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 entered 8/19/2025 have been entered into prosecution.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn in response to the amendments.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-20 are pending examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 19 and 20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim Claims 1, 17, 18, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertens (WO2004047877A2) in view of Zhang (CN1843514A) in view of Blakeman (US 20160235874 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 13, and 15, Mertens teaches a method for environmental or localized air sanitization using ionizing electrodes for corona discharge[Abstract].
Mertens teaches an air sanitization system that the air sanitization system, generally denoted as element 21 in the modified Fig. 1 of Mertens shown below, comprises an air treatment unit (element 20) which must be regarded as referring to any apparatus which is designed “to house the device” [Pg 30, Lines 16-25 – Pg 31, Lines 1-6]. Therefore it is understood that Mertens discloses that the air treatment apparatus has a functional equivalent to a boxed frame, whereby the air treatment system cumulatively is housed according to its intended use. The conveying duct (element 19a, modified Fig. 1) and the return conveying duct (19b, modified Fig. 1) connect to the external environment to be treated, with or without incorporation of external air (element 19c, modified Fig. 1) [Pg 31, Lines 16-23]. Mertens teaches that a motorized blowing unit (element 2, modified Fig. 1) consists of a fan to create air flow in the device [Pg. 32, Lines 5-10]. This unit is understood to satisfy the “fan means” as discussed above. The fan is positioned in the air treatment system (element 20, Modified Fig. 1) after a mechanical pre-filter [Pg. 32, Lines 1-5], considered to be a first filter with respect to the instant claim. Air is then passed through an electrostatic filter (element 4, modified Fig. 1) [Pg. 33, Lines 1-10], considered to be a second filter with respect to the instant claim. The air then passes into an air ionization means (element 5, modified Fig. 1) [Pg. 33, Lines 16-23] which operates by corona discharge [Pg. 35, Lines 3-9], which is understood to be an equivalent of a first non-thermal plasma generator ionizer device. The treated air then exits the air treatment unit (element 20, modified Fig. 1) to the external environment (element 10, modified Fig. 1) through the conventional diffuser (element 16, modified Fig. 1) [Pg. 37, Lines 16-21]. The operation of the air ionization means/device is performed continuous or intermittently, in order to ensure that the concertation of ozone is at suitable levels [Pg. 35, Lines 9-15]. The different concentrations of ozone are detected by sensors (element 13, modified Fig. 1) and connected to a regulator (element 15, modified Fig. 1). This regulator functions, with the operational choices selected by a user, to control the concentration of the produced plasma (referred to as the microbicidal mixture) and certain time limits [Pg 37, 21-25 through Pg. 38, Lines 1-8]. Marten further teaches that other forms of regulation, such as humidity and temperature control in conjunction with ultraviolet irradiation, may be exerted on the treated air flow and are further governed by electronic controls which will operate with the fans being at a standstill [Pg. 37, Lines 10-16].
However, Mertens does not teach that a second non-thermal plasma generator ionizer device is between a first filtering device and a second filter device.
PNG
media_image1.png
758
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang teaches a photocatalytic air treatment device that uses corona discharge electrodes [abstract].
Zhang teaches that a corona wire, understood to be an equivalent of the non-thermal plasma ionizer generator of the instant claim, is positioned directly after a coarse filter [Pg. 5, Lines 1-18 of translation]. Zhang teaches that this arrangement enables for the filtered air to be charged first, which increases the efficiency of absorption and filtering for other downstream electrostatic filters [Pg. 5, Lines 1-18 of translation and shown in Fig. 1, as annotated below].
PNG
media_image2.png
614
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the base device of an air treatment system, as per Mertens, was ready for improvement by incorporation of the known method of placing an additional non-thermal plasma ion generator immediately after a first filter to yield the predictable result of improving filtration of charged air passing through the subsequent electrostatic filters (see MPEP 2143 I D).
However, Mertens in view of Zhang does not teach that an electronic control unit may be used to turn on or off the fans.
Blakeman teaches a sterilization apparatus using ozone, where the ozone is generated by at least one plasma field [abstract].
Blakeman teaches that a controller (understood to be an electronic control unit) may be used to determine the speed of an air mover (understood to be an equivalent of a fan), which is useful for adjusting ozone concentration in a sterilization chamber [0066]. Blakeman also teaches that a controller may include a timer to automatically terminate operation of the ozone generating device after a period of time [0038].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the base device of an air treatment system, as per Mertens in view of Zhang, was ready for improvement by incorporation of the known method of controlling the air flow rate devices within the apparatus, in order that one would arrive at an air sanitization apparatus with improved control over the ozone concentration in the chamber where air is being treated (see MPEP 2143 I D).
Regarding Claim 3-4, modified Mertens teaches the operation of the air ionization means/device is performed, continuous or intermittently, in order to ensure that the concertation of ozone is at suitable levels [Pg. 35, Lines 9-15]. Mertens teaches that different concentrations of ozone are detected by sensors (element 13, modified Fig. 1) and connected to a regulator (element 15, modified Fig. 1). This regulator functions, with the operational choices selected by a user, to control the corona discharge ion generating means (element 5, modified Fig. 1) in order to control the concentration of the produced plasma (referred to as the microbicidal mixture) and impose certain time limits in line with legal regulations[Pg 37, 21-25 through Pg. 38, Lines 1-8]. Mertens further teaches that other forms of regulation, such as humidity and temperature control in conjunction with ultraviolet irradiation, may be exerted on the treated air flow and are further governed by electronic controls which will operate with the fans being at a standstill [Pg. 37, Lines 10-16]. Mertens explicitly teaches a threshold limit value for ozone which the regulator is designed to keep the system below [Pg. 27, Lines 5-25].
Although Mertens is silent whether the fan is set on or off in response to a quantity of non-thermal plasma concentration, examiner understands that this function is inherent to the function of the apparatus that Mertens teaches. That is, Mertens is motivated by controlling the concentration of ozone in order that the apparatus produces a threshold value within a legal limit and prevents exposure to animals or people in the environment to be treated [Pg. 37, Lines 21-25]. Therefore, in the normal operation of the device as Mertens teaches, examiner understands that the functional characteristic of turning on or off the both the fan and the plasma generating units are inherently taught by the apparatus disclosed by Mertens (see MPEP 2114 I).
Regarding Claim 5, as discussed above, modified Mertens teaches an air treatment system to the limitations of claim 4, wherein the electronic control unit is understood to control the on and off of the fan and the second non-thermal ion generator (element 5, modified Fig. 1 of Mertens), which is positioned after the second filter element.
However, Mertens does not teach that the on and off positions of a first non-thermal plasma ion generator is controlled by an electronic control unit.
Zhang teaches a photocatalytic air treatment device that uses corona discharge electrodes [abstract].
Zhang teaches that a corona wire, understood to be an equivalent of the non-thermal plasma ionizer generator of the instant claim, is positioned directly after a coarse filter [Pg. 5, Lines 15-18 of translation]. Zhang teaches that this arrangement enables for the filtered air to be charged first, which increases the efficiency of absorption and filtering for other downstream electrodes [Pg. 5, Lines 15-18 of translation].
Prior to the effective filing date of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the first non-thermal plasma generator, as per Zhang, would be included in the elements in concert with the regulator and sensors disclosed by the air treatment system of Mertens, such that one would arrive at an air purification system where the first non-thermal plasma generator would be turned on or off by the electronic control unit in order to regulate the concentration of ozone or plasma generated in the device, in accord with legal regulations.
Regarding Claim 6 and 7, modified Mertens teaches that the regulator functions, with the operational choices selected by a user, to control the corona discharge ion generating means (element 5, modified Fig. 1) in order to control the concentration of the produced plasma (referred to as the microbicidal mixture) and impose certain time limits in line with legal regulations[Pg 37, 21-25 through Pg. 38, Lines 1-8]. Furthermore, the courts have held that automation of a manual process (as per claim 6) that achieves the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Mertens teaches that electrostatic filtration, which is used in the air treatment device shown by element 4 of Fig. 1, filters particles as small as 0.5 µm [Pg. 23, Lines 8-18].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Mertens does not teach that the electronic control unit is in connection with a user interface comprising a button or a touch screen, for activating the sanitization process on command.
Blakeman teaches the use of a controller in connection with a user interface [0066]. Blakeman teaches that the user interface may include buttons which allows the user to initiate operation of the sanitization device [0074].
Prior to the effective filing date of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the base device of modified Mertens was ready for improvement by incorporation of the user interface system of Blakeman, in order that one would arrive at an air purification system that was easier for a user to initiate operation of.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, as shown in Claim 1, and Claims 19 and 20, as shown in Claim 15, Mertens as modified by Zhang discloses an air purification apparatus with a first filter, a first plasma generator, a fan, a second filter, and second plasma generator. The courts have held broadly that barring a demonstration of criticality, a mere rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to over rejection by the prior art, where all componentry is equivalent (see MPEP 2143 VI C).
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertens (WO2004047877A2) in view of Zhang (CN1843514A) in view of in view of Blakeman (US 20160235874 A1), as applied above in Claim 1, further in view of Nosyrev, D.Y., Svechnikov, A.A. & Letyagin, P.V. Using Bipolar Corona Discharge for Electrostatic Purification of Gases. Russ. Electr. Engin. 91, 162–165 (2020).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Mertens teaches a method for environmental or localized air sanitization using ionizing electrodes for corona discharge to the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above[Abstract]. Modified Mertens teaches a first and second non thermal ion plasma generator which Mertens discloses operates by corona discharge [Pg. 35, Lines 3-9].
However, modified Mertens does not teach that the corona discharge of the ion generating means is provided by a bipolar ionizing tube.
Nosyrev teaches the application of bipolar discharge for the electrical purification of gases [abstract].
Nosyrev teaches that bipolar corona discharge, understand to be an equivalent of a bipolar ionization tube, causes both electrostatic and centrifugal forces to act upon particles [Pg. 163, Col 1.]. Nosyrev teaches that charge distribution in bipolar corona electrodes make ionized air easier to screen as it flows through a filter [Pg. 163, Col 3.].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the known air treatment system device of modified Mertens was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the bipolar ionization tubes taught by Nosyrev in order that one would arrive at an air treatment system with improved ability to screen particulate matter.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertens (WO2004047877A2) in view of Zhang (CN1843514A) in view of Blakeman (US 20160235874 A1), as applied to Claim 5, further in view of Kim (US 20060078482 A1).
Regarding Claims 12, modified Mertens teaches to Claim 1 as shown above.
However, modified Mertens does not teach the use of an environmental sensor to automatically trigger air purification or to trigger an alarm message.
Kim teaches an apparatus for air control and air cleaning which uses plasma generation (abstract).
Kim teaches that the air cleaning apparatus features an air cleaning element (understood to be a non-thermal plasma device), a high voltage generator (a power supply), and a microcomputer (an electronic control unit) [0031]. Kim also teaches the use of a pollution level sensor [0042]. Kim teaches that the pollution level sensor detects contamination, and accordingly triggers the voltage generator to supply power to supply ozone production at the air cleaning element [0046].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the known air treatment system device of Mertens as modified by Zhang was ready for improvement by the incorporation of the pollution level sensor, as per Kim, in order that the device would be able to automatically function in response to environmental pollution levels.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Mertens, as shown above, teaches to claim 12. Further, modified Mertens, as shown in Claim 12, demonstrates that one of ordinary skill would readily know of an air purification apparatus that has a user interface.
However, modified Mertens does not teach that an alarm is generated in response to a pollution level that the second filtering device is contaminated.
Kim teaches that a generic air purification apparatus has a microcomputer (an electronic control unit) that generates an on/off signal in response to an operational signal [0007]. Kim teaches that a pollution level sensor can turn on/off the plasma generating device in response to contamination [0038].
Prior to the filing of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the base device of modified Mertens which features a user display interface with respect to the operational mode of the air purification device was ready for improvement by incorporation of the pollution level sensor for activating the device in order that one arrives at an air purification device that activates in response to a detected pollutant and indicates the device activity by means of a display to an end user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues that the “air ionization means” of Mertens is not two separate NTP generating devices and that the corona electrode of Zhang is not a non-thermal plasma generating device. With regard to the first point, applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). To the second point, in a broadest reasonable interpretation, the corona wire electrode of Zhang is a structural equivalent of a “non-thermal plasma generating device”, as it operates based on “high-voltage pulses” as applicant notes in their argument (Pg. 2, Para. 3). With regard to arguments towards the rejection of Claim 8, as shown in the office action above, mere rearrangement of parts present in the prior art does not establish ipso facto patentability. This argument is not compelling as it does not provide any demonstration of criticality to the arrangement that would render the device inoperable if arranged any other way.
Conclusion
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 NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759