DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on January 5th, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0261499 (Hizer et al.) in view of US 2010/0116363 (Jewell-Larsen et al.).
The following annotated figure from Hizer et al. is referenced;
PNG
media_image1.png
602
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hizer et al. discloses an ionic air flow generator comprising:
a dielectric substrate (fig. 2A-B, element 34, wherein ‘The isolator is made of a dielectric material, such as plastic, ceramic, and the like.’ P 37) having:
a first side (as annotated above, note that element 38 is a portion of element 34, “The emitter supports 38 are the portions of the isolator 34 that define the physical spatial relationship between the emitter electrodes 34 and other components of the ion wind fan 30.” P 44);
an opposing second side (as annotated above); and
an aperture through the dielectric substrate (as annotated above);
a first conductor comprising one or more emitter stripes, wherein the one or more emitter stripes comprise one or more etched portions of a first single, continuous metal layer of the first conductor disposed on the first side of the dielectric substrate, wherein each emitter stripe of the one or more emitter stripes is suspended across the aperture in the dielectric substrate and has two ends disposed on and supported by a side of the dielectric substrate (fig. 2A-B, element 36, wherein ‘However, in a real-world ion wind fan 10, the emitter electrodes 12 can be implemented as wires, shims, blades, pins, and numerous other geometries.’ P 29, wherein shims, blades, and pins can be formed by selective etching of a continuous metal layer and are, or can be, stripes); and
a second conductor comprising multiple collector portions, wherein the multiple collector portions comprise etched portions of a second single, continuous metal layer of the second conductor disposed on the opposing second side of the dielectric substrate, wherein each collector portion of the multiple collector portions is suspended across the aperture in the dielectric substrate and has two ends disposed on and supported by the opposing second side of the dielectric substrate (fig. 2A-B, element 32, ‘The collector electrode 32 is essentially a plate with rows of oval holes lined up along the length of each emitter electrode 36.’ P 47, where etching forms holes);
wherein the dielectric substrate maintains an air gap between the one or more emitter stripes and the multiple collector portions (‘The emitter electrodes 36 are suspended in air, and held a substantially constant air gap 39 distance away from the collector electrode 32.’ P 45), and the ionic air flow generator is configured to ionize air when a voltage is applied to the emitter stripes, wherein ionized air is drawn to the collector portions (‘As described partially above, ion wind is generated by the ion wind fan 10 by applying a high voltage potential across the emitter 12 and collector 14 electrodes.’ P 35).
Hizer does not disclose the emitter stripes being on the first side of the dielectric substrate. Hizer places the emitter stripes on an additional surface in between the first and second sides instead, as shown in the annotated figure below;
PNG
media_image2.png
626
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, moving the emitter electrodes to the other side of the emitter support, which would be the first side of the dielectric substrate, would not change how the invention works, and would require no additional changes to the structure beyond minor adjustments to the isolator thickness to compensate for the change in air gap that would otherwise occur. Hizer itself states that the attachment type and location is not material to the overall workings of the fan (“Indeed, the actual attachment of the emitter electrodes 36 to either the emitter support 38 or some other portion of the isolator 34 is not material to the embodiments of the present invention,” P 44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Hizer by switching the attachment point of the emitter electrode to the other side of the emitter support portion of the dielectric (first side of dielectric substrate) as a matter of design choice. This is also an example of obvious to try, since there are only two sides that could serve as potential attachment points, the upper ledge of the emitter support portion (used by Hizer) or the lower ledge (claimed location).
Hizer does also not disclose the collector portions comprising stripes, instead leaving a middle section portion of the plate whole so that the collector portions all connect at the middle. Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses an ionic air flow generator comprising such collector stripes (fig. 5-9C, element 120 comprising multiple stripes 121). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the multiple collector stripes of Jewell-Larsen for the plate collector of Hizer et al. to increase electric field uniformity, a problem with the plate design acknowledged by Hizer et al. (‘The collector electrode 32 is essentially a plate with rows of oval holes lined up along the length of each emitter electrode 36. This results in a non-uniform electric field along the length of the emitter electrode 36, since some portions above the wire 36 have an air passage opening 33 and some have the portions between the openings 33.’ P 47).
Regarding claim 2, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the ionic air flow generator of claim 1, wherein the dielectric substrate comprises a ceramic substrate or a glass substrate (‘The isolator is made of a dielectric material, such as plastic, ceramic, and the like.’ P 37).
Regarding claim 3, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for creating the aperture by removing dielectric substrate and forming the emitter and collector by depositing the first and second conductors on the dielectric substrate before creating the aperture. Methods of depositing conductors on dielectric substrates are generally known in the art, as are methods of removing portions of a substrate. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the ionic air flow generator of Hizer et al. to form the conductors and aperture using the claimed method to eliminate the need for fasteners to attach the conductors to the dielectric.
Regarding claim 4, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the ionic air flow generator of claim 1, wherein the one or more emitter stripes and multiple collector stripes form a regular pattern (Hizer fig. 2A-B and Jewell-Larsen fig. 5-7).
Regarding claim 5, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the ionic air flow generator of claim 1, wherein the one or more emitter stripes have cross sections with corners (Hizer ‘In the descriptions and Figures above, the emitter electrodes have been represented by wire electrodes. However, other embodiments of the present invention can use different emitter geometries, such as shim emitters, bar emitters, pin emitters, and other such emitter electrodes.’ P 94 or Jewell-Larson et al., ‘corona discharge electrode 110 may take the shape of barbed wire, a band, blade or place that, in some embodiments, may present a knife- or serrated-edge.’).
Regarding claim 6, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for at least one of the corners having a radius of curvature not greater than 30 um. Emitter electrodes with a radius of curvature less than 30 um are known in the art. It would have been obvious to use an emitter with such a radius of curvature because this would increase ion production, as disclosed in Jewell-larsen et al. ‘Typically, a small radius of curvature or sharp point tends to facilitate ion production at an appropriate point when high voltage is applied.’ P 60) and the specific value of 30 um is not disclosed to be critical.
Regarding claim 7, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the ionic air flow generator of claim 1, wherein the multiple collector stripes have cross sections without corners (‘For example, utilizing a generally curved leading surface 136 for instances of collector electrode 120 may allow for a shorter distance, d, between corona electrode 110 and collector electrode 121, while at the same time increasing ion production and assisting in preventing sparks and arcing.’ P 85).
Regarding claim 8, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the ionic air flow generator of claim 1, wherein the one or more emitter stripes are oriented perpendicular to the collector stripes (Hizer et al., all figures, also Jewell-Larsen et al., all figures).
Regarding claim 9, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the ionic air flow generator of claim 8, wherein:
the ends of the one or more emitter stripes are disposed on and supported by the first side of the dielectric substrate on opposite sides of the aperture, wherein the ends of the one or more emitter stripes are electrically connected to each other and to the emitter electrode of the one or more emitter stripes (fig. 2A, wherein ‘The high voltage DC generated by the IWFPS 20 is then electrically coupled to the emitter electrodes 12 of the ion wind fan 10 via a lead wire 17.’); and
the ends of the collector stripes comprise patches that are disposed on and supported by the second side of the dielectric substrate on opposite sides of the aperture, wherein the patches of the multiple collector stripes are electrically connected to each other and to a collector electrode (Hizer et al., fig. 2A-B, portion of collector electrode on the dielectric, also Jewell-Larsen et al., element 132, wherein ‘additional structures (such as support members 132) may be electrically conductive and act as part of an overall "collector electrode."’ P 82).
Hizer does not disclose the emitter ends comprising patches. The use of patches as electrical contacts is generally known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the ionic air flow generator of Hizer to include such patches to allow electrical contact with all the emitter electrodes with a single wire.
Regarding claim 10, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for isolation notches at the corners of the aperture that increase a creep distance between the one or more emitter stripes and the multiple collector stripes. Such isolation notches are generally known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the air flow generator of Hizer to include such notches to increase creep distance.
Regarding claim 11, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the ionic air flow generator of claim 1, wherein the dielectric substrate maintains a consistent spacing for the air gap between the emitter stripes and the collector stripes (‘substantially constant air gap’ P 45).
Regarding claim 12, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the ionic air flow generator of claim 1, wherein the dielectric substrate encloses the aperture, thereby creating a flow area between the one or more emitter stripes and the multiple collector stripes for the flow of air (fig. 2A-B).
Regarding claim 13, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the claimed invention except Hizer is silent as to whether a flow area between the one or more emitter stripes and the multiple collector stripes for the flow of air is not more than 50mm2. Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses a flow area between the emitter and the collector for the flow of air as small as 2.5mm2 (‘corona discharge electrode assembly 1210 (see FIG. 19A) may have a height, H, in the range of 0.5 mm to 30 mm, and a length, L, chosen to meet the needs of the particular enclosure within which the EHD device will operate.’ P 132 wherein L is constrained by equation 3, such that for a height of 0.5 mm length is between 5mm and 20mm). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the small flow area of Jewell-Larsen et al. to provide a compact fluid path allowing for more collisions between the air molecules and the ions, thereby increasing flow rate, where the specific area of 50mm2 is not disclosed to be critical.
Regarding claim 14, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the ionic air flow generator of claim 1, wherein a flow of ionized air has flow rate not less than 2 liters per minute through each cm2 of flow area (intended use, non-limiting).
Regarding claim 15, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the claimed invention except Hizer is silent as to whether the air gap between the one or more emitter stripes and the multiple collector stripes is not more than 2 mm. Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses air gaps of not more than 2 mm (‘the distance, d, between corona discharge electrode 110 and collector electrodes 121 is approximately 1.6 mm.’ P 84). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to design the ionic air flow generator of Hizer et al. to use air gaps of not greater than 2 mm as done in Jewell-Larsen et al. to increase the electric field, where the specific value of 2 mm is not disclosed to be critical.
Regarding claim 16, Hizer discloses an air flow system comprising: an ionic air flow generator comprising:
a dielectric substrate having a first side and an opposing second side and an aperture through the dielectric substrate (fig. 2A-B, element 34, wherein ‘The isolator is made of a dielectric material, such as plastic, ceramic, and the like.’ P 37, see annotated figure for first and opposing second sides);
a first conductor comprising one or more emitter stripes, wherein the one or more emitter stripes comprise one or more etched portions of a first single, continuous metal layer of the first conductor disposed on the first side of the dielectric substrate, wherein each emitter stripe of the one or more emitter stripes is suspended across the aperture in the dielectric substrate and has two ends deposited disposed on and supported by a side of the dielectric substrate (fig. 2A-B, element 36, wherein ‘However, in a real-world ion wind fan 10, the emitter electrodes 12 can be implemented as wires, shims, blades, pins, and numerous other geometries.’ P 29, wherein shims, blades, and pins can be formed by selective etching of a continuous metal layer and are, or can be, stripes); and
a second conductor comprising multiple collector portions, wherein the multiple collector portions comprise etched portions of a second single, continuous metal layer of the second conductor disposed on the opposing second side of the dielectric substrate, wherein each collector portion of the multiple collector portions is suspended across the aperture in the dielectric substrate and has two ends disposed on and supported by the opposing second side of the dielectric substrate (fig. 2A-B, element 32, ‘The collector electrode 32 is essentially a plate with rows of oval holes lined up along the length of each emitter electrode 36.’ P 47, where etching forms holes);
wherein the dielectric substrate maintains an air gap between the emitter stripes and the collector stripes, and a controller configured to apply a voltage across the one or more emitter stripes and the multiple collector portions (‘The emitter electrodes 36 are suspended in air, and held a substantially constant air gap 39 distance away from the collector electrode 32.’ P 45), wherein applied voltage ionizes air at the one or more emitter stripes and the ionized air is drawn to the multiple collector portions (‘As described partially above, ion wind is generated by the ion wind fan 10 by applying a high voltage potential across the emitter 12 and collector 14 electrodes.’ P 35).
Hizer does not disclose the emitter stripes being on the first side of the dielectric substrate. Hizer places the emitter stripes on an additional surface in between the first and second sides, instead, as shown in the annotated figure below;
PNG
media_image2.png
626
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, moving the emitter electrodes to the other side of the emitter support, which would be the first side of the dielectric substrate, would not change how the invention works, and would require no additional changes to the structure beyond minor adjustments to the isolator thickness to compensate for the change in air gap that would otherwise occur. Hizer itself states that the attachment type and location is not material to the overall workings of the fan (“Indeed, the actual attachment of the emitter electrodes 36 to either the emitter support 38 or some other portion of the isolator 34 is not material to the embodiments of the present invention,” P 44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Hizer by switching the attachment point of the emitter electrode to the other side of the emitter support portion of the dielectric (first side of dielectric substrate) as a matter of design choice. This is also an example of obvious to try, since there are only two sides that could serve as potential attachment points, the upper ledge of the emitter support portion (used by Hizer) or the lower ledge (claimed location).
Hizer also does not disclose the collector portions comprising stripes, instead leaving a middle section portion of the plate whole so that the collector portions all connect at the middle. Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses an ionic air flow generator comprising such collector stripes (fig. 5-9C, element 120 comprising multiple stripes 121). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the multiple collector stripes of Jewell-Larsen for the plate collector of Hizer et al. to increase electric field uniformity, a problem with the plate design acknowledged by Hizer et al. (‘The collector electrode 32 is essentially a plate with rows of oval holes lined up along the length of each emitter electrode 36. This results in a non-uniform electric field along the length of the emitter electrode 36, since some portions above the wire 36 have an air passage opening 33 and some have the portions between the openings 33.’ P 47).
Regarding claim 19, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for configuring the controller to apply the voltage to a different number of emitter elements based upon a desired rate of air flow. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to apply the voltage to fewer emitters when a lower flow is desired to increase the lifetime of the emitters, as some emitters would be spared damage caused by use.
Regarding claim 20, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the claimed invention except Hizer et al. is silent as to whether an applied voltage does not exceed 2kV. Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses an air flow system using such an applied voltage (‘The voltage applied across the air gap between corona discharge electrode 110 and collector electrodes 121 may be in the range of 1.5 kV to 4 kV.’ P 84). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a voltage that does not exceed 2kV as done in Jewell-Larsen et al. to reduce power consumption, wherein it is not disclosed that the particular value of 2kV is critical.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2011/0094710 (Choudhary et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the air flow system of claim 16, wherein the one or more emitter stripes comprises a plurality of emitter stripes (‘Furthermore, the example ion wind fans described and pictured above are shown as having two emitter electrodes. However, any number of emitter electrodes can be used,’ P 96).
Hizer et al. does not disclose the controller being adjustable to apply the voltage to different emitter stripes of the plurality of emitter stripes. Choudhary et al. discloses an air flow system including a controller that is adjustable to apply voltage to different emitter stripes of a plurality of emitter stripes (‘When directed by the control signal to switch between emitter electrodes, the high voltage power supply 28 switches power delivery from the primary emitter electrode 30 to the redundant emitter electrode 32.’ P 31).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the air flow system of Hizer et al. to include the switch and associated control of Choudhary et al. in order to provide for the use of redundant emitter electrodes to take over when the primary emitter electrodes fail (‘Thus, in one embodiment, if one of the primary emitter electrodes 22 fails or becomes compromised, it is disconnected from the IWFPS 8 and its associated redundant emitter electrode 23 becomes operational.’).
Regarding claim 18, Hizer et al. in view of Jewell-Larsen et al. discloses the air flow system of claim 16, wherein the one or more emitter stripes comprises a plurality of emitter stripes (‘Furthermore, the example ion wind fans described and pictured above are shown as having two emitter electrodes. However, any number of emitter electrodes can be used,’ P 96).
Hizer et al. does not disclose at least one of the plurality of emitter stripes being a redundant emitter, wherein the controller is configured to apply the voltage to the redundant emitter stripe upon failure of another emitter stripe of the plurality of emitter stripes. Choudhary et al. discloses an air flow system with such a redundant emitter stripe and control (‘Thus, in one embodiment, if one of the primary emitter electrodes 22 fails or becomes compromised, it is disconnected from the IWFPS 8 and its associated redundant emitter electrode 23 becomes operational.’).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the air flow system of Hizer et al. to include the redundant emitter stripe and associated control sequence of Choudhary et al. so that the fan could continue to operate in the case of emitter electrode failure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 5th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments Related to Obviousness of Emitter Electrode Placement
Applicant argues that it would not have been a matter of design choice to suspend the emitter electrodes of Hizer on the first side of the dielectric substrate because Hizer discloses suspending the emitter electrodes “in the center of an air gap” by supports. Applicant cites passages from Hizer that disclose drawbacks to the relevant embodiment; including the non-uniform electric field along the length of the emitter electrode, wire sag, and other emitter irregularies. Applicant further notes that Hizer discloses that other configurations have a uniform electric field but have other drawbacks.
First, examiner will note that applicant appears to be confusing the air gap with the distance between the opposing faces of the support. The air gap is defined as the distance between the emitter and collector electrodes (see Hizer fig. 2B). Hence, there is no possible way to suspend an emitter in the center of the air gap. Semantics aside, examiner will agree that Hizer discloses suspending the emitter electrode at a location between the first and second faces of the dielectric isolator, in particular the surface Hizer uses to suspend the emitter electrode is shown in the annotated figure below. Examiner has added the same annotated figure to the rejections for clarity.
PNG
media_image3.png
626
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The fact that Hizer discloses using a different attachment position, in and of itself, does not speak for or against the obviousness of suspending the emitter electrode from the first side instead. Applicant does not appear to describe any reason why suspending the emitter electrodes from the “first side” of the dielectric, instead of the upper surface of the emitter support portion of the dielectric as done by Hizer, would not be obvious or would not be a matter of design choice. Applicant cites several passages in Hizer relating to drawbacks in the argument, but none relate to or have any clear connection to the location of the attachment point of the emitter electrodes.
One of the cited passages states that the configuration has the drawback of a non-uniform electric field, but also states that this is caused by the collector electrode shape, not anything related to the emitter electrode (‘The collector electrode 32 is essentially a plate with rows of oval holes lined up along the length of each emitter electrode 36. This results in a non-uniform electric field along the length of the emitter electrode 36, since some portions above the wire 36 have an air passage opening 33 and some have the portions between the openings 33.’ P 47). The other drawbacks disclosed in the cited passages relate to wire sag and emitter irregularities. Wire sag can happen whenever wires are suspended between two points, there is no reason to believe wire sag is more or less likely to occur if suspended from the opposite side of the support. Emitter irregularities would appear to refer to manufacturing defects in the creation of the emitter electrodes, which will be present to the same extent regardless of the emitter electrode location.
Applicant further argues that the emitter and collector stripes being “etched into” opposing sides of the dielectric substrate is not a matter of design choice because etching the emitter and collector stripes “into opposing sides of the dielectric” would be more difficult.
Examiner is unsure why applicant is referring to etching the electrode stripes “into” the dielectric substrate. There is no claim or even disclosure of etching the electrodes “into” the dielectric substrate, which would seem to imply the etching results in the electrodes being at least partially embedded into the dielectric substrate.
If applicant means etching the continuous metal layers, applicant never states why they believe this would be any more difficult with a metal layer on the first side of the emitter support than the upper one, and examiner sees no reason why it would be. Quite the opposite – it would seem that etching the metal would be easier if it were attached at the first side, because the etchant could be applied directly to the metal without passing between the emitter supports first. It would also appear to be easier to dispose the metal layer on the first side.
Arguments related to Etching
Applicant argues that Hizer does not disclose or teach etching of any kind, much less an emitter stripe etched into a metal layer on a dielectric substrate.
The claims are to a product, specifically an ionic air flow generator. As examiner stated in the response to arguments section of the last Office action, a product-by-process claim limits the product only in requiring that the structures implied by the process are present, there is no requirement that examiner show that any etching process occurs. Examiner again refers applicant MPEP 2113, titled “Product-by-Process Claims” which summarizes the legal background of this principle. The following is a passage from that section of the MPEP puts it succinctly (emphasis added by examiner);
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
If applicant believes their etching process necessarily results in a structural difference in the end product, they should specifically point out the structural difference(s) they believe exist and why. If applicant’s reasoning is convincing, examiner will of course withdraw the rejection. However, at this point applicant has not pointed out any structural differences that necessarily result from the claimed etching process, and the electrodes described in the prior arts appear to be structurally identical to the ones disclosed by applicant and fully compatible with formation by such an etching process (with the exception of the wire type emitter stripes).
Applicant further argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not look to create the emitter or collector electrodes of Hizer through an etching process because of the difficulty in doing so. Specifically, they argue that etching one or more emitter stripes and one or more collector strips into a material having air gaps of just a few millimeters would require the etching to “take place in a space far too small for it to be realistically accomplished.”
Applicant discloses that their own device has an air gap of no more than 2 mm, and preferably less than 1 mm (see paragraphs 27 & 57, also claim 15), and that such an ionic air flow generator can be made through etching layers of metal disposed on the first and second sides of a dielectric substrate with aperture. Examiner considers this evidence that etching collector and emitter electrodes from metal layers spaced as little as 1-2 millimeters apart by such a dielectric substrate is realistically possible. Hence, the electrodes of Hizer with a spacing of “a few millimeters” could be also be created through such etching.
Alternately, if applicant were to present compelling evidence that this is not realistically possible, all of applicant’s claims would need to be rejected under 112(a) as lacking enablement, since such a finding would mean that the ionic air flow generator of applicant’s disclosure could not actually be made in the claimed manner.
Arguments related to Secondary Arts
Applicant argues that Jewell-Larsen fails to disclose or suggest “a first conductor comprising one or more emitter stripes, wherein the one or more emitter stripes comprise one or more etched portions of a first single, continuous metal layer of the first conductor disposed on the first side of the dielectric substrate, wherein each emitter stripe is suspended across the aperture in the dielectric substrate and has two ends disposed on and supported by the first side of the dielectric substrate; and a second conductor comprising multiple collector stripes, wherein the multiple collector stripes comprise etched portions of a second single, continuous metal layer of the second conductor disposed on the opposing second side of the dielectric substrate, wherein each collector stripe is suspended across the aperture in the dielectric substrate and has two ends disposed on and supported by the opposing second side of the dielectric substrate”.
Most of the limitations applicant states are not present in Jewell-Larsen et al. are present in Hizer instead or rejected as obvious differences relating to attachment point of the emitter electrodes. Examiner relies on Jewell-Larsen only to show that collector electrodes in the form of stripes are known. Applicant has not specifically attacked either examiner’s finding that Jewell-Larsen teaches collector electrodes in the form of stripes, or examiner’s line of reasoning for why it would have been obvious to combine such stripe-shaped collector electrodes with the overall arrangement of Hizer. Hence, the rejection states.
Finally, applicant argues that Choudary does not disclose or suggest “a first conductor comprising one or more emitter stripes, wherein the one or more emitter stripes comprise one or more etched portions of a first single, continuous metal layer of the first conductor disposed on the first side of the dielectric substrate, wherein each emitter stripe is suspended across the aperture in the dielectric substrate and has two ends disposed on and supported by the first side of the dielectric substrate; and a second conductor comprising multiple collector stripes, wherein the multiple collector stripes comprise etched portions of a second single, continuous metal layer of the second conductor disposed on the opposing second side of the dielectric substrate, wherein each collector stripe is suspended across the aperture in the dielectric substrate and has two ends disposed on and supported by the opposing second side of the dielectric substrate”.
Choudary is not relied upon to teach any of the limitations applicant highlights as not present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881