DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed 22 July 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-2, 6-10, 14-18, and 21-23 are presently pending and being examined herein.
4. All rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 2, 10, 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.
8. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the identified operating environment" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a plurality of operating environments has been introduced with no further identification from among these environments.
9. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the identified operating environment" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a plurality of operating environments has been introduced with no further identification from among these environments.
10. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the identified operating environment" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a plurality of operating environments has been introduced with no further identification from among these environments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
12. Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepage (WO 2010128480 A2) in view of Fleischer (US 20040258585 A1) and Tanimura et al (US 20130071298 A1).
13. Regarding claim 1, Lepage teaches a method for controlling an air filtration apparatus (controlling features of the decontamination system, pars 0046-0047) that includes a blower (internal air moving device such as a fan, par 0114) configured to draw air from outside the apparatus into the air filtration apparatus (fan disposed in the conduit for circulating air to be processed in the conduit between the air inlet and the air outlet, pars 0017 and 0058-0060, FIG. 1), an entry control grid (grid of perforated tubes 434 disposed next to the input surface of the filter, par 0074, FIG. 8), a rear control grid (second electrode 844, FIG. 8, par 0088), a wire disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid (FIG. 8, first electrodes 842 shaped to show no significant resistance to the air i.e. as a grid of wires, par 0088), and an exchangeable filter media (filter element 820 such as foam, fiber pad, multi-plied folded filter paper, folded volume and membrane i.e. exchangeable, par 0088) being disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid (FIG. 8, filter 820 between grids 428 and 844),
Lepage does not specifically teach the filter media as having a density that is less than the density of a HEPA filter but suggests that the pre-filter for the ionic air purifier need only remove coarse particulates (par 0057) and a wide variety of materials may be chosen for this filter (foam, fiber pad, multi-plied folded filter paper, folded volume and membrane, par 0088), the ionic air purifier being an alternative to another embodiment having as its main processing stage a HEPA filter (par 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ a filter having a density less than that of a HEPA filter, because such a filter selected from the range of options taught by Lepage would predictably catch the charged particulates with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Lepage teaches the method comprising:
providing a high voltage to the wire (electrodes 842, 844 are connected to a high voltage source so as to generate an electric field through the filter 840, par 0088) such that air disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid is exposed to a high energy field that charges particles in the air disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid (amplified electrical field at the close vicinity of the fiber surface due to electric field across the filter 820 is thus used to increase the capture of particles by the filter 820, pars 0088-0089) such that those particles clump together (strong dipolar attraction force between the dielectric fibers of the filter element 820 and the particles, par 0089) and are captured by the filter media (increasing significantly the filter element 820 performances in capturing and retaining contaminants, par 0089);
receiving sensor data that includes a level of generated inside of (ozone level detector 232 is used to check whether a sufficient ozone level is distributed in the air processing system to ensure proper decontamination, par 0068) or emitted from the air filtration apparatus (ozone level detector may be placed downstream of the catalytic converter to verify that the ozone level in the released air at the output of the system is low enough for safe distribution and usage, par 0068), and that is further related to one or more of a level of ozone included in air at an input of the air filtration apparatus (measured ozone level in the incoming ambient air to the ozone generator, par 0068);
evaluating the received sensor data to identify a first set of operating conditions associated with the air filtration apparatus (used to check whether the decontamination system 212 is working properly, par 0068; measured ozone levels can trigger alarms or different operating modes, par 00107);
accessing data that identifies operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus (thresholds described in par 0068);
accessing data that identifies air filtration capabilities for different levels of high energy voltage or charging capabilities (control of excitation voltage level for producing ozone, par 0064; ozone generation controlled by adjusting excitation voltage, par 00105);
comparing the sensor data to the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus (if measured level is above a threshold, par 0068);
identifying an operational setting of the air filtration apparatus to be changed based on comparing the sensor data to the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation controlled by adjusting excitation voltage, par 00105; if measured level is above a threshold, par 0068);
identifying , based on comparing the sensor data to the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus and the data that identifies air filtration capabilities for different levels of high energy voltage or charging capabilities, the voltage to apply to the wire (excitation voltage level, may be controlled as a function of air density, air pressure, air temperature and/or air humidity, par 0064) wherein,
when the level of ozone generated inside of or emitted from the air filtration apparatus exceeds a given threshold level, the identified voltage is a reduced voltage for the wire that reduces ozone generated inside of or emitted from the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105; controlled to provide a very small production of ozone, par 0070), and wherein the voltage when applied to the wire ensures that the apparatus does not generate or emit ozone above the given threshold level (ozone generator will be turned off, par 00107; controlled to provide a very small production of ozone, par 0070); and
initiating, based on the identified operational setting of the air filtration apparatus to be changed, a change to the operational setting of the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105), wherein the change to the operational setting results in changing the first set of operating conditions associated with the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105; voltage among first set of operating conditions as denoted above), wherein the operational setting of the air filtration apparatus is a voltage setting and the change to the operational setting results in the voltage that is applied to the wire being changed to the identified voltage (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105).
Although Lepage teaches that ozone concentration which is based on voltage should be calculated to sufficiently inhibit most particles and expose pathogens (par 0065), Lepage does not teach wherein, when the comparing indicates that particle, contaminant, or pathogen removal does not meet the operational requirements, the identified voltage is a voltage that increases a rate of particle clumping and/or air filtering by the air filtration apparatus.
Fleischer teaches an analogous air treatment device (Abstract, pars 0005 and 0019-0020) using a discharge voltage to ionize indoor air (par 0036) and sensors to monitor air quality/air contaminants, ozone, and airflow (par 0035). Fleischer teaches a control sequence that adjusts the electrical power supplied to the ionization apparatus as a function of these sensor values i.e. the power increases when a greater VOC load of the room air occurs (par 0047), identifying a voltage to be maintained within a tolerance range such that this voltage increases the proportion of positively and negatively charged oxygen ions (par 0053), which has been established by Lepage to cause particle clumping and air filtration (Lepage par 0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply a voltage in the method of Lepage that increases a rate of particle clumping and/or air filtering when comparing indicates that particle, contaminant, or pathogen removal does not meet the operational requirements as taught by Fleischer, because selecting the voltage in this manner would predictably provide the same results of increasing air filtering in the method of Lepage with a reasonable expectation of success, the modification involving a combination of prior art sensor-driven control steps according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Lepage and Fleischer both teach a variety of pulsed or alternating voltage conditions but neither reference teaches that the voltage applied to the electrodes is specifically of greater than 5 kV direct current.
Tanimura teaches an analogous high voltage charging unit inside an air path housing for capturing microbes and viruses (pars 0051-0052), finding that a pulsed positive voltage has similar particle colliding effectiveness to an alternating current (par 0152) and an absolute value of an applied voltage was 6 kV or 6.3 kV is ideal for virus capture rate (par 0078, FIG. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the voltage of modified Lepage a direct current voltage of greater than 5 kV as taught by Tanimura, as such a direct current voltage would predictably capture viruses and particulates in the same manner with a reasonable expectation of success, which involves simple substitution of one known element (operating voltage) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
14. Regarding claim 2, Lepage as modified by Fleischer and Tanimura teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus from a plurality of different operating environments (plurality of humidity, temperature, pressure, and ozone thresholds, Lepage pars 00105-00106);
wherein accessing the data that identifies the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus includes accessing data that identifies operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus for the identified operating environment (excitation voltage can be further adjusted according to the data re: humidity, temperature, pressure of environment, Lepage par 00105).
15. Regarding claim 6, Lepage as modified by Fleischer and Tanimura teaches the method of claim 1, but the combination does not teach specifically that the method would comprise initiating a change in an airflow within the air filtration apparatus based on the identified operational setting of the airflow to be changed.
Fleischer further teaches that based on a detection of air contaminants (par 0005), the normal operation of the device would drive the movement of a safety flap for either a partial recirculation or complete recirculation of air (par 0034), thus the initiating an airflow change. Fleischer teaches such a safety flap is advantageous because it prevents contaminants when detected at high levels from entering the space and posing a hazard to occupants (pars 0005-0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to initiate an airflow change by moving a flap as taught by Fleischer in response to an airborne contaminant measurement in the method of modified Lepage, because this control of airflow would similarly enable high contaminant airflows to be recirculated through the air cleaner, predictably preventing potentially hazardous contaminants from reaching people in the indoor space in the same manner with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
16. Regarding claim 7, Lepage as modified by Fleischer and Tanimura teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the received sensor data includes data that identifies a level of pathogens in the air (sensor for at least one biological organism, for example, a bacterium or virus, Fleischer par 0032).
17. Regarding claim 8, Lepage as modified by Fleischer and Tanimura teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the pathogens include at least one of a bacteria, a fungus, or a virus (sensor for at least one biological organism, for example, a bacterium or virus, Fleischer par 0032).
18. Claims 9-10, 14-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepage (WO 2010128480 A2) in view of Fleischer (US 20040258585 A1), Botvinnik et al (US 20070210734 A1), and Tanimura et al (US 20130071298 A1).
19. Regarding claim 9, Lepage discloses a controller (ozone generation controller 236, pars 0067-0070) implementing a method for controlling an air filtration apparatus (controlling features of the decontamination system, pars 0046-0047) that includes a blower (internal air moving device such as a fan, par 0114) configured to draw air from outside the apparatus into the air filtration apparatus (fan disposed in the conduit for circulating air to be processed in the conduit between the air inlet and the air outlet, pars 0017 and 0058-0060, FIG. 1), an entry control grid (grid of perforated tubes 434 disposed next to the input surface of the filter, par 0074, FIG. 8), a rear control grid (second electrode 844, FIG. 8, par 0088), a wire disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid (FIG. 8, first electrodes 842 shaped to show no significant resistance to the air i.e. as a grid of wires, par 0088), and an exchangeable filter media (filter element 820 such as foam, fiber pad, multi-plied folded filter paper, folded volume and membrane i.e. exchangeable, par 0088) being disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid (FIG. 8, filter 820 between grids 428 and 844),
Lepage does not specifically teach the filter media as having a density that is less than the density of a HEPA filter but suggests that the pre-filter for the ionic air purifier need only remove coarse particulates (par 0057) and a wide variety of materials may be chosen for this filter (foam, fiber pad, multi-plied folded filter paper, folded volume and membrane, par 0088), the ionic air purifier being an alternative to another embodiment having as its main processing stage a HEPA filter (par 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ a filter having a density less than that of a HEPA filter, because such a filter selected from the range of options taught by Lepage would predictably catch the charged particulates with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Lepage teaches the method comprising:
providing a high voltage to the wire (electrodes 842, 844 are connected to a high voltage source so as to generate an electric field through the filter 840, par 0088) such that air disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid is exposed to a high energy field that charges particles in the air disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid (amplified electrical field at the close vicinity of the fiber surface due to electric field across the filter 820 is thus used to increase the capture of particles by the filter 820, pars 0088-0089) such that those particles clump together (strong dipolar attraction force between the dielectric fibers of the filter element 820 and the particles, par 0089) and are captured by the filter media (increasing significantly the filter element 820 performances in capturing and retaining contaminants, par 0089);
receiving sensor data that includes a level of generated inside of (ozone level detector 232 is used to check whether a sufficient ozone level is distributed in the air processing system to ensure proper decontamination, par 0068) or emitted from the air filtration apparatus (ozone level detector may be placed downstream of the catalytic converter to verify that the ozone level in the released air at the output of the system is low enough for safe distribution and usage, par 0068), and that is further related to one or more of a level of ozone included in air at an input of the air filtration apparatus (measured ozone level in the incoming ambient air to the ozone generator, par 0068);
evaluating the received sensor data to identify a first set of operating conditions associated with the air filtration apparatus (used to check whether the decontamination system 212 is working properly, par 0068; measured ozone levels can trigger alarms or different operating modes, par 00107);
accessing data that identifies operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus (thresholds described in par 0068);
accessing data that identifies air filtration capabilities for different levels of high energy voltage or charging capabilities (control of excitation voltage level for producing ozone, par 0064; ozone generation controlled by adjusting excitation voltage, par 00105);
comparing the sensor data to the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus (if measured level is above a threshold, par 0068);
identifying an operational setting of the air filtration apparatus to be changed based on comparing the sensor data to the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation controlled by adjusting excitation voltage, par 00105; if measured level is above a threshold, par 0068);
identifying , based on comparing the sensor data to the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus and the data that identifies air filtration capabilities for different levels of high energy voltage or charging capabilities, the voltage to apply to the wire (excitation voltage level, may be controlled as a function of air density, air pressure, air temperature and/or air humidity, par 0064) wherein,
when the level of ozone generated inside of or emitted from the air filtration apparatus exceeds a given threshold level, the identified voltage is a reduced voltage for the wire that reduces ozone generated inside of or emitted from the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105; controlled to provide a very small production of ozone, par 0070), and wherein the voltage when applied to the wire ensures that the apparatus does not generate or emit ozone above the given threshold level (ozone generator will be turned off, par 00107; controlled to provide a very small production of ozone, par 0070); and
initiating, based on the identified operational setting of the air filtration apparatus to be changed, a change to the operational setting of the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105), wherein the change to the operational setting results in changing the first set of operating conditions associated with the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105; voltage among first set of operating conditions as denoted above), wherein the operational setting of the air filtration apparatus is a voltage setting and the change to the operational setting results in the voltage that is applied to the wire being changed to the identified voltage (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105).
Although Lepage teaches that ozone concentration which is based on voltage should be calculated to sufficiently inhibit most particles and expose pathogens (par 0065), Lepage does not teach wherein, when the comparing indicates that particle, contaminant, or pathogen removal does not meet the operational requirements, the identified voltage is a voltage that increases a rate of particle clumping and/or air filtering by the air filtration apparatus.
Fleischer teaches an analogous air treatment device (Abstract, pars 0005 and 0019-0020) using a discharge voltage to ionize indoor air (par 0036) and sensors to monitor air quality/air contaminants, ozone, and airflow (par 0035). Fleischer teaches a control sequence that adjusts the electrical power supplied to the ionization apparatus as a function of these sensor values i.e. the power increases when a greater VOC load of the room air occurs (par 0047), identifying a voltage to be maintained within a tolerance range such that this voltage increases the proportion of positively and negatively charged oxygen ions (par 0053), which has been established by Lepage to cause particle clumping and air filtration (Lepage par 0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply a voltage in the method of Lepage that increases a rate of particle clumping and/or air filtering when comparing indicates that particle, contaminant, or pathogen removal does not meet the operational requirements as taught by Fleischer, because selecting the voltage in this manner would predictably provide the same results of increasing air filtering in the method of Lepage with a reasonable expectation of success, the modification involving a combination of prior art sensor-driven control steps according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Lepage and Fleischer both teach controllers for carrying out their respective control methods but do not teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program executable by a processor for implementing the method.
Botvinnik teaches an analogous air treatment device having a voltage control (Title, Abstract) wherein a control unit includes a memory that is configured to store machine readable executable instructions or control routines that are executable by the control unit (par 0036). These control routines include regulating voltage supplied to the electrode assembly (par 0036) responsive to current data or information via a control signal (par 0036), indicating that such a memory can suitably provide instructions to control a similar process of ionizing air to remove contaminants (par 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store instructions to execute the method steps of modified Lepage on a non-transitory computer-readable memory executable by a processor as taught by Botvinnik, because this would predictably enable a processor to execute the method via an appropriate controller, as Botvinnik demonstrates that voltage control within an air ionizing purifier can be suitably controlled using such programmed instructions, the modification involving a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Lepage and Fleischer both teach a variety of pulsed or alternating voltage conditions but neither reference teaches that the voltage applied to the electrodes is specifically of greater than 5 kV direct current.
Tanimura teaches an analogous high voltage charging unit inside an air path housing for capturing microbes and viruses (pars 0051-0052), finding that a pulsed positive voltage has similar particle colliding effectiveness to an alternating current (par 0152) and an absolute value of an applied voltage was 6 kV or 6.3 kV is ideal for virus capture rate (par 0078, FIG. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the voltage of modified Lepage a direct current voltage of greater than 5 kV as taught by Tanimura, as such a direct current voltage would predictably capture viruses and particulates in the same manner with a reasonable expectation of success, which involves simple substitution of one known element (operating voltage) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Examiner notes that the courts have held that automating a manual activity is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See In reVenner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), MPEP 2144.04(III). The operating method of Lepage describes several feedback conditions for adjusting voltage, which a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand how to implement into processor-executable instructions with reference to the teaching of Botvinnik and by conventional programming techniques.
20. Regarding claim 10, Lepage as modified above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, further comprising:
identifying the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus from a plurality of different operating environments (plurality of humidity, temperature, pressure, and ozone thresholds, Lepage pars 00105-00106);
wherein accessing the data that identifies the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus includes accessing data that identifies operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus for the identified operating environment (excitation voltage can be further adjusted according to the data re: humidity, temperature, pressure of environment, Lepage par 00105).
21. Regarding claim 14, Lepage as modified above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, but the combination does not teach specifically that the method would further comprise initiating a change in an airflow within the air filtration apparatus based on the identified operational setting of the airflow to be changed.
Fleischer further teaches that based on a detection of air contaminants (par 0005), the normal operation of the device would drive the movement of a safety flap for either a partial recirculation or complete recirculation of air (par 0034), thus the initiating an airflow change. Fleischer teaches such a safety flap is advantageous because it prevents contaminants when detected at high levels from entering the space and posing a hazard to occupants (pars 0005-0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to initiate an airflow change by moving a flap as taught by Fleischer in response to an airborne contaminant measurement in the method of modified Lepage, because this control of airflow would similarly enable high contaminant airflows to be recirculated through the air cleaner, predictably preventing potentially hazardous contaminants from reaching people in the indoor space in the same manner with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
22. Regarding claim 15, Lepage as modified above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the received sensor data includes data that identifies a level of pathogens in the air (sensor for at least one biological organism, for example, a bacterium or virus, Fleischer par 0032).
23. Regarding claim 16, Lepage as modified above teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the pathogens include at least one of a bacteria, a fungus, or a virus (sensor for at least one biological organism, for example, a bacterium or virus, Fleischer par 0032).
24. Regarding claim 17, Lepage discloses an air filtration apparatus (air processing system with ionic air purifier and prefilter , pars 0056-0057), the apparatus comprising:
a blower (internal air moving device such as a fan, par 0114) configured to draw air from outside the apparatus into the air filtration apparatus (fan disposed in the conduit for circulating air to be processed in the conduit between the air inlet and the air outlet, pars 0017 and 0058-0060, FIG. 1),
an entry control grid (grid of perforated tubes 434 disposed next to the input surface of the filter, par 0074, FIG. 8),
a rear control grid (second electrode 844, FIG. 8, par 0088),
a wire disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid (FIG. 8, first electrodes 842 shaped to show no significant resistance to the air i.e. as a grid of wires, par 0088), wherein the wire is configured to receive a high voltage (electrodes 842, 844 are connected to a high voltage source so as to generate an electric field through the filter 840, par 0088) such that air disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid is exposed to a high energy field when the high voltage is received by the wire (amplified electrical field at the close vicinity of the fiber surface due to electric field across the filter 820 is thus used to increase the capture of particles by the filter 820, pars 0088-0089);
an exchangeable filter media (filter element 820 such as foam, fiber pad, multi-plied folded filter paper, folded volume and membrane i.e. exchangeable, par 0088) being disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid (FIG. 8, filter 820 between grids 428 and 844), wherein the exchangeable filter media is exposed to the high energy field when the high voltage is received by the wire (amplified electrical field at the close vicinity of the fiber surface due to electric field across the filter 820 is thus used to increase the capture of particles by the filter 820, pars 0088-0089) wherein the high energy field results in charging particles in the air disposed between the entry control grid and the rear control grid such that those particles clump together (strong dipolar attraction force between the dielectric fibers of the filter element 820 and the particles, par 0089) and are captured by the filter media (increasing significantly the filter element 820 performances in capturing and retaining contaminants, par 0089);
a plurality of sensors that sense data (temperature sensor, humidity sensor, pressure sensor, and multiple ozone sensors, par 0099) that includes a level of generated inside of (ozone level detector 232 is used to check whether a sufficient ozone level is distributed in the air processing system to ensure proper decontamination, par 0068) or emitted from the air filtration apparatus (ozone level detector may be placed downstream of the catalytic converter to verify that the ozone level in the released air at the output of the system is low enough for safe distribution and usage, par 0068), and that is further related to one or more of a level of ozone included in air at an input of the air filtration apparatus (measured ozone level in the incoming ambient air to the ozone generator, par 0068);
Lepage does not specifically teach the filter media as having a density that is less than the density of a HEPA filter but suggests that the pre-filter for the ionic air purifier need only remove coarse particulates (par 0057) and a wide variety of materials may be chosen for this filter (foam, fiber pad, multi-plied folded filter paper, folded volume and membrane, par 0088), the ionic air purifier being an alternative to another embodiment having as its main processing stage a HEPA filter (par 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ a filter having a density less than that of a HEPA filter, because such a filter selected from the range of options taught by Lepage would predictably catch the charged particulates with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Lepage teaches controller functions that evaluate the received sensor data to identify a first set of operating conditions associated with the air filtration apparatus (used to check whether the decontamination system 212 is working properly, par 0068; measured ozone levels can trigger alarms or different operating modes, par 00107);
access data that identifies operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus (thresholds described in par 0068);
access data that identifies air filtration capabilities for different levels of high energy voltage or charging capabilities (control of excitation voltage level for producing ozone, par 0064; ozone generation controlled by adjusting excitation voltage, par 00105);
compare the sensor data to the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus (if measured level is above a threshold, par 0068);
identify an operational setting of the air filtration apparatus to be changed based on comparing the sensor data to the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation controlled by adjusting excitation voltage, par 00105; if measured level is above a threshold, par 0068);
identify , based on comparing the sensor data to the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus and the data that identifies air filtration capabilities for different levels of high energy voltage or charging capabilities, the voltage to apply to the wire (excitation voltage level, may be controlled as a function of air density, air pressure, air temperature and/or air humidity, par 0064) wherein,
when the level of ozone generated inside of or emitted from the air filtration apparatus exceeds a given threshold level, the identified voltage is a reduced voltage for the wire that reduces ozone generated inside of or emitted from the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105; controlled to provide a very small production of ozone, par 0070), and wherein the voltage when applied to the wire ensures that the apparatus does not generate or emit ozone above the given threshold level (ozone generator will be turned off, par 00107; controlled to provide a very small production of ozone, par 0070); and
initiate, based on the identified operational setting of the air filtration apparatus to be changed, a change to the operational setting of the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105), wherein the change to the operational setting results in changing the first set of operating conditions associated with the air filtration apparatus (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105; voltage among first set of operating conditions as denoted above), wherein the operational setting of the air filtration apparatus is a voltage setting and the change to the operational setting results in the voltage that is applied to the wire being changed to the identified voltage (ozone generation is controlled by adjusting the excitation voltage, par 00105).
Although Lepage teaches that ozone concentration which is based on voltage should be calculated to sufficiently inhibit most particles and expose pathogens (par 0065), Lepage does not teach wherein, when the comparing indicates that particle, contaminant, or pathogen removal does not meet the operational requirements, the identified voltage is a voltage that increases a rate of particle clumping and/or air filtering by the air filtration apparatus.
Fleischer teaches an analogous air treatment device (Abstract, pars 0005 and 0019-0020) using a discharge voltage to ionize indoor air (par 0036) and sensors to monitor air quality/air contaminants, ozone, and airflow (par 0035). Fleischer teaches a control sequence that adjusts the electrical power supplied to the ionization apparatus as a function of these sensor values i.e. the power increases when a greater VOC load of the room air occurs (par 0047), identifying a voltage to be maintained within a tolerance range such that this voltage increases the proportion of positively and negatively charged oxygen ions (par 0053), which has been established by Lepage to cause particle clumping and air filtration (Lepage par 0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply a voltage in the method of Lepage that increases a rate of particle clumping and/or air filtering when comparing indicates that particle, contaminant, or pathogen removal does not meet the operational requirements as taught by Fleischer, because selecting the voltage in this manner would predictably provide the same results of increasing air filtering in the method of Lepage with a reasonable expectation of success, the modification involving a combination of prior art sensor-driven control steps according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Lepage and Fleischer both teach controllers for carrying out their respective control methods but do not teach a memory and a processor that executes instructions out of the memory for implementing the method.
Botvinnik teaches an analogous air treatment device having a voltage control (Title, Abstract) wherein a control unit includes a memory that is configured to store machine readable executable instructions or control routines that are executable by the control unit (par 0036). These control routines include regulating voltage supplied to the electrode assembly (par 0036) responsive to current data or information via a control signal (par 0036), indicating that such a memory can suitably provide instructions to control a similar process of ionizing air to remove contaminants (par 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store instructions to execute the method steps of modified Lepage on a non-transitory computer-readable memory executable by a processor as taught by Botvinnik, because this would predictably enable a processor to execute the method via an appropriate controller, as Botvinnik demonstrates that voltage control within an air ionizing purifier can be suitably controlled using such programmed instructions, the modification involving a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Lepage and Fleischer both teach a variety of pulsed or alternating voltage conditions but neither reference teaches that the voltage applied to the electrodes is specifically of greater than 5 kV direct current.
Tanimura teaches an analogous high voltage charging unit inside an air path housing for capturing microbes and viruses (pars 0051-0052), finding that a pulsed positive voltage has similar particle colliding effectiveness to an alternating current (par 0152) and an absolute value of an applied voltage was 6 kV or 6.3 kV is ideal for virus capture rate (par 0078, FIG. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the voltage of modified Lepage a direct current voltage of greater than 5 kV as taught by Tanimura, as such a direct current voltage would predictably capture viruses and particulates in the same manner with a reasonable expectation of success, which involves simple substitution of one known element (operating voltage) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Examiner notes that the courts have held that automating a manual activity is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See In reVenner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), MPEP 2144.04(III). The operating method of Lepage describes several feedback conditions for adjusting voltage, which a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand how to implement into processor-executable instructions with reference to the teaching of Botvinnik and by conventional programming techniques.
25. Regarding claim 18, Lepage as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the processor also executes the instructions out of the memory to:
identify the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus from a plurality of different operating environments (plurality of humidity, temperature, pressure, and ozone thresholds, Lepage pars 00105-00106);
wherein accessing the data that identifies the operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus includes accessing data that identifies operational requirements of the air filtration apparatus for the identified operating environment (excitation voltage can be further adjusted according to the data re: humidity, temperature, pressure of environment, Lepage par 00105).
26. Regarding claim 21, Lepage as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 17, but the combination does not teach specifically that the method carried out by the processor would comprise initiating a change in an airflow within the air filtration apparatus based on the identified operational setting of the airflow to be changed.
Fleischer further teaches that based on a detection of air contaminants (par 0005), the normal operation of the device would drive the movement of a safety flap for either a partial recirculation or complete recirculation of air (par 0034), thus the initiating an airflow change. Fleischer teaches such a safety flap is advantageous because it prevents contaminants when detected at high levels from entering the space and posing a hazard to occupants (pars 0005-0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to initiate an airflow change by moving a flap as taught by Fleischer in response to an airborne contaminant measurement in the method of modified Lepage, because this control of airflow would similarly enable high contaminant airflows to be recirculated through the air cleaner, predictably preventing potentially hazardous contaminants from reaching people in the indoor space in the same manner with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
27. Regarding claim 22, Lepage as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the sensor data includes data that identifies a level of pathogens in the air (sensor for at least one biological organism, for example, a bacterium or virus, Fleischer par 0032).
28. Regarding claim 23, Lepage as modified above teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the pathogens include at least one of a bacteria, a fungus, or a virus (sensor for at least one biological organism, for example, a bacterium or virus, Fleischer par 0032).
Response to Arguments
29. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 22 July 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These grounds of rejection have been withdrawn in view of the amendment, as the increase or decrease of voltage in response to particular conditions being met successfully integrates the abstract determination/analysis steps into the claimed application. Examiner notes that the claims are interpreted in a broad manner such that the limitations “identify an operational setting”, “identify a first set of operating conditions”, and such similar recitations can be interpreted without a decision-making or evaluation action, simply as a data gathering or sensing function that does not rise to an abstract idea. If Applicant intends a narrower reading of these limitations, e.g., to require that identifying an operational setting or identifying air filtration capabilities includes a decision-making step taken by the processor or executor of the method, this would trigger reconsideration as an abstract idea according to 35 U.S.C. 101.
30. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, 14-18, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
