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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 13-14, “the liquid, and the pollutants are collected into the liquid”
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 1-13 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 "the air cleaner" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "an air cleaner" was not previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a predetermined distance range" in line 18. The limitation raises the following questions—what boundaries determine the range, how is the range selected? The claim fails to define an objective boundary for the limitation making the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. NOTE: The term "configured to accommodate a liquid" in line 2 does not mean that a liquid is present. Furthermore, the liquid is material worked upon. The material worked upon does not limit an apparatus claim. MPEP § 2115. Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
Claim 6 recites "configured to change a revolution number of the rotary motor so that the spaced apart distance is within the predetermined distance range" in lines 3-4 that is an intended result. The language in claim 6 does not recite the structural element(s) that permit the rotary motor to accomplish the function "to change the revolution number of the rotary motor." Is the rotary motor shelf adjustable?
Claim 7 recites the limitation “is allowed to be within the predetermined distance range" in lines 7-8 [emphasis added]. The phrase "is allowed to be" is ambiguous and imprecise; therefore, claim 7 is indefinite. Claim 7 recites the functional limitation “the rotary motor is configured…to transmit a detected revolution number to the controller” but does not define a structural element to transmit a detected revolution number. The nexus is unclear and ambiguous making the scope unclear and the claim indefinite. Claim 7 recites the functional phrase "wherein the controller is configured to: compare a reference revolution number of the rotary motor, at which the spaced apart distance is allowed to be within the predetermined distance range, with the detected revolution number inputted from the rotary motor; and to increase the revolution number of the rotary motor to heighten a level of the liquid so that the spaced apart distance is within the predetermined distance range" without recitations to any structural elements that permit the described functions to occur making the scope unclear and further claim 7 indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a replenishing tank configured to accommodate a replenishing liquid having a concentration different from a concentration of the liquid" in lines 2-3. The phrase "configured to accommodate a replenishing liquid having a concentration different from a concentration of the liquid" is unclear and raises the question—does the concentration refer to an ionic concentration, a solute concentration; is there a scale to measure the concentration? NOTE: The language of the claim is inclusive for a liquid such as pure water, which lacks dissolved solutes; therefore, without a concentration gradient, osmosis would not occur.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 12 is/are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230256375 A1) in view of Scaringe (US 20060174763 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “configured to accommodate a liquid” in line 2 is an intended use/result, which involves material worked upon, i.e., a liquid. Material worked upon does not limit an apparatus claim (see. MPEP § 2115). Furthermore, the phrase does not mean that a liquid is present. For examination on the merits, if references teach apparatus, capable of such use, then the references are not required to the recite functional limitation. NOTE: subsequent recitations to the liquid in claim 1 and dependent claims are inclusive.
For claim 1, Lee discloses an electrical discharge type air cleaner (Figs 1, 8) comprising: a dust collecting tank (120) configured to accommodate a liquid; a housing configured to accommodate the dust collecting tank (Fig 1; [0054]); an air supplying portion (Fig 8; [0056]) configured to supply air from an outside into the dust collecting tank to collect pollutants contained in the air; an air discharging portion (150) having an air discharging tube (151; [0084]) disposed so as to face a surface of the liquid, and configured to discharge the air supplied to the dust collecting tank to the outside; and a rotary vane (130) installed on a bottom of the dust collecting tank and configured to rotate the liquid such that a vortex is formed in the liquid. Lee does not appear to disclose a plurality of discharge electrodes disposed along a circumference of the air discharging tube and a charging portion disposed in the dust collecting tank and charging the liquid with a polarity opposite to a polarity of the plurality of discharge electrodes such that an electric field is formed between the plurality of discharge electrodes and the liquid and the pollutants are collected into the liquid, wherein the air cleaner is configured so that a spaced apart distance between the surface of the liquid and the plurality of discharge electrodes is within a predetermined distance range. Scaringe does disclose a plurality of discharge electrodes (30) and a charging portion (80) disposed in the dust collecting tank and a charging the liquid with a polarity opposite to a polarity of the plurality of discharge electrodes such that an electric field is formed between the plurality of discharge electrodes and the liquid and the pollutants are collected into the liquid ([0009], [0029]-[0032], [0044]; Fig 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the ionizing tips 30 (“plurality of discharge electrodes”) and the charging portion of Scaringe along a circumference of the air discharging tube of Lee as claimed to reduce airborne contaminants.
For claim 2, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Scaringe teaches the plurality of discharge electrodes are configured to be charged with a positive (+) polarity ([0021]), and the charging portion is configured to charge the liquid with a negative (−) polarity ([0021], [0030], [0031]).
For claim 3, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Lee and Scaringe combined teach the plurality of discharge electrodes protrudes from the air discharging tube but do not explicitly state “in a radially outward direction of a central axis of the air discharging tube.” Considering the combined teaching of the prior art, the recitation “a radially outward direction of a central axis of the air discharging tube” is interpreted as a location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to relocate the plurality of discharge electrodes in a radially outward direction, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and relocating the plurality of discharger electrodes would not have changed the function of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04(VIC).
For claim 4, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Scaringe further discloses a grounding portion installed in the housing and configured to ground the dust collecting tank (Fig 1; [0029]).
For claim 5, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and does not explicitly indicate the inclusion of a non-conductive material in an inner peripheral surface or an outer peripheral surface of the dust collecting tank. In the electrostatic art one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if liquid were to become energized a fault path can potentially be created; however, a non-conductive material (i.e., an electrical insulator) would break any energized fault path formed. Additionally, electrical codes associated with liquid containment recommend the use of non-conductive materials for liquids in electrical environments. 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 non-conductive material at an inner peripheral surface or an outer peripheral surface of the dust collecting tank in order to provide a break for an untended fault path and possibly prevent electrocution of living beings.
For claim 6, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Lee further comprises a rotary motor (140, 241; Figs 8, 11) installed in the housing and configured to rotate the rotary vane, wherein the rotary motor is configured to change a revolution number of the rotary motor so that the spaced apart distance is within the predetermined distance range (Figs 6, 12; [0061], [0091]).
For claim 8, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Scaringe further comprises a liquid level detecting sensor (“liquid level float switch”) configured to detect a level of the liquid; and a controller (“water…maintained at the proper level”) configured to adjust the spaced apart distance based on a detection signal from the liquid level detecting sensor so that the spaced apart distance is within the predetermined distance range ([0029]). The phrase “so that the spaced apart distance is within the predetermined distance range” is interpreted as an intended result. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
For claim 9, the phrase “wherein the controller is configured to change a revolution number of the rotary motor so that the spaced apart distance is within the predetermined distance range” in lines 3-4 is an intended use/result. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
Claim 12 recites the phrase "configured to change positions of the plurality of discharge electrodes" in lines 1-2 is interpreted as an intended result/use. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Furthermore, the language recited in the claim fails to identify the structural elements that accomplish the result to change positions of the plurality of discharge electrode. Since the structure elements are undefine any can be said to accomplish the intended result.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the plurality of discharge electrodes are configured to be vertically movable so that the spaced apart distance is within the predetermined distance range” in line 2-3 is interpreted as an intended result/use. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Furthermore, the language recited in the claim fails to identify the structural elements that accomplish the result “vertically movable…range.”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Scaringe in view of Dennis (US 20040216612 A1).
For claim 7, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above and does not appear to disclose a controller. Dennis does teach a controller (circuit board 20 controls the operation of the motor and fan; Abstract; par [0023]). 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 controller of Dennis with the combined teaching of the prior art to Lee and Scaringe to control the rotational rate of the rotary motor. The phrases “wherein the rotary motor is configured to detect a revolution number of the rotary motor and to transmit a detected revolution number to the controller, and wherein the controller is configured to: compare a reference revolution number of the rotary motor, at which the spaced apart distance is allowed to be within the predetermined distance range, with the detected revolution number inputted from the rotary motor; and to increase the revolution number of the rotary motor to heighten a level of the liquid so that the spaced apart distance is within the predetermined distance range” are intended use/result. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Scaringe in view of Chiesl (US 6641635 B1).
For claim 10, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above and does not explicitly teach a replenishing tank configured to accommodate a replenishing liquid for replenishing the liquid in the dust collecting tank and a pump configured to supply the replenishing liquid of the replenishing tank to the dust collecting tank, wherein the controller is configured to control the pump so that the spaced apart distance is within the predetermined distance range. Chiesl discloses a liquid based air cleaner and liquid used in an air-liquid chamber 140 that has a separate circulation system for clean liquid to return to the chamber for use (col 2, l. 60-col. 3, l. 24). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the teaching of Chiesl with the combined teaching of Lee and Scaringe to replenish liquid in the dust collecting tank to maintain operation of the electrical discharge type air cleaner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant should consider the references below in response to
this Office Action:
US 8012248 B2: liquid tank 401, rotary impeller (vane) 408 in bottom of liquid tank creating vortex flow, electric motor 433 driving the impeller, housing, air inlet (air supplying portion), and outlet (air discharging portion).
US 9346060 B2: water ion purifier; anion generator 12; an electric field; air inlets 1; air outlets 15; a fan; water storage tank 9.
JP 2000325745 A: water container 4; first and second electrodes 13, 14; discharge space 10; power supply 15.
KR 102240223 B1 & KR 20220005974 A: wave vortex air purifier; see US 20230256375 A1.
CZ 279961 B6: air inlet; electrically conductive liquid 14 in the container 9; container 18 with a bath 15; blower fan 2; first emitter 2; second emitter 6; high-voltage sources 11, 12; first surface electrode 4; second surface electrode 7; control electronic circuit 13; ionization electrode 24.
EP 445766 A: a corona discharge between an emitter and an electrically conductive fluid in a space through which the unclean air is passed.
US 20060097411 A1: wet type air cleaner; blower unit; motor 17; fan 28; air suction inlet 11; water tank 19; float switch 26; water pump 22; water supply line 23; water supply unit 24; water supply valve 25; controller 29.
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
March 17, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776