DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 7/1/2026. 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All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of objection are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, please change the term “baths” to “bathes” in line 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 in the absence of, or independently from, an airflow through the filter media to sterilize the filter media (Fig. 3, 170, ionizing assembly 170 is upstream of filter 162, [0046, 0056] = understood to create ion cloud onto filter thereby sterilizing it; control unit 600 can independently operate ionizer and air flow generator [0055] = understood to be functionally capable of creating an ion cloud onto said filter media without an air flow), and wherein said ionizer comprises a corona discharge tip (Fig. 3, ionizing pins 198, [0051]) to generate an ion cloud which extends away from the corona discharge tip and baths the filter media to provide a sterilization effect (Fig. 3, 170, ionizing assembly 170 is upstream of filter 162 with discharge tips 198, [0046, 0056] = understood to be capable of creating an ion cloud that extends away from the corona discharge tip and sterilizes the filter media). 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 when 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 3-4 of the amendment, filed 7/1/2026, the Applicant argues none of the cited references teach wherein an ion cloud is generated independently of an airflow with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts that Adair teaches wherein the ionizing assembly can be operated independently of the air flow generator, which is understood to meet the functional recitation of creating an ion cloud onto said filter media independently from an airflow through the filter media [0055-0056]. However, the rejection has been withdrawn and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art Adair, which was cited and relied upon in the previous action. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 4-5 of the amendment, filed 7/1/2026, the Applicant argues none of the cited references teach an ionizer configured to generate an ion cloud that extends away from the corona discharge tip and bath[es] the filter media to provide a sterilization effect with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts that Adair teaches ionizing pins (Fig. 3, 198) that point away from the filter media and are capable of performing the functionally recited recitation of generat[ing] an ion cloud that extends away from the corona discharge tip and bath[es] the filter media to provide a sterilization effect ([0046, 0056]). However, the rejection has been withdrawn and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art Adair, which was cited and relied upon in the previous action. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 5-6 of the amendment, filed 7/1/2026, the Applicant argues one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to position a corona discharge tip within 15 cm from a filter media since Takeda teaches an optimum distance of 10 cm from a target to be sterilized which is 1.5 times less than 15 cm with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully asserts that the recitation of “a corona discharge tip disposed within 15 cm from said filter media” includes all distances 15 cm or less from a filter media. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to position the corona discharge tip as taught by Adair to ensure optimal sterilization, which Takeda teaches occurs wherein corona generation module produces 10,000 ions/cc at 10 cm or more from a target sterilization source. The distance of 15 cm is contemplated by the teaching of 10 cm or more, which overlaps with 15 cm or less discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). However, the rejection has been withdrawn and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art Takeda, which was cited and relied upon in the previous action. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEBYATE S SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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
Prosecution Insights