DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 08 October 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08 October 2025.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 20 August 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE102020121872.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of the application DE102020121987.3 filed in Germany on 21 August 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 30 January 2023 and 06 February 2023 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: β. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
7. Regarding claim 1, the term “high electrical voltage” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes that the specification (par 0014) provides two ranges of “preferably DC voltage” - 3 kV to 10 kV and 5 kV to 10 kV - and recommends reciting one of these ranges explicitly to resolve this issue.
Further, because “a power supply module” is not positively recited, it is unclear whether “a power supply module” is a limitation required by the claim. See MPEP 2111.04(I). The claim is interpreted herein such that the first and second electric fields must be generatable when connected to a power supply, such as a generic adjustable voltage power supply using wires removably connected to the electrodes, but that said power supply module is not a required structure by the claims.
8. Claims 2-13 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on and failure to cure the deficiencies of indefinite claim 1.
9. Regarding claim 5, the term “essentially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Because it is unascertainable how much deviation from the plane is acceptable in the limitation “essentially in a plate plane”, the claim scope is indefinite.
10. Regarding claim 12, because “a closed-loop control” is not positively recited, it is unclear whether “a closed-loop control” is a limitation required by the claim. See MPEP 2111.04(I). The claim is interpreted herein such that the electrical voltage level must be dynamically controllable, interpreted broadly to be able to be changed at a moment in time, but that a closed-loop controller is not a required structure by the claims.
11. Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the at least one shielding module is provided that is flowable by the air”, emphasis added. In light of the Specification, which does not include the term “flowable”, the shielding module is interpreted herein as a static element thus would not appear to be “flowable”. For the purpose of examination against the prior art, the claim is interpreted such that air flows past the shielding module as supported by the Specification pars 0037 and 0099-0100.
Further, the limitation wherein individual honeycombs are “open at both ends” is indefinite, as no two definite ends of a honeycomb have been positively recited or otherwise established.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
12. Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al (JP H08281145 A, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
13. Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses an air purification unit (air purifier, pars 0001 and 0005-0006), comprising:
at least one electric filter module configured to be flowed through by air to be purified (FIGS. 1-2, ionization section 2 having electrodes 22 for ionizing particles in the air passing through, pars 0030-0031) and including at least one first electrode (FIG. 2, ionization electrodes 22, pars 0030-0031) and at least one second electrode (FIG. 2, parallel plate electrodes 31, pars 0030-0031), wherein the air to be purified flows between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode (air passing through…ionization elements 2 and dust collection elements 1/3, pars 0028-0030), wherein a first electric field is generatable between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode by applying a high electric voltage provided by a power supply module (high voltage applied i.e. supplied to plurality of ionization electrodes 22 causes ionized particles to adhere to parallel plate electrodes 31, par 0031), and
wherein the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode form an ionizer (ionization section 2 and parallel plate electrodes 31 are integrated, pars 0030-0031 and 0045, FIGS. 1-2);
a mechanical filter module including at least one mechanical filter element (dust collection section 3 comprises a filter 5, pars 0008-0009 and 0033-0034) arranged downstream of the electric filter module in a direction of a flow of the air to be purified (FIG. 1, filter 5 having a dust collecting surface arranged on the downwind side of the dust collecting element 1, par 0033);
at least one third electrode provided in the mechanical filter element or in the mechanical filter module downstream of the mechanical filter element (the dust collecting section 3 is made up of parallel plate electrodes 31 and filter 5, which act as counter electrodes for the ionizing section 2, pars 0042 and 0044), wherein a second electric field is generatable between the at least one second electrode and the at least one third electrode by applying an electric voltage (high voltage applied to plurality of ionization electrodes 22 i.e. second electrodes causes ionized particles to adhere to parallel plate electrodes 31, par 0031).
14. Regarding claim 2, Kato discloses the air purification unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode are configured as plate electrodes (FIG. 2, ionization electrodes 22 and parallel plate electrodes 31, pars 0031-0033).
15. Regarding claim 8, Kato discloses the air purification unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least one third electrode is connected to an electrical ground (grounding the opposing parallel plate electrode 31). The limitation wherein an electrically positive voltage measured to electrical ground is present both at the at least one first electrode and at the at least one second electrode, and wherein the positive voltage at the at least one first electrode is higher than the positive voltage at the at least one second electrode describes an intended use of the device, which imparts no patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II).
16. Regarding claim 9, Kato discloses the air purification unit according to claim 1. The limitations wherein a controllable DC voltage is applied between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode during operation, and wherein a constant DC voltage is present between the at least one second electrode and the at least one third electrode during operation describe an intended use of the device, which imparts no patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. 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.
18. Claim(s) 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bergeron et al (US 20080170971 A1).
19. Regarding claim 3, Kato teaches the air purification unit according to claim 2, but Kato does not teach wherein surfaces of the at least one first electrode or of the at least one second electrode are provided at least partially with a catalytic surface layer including titanium oxide.
Bergeron teaches an analogous air purification reactor using an ionizer and electrostatic filter (Abstract, pars 0098-0113, FIGS. 11-12) wherein the downstream-most electrode of the electrostatic filter unit is coated with a photocatalyst such as titanium dioxide (par 0106). Bergeron further teaches that such a photocatalyst significantly increases the efficiency of oxidative destruction of microorganisms, VOCs, and the like (par 0105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to at least partially coat surfaces of the at least one first electrode and/or the at least one second electrode of Kato with a catalytic surface layer including titanium oxide as taught by Bergeron. Doing so would predictably provide the same improvements in breaking down microorganisms and VOCs in the air flow (Bergeron pars 0106-0108 and 0110-0112) by making use of the UV light of Kato to further enhance the sterilization effect (Kato par 0027).
20. Regarding claim 4, Kato as modified by Bergeron teaches the air purification unit according to claim 3. Examiner notes that the electrodes taught by Kato interchangeably read upon the first and second electrodes of claim 1, namely, the parallel plate electrodes 31 read upon the at least one first electrode and the ionization electrodes 22 read upon the at least one second electrode. Thus, the combination teaches wherein the at least one first electrode configured as a plate electrode is shorter in the direction of the flow of the air to be purified than the at least one second electrode configured as a plate electrode (Kato FIG. 2, protrusions of ionization electrodes 22 make these electrodes longer than plate electrodes 31 in airflow direction) wherein the at least one second electrode protrudes beyond the at least one first electrode in the downstream direction or in an upstream direction (Kato FIG. 2, protrusions of ionization electrodes 22 protrude beyond plate electrodes 31 in upstream direction).
21. Regarding claim 5, Kato as modified by Bergeron teaches the air purification unit according to claim 3, wherein the at least one first electrode includes a plate portion (Kato FIG. 2, ionization electrode 22) which includes at least one electrically conductive needle extension (Kato FIG. 2, electrodes 22 having numerous protrusions 21, Kato par 0031) arranged essentially in a plate plane of a plate section (Kato FIG. 2) and that extends in the downstream direction or in the upstream direction beyond a plate edge of the plate section of the at least one first electrode (Kato FIGS. 1-2, protrusions 21 appear extending in upstream direction beyond plate edge of electrodes 22).
22. Regarding claim 6, Kato as modified by Bergeron teaches the air purification unit according to claim 5, wherein the at least one needle extension tapers towards a needle tip at an angle that is unspecified but is approximately orthogonal (Kato FIGS. 1-2, numerous protrusions 21 depicted as teeth having tips with approximately a right angle, i.e., tapered in two planes orthogonal to one another). Given that the protrusions of Kato appear to taper in two planes that are nearly orthogonal, an orthogonal protrusion would presumably be simplest to fabricate among the finite range of possible angles, and such an orthogonal protrusion be expected to provide the same result of concentrating the electric field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the extensions to taper towards the needle tip in two planes orthogonal to one another as this would predictably provide the same ionization effect under high voltage as taught by Kato (par 0031).
23. Regarding claim 7, Kato as modified by Bergeron teaches the air purification unit according to claim 5, wherein no surfaces of the at least one needle extension are provided with the catalytic surface layer (Kato par 0031, electrodes 22 having numerous protrusions 21 with no mention of insulator or catalyst thereon).
24. Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (WO 2018148940 A1, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 10, Kato teaches the air purification unit according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein at least one sensor configured to monitor an ozone content of the air to be purified is provided downstream of an arrangement including the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode in the flow direction of the air to be purified.
Wang teaches an analogous electrostatic air purifying system (pars 0001 and 0012-0021) that includes an ozone sensor and filtration module positioned downstream at the air outlet side (pars 0029-0036), the ozone sensor being operable with an electronic control module to issue a warning signal when ozone concentration exceeds a standard (par 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include downstream of the first and second electrodes of the air purification unit of Kato at least one sensor configured to monitor an ozone content of the purified air as taught by Wang. Doing so would predictably provide the same capability of informing a controller/user so that ozone does not exceed a safe threshold (Wang par 0113).
25. Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitagaito et al (US 20110133098 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kato teaches the air purification unit according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein at least one sensor configured to monitor an amount of anions is provided downstream of an arrangement including the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode in the flow direction of the air to be purified.
Kitagaito teaches an analogous electrostatic discharge ion generator (pars 0003-0005, 0065-0067, and 0086-0087) used for air purification (par 0002) wherein a negative ion detection sensor is disposed downstream from the ion generation electrodes (pars 0096-0097), providing the ability to detect whether the ion generator is operating normally (par 0097).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include downstream of the first and second electrodes of the air purification unit of Kato at least one sensor configured to monitor an amount of anions of the purified air as taught by Kitagaito. Doing so would predictably provide the same detection of ions to determine whether the electrodes are ionizing air properly as taught by Kitagaito (par 0097).
26. Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al (US 20110133098 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kato teaches the air purification unit according to claim 1, wherein a level of the electrical voltage is applied between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode (high voltage applied i.e. supplied to plurality of ionization electrodes 22 causes ionized particles to adhere to parallel plate electrodes 31, par 0031). Kato does not teach that this voltage level is determined dynamically by a closed-loop control.
Zhou teaches an analogous electronic air sterilizing and purifying device (Abstract, col 8 lines 25-55) wherein the power supply is controlled by a digital control circuit 204 based on output from an air quality sensor and a current sensor, which enables practical automatic control of the voltage output and fan component (col 7 lines 18-25 and col 16 lines 30-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the level of electrical voltage applied between the first and second electrodes of Kato dynamically by a closed-loop control as taught by Zhou. Doing so would predictably provide the same automatic control to ensure that the air purifier adequately purifies the air under varying levels of indoor air pollution (Zhou col 16 lines 30-50).
27. Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ota et al (US 20140205495 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kato teaches the air purification unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electric filter module is enveloped by a shielding device (FIG. 1, main casing 10 envelops dust collecting elements 1-6 and has a grill 13 having intake and exhaust ports, par 0028) and forms an electric filter unit together with the shielding device (cassette type air purifier, par 0028), wherein at least one shielding module is provided that is flowable by the air to be purified and arranged upstream or downstream of the at least one electric filter module in the direction of flow of the air to be purified (filter 5 has ozone decomposition layer 6 downwind of ionization electrodes, par 0034, FIG. 1) and which includes a plurality of air passage elements which each define an air passage channel surrounded by a channel wall (FIG. 1, decomposition layer 6 depicted as plurality of channels on downwind side of dust collecting section 3, par 0022). Kato does not explicitly teach that the shielding module includes at least one honeycomb panel, wherein individual honeycombs of the honeycomb panel are open at both ends thereof and each form one of the air passage channels, and wherein a respective channel wall of the air passage channels is electrically conductive or has an electrically conductive surface.
Ota teaches an analogous high-voltage electrostatic unit for purifying air (FIGS. 16-17) wherein a honeycomb made of metal (par 0102) having many holes and partitions for airflow therethrough (par 0112), such that the metal walls are electrically conductive, this honeycomb panel is disposed downstream of the ionizing electrodes to decompose remaining odor components from the treated air in a shorter time (FIGS. 16-17, honeycombs 15, pars 0105-0106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the shielding module of Kato at least one honeycomb panel with open ends to form air passage channels with a respective electrically conductive channel wall as taught by Ota. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantage of decomposing microbes, viruses, and odor components in a shorter time with low pressure loss as taught by Ota (par 0111-0112).
Conclusion
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Finger (US 4026684 A) teaches a two stage electrostatic filter unit with a primary electrostatic field of 8000V high voltage between primary electrodes and a secondary electrostatic field of 4000V between to grounded collector plates (col 2 line 44 to col 3 line 53).
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758