DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 01/20/2026. Claims 11-16 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adair (US 20070034082 A1) (disclosed in Applicant’s IDS dated 08/25/2023) in view of Takeda (US 20030072675 A1) and Wennerstrom (US 20160332170 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Adair teaches an air purifier (Fig. 1, 100, [abstract]) comprising a removable filter media (Fig. 4, filter 162 is removable from tray 154 [0047-0048]), an air flow generator (Fig. 3, fan 216 = airflow generator), and an ionizer configured to create an ion cloud onto said filter media to sterilize the filter media (ionizing assembly (Fig. 3, 170 upstream of filter 162, [0046, 0056] = understood to create ion cloud onto filter thereby sterilizing it), and wherein said ionizer comprises a corona discharge tip (Fig. 3, ionizing pins 198, [0051]). Adair does not teach wherein the corona discharge tip is 15 cm from the filter media.
Adair teaches wherein the distance between the discharge tip and the filter is a selected distance such that the electrons/ions generated by the discharge tip have sufficient time to contact the filter [0068]. Since this parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result), the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention dispose the corona discharge tip as taught by Adair to be within 15 cm from the filter media.
Further, Takeda teaches an air purifying device with an ion generation module [abstract] and teaches wherein sterilization is most optimal wherein negative ions are 10,000 ions/cc at 10 cm or higher from the point they are generated [abstract, 0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention dispose the corona discharge tip as taught by Adair to be at least 10 cm away from the filter media also taught by Adair (which includes 15 cm) since Takeda teaches optimal sterilization occurs wherein the density of ions is 10,000 ions/cc at a distance 10 cm from their source [abstract, 0009].
Modified Adair teaches wherein the corona discharge tip (Adair, Fig. 3, ionizing pins 198) is pointed away from a filter media (Adair, Fig. 4, filter 162) not pointed towards said filter media.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the orientation of the corona discharge tip would not negatively affect the generation of ions upstream of a filter media and would still generate charged particles that adhere to contaminates and exposure a filter media to an ion cloud. This is exemplified by Wennerstrom, who teaches an air cleaning device (Fig. 1, 1, [abstract]) with a corona discharge tip (Fig. 1, 4) pointed towards a filter media (Fig. 1, 7), to expose said filter media to an ion cloud ([0029], [0032-0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the position the corona discharge tip as taught by Modified Adair to a position facing the filter media since this involves the reversal of parts which has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Adair teaches the air purifier according to claim 11, wherein the air purifier captures microbes and pollution caught in air flow (Adair, filter 162 captures pollution = understood to include microbes [0048]).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Adair teaches the air purifier according to claim 11, wherein the air purifier further comprises a fan or impeller (Adair, Fig. 3, fan 216).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Adair teaches the air purifier according to claim 14, wherein a fan is present and is a bladeless fan, axial fan or radial fan (Adair, Fig. 3, fan 216 is axial fan [0074]).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Adair teaches the air purifier according to claim 13, wherein the air purifier further comprises a sensor that indicates particulate is being removed from the air flow (Adair, device 100 contains photoeyes that sense the amount of particulate matter collected on filter 162, [0048]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adair (US 20070034082 A1) in view of Takeda (US 20030072675 A1) and Wennerstrom (US 20160332170 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20200016524 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Adair teaches the air purifier according to claim 11 (Fig. 1, 100) but does not teach wherein the air purifier further comprises a temperature sensor and a humidity sensor.
Kim teaches an air purifier [abstract] comprising a sensor unit 730 that includes a temperature sensor 732 and humidity sensor for detecting temperature/humidity of a space [0075] and a display unit 762 for displaying information gathered from the sensors [0079].
Adair and Kim are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air purifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air purifier as taught by Adair to include the sensors and display unit as taught by Kim to visualize air quality data since Kim teaches the sensors to gather information regarding air quality in a room and display it to a user [0079].
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 3-6 of the amendment, filed 09/19/2025, Applicant argues that neither Adair (US 20070034082 A1) nor Takeda (US 20030072675 A1) teach a corona discharge pin disposed within 15 cm and pointed towards a filter media with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been made in view of the art Wennerstrom (US 20160332170 A1). See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758