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
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7 April 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Latin word “argentum” was recited in the last line of page 2 and line 4 of page 14 and should be replaced with the English word --silver--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the Latin word “argentum” was recited in line 3 and should be replaced with the English word --silver--. 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.
Claim 7 is 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.
The term “high-molecular polymer” in claim 7is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-molecular polymer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation will be used.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 fails to include all the limitations of claim 1 because the claim recites that the reactor and the support form a “single unitary and indivisible part” while claim 1 requires that the reactor and support art distinct structures. As claim 1 teaches that the parts are distinct, claim 8 fails to include the limitation of claim 1 by stating that the structures are “unitary.” Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsui (US 2008/0056934).
In regard to claim 1, 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 claim 16, Tsui discloses wherein one or more filter units can be arranged in one or more of the plurality of through-holes, respectively, as it is taught that the support can be constructed with suitable filtering materials to serve as a filter. It is held that the filtering material would necessarily be supplied in at least one of the through-holes of the support 19 in order to function to filter the airflow. See [0042].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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.
Claims 7, 10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui.
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]. 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).
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), a metal nitride, and a high-molecular 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.
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 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 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.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsui in view of CN 113701295.
In regard to claim 2, Tsui is silent in regard to wherein the support has a honeycomb structure.
CN 113701295 discloses an air purifying device includes a plasma generator using electrodes (corona field processor 3) and a downstream catalyst (oxidation catalytic purifier 6) on a support. The support is disclosed to have a honeycomb structure. See Figure 1, page 6 and page 13.
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 CN 113701295 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 4, Tsui is silent in regard to the composition of the catalyst.
CN 113701295 discloses wherein the oxidation catalytic purifier 6 uses platinum, magnesium (MgO), aluminum (Al2O3), silicon (SiO2), titanium (TiO2), copper (CuO), nickel (NiO), zinc (ZnO) or oxide thereof. See page 6.
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 CN 113701295 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.
CN 113701295 discloses wherein the oxidation catalytic purifier 6 uses platinum, magnesium (MgO), aluminum (Al2O3), silicon (SiO2), titanium (TiO2), copper (CuO), nickel (NiO), zinc (ZnO) or oxide thereof which are of the same composition as the catalysts recited in the instant application. See page 6.
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 CN 113701295 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.).
Conclusion
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