DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 6–7 are objected because the term “the filter media” and “the exchangeable filter media” is inconsistently used.
The same applies to “a front ground control grid” “the front control grid” and “the front ground control grid” are used in consistently in claims 1, 4 and 6.
Claim 1 is objected because the limitation of “the density of a HEPA filter.” A HEPA filter does not inherently have a uniform density, therefore, the limitation of “the density” is improper because the applicant fails to specify which density is “the density.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4–9 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the limitation of “high energy field.” It is unclear what is considered “high” for a “high energy field.” Noted here that the claims defines “high voltage” of greater than 5 kV, however, it is unclear if a high voltage inherently generates “high energy field.”
Claims 4–9 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
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.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 4 and 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jaisinghani, US 2006/0150816 A1 (“Jaisinghani”).
Regarding claim 1:
Jaisinghani discloses a disinfecting air filtration apparatus (Jaisinghani’s device as shown in Fig. 19) comprising:
a blower (Jaisinghani’s fan 35) that receives air from an area outside of a room (this is not a positively recited structure of the claimed air filtration apparatus, but Jaisinghani’s air filtration apparatus receives air from outside of a clean room; Jaisinghani Fig. 19, [0005]; Jaisinghani discloses that operation of the blower 35 results in the air from the area outside of the room being drawn into the air filtration apparatus (as shown by arrow in Fig. 19));
a front ground control grid (Jaisinghani’s ground control electrode 7);
a rear control grid (Jaisinghani’s downstream ground electrode 4; Jaisinghani Fig. 4, [0067]); and
a conductor (Jaisinghani’s ionizing electrode 8, electrode is a conductor) disposed between the front control grid 7 and the rear control grid 4. Jaisinghani Fig. 4, [0069], wherein the conductor 8 receives a high voltage of greater than 5 kV(indicated HV in Fig. 4 and Jaisinghani discloses that the voltage applied to its ionization electrode 8 is between approximately 3 to approximately 18 kV, overlapping within the claimed range, and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness; MPEP 2144.05(I)) such that air disposed between the front control grid 7 and the rear control grid 4 is exposed to a high energy field when the high voltage is received by the conductor 8 (Jaisinghani discloses its ionizing electrode 8 and control electrode 7 determines the particle charging field strength, which result in ion formation and charging of incoming particles in the direction of arrow A). Jaisinghani Fig. 4, [0069], [0069] and [0112]; and
an exchangeable filter media having a density that is less than the density of a HEPA filter (Jaisinghani discloses a filter media that can be replaced, which means it is removable, Jaisinghani discloses in the same paragraph that the filter media could have a filtration efficiency of greater than 95%, which means it is less dense than a HEPA filter, because HEPA filter requires a minimum of 99.97% filtration efficiency and would necessarily be denser; in fact, Jaisinghani’s invention aiming to enhance a 95% filter to provide a HEPA filtration efficiency in a safe electrical manner to save cost). Jaisinghani [0096] and [0116];
wherein the exchangeable filter media is exposed to the high energy field, wherein the high energy field received on the conductor 8 results in charging particles in the air disposed between the front control grip 7 and the rear control grid 4 such that those particle clump together and are captured by the filter media (Jaisinghani’s ionizing electrode 8 discharge ions to the surroundings, the ions attached to the airborne particles like dust and give the particles an electrical charge, particles with an electrical charge are then attracted to each other—clump together, regardless of whether they are positively or negatively charged, and the larger clumps can be effectively captured by a filter; Jaisinghani Fig. 4, [0069]–[0070]).
PNG
media_image1.png
519
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4:
Jaisinghani discloses that the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a pre-filter (Jaisinghani’s prefilter 45) that filters the air from the area outside of the room to generate pre-filtered air (intended use, and a prefilter is capable of filtering air). Jaisinghani Fig. 18, [0099]. Jaisinghani discloses that the pre-filtered air passes through the front control grid 7 (Jaisinghani discloses prefilter 45 is upstream of its front control grid 7) based on operation of the blower 35 and a longer side of the pre-filter, the front ground control grid, the exchangeable filter media, and the rear control grid are parallel a surface of a room (as shown in Fig. 18, prefilter 45 and front ground control grid 7 are parallel with each other, as shown in Fig. 4, front ground control grid 7 and rear control grid are parallel with each other, the prefilter 45 have a same shape as the front ground control grid 7, the long side would be the orientation surface intersects the air flowJaisinghani Fig. 4 and Fig. 18).he limitation of parallel to a surface of a room does not get patentable weight, because a surface of a room is not a positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, however, a claimed apparatus is capable of being arranged parallel to a wall of a room because Jaisinghani discloses its air purification apparatus is used in a cleanroom. Jaisinghani [0116].
Regarding claim 6:
Jaisinghani discloses that the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a seal (Jaisinghani’s filter frame 24 and seal between filter frame 24 and the filter pack) that prevents the air disposed between the front control grid 7 and the rear control grid 4 from bypassing the exchangeable filter media 1. Jaisinghani Fig. 15, [0091].
Regarding claim 7:
Jaisinghani discloses that the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a mechanical connector (Jaisinghani’s screws 23) that attaches a sub-assembly (Jaisinghani’s filter assembly 31) that contains the exchangeable filter media 1 when the apparatus is in operation (when in operation, Jaisinghani’s screws 23 would attach its sub-assembly 31 to ionizer assembly 30). Jaisinghani Fig. 15, [0100].
Regarding claim 8:
Jaisinghani discloses that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the conductor 8 is a wire. Jaisinghani Fig. 4, [0113].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaisinghani as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Helt et al., US 2007/0039462 A1 (“Helt”). Regarding claim 5:
It is noted that the limitation of “the surface of the room is a ceiling of the room” is not a positively recited feature of the claimed apparatus. However, since multiple claims are directed to the claimed room, and therefore, the examiner maps this limitation here for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Additionally, the limitation of “in a filtration capacity of 99.97% single pass efficiency when capturing particles of 0.3 microns when consuming no more than 190 Watts at an air flow rate of 650 cubic feet per minute (CFM) and when consuming no more than 80 Watts at an air flow rate of 400 CFM” describes an intended use of the claimed apparatus, such limitations are given patentable weight only insofar as it affects the physical structure of the claimed invention. Here, the limitation of “a filtration capacity of 99.97% single pass efficiency when capturing particles of 0.3 microns” is describing a HEPA filter1. The limitation of electricity consumption and air flow rate is directed to a filtration capability and energy efficiency. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as an energy efficient HEPA filter with large filtration capability.
Jaisinghani discloses that the apparatus of claim 4, further comprising an insulator that electrically insulates the conductor from at least one other part of the apparatus (Jaisinghani’s channel shield 14 is an insulator because it is non-electrically conductive and shields conductor 8 from other surfaces). Jaisinghani Fig. 7, [0099]. Jaisinghani discloses that the operation of the apparatus results in a filtration capacity of 99.97% single pass efficiency when capturing particles of 0.3 microns (Jaisinghani discloses its filter could be HEPA filter). Jaisinghani [0116].
Jaisinghani does not explicitly disclose that the claimed filtration capacity is associated with an operation when consuming no more than 190 Watts at an air flow rate of 650 cubic feet per minute (CFM) and when consuming no more than 80 Watts at an air flow rate of 400 CFM.
However, Jaisinghani discloses a motivation of achieving significant saving in operation cost in terms of fan power required. Jaisinghani [0116]. It is thus concluded that fan power is a result effective variable because it affects the operation cost, and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce fan power to be within the claimed range for the purpose of cost saving. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art understands that the larger a filtration capacity, the less filtration apparatus would be required to achieve a target air quality, and therefore, increasing filtration capacity of the filtration apparatus also helps cutting cost. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the filtration capacity along with energy efficiency for the purpose of an optimized cost. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Furthermore, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed power consumption range at a claimed air flow rate is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Jaisinghani does not disclose its apparatus is installed the surface of the room is a ceiling of the room.
Similar to Jaisinghani, Helt discloses a dielectric air filtration system. Helt Fig. 3, [0038]. Helt’s air filtration system is installed on a ceiling. Helt Fig. 3, [0038]. It would have been obvious for Jaisinghani’s air filter apparatus to be installed on a ceiling as disclosed by Helt because such design is known in the dielectric air filtration art. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to install the filter on the ceiling for the purpose of saving floor space.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaisinghani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schultz et al., US 2016/0061477 A1 (“Schultz”).
Regarding claim 9:
Jaisinghani does not disclose that the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a memory; a processor that executes instructions out of the memory; and one or more sensors that provide sensor data to the processor.
Similar to Jaisinghani, Schultz discloses an air filter for use in clean rooms. Schultz [0041]. Schultz discloses its system comprises a monitory system comprising a memory 140, a processor 130 that executes instructions out of the memory 140 and one or more sensor 100 that provide sensor data to the processor 130. Schultz Fig. 1, [0013]–[0015]. Schultz discloses its monitor system provides an improved level of maintaining facility air quality. Schultz [0041]. It would have been obvious to include Schultz’s monitor system in Jaisinghani for an improved level of maintaining facility air quality.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner drops the current rejection because the applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
The examiner drops the current 35 USC § 102 rejection because the applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejection. However, the amendment would not overcome Jaisinghani.
The applicant argues that Jaisinghani does not disclose anything causing particles to clump together, and that Jaisinghani rather discloses the use of “ionizing electrode” that charge electrode transfer electrodes, then particles are charged by an ionizing filed and then forced by an electric force to a filter medium. Jaisinghani does not disclose or suggest use of a high voltage and a high energy field that causes particle to clump. Applicant Rem. dated Sep. 03, 2025, p. 7.
The examiner does not agree. The applicant seems to have a misunderstanding of how an ionizing electrode works. An ionization electrode necessarily requires high voltages to provide electrons with sufficiently energy to collide with neutral gas atoms, causing them to ionize and create more ions and electrons in a chain reaction called an avalanche breakdown. Charged particles are naturally attracted to each other—clump together, regardless of whether they are positively or negatively charged. And Jaisinghani discloses its ionization electrode 8 with an applied a voltage between 3 to approximately 18 kV, overlapping the claimed range of over 5 kV, and support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Additionally, the examiner would also like to point out that Jaisinghani’s charge transfer electrode is used to help achieve a constant and high enough potential across the upstream face of the V-pack filter media. Jaisinghani discloses that the distance between the ionizing electrode 8 and the upstream plane of the filter is not uniform due to a V-pack formation, which resulting in the closet portion of the filter medium has a highest influx of charge and the furthest section has the lowest or negligible amount of charge, and a charge transfer electrode could help achieve a constant and high enough potential across the upstream face of the V-pack filter media. Jaisinghani [0070]. Therefore, applicant’s statement of “use of “ionizing electrode” that charge electrode transfer electrodes” is not accurate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 See cited NPL “What is HEPA filter?”