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 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.
Claims 1-6, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benedek (US 20180264160 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Benedek teaches a fluid purification system (apparatus for treating air, abstract) comprising: (a) a housing open at each end through with a fluid is able to pass (housing with an air inlet and air outlet, abstract); (b) a cassette within the housing comprising a plurality of lamps capable of emitting light (Figure 20 plurality of UV bulbs “110” in housing “102”), wherein the cassette is removable from the housing (designed for efficient replacement of the UV bulb with cartridge, paragraph [0219], and replacement cartridge removed by rotating exterior interlock housing, paragraph [0221]).
Regarding claim 2, Benedek teaches a plurality of ballasts capable of supplying electricity to the plurality of lamps (including bulb ballasts, paragraph [0209], and the ballast monitors the power to the UV light source, paragraph [0240]).
Regarding claim 3, Benedek teaches wherein the lamps emit light in the ultraviolet wavelength band (UV bulb that emits light rays in the UV wavelength, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Benedek teaches wherein the light in the ultraviolet wavelength band breaks down contaminants in the fluid (UV light is known to kill microbes at defined exposures, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 5, Benedek teaches wherein the light in the ultraviolet wavelength band generates ozone in the fluid (ozone is generated by UV light rays, paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, Benedek teaches an ozone monitor capable of detecting an ozone amount in the fluid (sensor can detect contaminant content and level like ozone in the air, paragraph [0273]), wherein the plurality of ballasts and plurality of lamps are configured to vary the amount of ultraviolet light emitted based on the ozone amount detected (ballast can regulate the current to UV light source and provide sufficient voltage to UV light source, paragraph [0261], and control unit includes a UV-light ozone dissociation chamber for destroying ozone to a level desired for the atmosphere, paragraph [0202], and amount of ozone triggers an electrical switch to shut down operation of UV light bulb, paragraph [0241]).
Regarding claim 15, Benedek teaches a fluid purification system (apparatus for treating air, abstract) comprising, (a) a housing with a first end and a second end wherein a fluid is able to pass from the first end to the second end (housing with an air inlet and air outlet, abstract); (b) a cassette within the hosing comprising a plurality of lamps capable of spurring the generation of ozone (Figure 20 plurality of UV bulbs “110” in housing “102”, and designed for efficient replacement of the UV bulb with cartridge, paragraph [0219], and ozone is generated by UV light rays, paragraph [0023]); and (c) a flow restrictor within the housing positioned between the cassette and the second end of the housing (Figure 20 pair of baffles “114” positioned between UV bulbs “110” and outlet fan “116”), wherein the cassette is removable from the housing (replacement cartridge removed by rotating exterior interlock housing, paragraph [0221]), and wherein the flow restrictor increases the time needed for fluid to pass through the housing (flow diverter includes a baffle that mixes fluid flowing through unit and forms a plurality of flow channels, paragraph [0184]).
Regarding claim 17, Benedek teaches wherein the flow restrictor is a plurality of baffles (Figure 20 pair of baffles “114” positioned between UV bulbs “110” and outlet fan “116”).
Regarding claim 18, Benedek teaches wherein the lamps emit light in the ultraviolet wavelength band (UV bulb that emits light rays in the UV wavelength, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 19, Benedek teaches an ozone monitor capable of detecting ozone in the fluid (sensor can detect contaminant content and level like ozone in the air, paragraph [0273]).
Regarding claim 20, Benedek teaches wherein the lamps are configured to emit more of less ultraviolet wavelength light based on the ozone detected in the fluid (control unit includes a UV-light ozone dissociation chamber for destroying ozone to a level desired for the atmosphere, paragraph [0202], and amount of ozone triggers an electrical switch to shut down operation of UV light bulb, paragraph [0241]).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek in view of Khoshbin (US 20140205504 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Benedek teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein a detected ozone amount in the fluid below a lower threshold causes the plurality of ballasts and plurality of lamps to increase the amount of ultraviolet light emitted and a detected ozone amount in the fluid above an upper threshold causes the plurality of ballasts and plurality of lamps to decrease the amount of ultraviolet light emitted. However, Khoshbin teaches wherein a detected ozone amount in the fluid below a lower threshold causes the plurality of ballasts and plurality of lamps to increase the amount of ultraviolet light emitted and a detected ozone amount in the fluid above an upper threshold causes the plurality of ballasts and plurality of lamps to decrease the amount of ultraviolet light emitted (controller receives an input signal such as ozone concentration, compares the input signal to a set point, and produces an output signal to control the intensity of the UV lamps, paragraph [0009], and algorithm programmed for reducing or increasing intensity of UV lamps when increasing/reducing intensity of UV lamps increases/reduces ozone concentration, paragraph [0063]).
Benedek and Khoshbin are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of fluid purification devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the fluid purification device taught by Benedek with the UV light control based on the ozone concentration taught by Khoshbin because Khoshbin teaches such control optimizes the ozone concentration exiting the ozone outlet of the device, paragraph [0062]).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek in view of Leavitt (US 20230075460 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Benedek teaches all aspects of the current invention including a fluid purification system (apparatus for treating air, abstract) comprising, (a) a housing with a first end and a second end wherein a fluid is able to pass from the first end to the second end (housing with an air inlet and air outlet, abstract); (b) a cassette within the hosing comprising a plurality of lamps capable of spurring the generation of ozone (Figure 20 plurality of UV bulbs “110” in housing “102”, and designed for efficient replacement of the UV bulb with cartridge, paragraph [0219], and ozone is generated by UV light rays, paragraph [0023]); wherein the cassette is removable from the housing (replacement cartridge removed by rotating exterior interlock housing, paragraph [0221]), but does not teach (c) a backflow damper disposed within the housing at the first end of the housing capable of allowing, restricting, and stopping the passage of fluid through the housing; and (d) a makeup air damper disposed proximal to the first end of the housing capable of allowing, restricting, and stopping the passage of fluid through the housing. However, Leavitt teaches (c) a backflow damper disposed within the housing at the first end of the housing capable of allowing, restricting, and stopping the passage of fluid through the housing (apparatus utilizes a backflow preventer, paragraph [0014]); and (d) a makeup air damper disposed proximal to the first end of the housing capable of allowing, restricting, and stopping the passage of fluid through the housing (Figure 28 oxygen “64” provided to area “40” in the interior from oxygen concentrator “54”).
Benedek and Leavitt are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of fluid purification devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the fluid purification device taught by Benedek with the backflow damper and makeup air damper taught by Leavitt because Leavitt teaches the backflow damper prevents leakage of ozone out of the reactor space (paragraph [0014]) and the makeup air damper helps reduce nitrogen oxide biproducts produced in the reactor (paragraph [0106]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Benedek and Leavitt teaches a plurality of ballasts capable of supplying electricity to the plurality of lamps (including bulb ballasts, paragraph [0209], and the ballast monitors the power to the UV light source, paragraph [0240], Benedek).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Benedek and Leavitt teaches an ozone monitor capable of detecting an ozone amount in the fluid (sensor can detect contaminant content and level like ozone in the air, paragraph [0273], Benedek).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Benedek and Leavitt teaches an airflow sensor capable of measuring the flow of the fluid through the housing (thermistor flow sensor can verify flow rate through the unit, paragraph [0239], Benedek)/
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Benedek and Leavitt teaches wherein the backflow damper is configured to close based upon the measured fluid flow by the airflow sensor (backflow preventor functions such that when the intake fan is off the backflow preventor stops the airflow moving through the intake area, paragraph [0014], Leavitt).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Benedek and Leavitt teaches a temperature probe positioned in the housing to measure the temperature of the fluid (one or more sensors to detect the temperature, paragraph [0251]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek and Leavitt in view of Hunter (US 20090004047 A1) and Khoshbin.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Benedek and Leavitt teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the makeup air damper is configured to adjust its position based on the temperature of the fluid. However, Hunter teaches wherein the makeup air damper is configured to adjust its position based on the temperature of the fluid (create cooling air flow using an in-line cooling fan to control temperature at UVC lamp based on temperature sensor, paragraph [0115]).
Benedek, Leavitt, Hunter and Khoshbin are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of fluid purification devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the fluid purification device taught by Benedek and Leavitt with the control of airflow based on fluid temperature as taught by Hunter because Khoshbin teaches it is advantageous to prevent overheating of the UV lamps as high temperatures can damage the lamp or ozone generator (paragraph [0078]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek in view of Socha (US 20040262241 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Benedek teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the flow restrictor is one or more adjustable flow promoters. However, Socha teaches wherein the flow restrictor is one or more adjustable flow promoters (closable discharge isolation damper, paragraph [0039]).
Benedek and Socha are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of fluid purification devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the fluid purification device taught by Benedek with the adjustable flow promoter taught by Socha because Socha teaches control of the outlet of the device advantageously provides a safety measure to prevent leakage of ozone to the outside environment (paragraph [0012]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
