design offers distinct, unexpected advantages including lower cost and unexpected level of capacity output, Pontius col. 3, ll. 14–25.
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Lily discloses that the self-regulating appliance of claim 9, further comprising:
a plurality of external ducts (where label 2–5 points, Lily Fig. 1) coupled to the first and second inlets and outlets configured to provide the first and second air flows to the first and second inlets and receive the third and fourth air flows from the first and second outlets.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lilly in view of Wenger as applied to claim 9, and in further view of McDonnell et al., US 2016/0146490 A1 (“McDonnell”).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Lily discloses that the self-regulating appliance of claim 9, wherein the humidifying subsystem further comprises a pad tray (Pontius’s water reservoir 2, Fig. 4, col. 1, ll. 60–64) for positioning and holding the water pad within the appliance (similar to that shown in Pontius, in modified Lily, the entire device of Pontius’s Fig. 4 would be in modified Lily’s housing 1, wherein Pontius’s water pad 4 is positioned and held, Pontius Fig. 4).
Modified Lily does not disclose a fill tube for receiving and metering a flow of water through the water pad, a water valve coupled to an external water source for controlling the flow of water, and a water filter for removing impurities from the flow of water prior to being provided to the water pad.
In the analogous art of humidifiers, McDonnell discloses a humidifier comprising a reservoir (McDonnell’s lower reservoir 62, McDonnell Fig. 4, [0042]). McDonnell discloses that a fill tube (McDonnell’s tube 60, Fig. 4, [0042]), a water valve (McDonnell’s valve 58, Fig. 4, [0042]) coupled to an external water source for controlling the flow of water (McDonnell’s valve 58 is connected to circuit 76 that actuates the valve 58 which controls a flow, Fig. 4, [0042]), and a water filter (McDonnell’s filter 20, McDonnell Fig. 1, [0007]) for removing impurities from the flow of water prior to being provided to the water pad (McDonnell discloses its filter cleans the flow of water before it passes into reservoir, [0007]). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include McDonnell’s design in modified Lily because McDonnell discloses its design reduce spilling, make filling easier and avoid wear from detachable tank valves, McDonnell [0003]–[0007].
With such modification, modified Lily would have a fill tube 60 for receiving and metering a flow of water through the water pad in modified Lily.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lilly in view of Wenger as applied to claim 11, and in further view of Lee, US 2017/0016646 A1 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Lily does not disclose that the self-regulating appliance of claim 11, further comprising: a plurality of dampers coupled to the plurality of external ducts for regulating air flow within the plurality of external ducts.
In the analogous art of HVAC system controlling humidity, Lee discloses inlet and outlet dampers 13–16, Lee Fig. 1, [0052]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Lee’s dampers in modified Lily’s inlets and outlets such that the inlets and outlets could be opened/closed when desire. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include dampers in modified Lily to prevent UV light from direct exposure to human’s eye.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13–18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Lily discloses that the self-regulating appliance of claim 12, further comprising:
a control system (Lily’s controller 24, Lily Fig. 2, [0006]) configured to operate the appliance in a plurality of operating modes, wherein, in a first operating mode (as shown in Lily Fig. 2), the appliance receives the first airflow from the dwelling interior (2 of Lily, Fig. 2) and sequentially passes the first airflow through the filtration subsystem (21 of Lily Fig. 2), bottom half of the desiccant wheel (7 of Lily, Fig. 2).
However, modified Lily does not disclose that the control system subsequently directs the air flow to pass a sterilization source, the energy exchange core, the humidifier heaters, and the humidifying subsystem prior to delivery into the first outlet.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Lily for such limitation because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Claims 14–18 would be allowable because they depend on claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights