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 claims 1-12, 14-16, and 19-20 in the reply filed on December 5th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13 and 17-18 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 with traverse in the reply filed on December 5th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 5th, 2025, with regards to the restriction requirement, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the device of Group I (claims 1-12, 14-16, and 19-20) could not be used in a materially different process than as required by the method of Group II (claims 13 and 17-18). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The method of Group II requires that the device for treating air is secured, with at least one mounting bracket, within an air passageway. Conversely, the device of Group I does not require securement with a mounting bracket nor does it require that the device be placed within an air passageway. The device of Group I could therefore be a free-standing or mobile device in an open space. Rather than functioning within an HVAC system or other air passageway as required by Group II, the device of Group I could be a mobile unit that is capable of traveling throughout an open space, such as an entire building, and would therefore result in a materially different process of use. For these reasons, the restriction requirement is maintained.
As to the argument that restriction would impose an unnecessary burden on Applicant, the Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant of the possibility for rejoinder.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 7, 10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “each of which having a securement bracket” should read “each of which have a securement bracket”
Claims 2, 7, 10, and 19 all appear to be missing a comma; for example, in claim 2 “The device recited in Claim 1 where” should read “The device recited in Claim 1, where”
In claim 19, “the at least on mounting bracket” should read “the at least one mounting bracket”
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 3 and 7 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 3 recites the limitation “wherein each of the one or more alpha emitter apparatuses include a plurality of metallization layers to form the sealed source radioactive isotope.” It is unclear how the plurality of metallization layers would form the radioactive isotope itself. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean that the metallization layers form a seal that encapsulates the radioactive isotope itself.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “comprising a sensor in communication with the bias box.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (the bias box) in the claim.
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.
Claims 12, 15-16, and 19-20 are 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. Claims 12, 15-16, and 19-20 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. 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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0158419 A1 to Willden et al. (hereinafter referred to as Willden).
Regarding claim 1, Willden teaches a device for treating air with alpha radioisotope ionization (¶0001 “The present disclosure relates to alpha ionizers, and, more particularly, to a bar-type alpha ionizer utilizing alpha particles as an ion source with ion motion created by both electrostatic fields and airflow.”), comprising: a housing (Fig. 1, housing 20); one or more alpha emitter apparatuses (Fig. 3, rail 100), each of which have a securement bracket arranged within the housing (Fig. 3, bracket 80), each of the alpha emitter apparatuses arranged to emit alpha particles creating ions (¶0035 “Specifically, once rail 100 is electrically energized, foils 120A and 120B produce and emit ions.”), including anions and cations (¶0058 “The high energy alpha particles strip electrons off of air molecules to create both positive and negative ions.”), the alpha particles created by a sealed source radioactive isotope encapsulated in the one or more alpha emitter apparatuses (¶0028 “Guard 50 is operatively arranged to shield the ionization material within tray 90 and/or rail 100. Specifically, and as will be discussed in greater detail below, tray 90 may comprise a radioactive isotope, such as Polonium-210.”), wherein the seal protects the environment from contact with the isotope (¶0028 “Guard 50 protects the material from any contact, as well as protects users from contacting the material.”); and, a biasing means for applying a high voltage, low current signal to the one or more alpha emitters (Fig. 3, circuit 200), the current signal arranged to regulate the ion concentration of the ions (Fig. 10 depicts a method of producing alpha ions ; circuit 200 receives an input signal 306 and converts the input signal to an output signal 308 before applying the signal to the rail 310, which causes repulsion of the alpha ions – the input signal and corresponding output signal controls the amount of alpha ions that are released from the rail therefore regulating the concentration of said ions).
Regarding claim 2, Willden teaches the device as applied to claim 1 above. Although Willden does not explicitly teach where the biasing means regulates the ion balance to achieve a predetermined target ion balance, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. That is to say the device as taught by Willden is capable of performing such a function. See MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 3, Willden teaches the device as applied to claim 1 above, wherein each of the one or more alpha emitter apparatuses include a plurality of metallization layers to form the sealed source radioactive isotope (¶0028 “In some embodiments, guard 50 comprises metal, for example, stainless steel.”).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willden.
Regarding claim 4, Willden teaches the device as applied to claim 1 above. Although Willden does not explicitly teach wherein the housing is arranged to be affixed within an air pathway, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. That is to say it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the device as taught by Willden is capable of being fixed within an air pathway. See MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 5, Willden teaches the device as applied to claim 4 above. Although Willden does not explicitly teach wherein said air pathway is a HVAC duct, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. That is to say it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the device as taught by Willden is capable of being fixed within a HVAC duct. See MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Claims 8-11 and 14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to independent claim 8, U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0158419 A1 to Willden et al. (hereinafter referred to as Willden) is the nearest prior art. Willden teaches a device for treating air with alpha radioisotope ionization (¶0001 “The present disclosure relates to alpha ionizers, and, more particularly, to a bar-type alpha ionizer utilizing alpha particles as an ion source with ion motion created by both electrostatic fields and airflow.”), comprising a frame having an internal surface (Fig. 3, housing 20 has a frame formed by surface 22 which has an internal side), the internal surface defining an internal space (Fig. 3, surface 22 of housing 20 holds circuit 200 and rail 100 within its interior); and at least one alpha ionizing apparatus (Fig. 3, rail 100). Willden (nor the related prior art) does not teach a pair of internal brackets arranged within the internal space and removably connected to the frame, each internal bracket arranged to have at least one spacer arranged between the respective bracket and the internal surface of the frame; and wherein the at least one alpha ionizing apparatus is removably connected to the pair of internal brackets. Furthermore, Willden nor the related prior art provide a rationale for modifying any of the previously discussed teachings to meet all of the requirements as set forth by claim 8. Claims 9-11, which are dependent upon claim 8, are similarly accepted.
As to independent claim 14, Willden is the nearest prior art. Willden teaches a device for treating air with alpha radioisotope ionization (¶0001 “The present disclosure relates to alpha ionizers, and, more particularly, to a bar-type alpha ionizer utilizing alpha particles as an ion source with ion motion created by both electrostatic fields and airflow.”), comprising: at least one alpha ionizing apparatus (Fig. 3, rail 100) having a removable securement bracket (Fig. 3, bracket 80 comprises edge 82 which engages groove 26 and edge 84 which engages with groove 24 with a sliding mechanism). Willden (nor the related prior art) does not teach at least one mounting bracket arranged to removably secure to the securement bracket, wherein the at least one mounting bracket is arranged to be secured to an internal surface of an air passageway. Furthermore, Willden nor the related prior art provide a rationale for modifying any of the previously discussed teachings to meet all of the requirements as set forth by claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shaarabany (US 2023/0241280 A1) teaches an air purifying device that utilizes rays, including alpha rays, to sterilize air.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776