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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,690,931. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of ‘931 is a more specific set of limitations within the broader scope of instant claim 1.
Instant claims 2-6 are rejected over claims 2-6 of ‘931.
Instant claim 7 is rejected over claim 1 of ‘931.
Instant claims 8-14 are rejected over claims 7-13 of ‘931.
Claims 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,857,707. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 and 5 of ‘707 are more specific limitations within the broader scope of instant claims 15 and 19.
Instant claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected over claims 2-4 and 19 of ‘707.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
The term "high-voltage" in independent claims 1, 15, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "high-voltage" 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. It is not clear what voltage is required in order to be considered necessarily "high-voltage" as required by the claim and thus the scope of the claim cannot be determined.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on one of claims 1, 15, and 19.
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) 1-3, 10, 13-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cha (KR 20110052006).
With regards to claim 1, Cha (KR 20110052006) (translation attached) teaches a germicidal partition system comprising: at least one negative ion generator (Abstract, Fig. 1 negative ion and plasma generator 40) comprising: at least one negative high-voltage source (Fig. 1 high-voltage power supply connected to electrode 54 and 56, Paragraphs [0031], [0039]-[0041]); at least one high-voltage
conductor electrically connected to the at least one negative high-voltage source; and at least one
anode electrically connected to the at least one high-voltage conductor (electrodes 54 and 56); and at
least one fan configured to: draw air into the system (blowing fan 32); direct the air through the at least
one negative ion generator (Abstract); and output the air through at least one manifold (discharge port
5), wherein the air outputted through the at least one manifold is configured to create a barrier
between a first air mass and a second air mass, such that the outputted air reduces at least one of the
transfer of contaminants or the concentration of viable contagions between the first air mass and the
second air mass (air barrier layer 100 shown in fig. 3).
With regards to claim 2, Cha further teaches the device is mounted above a doorway or portal
(Paragraph [0003]).
With regards to claim 3, Cha further teaches the air curtain is formed at the entrance of a door and extends downward to block air from communicating therethrough, necessitating the outputted air
extending at least 4 feet in order to traverse the length of a door. Furthermore, Apparatus claims cover
what a device is, not what a device does and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner
in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus
from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim
(see MPEP 2114, II). The device disclosed by Cha is well capable of performing the claimed function and
is reasonably expected to do so.
With regards to claim 10, Cha further teaches the air outputted through the at least one manifold is laminar; and the air outputted through the at least one manifold comprises at least 1 million negative air ions per cubic centimeter of air (Paragraphs [0002] and [0054]). Furthermore, Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II). The device disclosed by Cha is well capable of performing the claimed function and is reasonably expected to do so.
With regards to claim 13, Cha further teaches the net cross sectional shape of the air outputted is at least one of a polygon or circle (Fig. 3 shows this).
With regards to claim 14, Cha further teaches embodiments where the system does not comprise a filter (Figs. 1-5).
With regards to claim 15, Cha (KR 20110052006) (translation attached) teaches a germicidal partition system comprising: at least one negative ion generator (Abstract, Fig. 1 negative ion and plasma generator 40) comprising: at least one negative high-voltage source (Fig. 1 high-voltage power supply connected to electrode 54 and 56, Paragraphs [0031], [0039]-[0041]); at least one high-voltage
conductor electrically connected to the at least one negative high-voltage source; and at least one
anode electrically connected to the at least one high-voltage conductor (electrodes 54 and 56); and at
least one fan configured to: draw air into the system (blowing fan 32); direct the air through the at least
one negative ion generator (Abstract); and output the air through at least one manifold (discharge port
5), wherein the air outputted through the at least one manifold is configured to create a barrier
between a first air mass and a second air mass, such that the outputted air reduces at least one of the
transfer of contaminants or the concentration of viable contagions between the first air mass and the
second air mass (air barrier layer 100 shown in fig. 3).
The operation of the device in Cha results in the claimed method (the barrier of air reduces transfer of contaminants between either side of the air).
With regards to claims 17 and 18, Cha further teaches the air outputted through the at least one manifold is laminar; and the air outputted through the at least one manifold comprises at least 1 million negative air ions per cubic centimeter of air (Paragraphs [0002] and [0054]).
With regards to claim 19, Cha (KR 20110052006) (translation attached) teaches a germicidal partition system comprising: at least one negative ion generator (Abstract, Fig. 1 negative ion and plasma generator 40) comprising: at least one negative high-voltage source (Fig. 1 high-voltage power supply connected to electrode 54 and 56, Paragraphs [0031], [0039]-[0041]); at least one high-voltage
conductor electrically connected to the at least one negative high-voltage source; and at least one
anode electrically connected to the at least one high-voltage conductor (electrodes 54 and 56); and at
least one fan configured to: draw air into the system (blowing fan 32); direct the air through the at least
one negative ion generator (Abstract); and output the air through at least one manifold (discharge port
5), wherein the air outputted through the at least one manifold is configured to create a barrier
between a first air mass and a second air mass, such that the outputted air reduces at least one of the
transfer of contaminants or the concentration of viable contagions between the first air mass and the
second air mass (air barrier layer 100 shown in fig. 3).
The operation of the device in Cha results in the claimed method (the barrier of air reduces transfer of contaminants between either side of the air).
With regards to claim 20, Cha further teaches the air outputted through the at least one manifold is laminar; and the air outputted through the at least one manifold comprises at least 1 million negative air ions per cubic centimeter of air (Paragraphs [0002] and [0054]).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 20110052006) in view of Carr (US 2014/0363333).
With regards to claim 4, Cha does not teach a sensor as claimed.
Carr (US 2014/0363333) teaches germicidal partition system (Abstract, fig. 2) comprising a proximity detector, wherein upon a detection of an occupant the system is activated for only a time during which said occupant is present (Paragraphs [0020], [0041], [0043]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Cha such that there is a proximity sensor configured to initiate operation of the device when a user is detected for the duration a user is detected as taught by Carr to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to operate the device only when a user is present to arrive at a more efficient device.
With regards to claims 5 and 6, Carr teaches the stimulus is a motion stimulus and that the system is operated only for a set duration of time after activation (See rejection of claim 4 above).
Claim(s) 7, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 20110052006) in view of Lau (US 2004/0047775).
With regards to claim 7, Cha teaches an output of 0.02 ppm of ozone but is silent of an output relative to ambient ozone (Paragraph [0054]). Lau (US 2004/0047775) teaches an ozone producing air conditioner (Abstract), disclosing that it is desirable to produce and output safe amounts of ozone (Paragraph [0058]) as ozone is known to be hazardous in substantial amounts, establishing the amount of ozone relative to ambient as a result- effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Cha such that the amount of ozone in the air output by the device is a concentration of less than .01 ppm higher than ambient ozone levels to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize a result- effective variable through routine optimization, and there exists a motivation for an ordinary artisan to optimize result-effective variables. See MPEP 2144.05(II) for more details.
With regards to claim 9, Lau further teaches the system is a portable garment (Fig. 2a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Cha such that it is a portable garment as taught by Lau to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to treat air anywhere the user goes conveniently.
With regards to claim 12, Lau further teaches the device is powered by a battery (Paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Cha such that it is powered by a battery as taught by Lau to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so for convenient wireless operation.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 20110052006).
With regards to claim 8, Cha further teaches the anode and manifold are connected (Figs. 1-3 the system is formed together and thus the parts are necessarily at least indirectly connected), but appears to be silent with regards to separability. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Cha such that the parts are removable and replaceable. The court has held that if it is considered desirable for any reason to fashion a component to be removable, then it would be obvious to do so for that purpose. MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). It would be desirable to fashion the manifold and anode to be removable in order to replace a broken part or to access the interior of the device for maintenance.
With regards to claim 16, Cha further teaches the air outputted through the at least one manifold is laminar; and the air outputted through the at least one manifold comprises at least 1 million negative air ions per cubic centimeter of air (Paragraphs [0002] and [0054]). It is taken that the amount would be achieved at 4 feet away. It is additionally and alternatively presented that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amount of ions in order to achieve the desired air treatment and curtain.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR 20110052006) in view of Crapser (US 2008/0193328).
With regards to claim 11, Cha appears to be silent with regards to a decibel level.
Crapser (US 2008/0193328) teaches an air purifier that operates at less than 50 decibels, lying within the claimed range of 55 dBA. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Cha such that it operates at less than 50 dBA as taught by Crapser to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have the device operate in an unobtrusive and relaxing way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights