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. 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. 1. Claim s 1 -3, 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitagawa et al (USPN 2020/0240670). Regarding claim 1, Kitagawa discloses a n ion generator (100 shown in figure 1) configured to emit air containing ions (an air containing ions emitted from an air conditioner 10) into a workspace (a work place r1) in accordance with a state of a worker in the workspace (a state of levels drowsiness of user U) . Regarding claim 2, Kitagawa discloses an ion generation unit (an air conditioner 10, see figure 2) configured to generate the ions; an acquisition unit (an estimator 66 , 67 ) ) configured to acquire, as the state of the worker (such as state of drowsiness o f user U) , worker information (drowsiness information) related to at least one of drowsiness of the worker and a state of work of the worker (see par. 00 75 ) ; and an ion generation control unit (a controller 14 ) configured to control, on the basis of the worker information, an emission amount of the ions generated by the ion generation unit per unit time (such as a time needed to eliminate the drowsiness of user U) (see par. 0021 , 0103) . Regarding claim 3, Kitagawa discloses wherein the worker information indicates a degree of drowsiness of the worker (drowsiness level, see par. 0075) , the degree of drowsiness of the worker is identified on the basis of at least one of an image of a face of the worker obtained by imaging the worker during work (such as a facial image taken by a camera 26, see par. 0053) , biological information of the worker during the work (such as heart rate of user, see par. 0129) , and movement information indicating a change in movement of the worker during the work ( such as movement of user, see par. 0008) , and the ion generation control unit (the controller 14) is configured to increase the emission amount of the ions per unit time as the degree of drowsiness of the worker increases (by increasing volume of air based on the drowsiness level, see par. 0136, 0137 ) . Regarding claim 5, Kitagawa discloses an air sending unit (an air sending unit includes a flap 16 and a motor 16a) configured to generate an airflow sending the ions generated by the ion generation unit (the air conditioner 10) to the outside (the outside via an outlet 24) (see figure 1) , wherein the ion generation control unit (the controller 14) is configured to control the emission amount of the ions per unit time by controlling an airflow rate of the air sending unit when the ions are emitted (by adjusting the flap 16, e.g. see par. 0136-0137). Regarding claim 8, Kitagawa discloses a method for suppressing drowsiness, the method comprising using the ion generator (100, in figure 1, and 7 ) to suppress drowsiness of the worker (users U) . 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. 2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al (USPN 2020/0240670) in view of Fung et al (USPN 2016/0001781) . Regarding claim 4, Kitagawa discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose the worker information including a contact state as claimed. Fung discloses a system for responding to a driver state (see figures 1a, 39) Comprises a n acquire unit (188, see figure 1) configured to acquire a worker information includes a contact state with an object (a steering wheel) touched by a worker (a driver 176) in order to perform work (a contact state is detected by a touch steering sensor 134, see par. 0229-0230, 0567-0568) , and an ion generation control unit (188) is configured to increase the emission amount of the ions per unit time when the contact state does not satisfy a predetermined condition (see par. 0567-0568, 0718) . It 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 to have modified the device of Kitagawa to incorporate a touch steering sensor which detect a contact state of a driver as disclosed by Fung in order to enhance a safety of driving. Allowable Subject Matter 3. Claims 6 -7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2054 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monica Lewis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-271-1838 . 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. /DANNY NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838