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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species M (claims 1-7 and 11-20) in the reply filed on November 3, 2025, is acknowledged. Regarding traversal, Applicant’s states species are not patentably distinct. Without reliance on remarks, the restriction requirement of September 3, 2025, is hereby withdrawn and vacated in order to advance prosecution. Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, “The air purifier of claim 2, wherein the air purifier comprises a plurality of reactor units, and wherein the plurality of plasma reaction units are disposed adjacent one another comprises a plurality of reactors
Appropriate correction is required.
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 "first purified air" in line 7 without reciting "second purified air," or any additional numbered sequence, which raises the questions: Is "first" used to distinguish the limitation "first purified air"? Does the limitation "first purified air" require the limitation "second purified air"?
The limitation "predetermined" (discharge region, gap, voltage, pores, cross-sectional area, inclination angle) is recited in claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 that raises the question "predetermined" by what? Additionally, "predetermined" is frequently associated with a range or parameter (porosity, pore size, spacing, voltage magnitude, angle range, etc.) without a recited range, or parameter, the metes and bounds are ambiguous, and therefore, indefinite.
Claims 2, 10, 16, and 17 recite the limitation "mainly extending" that is subjective and raises the question of how "mainly"?
Claims 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 17 recite the limitation "a second power supply source" in lines 5 or 7, respectively. Does the limitation "a second power supply source" require the limitation "a first power supply source." Claims 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 17 depend from claim 1. However, claim 1 fails to recite the limitation "a first power supply source". The limitation "a first power supply source" is recited in claim 2 instead.
Claims 14 and 17 recite the limitation “a rear end” that has a relative term “rear” typically related to an orientation. How does one determine that which is a rear end of electrodes 2-1 and 2-2? Without a bases of orientation defined in the claims, the limitation lacks precision, and therefore, is indefinite. For examination on the merits, the limitation “rear end” is interpreted as downstream of recited structural elements in direction of the airflow.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a 2-2 electrode which faces the 2-1 electrode and has a needle shape including a predetermined cross-sectional area" in lines 3-4. The claim language is interpreted as follows: a 2-2 electrode faces the 2-1 electrode; the 2-2 electrode has a needle [or rod] shape including a predetermined cross-sectional area. As interpreted and considering the originally filed disclosure, it is unclear which limitation “a 2-2 electrode” or “a 2-1 electrode” has a needle shape. NOTE: as defined in the disclosure, it appears that 2-1 electrode has a needle shape, which is contrary to interpretation of the claim language (pars [0095] and [0096] describes 2-1 electrode as electrode 210 and 2-2 electrode as electrode 220 both of which are illustrated in Figs. 8A, 8B). Although claim language is interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims. Claims are given plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In this case, inconsistency exists. See MPEP § 2111.01.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "fourth purified air" in line 18 uses the distinction fourth but does not recite any additional numbered sequence between the limitations "first purified air" which is recited in line 11 and "fourth purified air." It is unclear if the limitations "second purified air" and "third" purified air" should be also be interpreted. Lastly, claims 3, 4, 7, and 9 that depend from the above claims are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsui (9381267 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Tsui discloses an air purifier (Figs. 5a-b; an air purification and disinfection apparatus incorporating a reactor assembly) for purifying contaminated air by removing air contaminants, the air purifier comprising: an air inlet through which the contaminated air is introduced (col. 8, ll. 44-49; Fig. 5a); a plasma reaction unit (reactor assembly 10; Figs. 1a, 2, 5a-b) connected in fluid communication with the air inlet and including a predetermined discharge region which generates discharge plasma (col. 2, ll. 4-24); and a dust collector (filters 32; Fig. 5b; col. 8, 42, ll. 44-49) which is connected in fluid communication with the plasma reaction unit and collects and removes the contaminants from first purified air discharged from the plasma reaction unit (col. 8, ll. 44-49).
For claim 2, the teaching of Tsui is relied upon as set forth above and discloses further wherein the plasma reaction unit includes: a reactor having a hollow shape and mainly extending in a direction (Figs. 1a-b, 2, 2a-c); a 1-1 electrode disposed inside the reactor (inner electrode 16; Figs. 3a-c); a 1-2 electrode spaced apart from the 1-1 electrode with a predetermined gap therebetween (outer electrode 13; Figs. 3a-c); and a first power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 1-1 electrode and the 1-2 electrode (Abstract; col. 8, ll. 6-34; Fig. 4), wherein the reactor comprises at least one cross section of a circular or polygonal shape (col. 7, ll. 8-10; Figs. 3a-c).
For claim 17, the teaching of Tsui is relied upon as set forth above and discloses wherein the dust collector includes: a 2-1 electrode having a rod shape mainly extending in a direction (Figs. 3a-c, 5a-b); a 2-2 electrode which has a cylindrical shape mainly extending in the direction and in which the 2-1 electrode is arranged (Figs. 3a-c, 5a-b); a second power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (Fig. 4); and a dust collecting plate disposed at a rear end of the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode along a movement direction of the first purified air (filters 32; Fig. 5b; col. 8, 42, ll. 44-49), wherein the first purified air moves between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (Figs. 4, 5a).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nojima (US 5950424 A).
For claim 1, Nojima discloses an air purifier for purifying contaminated air by removing air contaminants (Fig. 1-exhaust particle collection device), the air purifier comprising: an air inlet through which the contaminated air is introduced (Fig. 1; carbon particles 10 enter at left of Fig. 1); a plasma reaction unit (Fig. 1) connected in fluid communication with the air inlet and including a predetermined discharge region which generates discharge plasma (Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 5-35, “becoming plasma ions”); and a dust collector (collection electrode 11; Fig. 1) which is connected in fluid communication with the plasma reaction unit and collects and removes the contaminants from first purified air discharged from the plasma reaction unit (air stream illustrated depleted of carbon particles 10 at right of Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, the teaching of Nojima is relied upon as indicated above. Nojima discloses further wherein the plasma reaction unit includes: a reactor having a hollow shape and mainly extending in a direction (Fig. 1); a 1-1 electrode disposed inside the reactor (needled tip 8a of needle electrode 8); a 1-2 electrode spaced apart from the 1-1 electrode with a predetermined gap therebetween (portion of collecting electrode 11 to the left of deflection electrode 12 on either side of 8a needle tip of needle electrode 8 illustrated in Fig. 1); and a first power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 1-1 electrode and the 1-2 electrode (col. 4, l. 64-col. 5, l. 25), wherein the reactor comprises at least one cross section of a circular or polygonal shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the teaching of Nojima is relied upon as indicated above. wherein the dust collector includes: a 2-1 electrode having a plate shape extending along one plane (Figs. 1, 4; whereas thickness is smaller than length for deflection electrode 12); a 2-2 electrode which faces the 2-1 electrode (collection electrode 11), has a plate shape extending along the one plane; and a second power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (power source 13; col. 4, l. 64-col. 5, l. 4).
Regarding claim 13, the teaching of Nojima is relied upon as indicated above. wherein the dust collector includes: a 2-1 electrode having a plate shape extending along one plane (Figs. 1, 4; whereas thickness is smaller than length for deflection electrode 12); a 2-2 electrode which faces the 2-1 electrode (collection electrode 11), has a plate shape extending along the one plane, and is grounded (“earthed” col. 4, l. 65-col. 6, l. 4); and a second power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (power source 13; col. 4, l. 64-col. 5, l. 4), wherein the first purified air moves along between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the teaching of Nojima is relied upon as indicated above. Nojima discloses wherein the dust collector includes: a 2-1 electrode having a rod shape mainly extending in a direction (deflection electrode 12; Fig. 1); a 2-2 electrode which has a cylindrical shape mainly extending in the direction and is grounded (collection electrode 11; Fig. 1), and in which the 2-1 electrode is arranged (Fig. 1); and a second power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (col. 5, ll. 5-25), wherein the first purified air moves along between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (Fig. 1).
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui (9381267 B2).
Regarding claim 3, the teaching of Tsui is relied upon as set forth above and discloses a plurality of reactors adjacent to each other. Tsui does not appear to disclose explicitly wherein the plasma reaction unit is provided in plural, and a plurality of reactors included in the plurality of plasma reaction units, respectively, is adjacent to each other. Tsui does disclose 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 (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).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui (9381267 B2) in view of Aoyagi (US 20020148562 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the teaching of Tsui is relied upon as set forth above. Tsui 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 does (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 of Tsui as claimed to regulate the temperature inside the reactor.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nojima (US 5950424 A) in view of Verzicht (DE 3324803 C2).
For claim 6, the teaching of Nojima is relied on as indicated above and discloses wherein the first purified air passes through the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (Fig. 1). Nojima does not explicitly disclose the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode are porous plates including predetermined pores. Verzicht is analogous art and discloses a metal film 5 covering the inner wall of collection chamber 2 and that metal film 5 can consist of other materials which is inclusive of porous materials (Also see extrinsic reference Naito US 20070245898 A1 that discloses an uneven structure formed by inserting either of a foam metal sheet and 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, while considering the extrinsic evidence of a metal structures taught in prior art Naito, equivalent foam metal and metal net are known in the art, and therefore, the structures were art‐recognized equivalents at the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute. See MPEP § 2144.06.
Regarding claim 7, the teaching of the prior art as relied upon above in claim 6 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 (metal foam).
Regarding claim 14, the teaching of Nojima is relied upon as indicated above. Nojima discloses wherein the dust collector includes: a 2-1 electrode having a plate shape extending along one plane (Figs. 1, 4; whereas thickness is smaller than length for deflection electrode 12); a 2-2 electrode which faces the 2-1 electrode (collection electrode 11), has a plate shape extending along the one plane (col. 4, l. 65-col. 6, l. 4); and a second power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (power source 13; col. 4, l. 64-col. 5, l. 4), wherein the first purified air moves between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode. Nojima does not appear to disclose a dust collecting plate disposed at a rear end of the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode along a movement direction of the first 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 of Nojima for collection of any remaining dust content.
For claim 17, the teaching of Nojima is relied upon as set forth above and discloses wherein the dust collector includes: a 2-1 electrode having a rod shape mainly extending in a direction (deflection electrode 12; Fig. 1); a 2-2 electrode which has a cylindrical shape mainly extending in the direction and in which the 2-1 electrode is arranged (collection electrode 11; Fig. 1); a second power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (col. 5, ll. 5-25), wherein the first purified air moves between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (Fig. 1). Nojima does not appear to disclose a dust collecting plate disposed at a rear end of the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode along a movement direction of the first 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 of Nojima for collection of any remaining dust content.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nojima (US 5950424 A) in view of Ray (US 8771600 B2).
Regarding claim 14, the teaching of Nojima is relied upon as indicated above. wherein the dust collector includes: a 2-1 electrode having a plate shape extending along one plane (Figs. 1, 4; whereas thickness is smaller than length for deflection electrode 12); a 2-2 electrode which faces the 2-1 electrode (collection electrode 11), has a plate shape extending along the one plane (col. 4, l. 65-col. 6, l. 4); and a second power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (power source 13; col. 4, l. 64-col. 5, l. 4), wherein the first purified air moves between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode. Nojima does not appear to disclose a dust collecting plate disposed at a rear end of the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode along a movement direction of the first purified air. However, Ray does disclose a dust collecting plate (catalyst filter 20) that is electrically connected to ground, thereby providing additional particulate matter removal of any particulate matter that still possesses a residual charge and which may have escaped the collection electrode, will become attracted to the grounded metallic substrate. Accordingly, 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 Ray in the air purifier of Nojima for collection efficacy of remaining any particulate content.
For claim 15, the teaching of Nojima and Ray is relied upon as set forth above. The combined teaching discloses the dust collecting plate that is a catalyst filter; whereas, a filter (said catalyst filter) is a porous medium that intentionally engineered as such. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to envisage the dust collecting plate as a porous plate as claimed.
For claim 17, the teaching of Nojima is relied upon as set forth above and discloses wherein the dust collector includes: a 2-1 electrode having a rod shape mainly extending in a direction (deflection electrode 12; Fig. 1); a 2-2 electrode which has a cylindrical shape mainly extending in the direction and in which the 2-1 electrode is arranged (collection electrode 11; Fig. 1); a second power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (col. 5, ll. 5-25), wherein the first purified air moves between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (Fig. 1). Nojima does not appear to disclose a dust collecting plate disposed at a rear end of the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode along a movement direction of the first purified air; however, Ray does disclose a dust collecting plate (catalyst filter 20) that is electrically connected to ground, thereby providing additional particulate matter removal. Any particulate matter that still possesses a residual charge and which may have escaped the collection electrode, will become attracted to the grounded metallic substrate. Accordingly, 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 Ray in the air purifier of Nojima for collection efficacy of remaining any particulate content.
For claim 18, the teaching of Nojima and Ray is relied upon as set forth above. The combined teaching discloses the dust collecting plate that is a catalyst filter; whereas, a filter (said catalyst filter) is a porous medium that intentionally engineered as such. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to envisage the dust collecting plate as a porous plate as claimed.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui (9381267 B2) in view of Kakinohana (US 20100101420 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the teaching of Tsui is relied upon as set forth above. Tsui does not appear to disclose that the 2-2 electrode is grounded as recited in claim 16. Kakinohana center rod electrode with a grounded outer circumferential electrode (par [0016]). Electrical ground (or protective earth, PE) is known and important to prevent shock by providing a return path for current, i.e., ground stabilizes voltage and prevents surges. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to have the 2-2 electrode grounded as taught in Kakinohana for the 2-2 electrode of Tsui to prevent shock to users of the air purifier.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nojima (US 5950424 A) in view of Aoyagi (US 20020148562 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the teaching of Nojima is relied upon as indicated above. Nojima teaches wherein the dust collector includes a 2-1 electrode having a plate shape extending along one plane (collection electrode 11; Fig. 1 illustrates thickness smaller than length for deflection electrode 11), a 2-2 electrode has a needle shape including a predetermined cross-sectional area (needled tip 8a of needle electrode 8 and deflection electrode 12 are connected; Fig. 1), and a second power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (col. 5, ll. 5-25) but does not explicitly appear to disclose a plurality of dielectric particles disposed between the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode. The phrase “which faces the 2-1 electrode” 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(VIC). Aoyagi does disclose a plurality of dielectric particles disposed between electrodes (Abstract; pars [0047]-[0051]; Figs. 2B, 3; “dielectric…known as a method of controlling the temperature rise…” par [0007]). 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 dielectric particles that are barium titanate (i.e., barium oxide) as taught in Aoyagi in the apparatus of Nojima to control the temperature rise.
Regarding claim 10, as interpreted, the teaching of Nojima is relied upon as indicated above. Nojima teaches the dust collector includes: a 2-1 electrode having a rod shape extending in a direction (deflection electrode 12; Fig. 1); a 2-2 electrode having a plate shape extending along a plane (deflection electrode 12; Fig. 1 illustrated with a thickness smaller than a length); and a second power supply source which applies a predetermined voltage to the 2-1 electrode and the 2-2 electrode (col. 5, ll. 5-25). The phrase “a 2-2 electrode which faces the 2-1 electrode” 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. See MPEP § 2144.04(VIC). It 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, as interpreted, Nojima is relied upon as indicated above. Nojima teaches 2-1 electrode spaced apart from 2-2 electrode with a predetermined gap therebetween (Fig. 1). Nojima does not teach explicitly a plurality of 2-1 electrodes as claimed, 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, Nojima is relied upon as indicated above. Nojima teaches the 2-2 electrode but does not appear to disclose explicitly ais a porous plate including predetermined pores, wherein the first purified air passes through the 2-2 electrode. Ray does disclose a dust collecting plate (catalyst filter 20) providing particulate matter removal of any particulate matter that still possesses a residual charge, will become attracted to the grounded metallic substrate and purified air passing through; whereas, a filter (i.e., said catalyst filter) is a porous medium that intentionally engineered as such. Accordingly, 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 Ray in for the electrode of Nojima for collection efficacy.
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
The prior art made of record and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure exemplified as follows:
US 20010023589 A1: comprises a dielectric (5) arranged between a discharge electrode (7) and a ground electrode (8) and comprising a plurality of independent cavities (6).
US 20030132100 A1: teaches a plasma reactor and other electrode configurations for electrodes may be desired; plasma discharge is disposed upstream of a suspension media (e.g., a filter, electrostatic precipitator, carbon bed), i.e., a collection device.
US 6621227 B1: a plasma reactor comprising dielectric particles, electrode plates, and projecting portions of electrodes.
US 20210231324 A1: a plasma reactor comprising spaced apart electrodes and a plurality of dielectric particles.
US 20060254423 A1: a plasma reactor comprising a counter electrode; a first discharge electrode configured to discharge between the first discharge electrode and the counter electrode to electrically charge dust in a gas to be treated; an electrical dust collecting member configured and arranged for entrapping and collecting the electrically charged dust in the gas to be treated.
US 20040140194 A1: a plasma reactor includes a dielectric material disposed between said electrodes.
US 20090324443 A1: plasma reactor units comprising: spaced, air-permeable electrodes, an air-permeable dielectric material extending between the electrodes, and means for applying a potential difference across the electrodes to generate between the electrodes, and a gas flow path through the electrodes and the dielectric material.
US 6774335 B2: a plasma reactor comprising electrodes facing opposite each other approximately in parallel; a dielectric body inserted between the first and the second electrode, a high voltage supply source, and a gas mixer.
US 6395144 B1: a plasma reactor comprising molecular sieve electrodes and dielectrics.
CN 206604636 U: a plasma and electrostatic adsorption combination comprising an air inlet pipe (100), a plasma generator (101), connection pipe (102), electrostatic aerosol device (103), a corona wire (104); the collector (105), an air outlet pipe (106) and teaches claim 1 and 2.
JP 2004353491 A: a plasma reactor comprising rod shaped electrode arranged centered in a honeycomb structure, a plurality units including an outer peripheral electrode arranged on the outer periphery of the honeycomb structure, and a plurality of discharge projections at a tip.
In order to advance prosecution, applicant should consider all of the prior art made of record in subsequent replies to Office Actions.
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 5, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776