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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent number 12,296,292 B2 to Wenger.
A) As per Claim 1, Wenger teaches an air treatment apparatus (Wenger: Figure 15A) comprising:
a main body (Wenger: Figure 15A, Item 1550) including:
a first intake port for sucking air (Wenger: Figure 15A, portion of opening with airflow through top of Item 1555 in main flow path);
a main flow path in which a first filter unit including a plurality of filters is disposed so that air sucked into the first intake port is filtered (Wenger: Figure 15A, top flow path through 1555, 1560 & 1570);
a second intake port disposed below the first intake port to suck air (Wenger: Figure 15A, portion of opening with airflow through bottom of Item 1555 in bypass flow path);
a bypass flow path (Wenger: Figure 15A, bottom flow path through 1555 & 1580) in which a second filter unit including a smaller number of filters than the first filter unit is disposed so that air sucked into the second intake port is filtered; and
a damper (Wenger: Figure 15A, Item 1580) for selectively allowing the main flow path and the bypass flow path to communicate with each other.
B) As per Claim 2, Wenger teaches that the main body further includes a through-hole that allows the main flow path and the bypass flow path to communicate with each other, and wherein the damper opens and closes the through-hole to selectively allow the main flow path and the bypass flow path to communicate with each other (Wenger: Figure 15A, opening after 1585 when whole flow comes back together, controlled by 1580).
C) As per Claim 3, Wenger teaches that the through-hole connects a rear end of the second filter unit of the bypass flow path and a rear end of the first filter unit of the main flow path other (Wenger: Figure 15A, opening after 1585 when whole flow comes back together).
D) As per Claim 4, Wenger teaches that the first filter unit includes a first pre-filter for filtering air sucked into the first intake port, and the second filter unit includes a second pre-filter for filtering air sucked into the second intake port (Wenger: Figure 15A, Item 1555, top and bottom).
E) As per Claim 6, Wenger teaches that the first pre-filter and the second pre-filter are formed integrally (Wenger: Figure 15A, Item 1555).
F) As per Claim 7, Wenger teaches that the first filter unit further includes a main filter (Wenger: Figure 15A, Item 1560) for filtering the air filtered by the first pre-filter.
G) As per Claim 8, Wenger teaches that the second intake port is disposed adjacent to a bottom surface of the main body and has a shape extending parallel to the bottom surface (Wenger: Figure 15A, portion of opening with airflow through bottom of Item 1555 in bypass flow path).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenger.
A) As per Claim 5, Wenger teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the second pre-filter is configured to have a smaller differential pressure than the first pre-filter.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having different pre-filters solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that different pre-filters would perform equally well with Wenger. Accordingly, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the prefilters of Wenger different because having different pre-filters does not appear to provide any unexpected results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenger in view of US Patent Publication Number 2022/0373204 A1 to Hyon.
A) As per Claim 9, Wenger teaches a sensor unit configured to detect a first dust concentration of a first sized dust and a second concentration of a VOC; and a controller for controlling the damper so that the main flow path and the bypass flow path communicate with each other when the second concentration is higher than the first dust concentration (Wenger: Col. 26, Lines 14-42).
Wenger does not teach that the two sensed values are different sized particle sizes.
However, Hyon teaches different sensors for different particle sizes (Hyon: Paragraph 0323).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wenger by sensing different particle sizes, as taught by Hyon, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wenger with these aforementioned teachings of Hyon with the motivation of being able to use a more energy efficient filter when smaller filter sizes are not required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights