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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on January 12, 2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 12, 2026 have been fully considered.
Under I.A., Applicant (at page 14, second paragraph) argues,
“Critically, the Nishikawa reference contains no disclosure of: (1) a dust measuring device or dust sensor of any kind; (2) measuring dust values; (3) assigning an operating state "in dependence on" dust measurements; or (4) any functional relationship between load current changes AND dust sensor measurements. The claimed invention requires the data processing system to perform a conjoint analysis-determining the operating state by evaluating both the change in load current and the measured values from the dust measuring device. The Nishikawa reference's binary threshold system (200 mA = foreign matter present, activate removal mechanism) operates on an entirely different principle than the claimed dust-measurement-dependent state assignment.” (with emphasis added).
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 does not require the features argued by Applicant. The relevant portions of claim 1 (at lines 21-27) are reproduced below, with annotations for emphasis:
“wherein the data processing system (10) is configured to assign an operating state of the at least one ionization module (4) in the event of [option 1] a change in the load current of the at least one ionization module (4) or at least one ionization tube and/or in the event of [option 2] a change in the load current of the at least one ionization module (4) or at least one ionization tube in dependence on the measured values of the at least one dust measuring device (9) arranged in air flow direction in front of the at least one ionization module (4).”
The claim language “and/or” merely requires one of option 1 and option 2 to be selected. In other words, the scope of the claimed device includes a data processing system that satisfies option 1 alone, option 2 alone, or options 1 and 2 together. This claim language is similarly recited in claim 2 (at lines 3-10), claim 12 (at lines 24-31), and claim 13 (at lines 4-10).
Nishikawa discloses option 1. Specifically, Nishikawa discloses that the data processing system 8 assigns an operating state of the ionization module 7 in the event of a change in the load current of the ionization tube of the ionization module, as measured by the current detecting element 5 (i.e., due to adherence of foreign matter on the surface if the ionization tube); wherein: (i) when the current value detected by the current detecting element 5 is equal to or greater than a predetermined first current value (e.g., 200 mA), which indicates an operating state where foreign matter is adhered on the ionization tube, the control means activates a foreign matter removing means (i.e., a blower 14 or a heating element 15, FIG. 3-4) to remove the foreign matter from the surface of the ionization tube; (ii) when the current value detected by the current detecting element 5 is smaller than a predetermined second current value (e.g., 150 mA), which indicates an operating state where foreign matter is not adhered on the ionization tube, the control means returns the ion generating element 7 to normal operation; and (iii) when the current value detected by the current detecting element 5 is greater than a predetermined third current value (e.g., 300 mA), which indicates an operating state where there is no effect of the foreign matter removing means 14,15, the control means turns off the ion generating element 7 so that safety can be ensured.
Under I.B., Applicant argues that the references are not combinable because they have “fundamentally different control principles with distinct primary objectives”. In particular, Applicant (at page 16, fourth paragraph) states, “The Examiner has not explained how a person of ordinary skill in the art would integrate these four disparate control philosophies—ozone safely limitation, IAQ optimization, disturbance compensation, and equipment maintenance—into a unified coherent system.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, the argument “The Fox reference’s disclosure focuses on achieving desired IAQ levels without consideration of ozone safety constraints” (at page 15, last paragraph, to page 16, first paragraph) is not persuasive. Fox (at paragraph [0003]) discloses,
“It is also known in the art to control the amount of electrical energy provided to an air ionizer, thereby controlling the level of air ionization. One reason for controlling ionization levels is demand driven... A second reason for controlling ionization levels may be to prevent or reduce ozone production. It is known in the art that some types of air ionizers can produce undesirable levels of ozone if the ionization level is too high relative to the amount of contaminants in the air.” (with emphasis added).
Fox also discloses that conventional air ionization devices employ ozone sensors (see paragraph [0004]) and oxidizable gas sensors (see paragraph [0005]) for controlling the amount of electrical energy supplied to the air ionizer. However, Fox recognizes that, “The use of an oxidizable sensor has the drawback of not increasing the ionization level when air contaminants are present that are not detectable by the oxidizable gas sensor.” (at paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, Fox discloses an improvement over conventional air ionization devices (see paragraph [0005]), wherein the device comprises not only an ozone sensor and an oxidizable gas sensor, but also a particle sensor (i.e., dust sensor), so that the amount of electrical energy supplied to the air ionizer for controlling the ionization level can be based on the detected levels of ozone, the detected levels of oxidizable gases (VOCs), and the detected levels of air-borne particles, which would otherwise be undetectable by the oxidizable gas sensor.
Fox also discloses that the control takes into account any “predetermined maximum allowable levels” set by the user. Specifically, Fox (at paragraph [0022]) discloses,
“… Generally, the control unit receives signals from the sensor(s) and, based on these signals, adjusts the amount of electrical energy supplied to the air ionizer(s), thereby adjusting the amount of ionization... For example, if a particle sensor detects a high level of particulate contamination, the particle sensor signal to the control unit will indicate the high level of particulate contamination and the control unit will generally increase the energy (for example, increase the length of electrical pulses) to the air ionizer, thereby increasing the level of ionization. If the ionization level is already at some predetermined maximum allowable level, then increased particulate detection will not increase the ionization level.” (with emphasis added).
Fox (at paragraph [0024]) further discloses,
“… if an ozone level detects undesirable levels of ozone in the air, then the control unit can decrease the amount of ionization based on the level of ozone detected by decreasing the amount of electrical energy supplied to an air ionizer.”
Therefore, the Fox reference, like Fleischer, describes a control scheme for reducing the level of contaminants in the air, while also limiting the amount of ozone that was generated.
Secondly, the argument that Keune differs fundamentally from the Fleischer reference’s feedback-based ozone management (page 16, second paragraph) is not persuasive.
Keune discloses a device (FIG. 1-3) for controlling the amount of electrical energy supplied by a power unit 5 to an air ionizer 6 in order to control the level of ionization produced by the air ionizer, thereby providing a targeted purification of the contaminants in the air.
As shown in FIG. 1, the control scheme can be implemented as “input-controlled” system, where a control unit 3 controls an amount of electrical energy supplied by a power unit 5 to an air ionizer 6, based on the level of contaminants measured by a plurality of sensors 1 located upstream of the air ionizer 6.
Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 2, the control scheme can be implemented as “output controlled” system, in which a control unit 9 controls an amount of electrical energy supplied by a power unit 5 to an air ionizer 6, based on the level of contaminants measured by a plurality of sensors 7 located downstream of the air ionizer 6.
Alternatively, as shown in FIG. 3, the control scheme can be implemented using a combination of an “input and output controlled” system, in which a control unit 9 controls an amount of electrical energy supplied by a power unit 5 to an air ionizer 6, based on the level of contaminants measured by a plurality of sensors 1 located upstream of the ionizer 6 and a plurality of sensors 7 located downstream of the ionizer 6.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the level of ionization produced by an air ionizer can be effectively managed using any one of: (i) an “input-controlled” system, where sensors are located upstream of the air ionizer; (ii) an “output-controlled” system, where sensors are located downstream of the air ionizer; or (iii) an “input and output-controlled” system, where sensors are located both upstream and downstream of the air ionizer. The selection of a suitable location for the sensors in relation to the air ionizer, depending on the desired variables to be measured and controlled, would have been an obvious design consideration for one of ordinary skill in the engineering art.
Thirdly, Applicant’s argument “no relationship to air quality parameters or system performance optimization” is taught by Nishikawa (at page 16, third paragraph) is not considered persuasive because Nishikawa was merely relied upon to teach a device for measuring a load current of an ionization module, so that an operating state is assigned to the ionization module in the event of a detected change in the load current (i.e., due to the adherence of foreign matter on the surface of the ionization tube).
Applicant (page 16, last paragraph) further argues, “The Examiner has not articulated what the combined teachings would suggest beyond listing compatible features identified through impermissible hindsight reconstruction using the claims as a template.”
However, any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Under I.C., Applicant argues that the combination of references lacks a reasonable expectation of success and would render the Fleischer device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The Office respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments at pages 17-18 (under “The Examiner’s proposed combination would require: …”), 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). Furthermore, "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Applicant (at page 18) further argues,
“Conflict 1: When the Fox reference's particle-based algorithm calls for increased ionization intensity based on high particle levels, but the Fleischer reference's ozone sensor (13) indicates the system is approaching the limit 21 threshold in FIG. 2, which control imperative governs? The Fox reference's disclosure contains no consideration of ozone limits, yet The Fleischer reference's entire purpose is maintaining those limits to avoid "damaging effect on persons within the room" (the Fleischer reference, 5:56-57). The Examiner has not explained how this fundamental control conflict would be resolved.”
The argument is not found persuasive. Fleischer discloses that the device preferably comprises a combination of multiple types of sensors for detecting multiple types of air-borne contaminants. Fleischer (at column 2, lines 11-18) discloses,
“Beneficial detectors are a sensor for at least one chemical substance, a sensor for a biological organism, a dosemeter, or a device for determining air-borne particles. In particular, a combination of all these detectors provides an optimal protection form air contaminants. In this connection, chemical substances, biological organisms, energy-rich radiation, particles contaminated with energy-rich radiation, or contaminant-laden air-borne particles can be detected.” (with emphasis added).
Furthermore, as discussed above, Fox discloses an improvement over conventional air ionization devices, wherein the device comprises a combination of sensors, including an ozone sensor, an oxidizable gas sensor, and a particle sensor (dust sensor), so that the amount of electrical energy supplied to the air ionizer for controlling the ionization level may be based on the detected levels of ozone, oxidizable gases (VOCs), and particles (dust) in the air.
Fox (at paragraph [0022]) further discloses,
“… if a particle sensor detects a high level of particulate contamination, the particle sensor signal to the control unit will indicate the high level of particulate contamination and the control unit will generally increase the energy (for example, increase the length of electrical pulses) to the air ionizer, thereby increasing the level of ionization. If the ionization level is already at some predetermined maximum allowable level, then increased particulate detection will not increase the ionization level.” (with emphasis added).
Fox (at paragraph [0024]) also discloses,
“… if an ozone level detects undesirable levels of ozone in the air, then the control unit can decrease the amount of ionization based on the level of ozone detected by decreasing the amount of electrical energy supplied to an air ionizer.”
Therefore, the Fox reference likewise describes a control scheme for reducing the level of contaminants in the air, while limiting the amount of ozone that was generated. Thus, the application of the teachings of Fox to the air ionization device of Fleischer would not have rendered the device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Applicant (at pages 18-19) further argues,
“Conflict 2: When the Nishikawa reference’s current detection indicates that 200 mA threshold requiring immediate shutdown and activation of foreign matter removal mechanisms, but the Fleischer reference’s weight sensor inputs indicate a need for continuous ionization to maintain air quality and ozone management, which system takes priority? The Nishikawa reference’s binary switching mechanism is incompatible with the Fleischer reference’s continuous pulse width modulation for ozone control.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
When the current detecting element 5 of Nishikawa has detected that the value of the current has reached a predetermined threshold (e.g., a current value equal to or greater than 200 mA or greater than 300 mA), the ion generating element 7 is already operating abnormally due to an excessive adherence of foreign matter on the surface of the ion generating element. Therefore, the ion generating element 7 is no longer able to generate the ions as required. The adherence of foreign matter on the surface of the ion generating element 7 can also lead to leaks at the ground electrode and abnormal discharge, both of which are safety hazards (see translation at page 4, first paragraph to twelfth paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device of Fleischer to prioritize safety over continuous ionization, as taught by Nishikawa, and, even if a user wished to prioritize continuous ionization over safety, such operation would not be possible, since an ionization tube that was excessively contaminated by the adherence of foreign matter would not be capable of generating the ions that were desired.
Applicant (at page 19) further argues,
“Conflict 3: The Keune reference's predictive upstream sensor placement teaches reacting "in accordance with the incoming loads" (the Keune reference, |[0023]), but the Fleischer reference's control device 18 uses downstream sensor feedback to maintain the ozone tolerance field. These opposing control philosophies predictive feedforward versus reactive feedback-cannot be simply combined without fundamental redesign of the control architecture.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, Keune discloses a device for controlling the amount of electrical energy supplied by a power unit 5 to an air ionizer 6 to control the level of air ionization, and thereby provide a targeted purification of the contaminants in the air. The control can be effectively implemented by any one of: (i) an “input-controlled” system using sensors located upstream of the air ionizer (FIG. 1); (ii) an “output controlled” system using sensors located downstream of the air ionizer (FIG. 2); or (iii) a combination of an ”input and output-controlled” system using sensors located both upstream and downstream of the air ionizer (FIG. 3). One of ordinary skill in the chemical engineering art, having the basic knowledge of process control, would have possessed the requisite skill to incorporate any one of the control schemes (i), (ii), or (III) in the device of Fleischer for controlling the ionization levels of the air ionizer.
Under I.D., Applicant (beginning at page 20) further argues that the prior art fails to teach the claimed dual dust measuring devices.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, in response to the argument that claim 1 “explicitly require both “at least one dust measuring device (9) arranged in air flow direction in front of the at least one ionization module (4)” AND “at least one dust measuring device (11) arranged in the exhaust air line (7)”” (at page 20, fourth paragraph), it is noted that claim 1 does not recite this feature.
Secondly, as stated in the rejection of claim 12, Fleischer discloses that the exhaust line 19,15 comprises an air quality sensor 17 connected to the control device 18 (see column 6, lines 26-30). While Fleischer does not mention that the air quality sensor 17 also detects dust, the secondary reference to Fox teaches that air quality sensors typically comprise multiple sensors (see FIG. 4; paragraph [0028]), including a sensor for detecting volatile oxidizable components in the air (i.e., an oxidizable gas sensor 404) and a dust measuring device (i.e., a particle sensor 402) for determining the level of particulates in the air. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to further provide a dust measuring device in the exhaust line 19,15 in the modified device of Fleischer because air quality sensors typically include multiple types of sensors, including a sensor for detecting VOCs and also a sensor for detecting dust, and the further provision of a dust sensor in the exhaust line would have allowed for a more comprehensive determination of the level of the contaminants in the air, as taught by Fox et al.
Thirdly, the duplication of parts to predictably produce a multiplied effect was held to be obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI.B. In this case, multiple dust measuring devices would have predictably enabled dust measurement to be taken at multiple locations, so that the ionization level can be better controlled based on a comprehensive evaluation of the dust levels in the air. For instance, Fleischer (see page 6, lines 18-29) discloses multiple air quality sensors for measuring the VOC levels at multiple locations, including an air quality sensor 5 for measuring the level of VOCs in the outside air supplied to the air ionizer 9 and an air quality sensor 17 for measuring the level of VOCs in the exhaust air from the room 14 supplied to the air ionizer 9, so that the control of the ionization level takes into account the amounts of VOCs from the outside air and the room air. Similarly, Fleischer discloses that multiple ozone sensors 13,13a take ozone measurements at multiple locations (see column 8, lines 33-40), so that the control of the ionization level takes into account the amount of ozone from the outside air and also the amount of ozone produced by the air ionizer. A similar application to dust sensors would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Under II, Applicant (at pages 22-24) argues that Fleischer ‘245 fails to teach the claimed carbon dioxide sensor connected to the data processing system.
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Fleischer ‘245 (at column 10, line 59, to column 11, line 2) discloses,
“During operation of the device by means of the exhaust air conduit 10 only a small amount of exhaust air is removed which is counterbalanced by a corresponding quantity of external air that is supplied through the external air conduit 7. In this way, a targeted utilization of the recirculating air for the purpose of energy conservation is achievable.
For optimizing the required energy, advantageously a constantly adjusted ratio of external air and recirculating air is possible. This ratio depends inter alia on the external air temperature, the CO2 contents of the room air, a change of the room temperature, and a change of the room enthalpy.”
Firstly, it would be evident to one of ordinary skill in the art that, in order for the “CO2 contents of the room air” to be used as a control variable, an element for enabling the determination of the CO2 content of the room air (i.e., a CO2 sensor) must be provided.
Secondly, the “required energy” referred to by Fleischer ‘245 is the amount of energy needed to operate the ionization apparatus 2 to produce the required ionization intensity. Therefore, the control of the ratio of external air to recirculating air depends in part on the CO2 content of the room air, as well as the ionization intensity.
Under III, Applicant (at pages 26-30) argues that Kawai fails to further teach the limitation “in the event of a change in load current of at least one ionization tube of the at least one ionization tubes, the load currents of the other ionization tubes are changed in relation to a known nominal load current.” In particular, Applicant (at page 27, second paragraph) argues,
“This limitation requires active adjustment of the load currents of other ionization tubes when one tube experiences a load current change, with such adjustment performed "in relation to a known nominal load current." This describes a proportional current adjustment or rebalancing system where the operating currents of multiple tubes are continuously modulated relative to a nominal reference value.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Claims 10 and 21 merely recite that “the load currents of the other ionization tubes are changed in relationship to a known nominal load current.” The features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., an active proportional current adjustment or continuous modulation of the current) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 2-5, 7, 13, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “the device measuring the load current of the ionization tube of the at least one ionization module (4)” lacks proper antecedent basis because claim 1 (at lines 18-20) recites “at least one device measuring a load current of the at least one ionization module (4) and/or of at least one ionization tube of the at least one ionization module (4)”. Note the differences in bold.
Also, it is unclear as to the further limitation Applicant is attempting to recite because the limitations set forth in claim 2 appear to be essentially the same as the limitations previously set forth in claim 1 (at lines 18-27).
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “the supply air line (2) and/or in the exhaust air line (7)” (at lines 2-3) is unclear because claim 1 recites “at least one supply air line (2)” (at line 3) and “at least one exhaust air line (7)” (at line 8).
Also, the recitation of “the line (13) supplying the outside air” (at lines 3-4) lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is noted that “a line (13)” is set forth in claim 3, not claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the recitation of “the at least one device measuring the load current of the at least one ionization tube of the at least one ionization module (4)” lacks proper antecedent basis because claim 12 (at lines 21-22) recites, “at least one device measuring a load current of the at least one ionization module (4) and of the at least one ionization tube of the at least one ionization module”. Note the differences in bold and underlined.
Also, it is unclear as to the further limitation Applicant is attempting to recite because the limitations set forth in claim 13 appear to be essentially the same as the limitations previously set forth in claim 12 (at lines 24-31).
Regarding claim 18, the recitation of “the supply air line (2)” (at line 2) is unclear because claim 12 recites “at least one supply air line (2)” (at line 3).
Also, the recitation of “the line (13) supplying the outside air” (at lines 3-4) lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is noted that “a line (13)” is set forth in claim 14, not claim 12.
The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer (US 7,563,416) in view of Fox et al. (US 2005/0031503), Keune et al. (DE 10134707 A1), and Nishikawa et al. (JP 2002-122336 A).
Regarding claim 1, Fleischer (see FIG. 1) discloses a device for the treatment of air of at least one room 14, comprising:
at least one supply air line (i.e., a supply air channel 10) supplying treated air, each supply air line 10 having at least one device for air conditioning (i.e., a “device for air treatment”, wherein, “The device for air treatment … is comprised of an air treatment device 8, a first air quality sensor 5, a second air quality sensor 17, an ionization apparatus 9, a second airflow sensor 11, an air humidity sensor 12, and an ozone sensor 13,” at column 5, lines 59-64); the at least one device for air conditioning having at least one ionization module with ionization tubes (i.e., the ionization apparatus 9, in which “Ionization is based on electrical discharge in ionization tubes,” at column 2, lines 57-60 and column 3, lines 17-18), an air flow sensor (i.e., the second airflow sensor 11), and an air humidity sensor (i.e., the air humidity sensor 12);
at least one exhaust air line (i.e., a recirculating air channel 15, conveying exhaust air received from the room 14) with an air quality sensor (i.e., an air quality sensor 17); and
a data processing system (i.e., a control device 18) connected to the ionization module 9, the air flow sensor 11, the humidity sensor 12, and the air quality sensor 17 for increasing or decreasing the ionization intensity in accordance with the measured values of the air flow sensor 11, the humidity sensor 12, and the air quality sensor 17 (see column 6, lines 49-67).
Fleischer fails to disclose or suggest that the device further comprises:
(i) at least one dust measuring device arranged in an air flow direction in front of the ionization module 9, wherein the data processing system 18 is connected to the at least one dust measuring device for increasing or decreasing the ionization intensity in further accordance with the measured value of the at least one dust measuring device; and
(ii) at least one device measuring a load current of the ionization module 9 and/or at least one ionization tube of the ionization module; wherein the data processing system 18 is connected to the at least one device measuring the load current; and the data processing system 18 is further configured to assign an operating state of the ionization module 9 in the event of a change in the load current of the ionization module or at least one ionization tube and/or in the event of a change in the load current of the ionization module or at least one ionization tube in dependence on measured values of the at least one dust measuring device.
With respect to feature (i):
Fox et al. (see FIG. 2-4; paragraph [0026]) discloses a device for the treatment of air of a room 208, comprising:
a supply air line supplying treated air (i.e., ductwork leading to the room 208, for supplying the airflow 206);
a device for air conditioning comprising an ionization module (i.e., an air ionizer 204) with a plurality of ionization tubes 302 (see paragraph [0027]);
an exhaust air line (i.e., ductwork leading from the room 208, for circulating air from the room back to an HVAC system);
a plurality of sensors for determining a property of the air, including an air flow sensor, an air humidity sensor, and an air quality sensor (see paragraph [0020]; the control unit 212 may also be connected to the HVAC system 202 to allow the control unit 212 to receive system status signals from the HVAC system 202, such as humidity, temperature, and fan speed (or air flow volume), see paragraph [0026]);
a dust measuring device (i.e., a particle sensor 402 that is an optical sensor, for generating an output signal with a level that is proportional to the amount of particulate matter (e.g., dust, smoke, pollen, mold spores, and fibers) detected in the air from the room 208; see paragraphs [0018]-[0019], [0028]); and
a data processing system (i.e., a control unit 210; see paragraph [0022]-[0025]) connected to the ionization module 204, the air flow sensor, the humidity sensor, the air quality sensor, and the dust measuring device for increasing or decreasing the ionization intensity in accordance with the measured values of the air flow sensor, the humidity sensor, the air quality sensor, and the dust measuring device (see Abstract and paragraphs [0003]-[0005], [0022]).
Keune et al. further discloses a device for the treatment of air (i.e., a device for the production of ionized gases, having utility as an ionization system for air treatment in ventilation and air condition systems; see embodiment shown in FIG. 1 and the translation, in particular, at the underlined portions), wherein said device comprises:
a supply air line for supplying treated air comprising an ionization module (i.e., a line comprising an ionization unit 6 for producing treated, ionized air);
sensors and measuring devices 1 that are arranged in an air flow direction in front of the ionization module 6 (i.e., measuring and sensor technology 1 located before the ionization unit 6, suitably comprising optoelectronic elements, conventional highly integrated tin oxide elements such as mixed gas sensors, micromechanical sensors such as quartz crystals, or spectroscopic and biosensors, etc.), wherein the sensors and measuring devices 1 can include an air flow sensor (i.e., a sensor for measuring aerodynamic variables such as air velocity and volume flow), an air humidity sensors (i.e., a sensor for measuring thermodynamic variables such as air humidity), and sensors for measuring the gas composition and external pollution caused by contaminants, such as volatile hydrocarbons, germs, fungi, spores, bacteria, viruses, etc. (see also ref. claim 12); (germs, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses are also known in the art as particulate matter); and
a data processing system (i.e., a control unit 3) connected to the sensors and measuring devices 1 for increasing or decreasing the ionization intensity in accordance with the measured values of the sensors and measuring devices 1 (i.e., data 2 acquired by the measuring and sensor technology 1 is sent to the control unit 3 and evaluated via a program sequence that has been programmed beforehand or that is digitally interconnected, and the control unit 6 sends a control signal 4 to a power unit 5 of the ionization unit 6 to adjust the ionization intensity based on the acquired data 2, so as to provide a targeted ionization of the air).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further connect a dust measuring device to the data processing system in the device of Fleischer because the dust measuring device would allow for the level of particulate matter (dust) in the air that is to be treated by the ionization module to be determined, and the data processing system could be configured to automatically increase the ionization intensity when a high level of particulate contaminants was detected by the dust measuring device or decrease the ionization intensity when a low level of particulate contaminants was detected by the dust measuring device, in conjunction with measurements from the other sensors, as taught by Fox et al. (see Abstract; paragraphs [0003]-[0005], [0022]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange said dust measuring device in the air flow direction in front of the ionization module in the device of Fleischer because the positioning of the sensors and measuring devices before the ionization module would have allowed for the sensors and measuring devices to measure the disturbances from an external load on the air (in this case, particulate matter, e.g., dust) before the ionization module, so that the ionization intensity provided by the ionization module can be automatically adjusted to minimize the effect from the disturbances, as taught by Keune et al.
With respect to feature (ii):
Nishikawa et al. (see FIG. 1; translation) discloses a device for the treatment of air comprising:
an ionization module (i.e., an ion generating element 7) having an ionization tube (i.e., a cylindrical glass tube 1 comprising a ground electrode and a voltage application electrode 3);
a data processing system (i.e., a control means (not shown) of a power control unit 8) connected to the ionization module; and
a device 5 measuring the load current of the ionization tube of the ionization module 7, which is connected to the data processing system (i.e., a current detection element 5 for detecting a current value flowing through the ground electrode 2 when a voltage is applied and inputting the current value to the control means);
wherein the data processing system assigns an operating state of the ionization module 7 in dependence on the measured values of the device 5 measuring the load current 5 in the event of a change in the load current of the ionization tube of the ionization module 7 (i.e., due to the adherence of foreign matter on the surface if the ionization tube).
In particular, Nishikawa et al. (see translation at pages 4-5) discloses that,
when the current value detected by the current detecting element 5 is equal to or greater than a predetermined first current value (e.g., 200 mA), which indicates an operating state where foreign matter is adhered on the ionization tube, the control means activates a foreign matter removing means (i.e., a blower 14 or a heating element 15, see FIG. 3-4) to remove the foreign matter from the surface of the ionization tube;
when the current value detected by the current detecting element 5 is smaller than a predetermined second current value (e.g., 150 mA), which indicates an operating state where foreign matter is not adhered on the ionization tube, the control means returns the ion generating element 7 to normal operation; and
when the current value detected by the current detecting element 5 is greater than a predetermined third current value (e.g., 300 mA), which indicates an operating state where there is no effect of the foreign matter removing means 14, 15, the control means turns off the ion generating element 7 so that safety can be ensured.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further connect a device measuring the load current of the ionization module and/or at least one tube of the ionization module to the data processing system in the device of Fleischer because the device measuring the load current would enable the detection of a change in the load current due to foreign matter being adhered on the ionization tube, and the data processing system could be configured to automatically activate a foreign matter removing means to remove the foreign matter adhered on the ionization tube, or turn off the ionization tube when there is no effect of the foreign matter removing means, so that safety during the operation of the device can be ensured, as taught by Nishikawa et al.
Regarding claim 2, Nishikawa et al. further discloses that the device 5 measuring the load current of the ionization tube of the ionization module 7 is connected to the data processing system (i.e., the control means of the power control unit 8 ), which is a data processing system which assigns a change to the operating state of the ionization tube (e.g., by turning the ionization tube on or off using the switch 6) in the event of a change in the load current of the ionization tube (see translation at pages 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Fleischer (see FIG. 1) further discloses that the exhaust air line 19,15 of the room 14 is connected to a line which discharges used air (i.e., an escape air channel 16) and/or to a line which supplies outside air (i.e., an intake air channel 3); wherein the line 3 that supplies outside air is connected to the air treatment (conditioning) device 8.
Regarding claim 4, Fleischer (see FIG. 1) further discloses that the used-air-discharging line 16 has a first fitting (i.e., a flap or valve F; see column 8, lines12-19) and the line 3 supplying the outside air has a second fitting (i.e., a flap 6; see column 5, lines 45-58); and in that actuating devices of the fittings (i.e., a drive member (not illustrated) of the flap F or an actuating device of the valve (not illustrated); and a drive 7 of the flap 6) are connected to the data processing system 18 in order to change the respective air flow.
Regarding claim 5, Fleischer (see FIG. 1) further discloses that the line 3 supplying outside air has a further dust-measuring device for measuring the dust of the outside air (i.e., a detector for air contaminants 2 including a device for determining air-borne particles; see column 1, lines 12-38), and in that the dust measuring device 2 in the line 3 supplying outside air is connected to the data processing system 18, which, in the event of the occurrent or increased occurrence of dust in the outside air, increases the ionization power of the ionization module 9 and/or the air flow as a function of the value of the dust-measuring device 2 in the line 3 supplying outside air (see column 1, lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Fleischer includes a dust measuring device connected upstream of the ionization module (see rejection of claim 1, above).
Fleischer (see FIG. 1) further discloses that the air flow sensor 11, air humidity sensor 12, and air quality sensor 17 are connected downstream of the at least one ionization module 9. Thus, Fleischer fails to disclose that the air flow sensor 11, the air humidity sensor 12, and the air quality sensor 17 are connected upstream of the at least one ionization module 9.
However, as discussed above, Keune et al. discloses an embodiment (see FIG. 1) comprising sensors and measuring devices 1 arranged in the air flow direction in front of the ionization module 6. Keune et al. also discloses an alternative embodiment (see FIG. 2) comprising sensors and measuring devices 7 arranged in an air flow direction behind the ionization module 6. Keune et al. further discloses that either embodiment would be suitable for controlling the ionization intensity provided by the ionization module 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively connect the air flow sensor 11, air humidity sensor 12, and air quality sensor 17 upstream of the at least one ionization module 9 in the modified device of Fleischer, because either an upstream location or a downstream location for the sensors would have been suitable for controlling the ionization intensity of the ionization module, and the positioning of the sensors before the ionization module would have allowed for the sensors to measure the disturbances from an external load on the air (i.e., in the case, the air flow, air humidity, or air quality) before the ionization module, so that the ionization intensity provided by the ionization module can be automatically adjusted to minimize the effect from the disturbances, as taught by Keune et al.
Fox et al. further discloses that the dust measuring device 402 determines the level of particulate contaminants in the air from the room 208, wherein the dust measuring device is used in conjunction with the other sensors of the device to determine an aggregate amount of contaminants in the air (see Abstract; paragraphs [0003]-[0005], [0022]-[0025]). The data processing system 212 is further customized to its particular installation, e.g., for a room 208 in a residential building, a commercial building, or an institutional building (see paragraph [0026]), and programmed with optimized algorithms to control the electrical energy levels of the ionization module 204 based the signals input by the dust measuring device and the other sensors to the data processing system 212 (see paragraphs [0025], [0032]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the data processing system in the modified device of Fleischer to determine a room air concentration as a function of the room size (i.e., at its particular installation) and of measured values of the air flow sensor, the air humidity sensor, the air quality sensor, and the dust measuring device as a model (i.e., optimized algorithm) with weights of the air flow, the air humidity, the air quality, and the dust.
Regarding claim 7, Fleischer (see FIG. 1) further discloses at least one ozone sensor arranged in the supply air line 10 (i.e., an ozone sensor 13) and/or in the exhaust air line 19/15 (i.e., an ozone sensor 13a); wherein the ozone sensors 13,13a are connected to the data processing system 18. Fleischer also discloses that the data processing system 18 is configured to change the ionization intensity of the ionization module 9 based on the inputs from the air humidity sensor 12, the air flow sensor 11, the air quality sensor 17, and the ozone sensor 13,13a; and further, as best understood, the ionization intensity is controlled in such a way that compensation and, in accordance with the change, a further reduction or increase in the ionization intensity takes place without an adversely affecting or damaging ozone limit value being exceeded (see FIG. 2, which illustrates the behavior of the corona discharge upon changing the discharge voltage when surpassing the limit 21 or dropping below the limit 22 of the tolerance field between the limits 21,22 of an optimal discharge voltage; when the discharge voltage surpasses the limit 21, the ozone load in the intake air will increase progressively, and when the discharge voltage drops below the limit 22, the generation of undesirable oxygen radicals or ozone occurs; therefore, the control device 18 is configured to control the discharge voltage of the ionization module 9 in a manner such that the optimal discharge voltage is assured; see column 7, line 1, to column 8, line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the data processing system in the modified device of Fleischer to control the ionization intensity of the ionization module in the manner as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Fleischer further discloses that the ionization module 9 having ionization tubes is connected to the data processing system 18, which controls the ionization power of the ionization tubes with pulse width modulation (i.e., for an alternating pulse 20; see FIG. 2) by means of switching periods from the power supply system (see column 7, lines 9-49).
Regarding claim 11, Fleischer fails to disclose or suggest that the data processing system 18 is connected to a transmitter of electromagnetic waves, a transceiver, a data network, and/or a computer network.
Fox et al. (see FIG. 1) further discloses that the data processing system 212 is connected to a transmitter of electromagnetic waves, a transceiver, a data network, and/or a computer network (i.e., an operator interface 216 can be connected to the control unit 212 via a wireless communication, see paragraph [0026]; also, the control unit 212 can be connected to a larger network or the internet via a network interface 218, see paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the data processing system to a transmitter of electromagnetic waves, a transceiver, a data network, and/or a computer network in the modified device of Fleischer because the operation of the device could then be remotely monitored or modified by a user, as taught by Fox et al. (see paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 12, the device for the treatment of air is the same as the device for the treatment of air as recited in claim 1, except that the device further comprises “at least one dust measuring device arranged in the at least on exhaust air line.” Therefore, the same comments with respect to the rejection of claim 1, above, apply.
In addition, Fleischer discloses that the exhaust line 19,15 comprises the air quality sensor 17 for detecting volatile oxidizable components in the air (see column 6, lines 26-30). Fleischer does not state that the exhaust line 19,15 also comprises a dust measuring device.
Fox et al., however, discloses an air quality sensor (i.e., an indoor air quality (IAQ) monitor 210; FIG. 2 and paragraph [0026]), wherein the air quality monitor comprises multiple sensors 402,404 (see FIG. 4 and paragraph [0028]), including a sensor for detecting volatile oxidizable components in the air (i.e., an oxidizable gas sensor 404), as well as a dust measuring device (i.e., a particle sensor 402) for determining the level of particulates in the air.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a dust measuring device in the exhaust line 19,15 in the modified device of Fleischer because it would have been conventional in the art to provide multiple types of sensors, including a sensor for detecting volatile oxidizable and a sensor for determining a level particulate matter (dust), for an air quality sensor, in order to comprehensively determine the level of contaminants in the air, as taught by Fox et al. In addition, the duplication of parts to predictably produce a multiplied effect (i.e., in the case, multiple dust measuring devices to enable the measurement of dust levels at multiple locations) was held to be obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI.B.
Regarding claim 13, the claimed device is the same as the device recited in claim 2. Therefore, the same comments with respect to the rejection of claim 2, above, apply.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed device is the same as the device recited in claim 3. Therefore, the same comments with respect to the rejection of claim 3, above, apply.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed device is the same as the device recited in claim 4. Therefore, the same comments with respect to the rejection of claim 4, above, apply.
Regarding claim 16, the claimed device is the same as the device recited in claim 5. Therefore, the same comments with respect to the rejection of claim 5, above, apply.
Regarding claim 17, the claimed device is the same as the device recited in claim 6. Therefore, the same comments with respect to the rejection of claim 6, above, apply.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed device is the same as the device recited in claim 7. Therefore, the same comments with respect to the rejection of claim 7, above, apply.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed device is the same as the device recited in claim 9. Therefore, the same comments with respect to the rejection of claim 9, above, apply.
Regarding claim 22, the claimed device is the same as the device recited in claim 11. Therefore, the same comments with respect to the rejection of claim 11, above, apply.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer (US 7,563,416) in view of Fox et al. (US 2005/0031503), Keune et al. (DE 10134707 A1), and Nishikawa et al. (JP 2002-122336 A), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Fleischer ‘245 (US 7,381,245).
Regarding claim 8, Fleischer fails to disclose a CO2 sensor arranged in the incoming air line 3 and/or the outgoing air line 16 and/or in the space 14; wherein the CO2 sensor is connected to the data processing system 18, which changes the incoming air and/or the air flow in the event of a change in the CO2, taking into account the ionization intensity determined based on the measured values of the sensors 11, 12, 17, so that a CO2 limit value is maintained.
Fleischer ‘245 (see FIG. 1) discloses a device for the treatment of air of at least one room 4, comprising: a supply air line (i.e., a supply conduit 8) supplying treated air, having a device for air conditioning (i.e., an air conditioning device 1), an ionization module (i.e., an ionization apparatus 2) with a plurality of ionization tubes (see column 9, lines 32-33), an air flow sensor 15, and an air humidity sensor 14; an exhaust air line (i.e., line 9 connected to line 11) with an air quality sensor 16; and a data processing system (i.e., a control device 6) connected to the ionization module 2, the air flow sensor 15, the humidity sensor 14, and the air quality sensor 16 for increasing or decreasing the ionization intensity in accordance with the measured values of the air flow sensor 15, the humidity sensor 14, and the air quality sensor 16 (see column 9, lines 32-67). Fleischer ‘245 (see column 10, line 59, to column 11, line 2) further discloses,
“During operation of the device by means of the exhaust air conduit 10 only a small amount of exhaust air is removed which is counterbalanced by a corresponding quantity of external air that is supplied through the external air conduit 7. In this way, a targeted utilization of the recirculating air for the purpose of energy conservation is achievable.
For optimizing the required energy, advantageously a constantly adjusted ratio of external air and recirculating air is possible. This ratio depends inter alia on the external air temperature, the CO2 contents of the room air, a change of the room temperature, and a change of the room enthalpy.”
Therefore, in the modified device of Fleischer, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a CO2 sensor in the room for enabling the CO2 content of the air to be determined, and to further connect the CO2 sensor to the data processing system to change the incoming air and/or the air flow in the event of a change in the CO2 (i.e., by constantly adjusting the ratio of the external air to the recirculated air), so that a targeted utilization of the recirculating air for the purpose of energy conservation was achievable, as taught by Fleischer ‘245.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed device is the same as the device recited in claim 8. Therefore, the same comments with respect to the rejection of claim 8, above, apply.
Claims 10 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischer (US 7,563,416) in view of Fox et al. (US 2005/0031503), Keune et al. (DE 10134707 A1), and Nishikawa et al. (JP 2002-122336 A), as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Kawai (JP 2007-012422 A).
Regarding claim 10, Nishikawa et al. fails to disclose or suggest that the device 5 measuring the load current of the ionization tube of the ionization module 7 is connected to the data processing system in such a way that, in the event of a change in load current of the ionization tube, the load currents of other ionization tubes are changed in relation to a known nominal load current.
Kawai discloses a device for the treatment of air (see Figures; translation) comprising: an ionization module (i.e., an ion generator 1) having a plurality of ionization tubes (i.e., a plurality of ion generating devices 2a, 2b, 2c, controlled individually or as a group); a data processing system (i.e., a control unit 20; see FIG. 5) connected to the ionization module; and a device measuring the load current of the ionization tubes (i.e., a switching device 4 which detects a current fluctuation in a control circuit 13 of each ion generating device 2a, 2b, 2b); wherein the device 4 measuring the load current is connected to the data processing system 20; and wherein, in the event of a change in load current of at least one ionization tube (e.g., when an abnormal current is detected for one of the tubes, such as ion generating device 2a), the data processing system 20 is configured to automatically switch to operating the other ionization tubes (e.g., other ion generating devices 2b, 2c), so that the ion generation by the ionization module 1 can be continuously and quantitatively performed stably.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the data processing system in the modified device of Fleischer to control the operation of the ionization tubes of the ionization module in the recited manner because, in the event of a change in the load current of at least one ionization tube, e.g., when an abnormal current is measured due to the adherence of foreign matter on the ionization tube, the data processing system can automatically switch to operating other ionization tubes, so that the ion generation by the ionization module can be continuous and quantitatively performed stably, as taught by Kawai.
Regarding claim 21, the claimed device is the same as the device recited in claim 10. Therefore, the same comments with respect to the rejection of claim 10, above, apply.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Botvinnik et al. (US 2007/0210734) is cited to further illustrates the state of the art. Botvinnik et al. discloses an air treatment device (see FIG. 1) comprising an ionization module (i.e., an electrode assembly 101; paragraph [0019], [0023], [0025]); a data processing system (i.e., a voltage control device 114 with a control unit 130; see paragraph [0022]); and a device for measuring a load current of the ionization module (i.e., a current sensing device 80; see paragraph [0021]); wherein the device for measuring the load current 80 is connected to the data processing system (i.e., via a current input port 90, which receives a current signal 118).
Botvinnik et al. (at paragraph [0022]) further discloses,
“The control unit 130 is configured to determine a current value from the current information or data in the current signal 118, and provide an appropriate control signal 117 for adjusting the voltage supplier 75 via the control output port 85. Adjusting the voltage supplier 75 in this manner in turn changes the operating current and voltage in the electrode assembly 101.”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights