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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/26/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-20 remain pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/28/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that nano-sized capsules of water enveloping amounts of negative hydroxyl ions may affect the ability of Morowsky to reduce odors or ozone. Because of this one would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Chen with Morowsky.
Examiner asserts that the reduction of ability to reduce odors or ozone is not identified in either document. Applicant does not indicate that such a modification would reduce this ability only that it may reduce this ability and has provided no evidence asserting this claim. It is also noted that the modification does not prevent the device of Morowsky from producing activated oxygen in addition to the ability to produce nano sized capsules of water enveloping amounts of negative hydroxyl ions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPUB 20030150222 to Mirowsky et al. (Mirowsky) in view of CN212252963 to Chen et al. (Chen).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Mirowsky teaches a mixer unit (43, 13 and/or 17, Figure 9) in fluid communication with an aircraft cabin (cabin, Figure 9), and the mixer unit in fluid communication with a negative ion generator (23, 25, and/or 27, Figure 9) and with filtered air from the aircraft cabin (pathway through 5, Figure 9); wherein the negative ion generator is configured to generate negative ions that mix with the filtered air from the aircraft cabin in the mixer unit (Paragraph 0037), and the mixer unit is configured to send the mixed air to the aircraft cabin (trough path 43, Figure 9); and wherein after joint union or absorption of the generated negative ions with positive ions from the mixed air, the joint union or absorption of the generated negative ions with the positive ions inhibits growth of bacterial or virus activity and reduces concentrations of toxic gases or chemicals in the mixed air in the aircraft cabin (This is a result of the negative ions and the structure provided. Applicant has not provided additional structure with this limitation and therefore it is considered that the structure preceding this performs this function. If Applicant contends additional structure is claimed as a result of this function, then that particular structure should be claimed. Additionally, the function is a known function of the negative ions generated).
Mirowsky is silent on wherein the negative ion generator is configured to generate nano-sized capsules of water enveloping amounts of negative hydroxyl radicals or ions.
Chen teaches wherein the negative ion generator is configured to generate nano-sized capsules of water enveloping amounts of negative hydroxyl radicals or ions (claim 1 discloses nano water). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chen with the teachings of Chen to provide wherein the negative ion generator is configured to generate nano-sized capsules of water enveloping amounts of negative hydroxyl radicals or ions. Doing so would inhibit bacteria formation and clean the air.
Regarding claim 3, Mirowsky teaches wherein the joint union or absorption of the generated negative ions with the positive ions inhibits growth of SARS-CoV-2 in the mixed air in the aircraft cabin (This is a result of the negative ions and the structure provided. Applicant has not provided additional structure with this limitation and therefore it is considered that the structure preceding this performs this function. If Applicant contends additional structure is claimed as a result of this function, then that particular structure should be claimed. Additionally, the function is a known function of the negative ions generated).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Mirowsky teaches wherein the joint union or absorption of the generated negative ions with the positive ions reduces concentrations of at least one of smoke, vapor, haze, fumes, dust, allergens, abnormal odors, carbon monoxide, methane or tricresyl phosphate in the mixed air in the aircraft cabin (Paragraphs 0036 and 0037. Alternatively, this is a result of the negative ions and the structure provided. Applicant has not provided additional structure with this limitation and therefore it is considered that the structure preceding this performs this function. If Applicant contends additional structure is claimed as a result of this function, then that particular structure should be claimed. Additionally, the function is a known function of the negative ions generated).
Regarding claim 5, Mirowsky teaches wherein the joint union or absorption of the generated negative ions with the positive ions inhibits growth of microbes or airborne bacteria (This is a result of the negative ions and the structure provided. Applicant has not provided additional structure with this limitation and therefore it is considered that the structure preceding this performs this function. If Applicant contends additional structure is claimed as a result of this function, then that particular structure should be claimed. Additionally, the function is a known function of the negative ions generated).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the modified device of Mirowsky teaches wherein the negative hydroxyl ions react by transforming hydrogen from components in the mixed air into water (negative hydroxyl radicals are provided and when interacting with hydrogen will perform the claimed function).
Regarding claim 8, Mirowsky teaches wherein the mixer unit is in fluid communication with a cooled air stream from a turbine of an air cycle machine (13 and 37, Figure 9, Paragraph 0042 discloses an inlet from the outside air and compression equipment which is understood to have a turbine of an air cycle machine. Additionally this is considered intended use because the cooled air stream from a turbine of an air cycle machine is something that is intended to be connected to the mixer unit and is not positively recited as part of the structure).
Regarding claim 9, Mirowsky teaches wherein the air cycle machine comprises a compressor, and the compressor is in fluid communication with an air feed stream (13, Figure 9); and wherein the air feed stream comprises a bleed air feed stream from a bleed air system or comprises an ambient air feed stream from a no-bleed system (37 and/or inlet from the cabin. Additionally this is considered intended use because the air cycle machine is not claimed to be part of the structure and is something that is intended to be connected to the mixer unit per the explanation in claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 10, Mirowsky teaches wherein the turbine is in fluid communication with a ram air stream that is fed to the turbine via at least one main heat exchanger (the turbine and heat exchanger and ram air stream are considered intended use. None of these structures has been positively recited to be part of the device as noted in the explanation for claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 15, it is not clear if Mirowsky teaches wherein the joint union or absorption of the generated negative ions with the positive ions inhibits growth of microbes or airborne bacteria.
Chen teaches wherein the joint union or absorption of the generated negative ions with the positive ions inhibits growth of microbes or airborne bacteria (Translated Novelty and abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mirowsky with the teachings of Chen to provide wherein the joint union or absorption of the generated negative ions with the positive ions inhibits growth of microbes or airborne bacteria. Doing so would inhibit bacteria formation and clean the air.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mirowsky in view of WO2008014615 to Boast et al. (Boast)
Regarding claim 13, it is not clear if Mirowsky teaches wherein the joint union or absorption of the generated negative ions with the positive ions inhibits growth of SARS-CoV-2 in the mixed air in the aircraft cabin.
Boast teaches ozone that inhibits growth of SARS-CoV-2 in the mixed air in the aircraft cabin (“Ozone may also be used to kill SARS viruses, infectious prions, and bacteria, and can also disinfect foodstuffs and sterilize medical equipment”, it is interpreted that something that inhibits the growth of sars would also do the same for SARS-COV-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mirowsky with the teachings of Boast to provide wherein the joint union or absorption of the generated negative ions with the positive ions inhibits growth of SARS-CoV-2 in the mixed air in the aircraft cabin. Doing so would prevent sicknesses from spreading.
Claims 8-9, 18-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mirowsky in view of U.S. Patent 3878692 to Steves (Steves).
Regarding claim 18, Mirowsky teaches wherein the mixer unit is in fluid communication with cabin air and ambient air (Figure 9).
Mirowsky is silent on wherein the mixer unit is in fluid communication with a cooled air stream from a turbine of an air cycle machine.
Steves teaches wherein the mixer unit is in fluid communication with a cooled air stream from a turbine (92, Figure 3) of an air cycle machine (leads to cabin air which corresponds to the mixer of Mirowsky). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mirowsky with the teachings of Steves to provide wherein the mixer unit is in fluid communication with a cooled air stream from a turbine of an air cycle machine. Doing so would allow additional energy to be extracted from the air and/or control the temperature of the air leading to the mixer.
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Mirowsky teaches wherein the air cycle machine comprises a compressor (76, Figure 3 of Steves), and the compressor is in fluid communication with an air feed stream (78, Figure 3 of Steves); and wherein the air feed stream comprises a bleed air feed stream from a bleed air system or comprises an ambient air feed stream from a no-bleed system (bleed air Figure 3).
To expedite prosecution it is noted that the teachings above would also read on claims 8 and 9 if the structure was positively recited.
Claims 8, 10, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mirowsky in view of U.S. PGPUB 20130139521 to Massey et al. (Massey).
Regarding claim 18, Mirowsky teaches wherein the mixer unit is in fluid communication with cabin air and ambient air (Figure 9).
Mirowsky is silent on wherein the mixer unit is in fluid communication with a cooled air stream from a turbine of an air cycle machine.
Massey teaches wherein the mixer unit is in fluid communication with a cooled air stream (cool ram air, Figure 3) from a turbine (12, Figure 3) of an air cycle machine (leads to cabin air which corresponds to the mixer of Mirowsky). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mirowsky with the teachings of Massey to provide wherein the mixer unit is in fluid communication with a cooled air stream from a turbine of an air cycle machine. Doing so would allow additional energy to be extracted from the air and/or control the temperature of the air leading to the mixer.
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Mirowsky teaches wherein the turbine is in fluid communication with a ram air stream that is fed to the turbine via at least one main heat exchanger (shown in Figure 3 of Massey which corresponds to the air inlet of Mirowsky).
To expedite prosecution it is noted that the teachings above would also read on claims 8 and 10 if the structure was positively recited.
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights