DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on September 9th, 2025. Claims 2-13 are pending, with claim 13 being new.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6-9 are objected to because they depend from a cancelled claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed applicant intends these claims to depend from claims 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 10, 2-6, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0205501 (Ellis) in view of US 12,057,681 (Haldeman et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Ellis et al. discloses an air-conditioning terminal product comprising:
a fan coil having a first centrifugal fan (element 104);
a device mounted to the first centrifugal fan (‘The mini-turbine 112 is mounted to the air-handling unit 102 by the mount 114.’ P 48), the gas purification device including:
a housing (element 202);
an ion generator (element 118);
blades, arranged on an outer side of the housing, and configured to receive wind power from the centrifugal fan for rotation of the blades (element 204, also element 700); and
an electric generator, arranged in the housing and connected to the blades through a rotor shaft, wherein, when rotating, the blades drive the electric generator to operate to convert wind energy into electric energy, thereby enabling the electric generator to supply power to the ion generator (‘The axle assembly 702 can include components for transferring the rotational energy of the plurality of blades 700 into electric energy.’ P 51).
Ellis does not disclose an ion generator secured to the housing. The ion generator of Ellis is designed for preventing microbial growth in the condensate pan, and therefore placing the ion generator in the pan. Haldemann et al. discloses a gas purification device that uses the same principles as the turbine of Ellis with an ion generator secured to the housing to disperse ions into the air flow (‘Approaching airflow 160 activates the fan blades 20 as aforementioned described. The ionization effect of the ionizer 140 (as shown in FIG. 3) produces an existing ionized airflow 165 that then helps filter and clean all air downstream of the ductwork 150.’). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the air-conditioning terminal product of Ellis to include an ion generator secured to the housing as in Haldemann et al. in order to further purify the air, as disclosed in Haldemann et al. (‘The ionizer 140 produces the exiting ionized airflow 165 which allows for immobilization of harmful pathogens such as mold spores, viruses, and bacteria.’).
Regarding claim 2, Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. disclose the air-conditioning terminal product according to claim 10, wherein the gas purification device further comprises an adjustable fixed bracket for securing the housing of the gas purification device in a ventilation circuit of the air-conditioning terminal product (element 114, wherein ‘In some embodiments, the angle of the turbine relative to the support arm is adjustable.’ P 10).
Regarding claim 3, Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. disclose the air-conditioning terminal product according to claim 2, wherein the fixed bracket comprises:
a first support element, fixedly connected to the housing of the gas purification device (element 200); and
a second support element (element 208),
wherein, the first support element and the second support element are bolted to the air-conditioning terminal product (‘The mount arm 208 may be coupled to the base 206 by a base coupling member 216.’ P 49).
Ellis does not disclose the second support element being moveable along a length direction of the first support element. Haldemann discloses a support arm with this feature (‘Each mounting arm 50 is comprised of a base section 55, a movable section 60, and a sliding section 70.’). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make the mount arm of Ellis moveable in the of Haldemann so that the position of the turbine could be adjusted in the linear direction. The rigid arm of Ellis allows for adjustment of angle but no linear position.
Regarding claim 4, Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. disclose the claimed invention except Ellis does not provide three fixed brackets arranged on the housing at equal intervals of 120 degrees, centered on an axis of the rotor shaft. Haldemann et al. discloses such an arrangement (fig. 1-4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the air-conditioning terminal product of Ellis to ensure the turbine is always on axis.
Regarding claim 5, Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. disclose the claimed invention except it is not specified whether the first support element of the fixed bracket and the housing are made of plastic and integrally formed. Fixed brackets and housings made of integrally formed plastic are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the housing of plastic because it is non-conductive and non-corrosive, properties Ellis discloses as desirable (‘a housing composed of a non-conductive material that isolates the apparatus 110 from the air-handling unit 102, which eliminates any potential issue of corrosion to the air-handling unit 102’ P 46).
Regarding claim 6, Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. disclose the claimed invention except for an indicator lamp for displaying an operating state. Such indicator lamps are common in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include such a lamp so that a user could easily determine whether the product was working.
Regarding claim 11, Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a second centrifugal fan arranged coaxially and driven by the same motor, and ventilation circuits of the first centrifugal fan and the second centrifugal fan are respectively provided with the gas purification device. Fan coils comprising multiple fans are well known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a second centrifugal fan to increase the air moving and cleaning power for larger HVAC systems.
Regarding claim 12, Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. disclose an air-conditioning unit, wherein the air-conditioning unit is configured with the air-conditioning terminal product according to claim 10 (as above).
Regarding claim 13, Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. disclose the air-conditioning terminal product according to claim 10, wherein the rotor shaft is aligned with a rotational axis of the first centrifugal fan (multiple figures show it lies approximately on the axis, angle is adjustable is allow alignment or slight angle as desired).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Haldeman et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2011/0155922 (Funabiki et al.).
Regarding claim 7, Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. disclose the claimed invention except for paired positive and negative ion generators. Funabiki et al. discloses an ion generator for air conditioning including paired positive and negative ion generators (fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the paired ion generators of Funabiki for the plasma ion generator Haldeman et al. because the paired ion generators do not require a chamber and can be more easily installed in limited space.
Regarding claim 8, Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. disclose the claimed invention except for an emitter of the ion generator being a carbon brush or a steel needle. Funabiki et al. discloses an ion generator for air conditioning including a discharged needle (element 61a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the needle based on ion generator of Funabiki et al. for the plasma ion generator in Haldeman et al. because the discharged needle-based ion generators do not require a chamber and can be more easily installed in limited space. Funabiki et al. does not specify if the needle is made of steel, but steel is a commonly used material for discharged needles, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use steel because steel can withstand the high voltages required of discharge needles.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Haldeman et al. and Funabiki et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2010/188793 (Uchina et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. and Funabiki et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a cleaning element for wiping the emitter of the ion generator, the cleaning element being powered by the electric generator.
Uchinda et al. discloses an ion generator with a cleaning element for wiping the emitter of the ion generator (‘a cleaning system for cleaning the electrode needles, wherein the cleaning system comprises a first brush configured to come into contact with one electrode needle’ P 8), and the cleaning element is powered by the electricity (‘The rotating member (61) is driven by an electromagnetic solenoid (64) via a coupling means (66).’ abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the gas purification device of Ellis in view of Haldemann et al. and Funabiki et al. to include the cleaning element of Uchinda et al. to remove dust that reduces efficiency of the ionizer, as disclosed in Uchinda et al. (‘The discharging performance of the electrode needle may be deteriorated, after use, when dust in the air is adsorbed on the tip of the needle. Therefore, it is necessary to clean the electrode needle periodically.’ P 2). It would further have been obvious to power it using the electric generator so the device could be cleaned even when no other power source is available.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881