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
The amendment to the specification is entered.
In light of amendments to claim 3, the objection to claim 3 is withdrawn. In light of amendments to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, the rejection of claim 1-20 under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn. Applicant’s remarks, see pages 22-23, filed May 4, 2926, regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 19 and 20, Applicant’s remarks are acknowledged and the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained. Applicant’s remarks, see pages 12-22, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, and 17 under 35 USC § 102, remarks have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tsui here within.
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 8 and 16 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 "a second power supply source” in line 19, which applies a voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode. Claim 8 recites the limitation "a power supply source" in line 10 and raises the following questions: Is the limitation "a second power supply source" in line 19 of claim 1 distinct from or the same as the limitation "a power supply source" in line 10 of claim 8? Are a second power supply source and a power supply source both applied to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode?
Claim 16 recites the phrase "mainly in the direction" in line 16. The term "mainly" is subjective making the metes and bound of claim 16 unclear.
Claim 9 is also rejected for depending from claim 8.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose (JP H1080617 A) in view of Naito (US 20070245898 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hirose discloses an air purifier for purifying contaminated air by removing air contaminants (single machine apparatus/single unit of smoke exhaust processing apparatus 1; Figs. 3, 13), the air purifier comprising:
an air inlet through which the contaminated air is introduced (smoke exhaust inlet 2 at arrow on left side of Figs. 3, 13);
a plasma reaction unit connected in fluid communication with the air inlet (peripheral electrode of plasma part 3 in plasma par/section A of Figs. 3, 13) and including a discharge region which generates discharge plasma (13 -13a, 13b in the plasma section A), the plasma reaction unit including;
a reactor having a hollow shape and extending in a direction (plasma section A in Figs. 3, 13);
a 1-1 electrode disposed inside the reactor (15a central axis electrode);
a 1-2 electrode spaced apart from the 1-1 electrode with a gap therebetween (peripheral electrode of plasma part 3); and
a first power supply source which applies a voltage to the 1-1 electrode and the 1-2 electrode (HV-1 21); and
a dust collector which is connected in fluid communication with the plasma reaction unit (particle collection and capture outer cylinder of collecting part 6 in charged particle current collecting part D in Figs. 3, 13) and collects and removes the contaminants from first purified air discharged from the plasma reaction unit, the dust collector including;
a 2-1 electrode separated from the 1-1 electrode and the 1-2 electrode (central axis electrode 15d of the charged particle collecting and collecting unit D in Figs. 3, 13);
a 2-2 electrode which faces the 2-1 electrode and is separated from the 1-1 electrode and the 1-2 electrode (Intermediate electrode/collecting electrode 14 of charged particle collecting part D in Figs. 3, 13); and
a second power supply source which applies a voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (HV-2 22).
Hirose does not specifically state wherein at least one of the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode includes a porous structure. Naito is analogous art and discloses a metal net to improve dust collecting performance (par [0100]). 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 metal net as disclosed in prior art to Naito to improve collecting performance as an equivalent structure known in the art since this structure is an art‐recognized equivalent and available for substitution at the effective filing date. See MPEP § 2144.06.
For claim 2, the prior art is set forth above. Hirose discloses wherein the reactor comprises at least one cross section of a circular or polygonal shape (Figs. 3, 7-9, 11, 13).
Regarding claim 10, the teaching of prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Hirose discloses said rode shape of said 2-1 electrode and said plate shape of said 2-2 electrode (see claim 1). The phrases “extending in a direction” and “extending along a plane” is considered location of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and relocating the electrode would not have changed the function of the device and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to arrange the electrodes as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and relocating the electrodes would not have changed the function of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04(VIC).
For claim 11, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and teaches 2-1 electrode spaced apart from 2-2 electrode with a gap therebetween (see claim 1) but does not appear to teach explicitly a plurality of 2-1 electrodes faces the 2-2 electrode, which is merely duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to duplicate the 2-1 electrodes since 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 to treat the air flow efficiently. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI‐B).
Regarding claim 12, the prior is relied upon as indicated above, and the combined teaching of the prior art discloses the 2-2 electrode is a porous plate including pores, wherein the purified air passes through the 2-2 electrode. See claim 1 above, particularly “Naito…(par [0100]).”
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose and Naito in view of Tsui (9381267 B2).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above but does not appear to specifically disclose a plurality of reaction units and the plurality of reaction units are disposed adjacent one another and comprises a plurality of reactors. Tsui is analogous art and discloses that the number of reactors 11 within the reactor assembly 10 can be adjusted to match the total airflow requirement of the air purification and disinfection apparatus. Such scalable and modular design allows flexibility in construction so that the reactor assemble 10 can be readily incorporated as part of a central ventilation system or an air conditioner or as a stand-alone air purifier on its own (col. 11, ll. 61-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to duplicate the reactor assembly comprising a plurality of reactors (i.e., the plasma reaction unit), since 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 of flexibility in construction to incorporate the plasma reaction unit for a desired design—part of a ventilation system, abatement system, air conditioner, or air purifier. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI‐B). Additionally, to dispose the plurality of reaction units adjacent one another is considered location of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to relocate plurality of reaction units adjacent one another, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and relocating plurality of reaction units adjacent one another would not have changed the function of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04(VIC).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose, Naito, and Tsui in further view of Aoyagi (US 20020148562 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the teaching of the prior art is relied upon as set forth above but does not appear to disclose a coolant passage disposed between the plurality of reactors respectively included in the plurality of plasma reaction units; and a coolant which moves along the coolant passage. However, Aoyagi teaches a coolant passage disposed between the plurality of reactors respectively included in the plurality of plasma reaction units; and a coolant which moves along the coolant passage (pars [0052], [0053]). 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 coolant passage as taught in Aoyagi for the apparatus as claimed to regulate the temperature inside the reactor.
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose and Naito in view of Nojima (US 5950424 A).
Regarding claim 5, the teaching of the prior is relied upon as indicated above but does not appear to teach explicitly wherein the 2-1 electrode has a plate shape extending along one plane and; the 2-2 electrode has a plate shape extending along the one plane. However, Nojima discloses wherein the 2-1 electrode has a plate shape extending along one plane (Figs. 1, 4; whereas thickness is smaller than length for deflection electrode 12) and is analogous art. 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 plate shape 2-2 electrode in prior art to Nojima to improve collecting performance as an equivalent structure known in the art since this structure is an art‐recognized equivalent and available for substitution at the effective filing date. See MPEP § 2144.06.
For claim 13, the teaching of prior art is relied upon as indicated above and Nojima discloses wherein the 2-1 electrode has a plate shape extending along one plane (Figs. 1, 4; whereas thickness is smaller than length for deflection electrode 12), the 2-2 electrode has a plate shape extending along the one plane, and is grounded (“earthed” col. 4, l. 65-col. 6, l. 4); and the purified air moves along between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (Fig. 1).
For claim 16, the teaching of prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Nojima discloses wherein the 2-1 electrode has a rod shape extending in a direction (deflection electrode 12; Fig. 1), the 2-2 electrode has a cylindrical shape mainly in the direction and is grounded (collection electrode 11; Fig. 1), and in which the 2-1 electrode is arranged (Fig. 1), and the purified air moves along between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose, Naito, and Nojima in further view of Verzicht (DE 3324803 C2).
For claim 6, the teaching of the prior art is relied on as indicated above, and Nojima discloses wherein the first purified air passes through the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (Fig. 1). However, the prior does not explicitly disclose the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode are porous plates including pores. Verzicht is analogous art and discloses a metal film 5 covering the inner wall of collection chamber 2 and the metal film 5 can consist of other materials which is inclusive of porous materials. Additionally, Naito US 20070245898 A1 discloses an uneven structure formed by inserting of a metal net at par [0100] to improve dust collecting performance. 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 metal film disclosed in Verzicht shows and taking in to consideration the advantage of Naito and use of metal net as art‐recognized equivalent at the effective filing date because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the art-recognized equivalent obvious to substitute. See MPEP § 2144.06.
Regarding claim 7, the teaching of the prior art as relied upon above in claim 6 and discloses the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode include one or more of porous nickel foam, aluminum foam, copper foam, stainless steel foam, iron foam, titanium foam, silver foam, carbon foam, and graphene foam (whereas, said metal foam and metal net in Naito discloses claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 14, the teaching of prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Nojima further discloses wherein the 2-1 electrode having a plate shape extending along one plane (Figs. 1, 4; whereas thickness is smaller than length for deflection electrode 12); the 2-2 electrode, has a plate shape extending along the one plane (collection electrode 11; col. 4, l. 65-col. 6, l. 4), wherein the purified air moves between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode. The prior art does not appear to disclose a dust collecting plate disposed at an end of the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode along a movement direction of the purified air; however, Verzicht does disclose a dust collecting plate (downstream filter 7) for collection of remaining dust content. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize the dust collecting plate disclosed in Verzicht in the air purifier for collection of any remaining dust content.
For claim 17, the teaching of the prior art is relied upon as set forth above. Nojima discloses wherein the 2-1 electrode having a rod shape extending in a direction (deflection electrode 12; Fig. 1); the 2-2 electrode has a cylindrical shape extending in the direction and in which the 2-1 electrode is arranged (collection electrode 11; Fig. 1), wherein the purified air moves between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (Fig. 1). The prior art does not appear to disclose a dust collecting plate disposed at an end of the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode along a movement direction of the purified air; however, Verzicht does disclose a dust collecting plate (downstream filter 7) for collection of remaining dust content. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize the dust collecting plate disclosed in Verzicht in the air purifier for collection of any remaining dust content.
For claims 15 and 18, the teaching of the prior art is relied upon as set forth above and discloses the dust collecting plate (i.e., 2-2 electrode) is a porous plate including pores, wherein the purified air passes through the dust collecting plate. See claim 1 above, particularly “Naito…(par [0100]).”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,443. Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,345,443. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US 12,345,443 teaches all of the basic features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. Also, see the prior art examples provided below in response to this correspondence.
CN 111773427 A: Fig. 1 is a schematic structural diagram of an air treatment device for air sterilization, which comprises a shell 8, wherein an air inlet 1 and an air outlet 7 are arranged on the shell 8, an air channel is formed in the shell, and a plasma generation assembly 3 and a collection sterilization device 5 are sequentially arranged on the air channel from the air inlet 1 to the air outlet 7. The plasma generating assembly 3 is a low-temperature plasma generating device which can generate plasma and generate ozone through low-temperature plasma discharge. The collecting, sterilizing and disinfecting device 5 is a
back corona discharge device. The back corona discharge device comprises a cathode and an anode, the cathode is a copper needle, the anode is a honeycomb material of a silver oxide particle layer, direct current is loaded on the cathode to form discharge, generated charges are accumulated in the silver oxide particle layer. The plasma generating assembly 3 is connected with the collecting, sterilizing and disinfecting device 5 through a gas channel, so that gas
enters the collecting, sterilizing and disinfecting device 5 after passing through the plasma generating assembly 3.
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 August 7, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights