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
Claims 3, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 9, and 16 in line 2,
“from an open orientation and to a closed orientation” or
“[[from]] between an open orientation and a closed orientation.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, 7, and 14, the term “user specific ionization profile” is interpreted under BRI as merely any user entered setting that adjusts the operation/function of the air ionizer. Support appears to be found in the specification at paragraph [0025].
Regarding claim 6, the claim language “a housing defining a plurality of modular mounting elements” is interpreted under BRI as merely a housing with mounting holes/fixtures for attachment. Support appears to be illustrated in Fig. 1 a “mounting flange.”
Regarding the language recited in the preamble “an aircraft suite” recited in claim 7 and “an aircraft suite air quality control system” recited in claim 14, the language recited in the preamble, related to an aircraft, does not further limit the structure recited in the body of the claims and is not considered necessary to give live, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Under BRI the claims would read on any ionizer with user-specified controls. The body of the claims do not require aircraft integration. See MPEP § 2111.02.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mowris (US 20230160586 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 14, Mowris discloses a controller for an ionizer related to air treatment with examples including applications to improve indoor air quality in building, automobiles, airplanes, vehicles, appliance systems, or enclosed heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems (Abstract; [0002]). Claims 1, 7, and 14 are listed below with citations from the prior art to Mowris in paratheses.
Claim 1. An air ionizer (ionizer 301, 301a-h; Figs. 1-7, 11-12 illustrate various embodiments of an ionizer) comprising: an electrode (322, 324); a power supply (transformer 310; [0090]-[0091], [0094] “power supply or transformer”; Fig. 3); a control unit (microprocessor 312, thermostat 396, Air Quality Monitor (AQM) system 370; [0023]–[0024], [0038], [0048], [0055], [0086]-[0091]; Figs. 12-13) configured to receive a user specific ionization profile; and actuate the electrode to provide the user specific ionization profile ([0020]-[0024], [0046]-[0048] [0088], [0095]).
Claim 7. An aircraft suite comprising an air ionizer (ionizer 301, 301a-h; Figs. 1-7, 11-12 illustrate various embodiments of an ionizer) comprising an electrode (322, 324); a power supply (transformer 310; [0090]-[0091], [0094] “power supply or transformer”; Fig. 3); a control unit (microprocessor 312, thermostat 396, Air Quality Monitor (AQM) system 370; [0023]–[0024], [0038], [0048], [0055], [0086]-[0091]; Figs. 12-13) configured to receive a user specific ionization profile; and actuate the electrode to provide the user specific ionization profile ([0020]-[0024], [0046]-[0048] [0088], [0095]).
Claim 14. An aircraft suite air quality control system comprising: an air ionizer (ionizer 301, 301a-h; Figs. 1-7, 11-12 illustrate various embodiments of an ionizer) comprising: an electrode (322, 324); a power supply (transformer 310; [0090]-[0091], [0094] “power supply or transformer”; Fig. 3); a control unit (microprocessor 312, thermostat 396, Air Quality Monitor (AQM) system 370; [0023]–[0024], [0038], [0048], [0055], [0086]-[0091]; Figs. 12-13) configured to receive a user specific ionization profile; and actuate the electrode to provide the user specific ionization profile ([0020]-[0024], [0046]-[0048] [0088], [0095]).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Mowris discloses the air ionizer (301h illustrated in Fig. 11) further comprises a second electrode (322, 324); and the electrode and second electrode are disposed in separate aircraft suites. The phrase “the electrode and second electrode are disposed in separate aircraft suites” is interpreted as an intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Nonetheless, Mowris teaches applications for the air ionizer to improve air quality in airplanes ([0002]).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galbreath (US 10786818 B2).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 14, Galbreath discloses an air ionizer (ionization device 10; Figs 1-9, 11; col. 3, ll. 31-35) comprising an electrode (65; col. 6, ll.15-33 ); a power supply (col. 5, l. 63-col. 6, l. 14); a control unit (col. 5, ll. 32-35; col. 6, ll. 15-21) configured to receive a user specific ionization profile; and actuate the electrode to provide the user specific ionization profile (“existing environmental control system (ECS)” ).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Galbreath discloses a housing defining a plurality of modular mounting elements (col. 3, ll. 45-58).
Claim(s) 7, 12, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anno (US 20040184975).
Regarding claims 7, 12, 14 and 19, Anno discloses an air ionizer (air cleaning device A including a negative ion generator or ozone generator 21 or 21A; Fig. 3; Abstract, [0077]) comprising an electrode (electrode 23; Fig. 2; [0058]); a power supply (Abstract; [0002], [0012]-[0013], [0053]); a control unit (remote controller 52; Fig. 27; [0141])-[0142], [0161]-[0162] ) configured to receive a user specific ionization profile; and actuate the electrode to provide the user specific ionization profile ([0141])-[0142], [0161]-[0162]) and further comprising a reading lamp assembly, wherein the electrode is disposed within the reading lamp assembly (Figs. 25-27).
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) 2, 4, 8, 10, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowris in view of Durfee (US 20180133356 A1).
For claims 2, 8, ad 15, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Mowris illustrates schematics for embodiments of ionizer 301, 301a-h (Fig. 1-7, 11) with large dashed lines and does not explicitly state “comprising an electrode enclosure.” Durfee does disclose an electrode enclosure (receptacle 3; Figs. 1-2, 4-6). 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 electrode enclosure of Durfee with the ionizer of Mowris to provide protection of the electrical components with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 Mowris 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, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowris and Durfee in view of 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 Mowris and Durfee to close the enclosure to prevent exposure of the enclosure when not in use.
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowris in view of Kim (US 20180066867 A1).
For claims 5, 11, and 18, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Mowris 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 Mowris 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
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:
US 20130258543 A1: ionizer 10; remote controller 40 controls the ionizer 10; housing 22; electrodes 44a-c; high voltage source; Figs. 1-4.
US 20130299717 A1: Figs. 2, 4, 6, 10, 11A-C; body 40 forming the ion generator 30; casing 42; electrodes 44; power-supply unit 50.
US 10974256 B1; US 11141740 B2; US 11491496 B1: cavity 20 of the ionization device 10 contains an ion generator 72 and circuit board 74; power connector 50; light emitting diode (LED) 54; ions emitted from one brush 66 or electrode 65.
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
April 2, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights