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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amended claims filed 18 September 2025, the rejection under 35 USC § 112 has been withdrawn and the prior art rejection has been slightly modified and maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-27, 29-39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 20180137628 with reliance upon the English-language machine translation; hereinafter “Kim”).
In regards to claims 21-24, 33, and 36, Kim discloses an apparatus capable of being used to create a physical space or work space as claimed as the apparatus comprises at least two separate components (10 and 20) which can be independently located as desired. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114). The apparatus comprises a first negative ion generator (ion generator 10), a positively charged ion collector (electrostatic precipitator 20), and an air moving member (dispersion fan 15 or inlet fan 24). It is held that the limitations regarding the operation of the structures do not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus over the prior art because the structures of Kim are capable of being operated in the claimed manner by changing the relative positions of the structures to adjust the field strength at a desired location. See pages 3-4 of the translation and Figures 1-3 and 8. Kim teaches that the ion generator can be fixedly operated on an external structure that generates wind, such as a dehumidifier or hair dryer as taught on page 7, which are each well understood to create heat which would necessarily be operable to increase the temperature of the negative ions as recited in amended claim 21 and also each include an air moving member. Kim also discloses wherein the ion generator 10 is capable of “being freely arranged” and can be “fixed at a certain position” of an external structure. Therefore, the air moving member of the dispersion fan 15 is necessary capable of being movable with respect to the ion generator 10 so as to adjust the direction and velocity of the air flow as recited in amended claim 23 due to the ion generator 10 being freely arrangeable. Further, it is held that the dispersion fan 15 would necessarily create an air flow which would inhibit at least some contaminants from passing tangentially therethrough as the air flow would necessarily redirect at least some contaminants from passing from an arbitrary first zone to an arbitrary second zone as recited in amended claim 36.
In regards to claims 29-32, 34-35, 37-39 and 41, Kim teaches that the ion generator 10 is capable of being freely arranged and fixed at a certain position of the external structure, such as a wall, desk, stand, air conditioner, fan, dehumidifier or hair dryer. Kim further discloses that fixing means, such as a magnet, clamp, Velcro® strap, double-sided tape and a vacuum adsorption pad, can be used for. Furthermore, Kim explicitly states that more than one of both the ion generator 10 and the electrostatic precipitator 20 can be present and arranged as desired (“there is no limitation in distributing them”). See pages 6-7 of the translation and Figures 1 and 8. Therefore, it is viewed that the ion generator is capable of being a wearable, provided on a mobile autonomous robot, mounted to a location in the physical space, mounted on a mobile device, provided at a level of a table in a conference room, provided at an office, provided at a bank teller station, provided at a check out station in a store, positioned in from of a person while working at a work station and the electrostatic precipitator can be mobile in the physical space, mounted on a mobile device, provided on the ceiling of a conference room, provided as part of a light fixture, positioned overlying a person while working at a work station, or provided at a lower band level in a work station. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
In regards to claims 25-27, Kim discloses a positively charged member (one of the electrode plates 23b and 23d) positioned interior of a dielectric member (insulating material forming gap holding member G), wherein an air gap is positioned between the positively charged member and the dielectric member as depicted in at least figures 4-6. Further, the positively charged member is depicted as having a relatively smooth outer surface as it is in the form of a plate. See page 5.
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.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Masuda et al. (US 4,313,741; hereinafter “Masuda”).
In regard to claims 25-27, the following rejection is provided in case it is viewed that Kim does not disclose the claimed dielectric member configuration.
Masuda discloses an electric dust collector comprising a positively charged member (one of the electrode plate 2) positioned interior of a dielectric member (insulation material 4), wherein an air gap is positioned between the positively charged member and the dielectric member as depicted in at least figures 2 and 6. Further, the positively charged member is depicted as having a relatively smooth outer surface as it is in the form of a plate. See col. 1, lines 53-60.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the electric dust collector of Masuda for the electrostatic precipitator of Kim without creating any new or unexpected results as the structures are both used for the purpose of using charged plates to collect dust.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Baek et al. (US 2017/0056802; hereinafter “Baek”).
In regard to claim 28, Kim is silent to a self-disinfecting member on the electrostatic precipitator.
Baek discloses an antimicrobial filter (i.e. self-disinfecting) which has a copper-based compound at the surface to provide the well-known and understood oligodynamic effect to pathogens captured by the filter. See the abstract and at least [0002]-[0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the use of the copper compound of Baek with the electrostatic precipitator of Kim for the purpose of providing the antimicrobial effect to the pathogens necessarily captured by the plates of the precipitator. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kim does not disclose the use of a heat source for use with the negative ion generator. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the ion generator has been taught to be attachable to a dehumidifier or hair dryer which each necessarily include a heat source which would be capable of heating the negative ions provided by the ion generator.
Applicant argues that that Kim does not disclose wherein the air moving member is movable such that the direction and velocity of the air flow with respect to the first negative ion generator can be adjusted. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim discloses wherein the ion generator 10 is capable of “being freely arranged” and can be “fixed at a certain position” of an external structure. Therefore, the air moving member of the dispersion fan 15 is necessary capable of being movable with respect to the ion generator 10 so as to adjust the direction and velocity of the air flow as recited in amended claim 23 due to the ion generator 10 being freely arrangeable.
Applicant argues that Kim does not disclose “selecting the velocity and direction of the air flow such that contaminants are inhibited from passing tangentially through the air flow from a first zone of air to a second zone of air.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The air flow created by the dispersion fan 15 of Kim would necessarily redirect at least some contaminants passing through the air flow generated by the fan of Kim such that the contaminants do not “tangentially” pass through the air flow, it is held that that apparatus of Kim is capable of performing the claimed manner of operating the apparatus of merely inhibiting “contaminants from passing tangentially through the air flow from a first [arbitrary] zone of air into a second [arbitrary] zone of air.” The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774