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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations “edge,” “two ends…cut out”, “electrode strip holding slots,” and “a short recess distance at an end” recited in claim 1 must be shown (i.e., label drawings using reference characters) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Run-on sentences
Punctuation errors
See pars: [0006]-[0033], [0057]-[0060].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 line 3, "extending into".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding reference characters in claims, the reference characters are not relied upon to provide a structural nexus or an interrelationship between the recited claim limitations. Figures should not be relied upon to provide structural nexus or interrelationship between the recited claim limitations. Applicant should remove reference numbers to prevent reliance on the figures for claim interpretation. The use of reference characters does not affect the scope of the claims (see MPEP 2173.05(s)) (see MPEP § 608.01(m), Form of Claims).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an air channel” in line 4. For examination on the merits, the limitation “an air channel” is interpreted as any passage, gap, or void space formed between structural components that permits airflow therethrough said components. Claim 1 recites the limitation “an electrode material” in line 8. For examination on the merits, the limitation “an electrode material” is interpreted under BRI and is any material capable of conduction—metal, metal composites.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical (i.e., punctuation) and usage errors. The lack of punctuations, unconventional paragraph structure, and conventional transitional language introduces ambiguity and result in the metes and bound of the claims being unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the insulating dielectric plate" in lines 4 and 6-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "insulating dielectric plate" was not previously recited. The limitation "insulating dielectric plates" is recited in line 3. Consider amending with—each insulating dielectric plates.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “the recessed distance at one end is greater than the recessed distance at another end in a length direction” that raises questions—“at one end” of which structure? In a length direction of what structure? Grammar usage introduces ambiguity that applicant should reconcile for precision of claim language to clarify the scope of the claim. For examination on the merits, if a prior art reference reads on the limitation “an electrode material,” then the prior art would also read on the previous phase.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the recessed distance" in lines 10. Additionally, claim 10 recites the limitation "the recessed distance" in lines 3-7, and claim 11 recites the limitation "the recessed distance" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The limitation "a recessed distance" was not previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “when the insulating dielectric plates with the electrode material are stacked, the insulating dielectric plates in an upper layer and a lower layer are stacked horizontally opposite to each other” in lines 12-14 that is ambiguous. The language of the phrase appears to further define the limitation “insulating plates” recited in line 3 of claim 1; however, the limitations “an upper layer” and “a lower layer” in line 13 are recited. The introduction of these limitations and the relationship with the limitation “insulating plates” recited in line 3 of claim 1 is unclear. Should the limitations “an upper layer” and “a lower layer” instead recite the limitations “an upper plate” and “a lower plate,” which are recited in line 4 of claim 1? Applicant should amend for precision and clarity of the claim language..
Claim 1 recites the limitation “two ends of the filter cartridge are cut out by the hot fusion two electrode strip holding slots.” Grammar usage introduces ambiguity and the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear, and therefore, ambiguous. Amend the language for precision of claim language and claim scope.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the insulating wire" in lines 2, 13, and 15. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the insulating wire" in lines 2, 12, 17, and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The limitation "an insulating wire" was not previously recited.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the micro electrostatic filter" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "an insulating wire" was not previously recited.
For claim 7, the lack of clarity in punctuation and unconventional paragraph structure that introduces ambiguity and result in the metes and bound of the claim being unclear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the chamber" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "a chamber" was not previously recited. Consider amending as follows: “a chamber formed in the upper housing or the lower housing.”
Regarding claim 12, the terms “trityl phosphate” and “trityl phosphite” in line 8 are not defined by the claims. Furthermore, the compounds listed in lines 5-10 of claim 12 are specifically recited at paragraph [0035] of the originally filed specification but the compounds listed in lines 5-10 of claim 12 are distinct from the compounds recited in paragraph [0078] of the originally filed specification. These discrepancies are the rationale for the indefiniteness of the terms used in claim 12.
Claims 2-13 that depend from independent claim 1are also rejected.
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, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goudy (US 20100147676 A1) in view of Vandenbelt (US 20150013541 A1).
For claim 1, Goudy reads on the micro electrostatic purification device of the instant invention. Goudy discloses ionizer assembly 10 includes a number of ionizer subunits 11, which are assembled in a stacked relations (“filter cartridge”, Fig. 1A, 1B, 7B, 9, 11). The ionizer subunits 11 are formed of a honeycomb structure 12 that has a pair of generally planar dielectric sheets 13, 14 separated by dielectric separators 15, which may be referred to below as "ribs" or as "supports" (“space keeping isolation member”). The honeycomb structure 12 is electrically non-conductive, e.g., made of dielectric material (“insulating dielectric plates”). An electrode 16 is between respective relatively adjacent honeycomb structures 12. In addition to a honeycomb structure 12, an ionizer subunit 11 also includes one of the electrodes. Respective pairs (or more) of electrodes 16 spaced apart by honeycomb structures 12, may be referred to as an ionizer 17. A number of flow through channels 20, i.e., referred to as passages, paths, pathways, flow channels, channels 20 (“an air channel”) are in respective honeycomb structures 12 of the ionizer subunits 11 (“an upper plate and a lower plate of the insulating dielectric plates” “stacked horizontally opposite to each other”). The channels 20 of an ionizer subunit 11 may be the space between the sheets 13, 14 and the ribs 15 of the honeycomb structure 12 of the ionizer subunits (“an air channel”). The ribs 15 separate the dielectric sheets 13, 14 from each other and divide the space between the dielectric sheets 13, 14 into respective flow channels (“the space keeping isolation member and the upper plate and the lower plate of the insulating dielectric plate form the air channel”). Goudy discloses ion production of the ionizer assembly 10 depends on the electrical connections 23a, 24a of electrodes 16 (“an electrode material”) to respective terminals or the like 23b, 24b of the electric circuit 22 (“power supply module,” Claim 3) the voltage applied to or by the electric circuit (par [0073]). Goudy illustrates in Figs. 11-13, a notch 34 cut into each side edge 12a of the honeycomb structure 12 is approximately midway along the length of the side edge. "Side edge" in this instance refers to the edges 12a of the honeycomb structure that run parallel to the flow-through channels 20; placing the notch 34 at such side edge 12a (“two ends”, pars [0122]-[0125], Figs. 11-13A-C). As illustrated in FIGS. 13A-13D, as the rod 33 and the sleeve 41 are pushed into the notches, the flaps 35a, 35b of the electrodes 16 are pushed into the notch and make contact with the sleeve (“is provided on the insulating dielectric plate, the electrode material is recessed into a preset distance relative to each of four edges of the insulating dielectric plate”). In this way, each ionizer subunit 11' is connected to the sleeve 41(“a first electrode strip” “a second electrode strip,” par [0123]).
Goudy does not appear to read on the limitations “edges” in lines 15-16 recited in claim 1. Nonetheless, Vandenbelt is analogous art and does read on edges that are sealed to prevent intrusion of liquid (par [0039]). 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 sealed edges for the filter cartridge of Goudy to prevent intrusion of liquid as taught in Vandenbelt. The phrase “are cut by a hot fusion” in lines 15 and 17 is a process. For apparatus claims, the process does not provide patentably distinct structural features. See MPEP § 2113. The phrases “for resisting high humidity” and "for holding a first electrode strip (71) and a second electrode strip (72) respectively" is 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.
Regarding claim 9, the teaching of the prior art is indicated above. Goudy further discloses quadrilateral, the quadrilateral air channels are staggered, and the space keeping isolation member of the quadrilateral air channels of one insulating dielectric plate is located between two space keeping isolation members of the quadrilateral air channels of another insulating dielectric plate (1A-B, 4A-B, 7A-B).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goudy (US 20100147676 A1) and Vandenbelt (US 20150013541 A1) in view of Noh (US 20210291199 A1).
For claim 2, the teaching of the prior art is relied upon as indicated above but does not teach an upper housing and a lower housing for accommodating the filter cartridge. Noh is analogous art and does teach an upper housing and a lower housing for accommodating a filter cartridge (21, 22 in Fig. 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention use upper and lower housings as taught in Noh for covering the filter cartridge of the combined teaching of Goudy and Vandenbelt.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goudy (US 20100147676 A1) and Vandenbelt (US 20150013541 A1) in view of Noh (US 20210291199 A1) taken with Helt (US 20070039462 A1).
For claim 3, the prior art discloses the claim limitations but does not appear to state explicitly that the power supply comprise a sampling and comparison circuit, a current limitation circuit, and a voltage adjustment circuit; when the sampling and comparison circuit detects a change in an output voltage, the voltage adjustment circuit adjusts the output voltage to a constant output voltage; when the sampling and comparison circuit detects that a change in a current exceeds a preset threshold, the current limitation circuit limits a load current. Helt is analogous art and teaches a power supply comprising a power supply regulated by a microprocessor, associated current and voltage monitoring circuits, high voltage monitoring circuit, connected to a high voltage monitoring circuit, and input circuits (pars [0005], [0056]-[0058], [0060]). 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 circuits in Helt with the power supply of the prior art teaching to control the micro electrostatic purification device efficiently.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goudy (US 20100147676 A1) and Vandenbelt (US 20150013541 A1) in view of Noh (US 20210291199 A1) taken with Maletich (US 20180154297 A1).
For claim 8, the teaching of the prior art is indicated above. Prior art references do not appear to state explicitly magnets are also provided on both sides of the upper housing or the lower housing. Maletich is analogous art and does teach one or more magnets disposed in a designated position and/or in a designated pattern on the surface of the frame (par [0144]). 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 magnet of Maletich with the prior art apparatus to hold the upper and lower housings together.
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 5364458 A: Fig. 6a, external power supply, electrode material, housing.
US 4313741 A: Figs. 12A-C, 13, 14-17; spacers, insulation film, power supply.
US 20240286146 A1: Figs. 2, 4-6, 22-24.
US 20230095203 A1: Figs. 3, 10a-b; wires 30a, 40a.
US 20210001351 A1: Figs. 1-2, 4-6a-b, 10-11a-b, 12.
US 20170120256 A1: Fig. 3, 5-13, 26.
US 20100067164 A1: Figs. 1-16.
KR 100600756 B1: reduced ozone.
CN 201350420 Y: Figs. 1, 4; ozone free.
CN 106179755 A: Figs. 1-2.
CN 107042159 A: Figs. 1-6.
CN 104492600 A: Fig. 5B
CN 104437862 A: Fig. 1.
CA 1319624 C: housing; cartridge; power supply circuit; Figs. 15-18.
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 23, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights