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In light of amendments to claims 7 and 14, the objection to claims 7 and 14 is withdrawn. In light of amendments to claims 4 and 5, the rejection under 35 USC § 112 is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the space" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an electrostatic filter" in line 7. Claim 1 recites the limitations "a plurality of electrostatic filters" in line 11 and "each of the plurality of electrostatic filters" in line 12. This claim language is ambiguous and does not recite a nexus for the relationship of the plurality of electrostatic filters in line 11 with the singular electrostatic filter recited in line 7. The above limitations and raises the questions--is the limitation "an electrostatic filter" in line 7 distinct from or the same as the limitation "a plurality of electrostatic filters" in line 11. Also address language for these limitations recited in claims 7, 8, 10, 14, and 19.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "a first side wall" and "a second side wall" in line 7 are the limitations recited in line 7 distinct from or the same as the limitations "a first side wall" and "a second side wall" in lines 12-13.
Claim 1 lines 14-16 19-20, respectively, the phrases "connected to the first filter handle and a second electrostatic filter connected to the second filter handle" and "connected to the second filter handle" are recited without reciting a coupling structure/mechanism, any engaging surfaces/features, spatial direction, etc. Similarly, see claim 14 also recites "connected to …" phrases.
Claim 4 lines 2-3 recites the phrase "are provided in respective opposite positions" that is vague and imprecise and raises the questions—Which surface/face? Location?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a first protrusion provided at a first wall facing the first side wall of electrostatic filter" in lines 2-3 [emphasis added]. See discussion with claim 1 above.
Claim 6 line 3 recites the limitation "a first wall" that raises the question—Is the limitation "a second first wall" required? Does this limitation have a relationship with or correspond with the phrase "the first wall of the first filter handle" recited in line 5 [emphasis added]?
Claim 7 in lines 2-3 the phrase "to fix the electrostatic filter or the filter handle" recites a result without defining structure to achieve the function "to fix". The metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "a first fixing recess corresponding to the second button protrusion and formed on a side of the first coupling recess" and "a second fixing recess corresponding to the first button protrusion and formed on a side of the second coupling recess". The language for the limitation does not reconcile with the language in the originally file specification (see par [0164]).
Claim 10 recites the phrase "defining an outer appearance" in line 3 that is an intended result and does not further structurally limit the instant claim.
Claim 10 recites "the second voltage being relatively smaller than the first voltage applied to the plurality of first electrostatic films [emphasis added]" in lines 9-10 and fails to indicate value or magnitude to define the relationship of the comparative limitations recited in the claim; which raises the question—how much smaller?
Claim 10 "to be in contact with the plurality of first electrostatic films" and "to be provided on a side of the first coupling protrusion or the second coupling protrusion" recites in lines 11-12 and 13-14, respectively, a purpose (function or intended use) without defining structural limitations that accomplish said purpose.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "to be provided on a side of the first coupling recess or the second coupling recess" and "to be provided on a side of the first coupling protrusion or the second coupling protrusion" that indicate a further purpose without further defining structural limitations that accomplish said purpose.
Claim 13 recites "wherein the second contact end portion protrudes further than a first section of the first side wall defining the first coupling protrusion or a first section of the second side wall defining the second coupling protrusion, and wherein the first contact end portion does not protrude further than a second section of the first side wall defining the first coupling recess or a second section of the second side wall defining the second coupling recess [emphasis added]." The limitations "a first section" and "a second section" make the recitation ambiguous, and raises the question—what elements of the structures are considered "a section"? The metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. See specification (par [0168])—"[t]he first contact end portion may be disposed to protrude further than a side wall defining the first coupling protrusion or the second coupling protrusion, and the second contact end portion may be disposed so as not to protrude further than a side wall defining the first coupling recess or the second coupling recess"
Claim 14 recites "the second connector is connected to the second contact end portion of the first contact bracket of the second contact bracket" in lines 13-15 that is unclear and raises the question—Is the limitation "the second connector" alternatively connected to either one of "the second contact end portion of the first contact bracket" and "the second contact bracket"?
Claim 16 line 3 recites the phrase "in an opposite orientation" that fails to define a reference in order to determine when the particular orientation is meet making the boundary vague and imprecise.
Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitation "the corresponding protrusion" in line 2 and line 9, respectively. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the corresponding recess" in line 10 (antecedent basis). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 19 recites "so as to be in contact with the contact bracket of the electrostatic filter" in line 3 that refers to purpose (intended use) without defining structural limitations that accomplish said purpose.
Claim 20 line 8 recites phrase "to be selectively electrically coupled" that is an intended outcome but does not positively recite the structural/electrical condition that defines the functional outcome. Additionally, the limitation "the second plate" in line 8 is recited and lacks antecedent basis.
Since claims 2-20 depend from independent claim 1, claims 1-20 are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 6387164 B1). See citations for claims below in paratheses.
Claim 1. An air conditioner comprising: a housing (col. 4, l. 5, 26) and an electrostatic dust collector (electrostatic air cleaner assembly 1) provided in the space of the housing and configured to filter air, wherein the electrostatic dust collector comprises: an electrostatic filter (electrostatic filter cell 20) including a first side wall and a second side wall provided opposite to the first side wall (col. 3, l. 50 - col. 4, l. 21; housing 10); a first filter handle (side wall 11 or 12 in Figs. 1, 5); and a second filter handle (side wall 11 or 12 in Figs. 1, 5); and a plurality of electrostatic filters (electrostatic filter cell 20 in Figs. 1, 5) disposed between the first filter handle and the second filter handle (Figs. 1, 5), each of the plurality of electrostatic filters comprising first side wall and a second side wall opposite to the first side wall (col. 3, ll. 59-65; Figs. 1, 5), wherein the plurality of electrostatic filters include a first electrostatic filter connected to the first filter handle and a second electrostatic filter connected to the second filter handle (Figs. 1, 5-6), wherein a second side wall of the second electrostatic filter is connected to the second filter handle (col. 4, ll. 9-21; Figs. 1, 5-6), and wherein a second side wall of the first electrostatic filter has a structure corresponding to a first side wall of the second electrostatic filter (Figs. 1, 5). Cheng does not appear to disclose explicitly a fan provided in the housing and configured to generate an air flow. However, Cheng does disclose that electronic air cleaners are used in air-conditioning (AC) systems that draws in air; whereas, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it inherent for AC systems to have a fan to generate air flow. 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 fan in the AC to move air through the apparatus.
Claim 2. The air conditioner of The air conditioner of wherein the first side wall includes a first coupling protrusion and a first coupling recess (Figs. 6, 8), and wherein the second side wall includes a second coupling protrusion and a second coupling recess (Figs. 6, 8; col. 4, l. 53-col. 5, l. 15).
Claim 3. The air conditioner of claim 2, wherein the first coupling protrusion and the first coupling recess are spaced apart from each other in a front-and-rear direction on the first side wall, and wherein the second coupling protrusion and the second coupling recess are spaced apart from each other in the front-and-rear direction on the second side wall (Figs. 6, 8; col. 4, l. 53-col. 5, l. 11).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 6387164 B1) taken with Okura (US 20210360806 A1).
Regarding claims 7-9, the recitations of the claims disclose structures associated with a button that fixes, or attaches, the electrostatic filter or the filter handle. The instant invention of Cheng discloses said electrostatic filter and said filter handle with connection structures thereof to attach and release the same (see Figs. 5, 8). Cheng does not disclose the recited connection structures explicitly as in claim 7-9. Button mechanisms are long-known to join, or fix, and release structures. Okura teaches a button mechanism that attach or fix structures (pars [0072], [0087]).It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention as a matter of design choice to apply the teaching of Okura to the device of Cheng in order to attach and release by pressing a button with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardiff (US 3626668 A) in view of Cheng (US 6387164 B1). See citations for claims below in paratheses.
Claim 1. Cardiff discloses an air conditioner (col. 4, ll. 6-56) comprising: a housing (housing means 20; Figs. 1-3) and an electrostatic dust collector (electrostatic precipitator means 22, Figs. 1-4) provided in the space of the housing and configured to filter air, wherein the electrostatic dust collector comprises: an electrostatic filter (particle collector means 54; Fig. 8; col. 5, l. 1-28) including a first side wall and a second side wall provided opposite to the first side wall (Fig. 8); a first filter handle (Fig. 8); and a second filter handle (Fig. 8); and a plurality of electrostatic filters (Fig. 3) disposed between the first filter handle and the second filter handle (Fig. 3), each of the plurality of electrostatic filters comprising first side wall and a second side wall opposite to the first side wall (col. 5, l. 1-28; Figs. 3, 8), wherein the plurality of electrostatic filters include a first electrostatic filter connected to the first filter handle and a second electrostatic filter connected to the second filter handle (col. 5, l. 1-28; Figs. 3, 8), wherein a second side wall of the second electrostatic filter is connected to the second filter handle (col. 5, l. 1-28; Figs. 3, 8), and wherein a second side wall of the first electrostatic filter has a structure corresponding to a first side wall of the second electrostatic filter (Figs. 3, 8). Cheng does not appear to disclose explicitly a fan provided in the housing and configured to generate an air flow. However, Cheng does disclose that electronic air cleaners are used in air-conditioning (AC) systems that draws in air; whereas, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it inherent for AC systems to have a fan to generate air flow. 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 fan in the AC to move air through the apparatus of Cardiff as taught by Cheng.
Claim 10. The teaching of Cardiff and Cheng disclose the air conditioner of claim 1, wherein the electrostatic filter comprises: a case defining an outer appearance and having an opening through which air flows (Figs. 1-3); a plurality of first electrostatic films provided in the case (col. 5, l. 1-28; Figs. 3-4, 8), provided to be spaced apart from one another, and to which a first voltage is applied (col. 5, ll. 20-28, 48-70); a plurality of second electrostatic films provided in the case, provided respectively between the plurality of first electrostatic films, and to which a second voltage is applied (col. 5, l. 1-28, 48-70; col. 4, 1-6; Figs. 3-4, 8), the second voltage being relatively smaller than the first voltage applied to the plurality of first electrostatic films; a first contact bracket provided to be in contact with the plurality of first electrostatic films (col. 5, l. 1-28, 48-70; col. 4, 1-6; Figs. 1-5, 8); and a second contact bracket provided to be in contact with the plurality of second electrostatic films, and wherein each of the first contact bracket and the second contact bracket has ends exposed to an outside of the case (col. 5, l. 1-28, 48-70; col. 4, 1-6; Figs. 1-5, 8). The phrase “the second voltage being relatively smaller than the first voltage applied to the plurality of first electrostatic films” is considered an intended result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
For claim 11, Cardiff and Cheng disclose each of the structural limitations as set forth above but does not appear to disclose the second contact end portion exposed to another side of the case to be provided on a side of the first coupling protrusion or the second coupling protrusion. However, the location of these features is considered rearrangement of parts. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to rearrangement parts as a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the disposition of these features were significant in a patentable way. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
For claim 12, Cardiff and Cheng disclose the first contact end portion and the second contact end portion as set forth above but does not appear to disclose differing protruding lengths for either contact end portions, i.e., changes in shape. Absent persuasive evidence changes in shape is considered a matter of choice and is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art change in shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention that the specific shapes claimed would not change the function of the apparatus from the prior art to Cardiff and Cheng. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
For claim 13, Cardiff and Cheng disclose the structural features and as set forth above and includes wherein the second contact end portion protrudes further than a first section of the first side wall defining the first coupling protrusion or a first section of the second side wall defining the second coupling protrusion, and wherein the first contact end portion does not protrude further than a second section of the first side wall defining the first coupling recess or a second section of the second side wall defining the second coupling recess. Absent persuasive evidence changes in shape is considered a matter of choice and is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art change in shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention that the specific shapes claimed would not change the function of the apparatus from the prior art to Cardiff and Cheng. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
For claim 14, Cardiff discloses the handles as set forth above but is silent for
an inner cover having a corresponding wall that faces the electrostatic filter; an outer cover provided on one side of the inner cover, provided in an opposite direction to the corresponding wall of the inner cover, and having an outer wall mounted to the housing; a first connector protruding from the corresponding wall of the inner cover; and a second connector spaced apart from the first connector and protruding from the corresponding wall of the inner cover, and wherein when at least one of the first filter handle or the second filter handle is connected to the electrostatic filter, the first connector is connected to the first contact end portion of the first contact bracket or the second contact bracket and the second connector is connected to the second contact end portion of the first contact bracket of the second contact bracket. However, covers and connectors are known structural elements. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include a cover as a matter of design choice to protect the structural elements. Additionally, the additional elements are considered duplication of working parts, or connecting elements. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In the instant case this is obviously beneficial because duplication of connecting part would make the apparatus connections secure. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI‐B).
Regarding claim 17, as set forth above with claims 11 and 14, Cardiff discloses the outer wall of each of the first filter handle and the second handle includes a fixing protrusion to fix the first filter handle and the second filter handle to the housing (see Figs. 3, 8).
For claim 18, as set forth above, Cardiff discloses wherein the first connector protrudes further than a wall surface defining the corresponding protrusion but does not explicitly state the second connector does no protrude further than a wall surface defining the corresponding recess. Absent persuasive evidence changes in shape is considered a matter of choice and is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art change in shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention that the specific shape claimed, i.e., second connector, would not change the function of the apparatus. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
For claim 19, as set forth above Cardiff discloses the first connector, the inner cover, the outer cover, and the contact bracket of the electrostatic filter, but is silent for first and second connecting plates and first and second connector holes. However, plates along with connector holes are known components available to be used for attaching structural elements. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include first and second connecting plates and first and second connector holes to attach said inner and outer covers. The phrase “wherein the first connecting plate protrudes further than a wall surface defining the corresponding protrusion, and the second connecting plate does not protrude further than a wall surface defining the corresponding recess” is considered the location of parts. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to rearrangement parts as a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the disposition of these features were significant in a patentable way. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 20, as set forth above Cardiff discloses wherein the first connector comprises a first contact plate and wherein the second connector comprises a second contact plate (col. 6, ll. 25-41) , and wherein the first filter handle and the second filter handle each comprises a switch (col. 6, ll. 25-41). Cardiff is silent for a first contact plate extending from the first exposure plate in a direction in which the second connector is positioned, wherein the second connector comprises a second contact plate extending from the second exposure plate in a direction in which the first connector is positioned, and said switches provided between the first connector and the second connector and causes the first contact plate and the second plate to be selectively electrically coupled, which is considered location of parts. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to rearrangement parts as a matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the disposition of these features were significant in a patentable way. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardiff (US 3626668 A) taken with Okura (US 20210360806 A1).
Regarding claims 7-9, the recitations of the claims disclose structures associated with a button that fixes, or attaches, the electrostatic filter or the filter handle. The instant invention of Cardiff discloses said electrostatic filter and said filter handle with connection structures thereof to attach and release the same (see Figs. 1- 3, 8). Cardiff does not disclose the recited connection structures explicitly as in claim 7-9. Button mechanisms are long-known to join, or fix, and release structures. Okura teaches a button mechanism that attach or fix structures (pars [0072], [0087]).It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention as a matter of design choice to apply the teaching of Okura to the device of Cardiff in order to attach and release by pressing a button with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 February 23, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776