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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 10, 2026, have been considered but are not persuasive. Regarding the objection of claims 3, 9, and 15, see page 2, in Office Action mailed April 10, 2026; the objection to claims 3, 9, and 15 previously state is maintained. Accordingly amend claims 3, 9, and 15 to obviate the grammatical usage error, i.e., from [a noun] to [another noun], as follows: "from an open orientation to a closed orientation and vice versa." Appropriate correction is required. The nonstatutory type double patenting rejection of the claims is maintained here within.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 9, and 16 in lines 5, 6, 7, respectively, “user-specific”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, 7, and 14, the limitation “the electrode is individually addressable via the centralized controller” is an intended result. Nonetheless, for examination on the merits, under BRI, the recitation “individually addressable” is interpreted as follows—the recited electrode is separately selected for control through the centralized controller.
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, 7, and 14 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.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 recite the phrase “actuate the electrode to provide the user specific ionization profile” that raises the following question—what is the condition of the electrode that functions to accomplish “provid[ing] the user specific ionization profile?” The phrase “the user specific ionization profile” is interpreted as information received by the control unit; whereas, the electrode is responsible for ionization, ion emissions. The phrase fails to make clear the relationship between the user specific ionization profile and the ionization output of the electrode.
Each claim, i.e., claims 1, 7, and 14, recites “the electrode is disposed in an aircraft suite, proximal to the passenger seat, such that the electrode is disposed less than one meter from a corresponding passenger.” Although the recitation for the numerical distance of “less than one meter” is definite, the claim language fails to identify a passenger measurement by which the less-than-one-meter relationship is determined. The position of the passenger can vary from the location the measurement is taken. The limitation does not clearly establish the boundary of the claimed apparatus; the reference to an object is variable. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)II. For examination on the merits, prior art that discloses an air ionizer will also interpret an electrode disposed proximally to the passenger seat, such that the electrode is disposed less than one meter from a corresponding passenger.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for depending from claim 1. Claims 8-13 are rejected for depending from claim 7. Claims 15-19 are rejected for depending from claim 14.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abate (US 20180065126 A1) in view of Petitpierre (US 20120228930 A1) Richie (US 20070070572 A1), and Udriste (US 20130113250 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 14, Abate discloses an air ionizer (par [0011], an ionization air purification system; claim 1) comprising:
an electrode (pars [0011]), [0046], anode and cathode);
a power supply (pars [0050], [0057], input power from vehicle, 12-volt system),
wherein the power supply is disposed separately from the control unit (pars [0050], [0056]-[0057]);
a control unit (pars [0011], [0034]-[0036] control device; par [0056]; claim 1) configured to: receive a user specific ionization profile (control device for modifying the degree of ionization; par [0056]); wherein the control unit is configured to connect to a centralized controller via a system communication channel (par [0056]) and manipulate output of the electrode via control signals from the system communication channel (par [0056], “a centralized control unit”); and
actuate the electrode to provide the user specific ionization profile (control device for modifying the degree of ionization; par [0056]).
Abate does not appear to disclose explicitly wherein the control unit is disposed within an available space in a passenger seat; the electrode is disposed in an aircraft suite, proximal to the passenger seat, such that the electrode is disposed less than one meter from a corresponding passenger; and the electrode is individually addressable via the centralized controller. Petitpierre does disclose a control unit (Abstract) and wherein the control unit is disposed within an available space in a passenger seat (pars [0010], [0013], [0015]; Fig. 1; pars [0033]-[0077]).
Abate does not appear to disclose explicitly the electrode is disposed in an aircraft suite, proximal to the passenger seat, such that the electrode is disposed less than one meter from a corresponding passenger—as interpreted above. Udriste does disclose an aircraft suite (Abstract; pars [0002]-[0003]).
Abate does not appear to state specifically that the electrode is individually addressable via the centralized controller. Richie does specifically disclose the electrode is individually addressable via the centralized controller (emitter modules 24 connected to RS-485 communication/power line 26 to a system controller 28 in par [0058]; Fig. 2; par [0060]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the teaching of the prior art references to Petitpierre, Udriste, and Richie as indicated in the above citations for the control unit, air ionizer, and electrode of Abate in an aircraft suite as the combination of the prior art would have involved known air ionizers, control units, aircraft-seat electrical components, electrical communication buses, and recognized passenger-control designs performing known functions for the comfort of passenger users, particularly in an aircraft and more specifically in an aircraft suite with a reasonable expectation of success.
For claims 2, 8, and 15, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Abate further discloses said air ionizer comprising an enclosure (ionization self-contained unit 50 is illustrated in Fig. 12).
For claim 6, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Abate further discloses a housing defining a plurality of modular mounting elements (par [0033]).
Claim(s) 4, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abate, Petitpierre, Udriste, and Richie in further view of Durfee (US 20180133356 A1).
With regard to claims 4, 10, and 17, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Durfee further discloses a non-conductive mesh disposed around the electrode (vents 21; Figs. 1-5). 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 non-conductive mesh, i.e. vent, of Durfee with the ionizer of the combined prior art to allow ions to move freely, which Durfee teaches ([0037]). NOTE: The word around is interpreted under BRI as “near” because the language in the claim does not recite a spatial relationship.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 9, 11, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abate, Petitpierre, Udriste, Richie, and Durfee taken with Kim (US 20180066867 A1).
For claims 3, 9, and 16, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and does not specifically disclose wherein the electrode enclosure comprises a swivel mechanism to switch the enclosure from an open orientation and a closed orientation. Kim discloses a swivel mechanism (vanes 22 and 24 shown in an open position in Fig. 4) which are rotatably coupled to the enclosure ([0029], [0033]; Figs. 1, 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to use the swivel mechanism of Kim with the ionizer disclosed from the combined teaching of the prior art to close the enclosure to prevent exposure of the enclosure when not in use.
For claims 5, 11, and 18, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above but does not specifically state a user interface configured to adjust the user specific ionization profile. Kim teaches a user may operate a management system comprising a plurality of ionizers in a desired mode ([0033]). 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 user interface of Kim with the ionizer of the combined teaching of the prior art for a user to select the desired mode for user selected outcomes with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/401090 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are directed to an air ionizer with minor differences between the claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant claims 1, 7, and 14 recite: Claim 1. An air ionizer comprising: an electrode; a power supply; a control unit configured to: receive a user specific ionization profile; and actuate the electrode to provide the user specific ionization profile.
Claim 7. An aircraft suite comprising: an air ionizer comprising: an electrode; a power supply; a control unit configured to: receive a user specific ionization profile; and actuate the electrode to provide the user specific ionization profile. Claim 14. An aircraft suite air quality control system comprising: an air ionizer comprising: an electrode; a power supply; a control unit configured to: receive a user specific ionization profile; and actuate the electrode to provide the user specific ionization profile.
Claim 1 in the copending application recites: Claim 1. A smart air ionizer, comprising: a power circuit; a high voltage circuit; an electrode coupled to the high voltage circuit, the electrode being exposed to an airflow to ionize the air in the airflow; and a controller circuit coupled to the power circuit and the high voltage circuit, the controller circuit including a controller configured to control a voltage output of the high voltage circuit to the electrode based on a feedback received from the high voltage circuit.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, Applicant should consider the references below in response to this Office Action:
DE 102012006968 A1:
The targeted introduction of electrically charged particles, i.e., ions, in the passenger compartment leads to an improvement in air quality and to increase the well-being of vehicle occupants. The fact that the ionization device is not introduced into air ducting paths of an air conditioning system of the motor vehicle but into a functional component affords advantages in terms of packaging.
In addition, particularly short distances from the ionization device to the vehicle occupant can be achieved. As a result, the ions have fewer opportunities to react with other components in the passenger compartment before they reach the vehicle occupant. The ions thus benefit the vehicle occupant to a particularly great extent.
CN 112533828 A: an aircraft sleeve 100, comprising an aircraft seat 110 for the passenger 104, the aircraft sleeve further comprises: a controller for controlling a plurality of output states of the aircraft, the controller has a logic condition receiver for receiving logic condition input; Figs. 1, 4-9.
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 September 17, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights