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 Arguments
In view of amendments to claims 12 and 17, the objection to the drawings is withdrawn. In view of amendments to claim 20, the objection to the specification is withdrawn. In view of amendments to claim 2, the objection of claim 2 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, received September 3, 2025, see pages 8 -11, with respect to claim(s) 1, 16, and 17, and prior art to Bergeron, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Prior art reference to Paumier was not addressed in Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 line 9, [[appliable]] applicable.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 12, 16-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKinney (US 7815720 B2).
For claim 1, McKinney discloses a ventilation device (col. 6, ll. 57-64; col. 7, ll. 5-24), comprising: a first air treatment device (Figs. 1, 3, 4); an ionizer including an electrode and a counter-electrode (col. 5, ll. 1-55); and a controller electrically conductively connected to the electrode and the counter-electrode (control system 425 in Fig. 4, along with power supply 420); wherein the counter-electrode of the ionizer is defined by a component of the first air treatment device (col. 5, ll. 1-55; see connections for power supply 420 in Fig. 4); and wherein a voltage is appliable to the electrode and/or the counter-electrode via the controller such that an electromagnetic field ionizing a throughflow of air is provided between the electrode and the first air treatment device (Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 1-55).
For claim 2, McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 1, wherein the first air treatment device is configured as a filter device, an evaporator, a heat exchanger, a PTC heating element, and/or a fan (Fig. 4).
For claim 3, McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 1, further comprising a second air treatment device (series of active electrostatic filters 128 includes porous positive and negative electrodes 162, 165), wherein the ionizer further includes a second counter-electrode that is connected to the second air treatment device in an electrically conductive manner (Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 1-55).
For claim 4, McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 3, wherein the second air treatment device is a filter device (Fig. 4).
For claim 9, McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 3, wherein the electrode of the ionizer is arranged: downstream of the first air treatment device and upstream of the second air treatment device; or upstream of the first air treatment device and downstream of the second air treatment device (Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 1-55).
For claim 12, McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 1, wherein the component of the first air treatment device is a housing part of the first air treatment device (Fig. 4).
For claim 16, McKinney discloses a ventilation device (col. 6, ll. 57-64; col. 7, ll. 5-24; Figs. 1, 3, 4), comprising: an ionizer including an electrode, a first counter-electrode, and a second counter-electrode (col. 5, ll. 1-55); a first air treatment device including a first component; a second air treatment device including a second component; a controller electrically conductively connected to the electrode, the first counter-electrode, and the second counter-electrode (control system 425 in Fig. 4, along with power supply 420); wherein the first component forms the first counter-electrode of the ionizer; wherein the second component forms the second counter-electrode of the ionizer; wherein a voltage is applicable to the electrode, the first counter-electrode, and/or the second counter-electrode via the controller such that a first electromagnetic field is provided between the electrode and the first air treatment device and a second electromagnetic field is provided between the electrode and the second air treatment device (Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 1-55).
For claim 17, McKinney discloses ventilation device according to claim 16, wherein: the first component is a first housing part of the first air treatment device; and the second component is a second housing part of the second air treatment device (Fig. 4).
For claim 19, McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 16, wherein the electrode of the ionizer is arranged downstream of the first air treatment device and upstream of the second air treatment device such that the first electromagnetic field and the second electromagnetic field are providable in two directions (Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 1-55).
For claim 20, McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 16, wherein the first electromagnetic field is providable in a first direction extending from the ionizer toward the first air treatment device and the second electromagnetic field is providable in a different second direction extending from the ionizer toward the second air treatment device (Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 1-55).
For claim 21, McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 16, further comprising a duct defining a flow passage, wherein the electrode of the ionizer, the first air treatment device, and the second air treatment device are each arranged at least partially in the duct (Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 1-55).
For claim 22, McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 1, further comprising a duct defining a flow passage, wherein the electrode of the ionizer and the first air treatment device are each arranged at least partially in the duct (Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 1-55).
For claim 23, McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 1, wherein the first air treatment device further includes a housing part via which the component of the first air treatment device defining the counter-electrode is electrically conductively connected to the controller (Fig. 4; col. 5, ll. 1-55).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paumier (20050058582 A1) In view of McKinney (US 7815720 B2).
For claim 1, Paumier discloses a ventilation device (Fig. 1; pars [0024]-[0034]), comprising: a first air treatment device (electrostatic filtration system 30); an ionizer including an electrode (ionizer 32; Fig. 1, 2; par [0027]) and a counter-electrode; and wherein the counter-electrode of the ionizer is defined by a component of the first air treatment device (collecting part 34, i.e., having an electric charge distinct from ionizer 32 or grounded; Figs. 1, 2; par [0027]). Paumier does not appear to disclose explicitly a controller electrically conductively connected to the electrode and the counter-electrode, wherein a voltage is appliable to the electrode and/or the counter-electrode via the controller such that an electromagnetic field ionizing a throughflow of air is provided between the electrode and the first air treatment device. McKinney does teach explicitly a controller electrically conductively connected to the electrode and the counter-electrode, wherein a voltage is appliable to the electrode and/or the counter-electrode via the controller such that an electromagnetic field ionizing a throughflow of air is provided between the electrode and the first air treatment device (control system 425, along with power supply 420; col. 5, ll. 1-55; see connections for power supply 420 in Fig. 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the teaching of McKinney with the apparatus of Paumier to control the voltage and optimize the electromagnetic field of the device with a reasonable expectation of success.
For claim 3, Paumier discloses the ventilation device according to claim 1, further comprising a second air treatment device (plasma catalysis system 40, including plasma generating part 42, evaporator 22, and catalysis part 46; Figs. 1, 3; pars [0028]- [0031]), wherein the ionizer further includes a second counter-electrode that is connected to the second air treatment device in an electrically conductive manner (catalysis part 46, having an electric charge distinct from plasma catalysis 40 or grounded; Figs. 1, 3; pars [0029], [0030]).
For claim 5, Paumier discloses the ventilation device according to claim 3, wherein the second air treatment device is an evaporator (evaporator 22; Fig. 1; par [0032]).
For claim 6, Paumier discloses the ventilation device according to claim 3, wherein the second air treatment device is a heat exchanger (evaporator 22; whereas, evaporators exchange heat; Fig. 1; par [0032]).
For claim 8, Paumier and McKinney are relied upon as indicated above and disclose the ventilation device according to claim 3. The prior art does not appear to disclose wherein the second air treatment device is a fan but does illustrate impeller 18 at various locations associated with said first and second air treatment devices (electrostatic filtration system 30, plasma catalysis system 40) in the ventilation devices in Figs. 6 and 7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to relocate impeller 18, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and relocating ELEM A would not have changed the function of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(C). Furthermore, Paumier discloses this principle in Figs. 6 and 7.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinney in view of Schmitz (US 20230140445 A1).
For claim 10, McKinney is relied upon as indicated above and discloses the ventilation device according to claim 1. McKinney does not appear to disclose an air conditioning system comprising the ventilation device. Schmitz teaches an apparatus optimized with regard to efficiency, construction size, power consumption, and ozone emissions which can be used as mobile stand-alone devices or as a component of air-conditioning and ventilation systems, for example of decentralized or central room ventilation systems, smoke gas purifications, or automotive HVAC systems for vehicle interiors. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to incorporate the ventilation device of McKinney in an air-conditioning system of a motor vehicle taught in Schmitz to benefit from optimization with regard to efficiency, construction size, power consumption, and ozone emissions.
Claims 7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKinney in view of Chang (KR 101993644 B1).
For claim 7, McKinney is relied upon as indicated above and does not appear to disclose the second air treatment device is a PTC [Positive Temperature Coefficient, i.e., a type of self-regulating heating] heating element. Chang does disclose a PTC heating element (a ceramic foam 61; Fig. 9) for removing ozone. “The catalytic portion 60 is preferably formed by providing a heater 62 around the ceramic foam 61 and heating the catalyst to a temperature of about 35 to 60 °C.” It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the catalytic portion 60 comprising a heater 62 around the ceramic foam 61 of Chang as the second air treatment device to remove ozone with a reasonable expectation of success.
For claim 14, McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 1 but does not appear to disclose first air treatment device is an electrically conductive activated charcoal filter. Chang does teach an electrically conductive filter made of carbon fiber. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the electrically conductive carbon fiber of Chang in place of the counter electrode included with the first treatment device as taught in McKinney as equivalent materials for use in the filtration art and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to collect charged particles in the ventilation device. See MPEP § 2144.06.
For claim 15, the prior art to McKinney discloses the ventilation device according to claim 4 but does not appear to disclose the filter device is an electrically conductive activated charcoal filer. Chang does teach an electrically conductive filter made of carbon fiber. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the electrically conductive carbon fiber filter of Chang for the filter device of McKinney since equivalent materials for used in the filtration art and the selection of known equivalents would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to collect charged particles in the ventilation device. See MPEP § 2144.06.
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 SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 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, 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 November 18, 2025
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776