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 Amendment
In light of the amendment filed 3 August 2026, the objections to the claims and specification and the rejections under §112 have been withdrawn and the prior art rejection has been modified.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui (US 2008/0056934) in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0030622; hereinafter “Li”).
In regard to claims 1-2, Tsui discloses an air purifier (reactor unit 11) comprising: a reactor (insulation forming reaction chamber 12) in a tubular shape (“cylindrical”; [0089]) defining a hollow region extending in a first direction; a first electrode unit (inner electrode 16) extending in the first direction and arranged in the hollow region; a second electrode unit (outer electrode 13) arranged to surround the first electrode unit and separated from the first electrode unit with a certain space therebetween; a power source unit (power supply 40) which applies a certain voltage between the first electrode unit and the second electrode unit to generate plasma between the first electrode unit and the second electrode unit; a support (diffuser 19) arranged between the first electrode unit and the second electrode unit, wherein a plurality of through-holes (diffuser 19 can be in the form of a perforated sheet, wire mesh, tangled string or fluff which would all necessarily comprise through-holes; see [0089]) extending in the first direction is defined through the support; and a catalyst (diffuser 19 also incorporates a suitable catalytic material to make the reactor a catalytic plasma reactor 11; see [0094]) coated on a surface of the support defining the plurality of through-holes. See paragraphs [0089], [0094]-[0095] and Figures 1-2d.
Tsui is silent in regard to wherein the plurality of through-holes are linearly extending in the first direction and are defined through the support or wherein the support has a honeycomb structure as recited in claim 2.
Li discloses an air purifier using a catalyst and plasma which includes a support (walls 603) arranged within a reactor (housing 602) which is arranged to have a honeycomb structure and has a catalyst coated thereon. Thus, the support has a plurality of through-holes linearly extending therethrough as defined by the channels of the honeycomb structure. See Figure 6 and paragraph [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the honeycomb structure of the catalyst support of Li for the diffuser structure of Tsui without creating any new or unexpected results as the structures are functionally equivalent. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
In regard to claim 3, Tsui does not explicitly disclose wherein a differential pressure between a front end of the reactor and a rear end of the reactor is greater than or equal to about 10 Pa and less than or equal to about 1,000 Pa. However, the limitation regards a manner of operating the apparatus and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
In regard to claim 4, Tsui is silent in regard to the composition of the catalyst.
Li discloses wherein the catalyst is a TiO2 catalyst can be doped with other elements such as titanium (Ti), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni) or their oxides. See [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the catalyst composition of Li as the catalyst in Tsui as one of ordinary skill would look to the prior art to determine appropriate catalyst compositions to use to purify the air within the device.
In regard to claims 5 and 6, Tsui is silent in regard to the permittivity and electrical conductivity of the catalyst.
Li discloses wherein the catalyst is a TiO2 catalyst can be doped with other elements such as titanium (Ti), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni) or their oxides which are of the same composition as the catalysts recited in the instant application. See [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the catalyst composition of Li as the catalyst in Tsui as one of ordinary skill would look to the prior art to determine appropriate catalyst compositions to use to purify the air within the device. Further, it is held that the above catalysts would necessarily have permittivity and electrical conductivity within the recited ranges as the compositions are the same. Therefore, the compositions must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.). Nonetheless, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the appropriate permittivity and electrical conductivity of the catalyst through routine experimentation without producing any new or unexpected results as the criticality of the recited ranges has not been disclosed. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In regard to claim 7, Tsui does not explicitly disclose the composition of the support 19 as it is only discussed that the support can be in the form of a perforated sheet, wire mesh, tangles string or fluff. See [0089]. Li discloses wherein the walls 603 are stainless steel and have a dielectric coating. Nonetheless, the Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined an appropriate material for forming the support, such as a metal oxide (which are naturally present on the surface of metal components such as stainless steel), a metal nitride, and a polymer, which are all well-known in the art, without creating any new or unexpected results as a person of ordinary skill would be capable of determining an appropriate material for forming the support and/or dielectric coating.
In regard to claim 8, it is held that Tsui discloses wherein the reactor (chamber 12) and the support (support 19) are formed integrally with each other as a single unitary and indivisible part as it is not disclosed that the parts are separatable. Furthermore, it is clear from the description of the apparatus that the structures must necessarily form a single unitary and indivisible part in order to function as an air treatment apparatus. See Figures 1-2d. Therefore, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed reactor and support of the combined apparatus of Tsui and Li in a integral manner as a single unitary and indivisible part as recited through known means of construction and without creating any new or unexpected results.
In regard to claim 9, Tsui discloses wherein the reactor (chamber 12) has a cross-section in a circular shape along a plane perpendicular to the first direction, and the first electrode unit is arranged in a center of the circular shape. See Figures 1-2d. It is also noted that Li discloses wherein an electrode 604 can be in the center of the circular cross section of housing 602. See Figure 6.
In regard to claim 10, Tsui does not explicitly disclose wherein the first electrode unit comprises a steel wire arranged in the hollow region of the reactor, and the second electrode unit comprises an aluminum plate arranged on an outer wall portion of the reactor. Tsui does disclose wherein the electrodes can be in the form of plates. See [0089]. However, the Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Further, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected of the composition and form of a steel wire and an aluminum plate for the respective electrodes in the above combined apparatus of Tsui and Li as it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined appropriate materials and shapes for forming the electrodes without creating any new or unexpected results.
In regard to claim 11, Tsui discloses wherein the first electrode unit is provided in plural, and a plurality of first electrode units is arranged to be separated from one another with a certain space therebetween along a plane perpendicular to the first direction as Tsui teaches that a plurality of reactors can be arranged in parallel and/or in series. See [0042]. Thus, the air purifier having reactors in series and/or parallel would have a plurality of first electrode units which are arranged to be separated from one another within a certain space. It is further noted that Li also discloses wherein the electrode 604 is proved in plural. See Figure 6 of Li.
In regard to claim 12, Tsui discloses wherein the reactor has a cross-section in a circular shape along a plane perpendicular to the first direction (see Figures 1-2d), and the plurality of first electrode units is arranged symmetrically with respect to each other around a center of the circular shape when arranged in series as the plurality of first electrode units would be capable of being provided along the same line.
In regard to claim 13, Tsui discloses wherein the first electrode unit has a cross-section in a circular shape along a plane perpendicular to the first direction. See Figures 1-2d.
In regard to claims 14-15, Tsui discloses wherein the reactor has a cross-section in a circular shape along a plane perpendicular to the first direction. See Figures 1-2d.
Tsui is silent to wherein the first electrode unit has a cross-section in a polygonal shape along a plane perpendicular to the first direction such that the first electrode unit is arranged such that the polygonal shape is symmetric around a central portion of the circular shape. However, the Courts have held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Thus, 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 shape of the first electrode of Tsui to be in the recited polygonal shape as the shape of the electrode would not produce any new or unexpected results.
In regard to claim 16, Tsui discloses that the support can be constructed with suitable filtering materials to serve as a filter. See [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included the filtering materials of Tsui in the plurality of through-holes of the honeycomb support structure of the above combined apparatus of Tsui and Li in order to filter the airflow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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 TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights