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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “characterised” should read -characterized-.
Claim 1 should begin with -An air purification device-.
Dependent claims should begin with -the air purification device-
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said projections" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Office has interpreted the claim meaning to reference the protrusion.
Claims 2-7 are rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Modiform (EP 1862063 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Modiform discloses an air purification device (apparatus could serve this purpose) comprising - a container (1) defining a housing for a substrate (7) for culturing at least one plant (8); characterized by said container comprises - a panel (2) defining a wall of said housing configured to contact said substrate and a separation plane (3); by that said panel comprises with respect to said separation plane - depressions (16B) each defining a collecting compartment for part of said substrate (7); - protrusions (5A,5B,5C) configured to be at least partially covered by said substrate (7); and by said protrusions (212) comprise - holes (4) allowing an air stream (9A,9B,9C) to pass through said panel and enter said housing; said holes (4) are cut exclusively in said protrusions (5A,5B,5C) so that at least said substrate (7) at said protrusions is traversed by said airflow (9A,9B,9C); and said substrate (7) in correspondence with said depressions (16B) is not traversed by said airflow ensuring the permanence of a humidity in said substrate (7) contained in at least said depressions (16B) and thus the definition in said substrate of a biofilm which, coming into contact with said airflow, purifies said airflow.
Regarding claim 2: Modiform discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein said panel (2) defines the bottom of said housing so as to allow said substrate (7) to rest by gravity on said panel (2, Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modiform as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3: Modiform discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Modiform discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said holes have a cross-sectional area of less than 10 mm2. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to size the holes to be less than a desired size since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The benefit of such sizing would be done so that the soil or water within the apparatus does not undesirably exit, while at the same time allowing for air and to enter the system in order to be purified, decreasing the amount of soil/water loss over time.
Regarding claim 4: Modiform discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Modiform discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said holes have a cross-sectional area inversely proportional to the distance from the apex of said protrusions. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to size the hole in proportion to its placement, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Sizing the apertures in this manner would achieve the predictable result of increasing air flow into the system, allowing for an optimal amount of air to be purified within an indoor environment.
Regarding claim 5: Modiform discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Modiform discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said panel has a thickness substantially constant and substantially between 3 mm and 5 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to keep the thickness of the panel constant since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Keeping the thickness constant throughout the panel would achieve the predictable result of increasing the durability of the panel, decreasing the probability it breaks in the event of uneven weight distribution, further increasing the lifespan of the system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modiform as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bardiz (US 20230017136 A1).
Regarding claim 6: Modiform discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Modiform fails to teach an irrigation block configured to supply water to said substrate, and a control system comprising a board for controlling said purification device and a humidity sensor configured to detect the humidity of said substrate at least at said depressions so as to enable said board to control said irrigation block according to said humidity of said substrate.
However, Bardiz teaches an irrigation block configured to supply water to said substrate, and a control system comprising a board for controlling said purification device and a humidity sensor configured to detect the humidity of said substrate at least at said depressions so as to enable said board to control said irrigation block according to said humidity of said substrate (abstract and paragraph 40 discuss a controller with the capabilities of observing the humidity of the substrate and controlling irrigation based on the observations for optimal conditions; these three structures would be able to meet the functional limitations of the presently recited claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the air purification system as disclosed by Modiform with the controls as taught by Bardiz with a reasonable expectation of success because providing controls will allow for the plant to live in a more efficient manner, achieving the predictable result of having a greater amount of air purification and a greater lifespan.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modiform as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (WO 2023277334 A1).
Regarding claim 7: Modiform discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Modiform fails to teach a structure defining a substantially sealed culture chamber, an inlet section of air into said culture chamber and an outlet section of said air from said culture chamber; wherein said container being placed in said culture chamber so that said panel is downstream of said inlet section with respect to the direction of advancement of said air.
However, Kim teaches a structure (100) defining a substantially sealed culture chamber (Fig. 1), an inlet section of air into said culture chamber and an outlet section (330) of said air from said culture chamber; wherein said container (110) being placed in said culture chamber so that said panel is downstream of said inlet section with respect to the direction of advancement of said air (as seen in Fig. 2, air enters the system which then comes into contact with the plants and eventually leaves the structure (100)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the air purification system as disclosed by Modiform with the chamber as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because providing the air purification in a closed chamber would achieve the predictable result of protecting the plant by protecting it from disease, insects, and contaminants, resulting in better air purification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of air purification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642