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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/07/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-10 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN348 (CN1542348A, attached translation will be referenced) in view of CN189 (CN209423189U, applicant’s attached translation will be referenced).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN348 in view of CN189 further in view of Chung (Oxidation protection of carbon materials by acid phosphate impregnation).
Rejection in view of CN348 and CN189
Claim 1: CN348 teaches a panel for an air circulation system (Page 1 teaches this is an electric filter for an air purifier.), the panel comprising: a foam layer comprising open pore foam (Page 3 last two paragraphs teach that the filter is a foam. Page 5 teaches in paragraphs 4 and 5 that the filter is a foam for increasing area of dust particles in order to improve catching efficiency. In this case the catching device of 65 comprises the foam filter.); a support structure configured to support the foam layer (This can be as any of the pieces for the structure as seen in figure 3. For example this can be plate 70 which is directly attached to the catching device 65. This can also be the metal mesh 67.); an ioniser provided adjacent the foam layer (Ionization component 66 as seen in figure 3.), the ioniser configured to ionise particles thereby to apply a static charge to the foam layer, wherein the charged foam layer is configured, in use, to attract and trap contaminants from air (This is considered to be intended usage. Page 6 last three paragraphs teach that the air is charged when passing through ionizer 66 and the charged dust is absorbed on the capturing device 65.).
CN348 does not explicitly teach a graphite coating provided on at least one side of the foam layer. CN348 teaches a foam filter for an air purifier. CN189 teaches a filter screen for an air purifier that has a graphene coating arranged on the surface (Abstract teaches this. Applicant’s claim 8 and specification page 2 lines 23-25 teaches that graphite can include graphene.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the graphite coating of CN189 as CN189 teaches that graphene coating provides better air purification ([0019] teaches the dust filter absorbs air through the electrostatic adsorption force of the graphene coating, the charged dust and tiny particles can further improve air purification effect. Abstract also teaches that this provides a better deodorization and peculiar smell removal effect, which results is better purified fresh air.).
Claim 2: CN348 teaches the foam layer is of dielectric-type foam made of polyurethane (Page 3 last paragraph teaches the trap filter is made of foaming a polyurethane.).
Claim 3: The prior arts do not explicitly teach the foam layer is 20-30 mm thick. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal thickness such as 20-30mm as the proper thickness would depend on the size of the air purifier and also depend upon how much and what contaminants need to be removed from the air.
Claim 4: CN348 teaches the support structure includes a support layer provided parallel to the foam layer (Figure 3 shows 70 has a back portion that is parallel to the filter 65.).
Claim 5: CN348 teaches the support include a grid, mesh or web of support structures (Page 6 teaches that 67 are meshes. There are also an air inlet grille 58.). CN348 does not explicitly teach the support layer is of a rigid polymer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal material such as rigid polymer for any parts of the air purifier, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 6: The prior arts teach the graphite coating is provided between the foam layer and the support structure (CN189 teaches that the coating is applied to the surface of the filter. CN348 shows in figure 3 that there are pieces that can read upon the support structure on either side of the filter 68. Therefore this reads upon the limitation.).
Claim 7: CN348 teaches the support structure comprises a frame provided around sides of the foam layer (Cabin 50 or part 70 when the air purifier is put together.).
Claim 8: CN189 teaches the graphite coating comprises graphene (See rejection of claim 1.).
Claim 9: The prior arts do not explicitly state the use of the graphite powder, and it being 7-9 microns in diameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a preferred material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case both graphene and graphite powder appear to be able to be used or substituted. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the graphene of prior arts as the graphite coating because the simple substitution of one known element for another is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill when the substitution would be expected to produce predictable results. See MPEP 2143, I(B). In this case the substitution would likely produce predictable results because the graphene of the prior arts is/are an equivalent of the graphite powder as they are both meant to be used for making the graphite coating.
Claim 10: The prior arts do not explicitly state the graphite coating comprises 70% (by weight) graphite powder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal amount of graphite powder so that the graphite coating would be able to form and function efficiently.
Claim 13: The prior arts do not explicitly state the graphite coating comprises a bonding agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a bonding agent to have the coating be connected to the foam since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Claim 14: The prior arts do not explicitly teach the graphite coating comprises 20% (by weight) bonding agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal amount of bonding agent so that the graphite would be connected to the foam.
Claim 15: The prior arts do not explicitly state the graphite coating is 1-2 mm thick. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal thickness such as 1-2mm as the proper thickness would depend on the size of the air purifier and also depend upon how much and what contaminants need to be removed from the air.
Claim 16: CN348 teaches attachment formations for attaching the panel to a base structure (Since the air filter goes into an air purifier like in figure 3, this would read upon the limitation.).
Claim 17: The prior arts do not explicitly state the ioniser is an electronic ioniser configured to emit 1-106 ionised particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal amount of particles being emitted by the ionizer as this is what is able to charge the air and allow it to be purified by the filter.
Claim 18: The prior arts do not state that the ioniser is spaced 5 mm from the foam layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the ionizer at an optimal location such as 5 mm away from the foam layer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case an optimal distance should be allowed so that the ionizer can fully charge the air before it reaches the filter in order for the filter to be able to purify the air.
Claim 19: CN348 teaches electrodes sandwiched between the support structure and the graphite coating (The ionizer 68 is between the filter 68 and the air grille mesh 58.).
Claim 20: CN348 and CN189 teaches an air circulation system which comprises the panel as claimed in claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1. CN348 shows an air purifier in figure 3, which would read upon this limitation.).
Rejection in view of CN348, CN189, and Chung
Claims 11-12: The prior arts do not explicitly state the graphite coating comprises an acid, the acid is phosphoric acid and the graphite coating comprises 10% (by weight) phosphoric acid. The prior arts teach a use of graphite coating. Chung teaches in page 1 Abstract section that phosphoric acid impregnation is used for graphite in order to help improve oxidation resistance of carbon materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an acid, specifically phosphoric acid as Chung teaches the benefits of improving oxidation resistance of carbon materials. It would also have been obvious since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding the amount of phosphoric acid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal amount of it in the graphite as it would affect the efficiency of the graphite coating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20190275444, 20150258503, 20140263178, 20140166565, 20130272950, 8003058, 20080299419, 20060014083, 6491743, 5164091, 2897102.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (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 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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 03/05/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776