DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on July 17, 2026, and any subsequent filings.
Claims 1-25 stand rejected. Claims 2, 12, and 23 have been canceled. Claims 26-28 have been added. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-22, and 24-28 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 11 (“Pg”)), filed July 17, 2026, with respect to the drawings objections related to Claims 6, 10, 20, and 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections based upon these claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the drawing objection based upon Claim 9 filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, no agreement had been reached during the interview of June 23, 2026; rather the undersigned asked for support for Applicant's position within MPEP. That support has not been provided.
Figure 2 illustrates a toilet 118A inside building 116 (Spec., Paragraph 21 (“Pr”)) not a portable toilet. MPEP 608.02(d), cited in Applicant’s argument (Remarks, Pg12) indicates that "conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation" (emphasis added). No such illustration has been made here and the objection stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 12 has been canceled and Claims 6, 21, 22, and 24 have been amended and all of the rejections withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Pg13), filed July 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 25 under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 12
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended Claim 1 and are not persuasive for the reasons detailed in the rejections below. To the extent the arguments pertain the prior rejection of Claim 1, those are arguments are not persuasive for the reasons detailed in this section.
As to Applicant’s argument regarding the orientation of the UV light source 26 disclosed by Potts (Remarks, Pg14), Potts discloses the same orientation depending on which portion of the UV light source is considered to be referenced, e.g., whether an axial or radial direction if the UV light source is cylindrical. Further, the rearrangement of parts does not distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
As to Applicant’s argument regarding turbulence (Remarks, Pg15), Applicant provides no evidence to support inducing turbulence in the configuration disclosed by Potts yet argument cannot supplant evidence (see MPEP 2145(I)). Further, Applicant’s argument relates to intended use and "a statement of intended use … does not qualify or distinguish the structural apparatus over the reference." In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492 (CCPA 1962). Moreover, even if the intended use of Applicant’s device claim could be given patentable weight, whether flow is turbulent or not can be made to vary based upon changes in fluid density, fluid speed, pipe diameter, and fluid viscosity as seen by the calculation of the Reynolds number for a pipe (see MIT Reynolds Number (accessed August 10, 2026)).
As to Applicant’s argument regarding the device location disclosed by Potts being in a “substantially enclosed environment” (Remarks, Pg16), the location of the claimed device being is an intended use and not afforded patentable with as discussed supra. Further even if the intended use of Applicant’s device claim could be given patentable weight, “substantially enclosed environment” indicates the device may be located outdoors and not in a completely enclosed environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13-22, 24, and 25
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant repeats the same arguments made with respect to these claims as made with respect to Claim 1 and the arguments are not persuasive for the reasons detailed supra.
In response to Applicant's argument that Leonaggeo does not disclose the limitations of prior Claim 6 (Remarks, Pg17), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 26-27
These newly added claims have not been yet been examined and as such Applicant’s arguments are premature (Remarks, Pg18-19).
Response to Amendment
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because no annotated sheet has been provided for the amended Figure 1B as required in the prior Office action. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
wherein the gas emitting system includes a portable toilet as recited in Claim 9.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 26 recites the extension portions extending outward horizontally with reference to the central vertical conduit however nothing the specification provides support for this limitation and as seen in the figures and argued by Applicant, the extensions 148 and 150 extend obliquely not horizontally with reference to the central vertical conduit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-16, 18-20, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potts, International Publication No. WO 2022/223971A1 (“Potts”) in view of Heunermund, U.S. Patent No. 5,316,569 (“Heunermund”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-16, and 27 Potts discloses an inline air treatment apparatus for a gas emitting system (Pg1 / Lines 5-9 (“Pg/L”)), the air treatment apparatus comprising a housing (Fig. 1 (note outer cladding interpreted as housing)) having an inlet (Fig. 1, item 14, Abstract, Pg8/L15), an outlet (Fig. 1, item 12, Abstract, Pg8/L16), and a central conduit portion defining a flow path between the inlet and the outlet (Fig. 1, Abstract, Pg8/L16), the outlet for venting to an outdoor atmosphere (Fig. 1 (note intended use does not distinguish device claim as discussed supra)), and the housing including a mounting portion, the mounting portion including the inlet (Fig. 1 (note lower portion including inlet 14 interpreted as mounting portion and includes inlet 14)), and wherein the housing is configured such that the flow path extends vertically when the housing is mounted (Fig. 1); a first activated charcoal filter (Fig. 1, item 16, Pg8/L18) and a second activated charcoal filter (Fig. 1, item 18, Pg8/L18) disposed in the flow path, the first activated charcoal filter and second activated charcoal filter configured to remove contaminants from the air passing therethrough; and a UV light source extending into the flow path and extending horizontally with respect to the flow path that is vertical when the housing is mounted (Fig. 1 (see response to arguments regarding orientation)), the UV light source being operable to emit UV light to the air flowing in the flow path to inactivate microorganisms in the air, the UV light source to emit the UV light to the air flowing between the first activated charcoal filter and the second activated charcoal filter (Fig. 1, item 26, Abstract, Pg1/L5-9, Pg9/L10-22).
Potts does not disclose a mounting portion configured to couple to an outlet portion of an outdoor air vent of the gas emitting system or the inlet for receiving air from the outlet portion of the outdoor air vent.
Heunermund also relates to an air treatment apparatus using UV light and activated charcoal filters and discloses a mounting portion configured to couple to an outlet portion of an outdoor air vent of the gas emitting system and he inlet for receiving air from the outlet portion of the outdoor air vent (Figs. 1, 2, item 18, C2/L11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the air treatment apparatus disclosed by Potts with the mounting structure disclosed by Heunermund because the mounting structure allow for adapting the apparatus for use in different structural locations.
Regarding Claims 13-16 and 18-20, Potts discloses an inline gas treatment apparatus mountable to an outdoor sewer vent pipe of a building (Pg1/L5-9 (note intended use does not impart patentability as discussed supra)), the inline gas treatment apparatus including a mounting portion of a housing, the mounting portion including an inlet (Fig. 1 (note lower portion including inlet 14 interpreted as mounting portion and includes inlet 14)); an outlet of the housing to vent gas to an outdoor atmosphere (Fig. 1, item 12, Abstract, Pg8/L16 (note intended use does not impart patentability as discussed supra)); a conduit portion of the housing, the conduit portion defining a flow path through which gas emitted from the outdoor vent pipe flows from the inlet to the outlet (Fig. 1, Abstract, Pg8/L16), wherein the flow path extends vertically when the mounting portion is mounted to the outdoor sewer vent pipe (Fig. 1); ; one or more activated charcoal filters disposed in the flow path, the one or more activated charcoal filters configured to remove contaminants from the gas passing therethrough (Fig. 1, items 16, 18, Pg8/L18); and a UV light source extending into the flow path and extending horizontally with respect to the flow path that is vertical when the mounting portion is mounted to the outdoor sewer vent pipe (Fig. 1 (see response to arguments regarding orientation)), the UV light source being operable to emit UV light to gas flowing in the flow path to inactivate microorganisms in the gas (Fig. 1, item 26, Abstract, Pg1/L5-9, Pg9/L10-22).
Potts does not disclose a sewer, the mounting portion configured to engage the outdoor sewer vent pipe of the building to mount the gas treatment apparatus to the sewer vent pipe to clean the gas emitted from the outdoor sewer vent pipe.
Heunermund also relates to an air treatment apparatus using UV light and activated charcoal filters and discloses a sewer (C1/L6-8) and the mounting portion configured to engage the outdoor sewer vent pipe of the building to mount the gas treatment apparatus to the sewer vent pipe to clean the gas emitted from the outdoor sewer vent pipe (Figs. 1, 2, item 18, C2/L11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the air treatment apparatus disclosed by Potts in a sewer as disclosed by Heunermund because Potts discloses uses for buildings which include sewer systems. Further, combining the structure disclosed by Potts with the mounting structure disclosed by Heunermund would have been obvious because the mounting structure allows for adapting the apparatus for use in different structural locations.
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 3: wherein the mounting portion is sized to receive the outlet portion of the outdoor air vent to mount the air treatment apparatus to the outdoor air vent as a single unit (Potts, Figs. 1, 2, item 18, C2/L11). Claims 4, 16: wherein the housing includes one or more removable portions to provide access to the first activated charcoal filter and the second activated charcoal filter (Heunermund, Fig. 2, item 68, C2/L31). Claim 5: a first removable filter support insertable into the housing to support the first activated charcoal filter in the flow path and a second removable filter support insertable into the housing to support the second activated charcoal filter in the flow path (Heunermund, Fig. 2, item 70, C2/L31). Claim 7: wherein the first activated charcoal filter and second activated charcoal filter are configured to remove moisture and/or contaminants from air passing therethrough, the contaminants including one or more of hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia (Heunermund, C1/L13-19,48-53). Claim 8: a fan operable to move air relative to the UV light source and through the first activated charcoal filter and the second activated charcoal filter (Potts, Fig. 1, item 22, Abstract, Pg8/L18). Claim 9: wherein the gas emitting system includes at least one of a plumbing system, a garbage compactor, portable toilet, waste collection bin, and a fume ventilation system (Heunermund, C1/L6-8,20-22). Claim 14: wherein the one or more activated charcoal filters include a first filter and a second filter downstream of the first filter (Potts, Fig. 1). Claim 15: wherein the UV light source is operable to emit UV light in the flow path downstream of the first filter and upstream of the second filter (Potts, Fig. 1). Claim 18: an airflow generator operable to move gas through the flow path relative to the UV light source and the one or more activated charcoal filters (Potts, Fig. 1, item 22, Abstract, Pg8/L18). Claim 19: wherein the mounting portion includes an opening sized to receive at least a portion of the outdoor sewer vent pipe therein (Heunermund, Figs. 1, 2, item 18, C2/L11). Claim 20: wherein the mounting portion includes a clamp to secure the housing to the outdoor sewer vent pipe (Heunermund, Fig. 2, items 78, C2/L34-38 (note the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim includes the stepped walls)). Claim 27: wherein the flow path extends substantially linearly through the first activated charcoal filter and substantially linearly through the second activated charcoal filter (Heunermund, Fig. 2).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potts, International Publication No. WO 2022/223971A1 (“Potts”) in view of Heunermund, U.S. Patent No. 5,316,569 (“Heunermund”) as applied to Claim 5 for Claim 6 and Claim 16 for Claim 17 above, and further in view of Leonaggeo, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0317694 (“Leonaggeo”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claim 6 and 17, the combination of Potts and Heunermund discloses the air treatment apparatus of Claim 5 and the inline gas treatment apparatus of Claim 16 except an extension portion extending outward of the central conduit portion, the first removeable filter support insertable into the central conduit portion through the extension portion with the extension portion supporting a portion of the first removable filter support.
Leonaggeo also relates to air treatment using UV light and activated charcoal and discloses an extension portion to provide access to the supported charcoal filtering media (Fig. 1, items 156, 200, Pr25,34)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus disclosed by Potts and Heunermund with the extension disclosed by Leonaggeo because, according to Leonaggeo, this allows replacement of the activated charcoal (Pr34) which occurs after a period of usage.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potts, International Publication No. WO 2022/223971A1 (“Potts”) in view of Heunermund, U.S. Patent No. 5,316,569 (“Heunermund”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of RMK, Indian Patent No. IN202341009608A (“RMK”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Potts discloses the air treatment apparatus of Claim 1 except a battery to power the UV light source; or an energy harvester operable to charge the battery.
RMK also relates to a UV sterilization device and discloses a battery to power the UV light source (Fig. 1 (note battery symbol), Pg8/Pr4); and an energy harvester operable to charge the battery (Pg8/Pr4 (note solar panel)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the air treatment device disclosed by Potts with the power source disclosed by RMK because the power source saves having to purchase electrical power and the power can be stored in a battery (Pg9/Pr1).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 11: wherein the energy harvester includes a solar panel (Pg8/Pr4).
Allowable Subject Matter
As to Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, and 28 appear allowable due to the oblique angle limitation which distinguishes them over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-7585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights