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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 08/29/2023, 12/31/2024 & 01/17/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11 & 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 4,493,247 to Wachsman in view of US Patent Number 10,345,016 B2 to Garing.
A) As per Claims 1, 8, 15 & 19-20, Wachsman teaches an aircraft (Wachsman: Figure 1), comprising:
a passenger seat; a passenger service unit (Wachsman: Figure 1) installed over the passenger seat, the passenger service unit including: an air outlet assembly; an air gasper assembly coupled to the air outlet assembly (Wachsman: best shown in Figure 2 with other air outlet assembly schematics in Figure 1); and
an ion emitter (Wachsman: Figure 1, Item 19) coupled to the air gasper assembly.
Wachsman does not teach a control unit electronically coupled to the air outlet assembly;
a graphical user interface; a control unit electronically coupled to the ion emitter; a processor electronically coupled to the control unit; and a memory operatively coupled to the processor, the memory comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive an input from the graphical user interface; and send a signal to the control unit to adjust a voltage to the ion emitter in response to the input (Wachsman: Col. 6, lines 19-23; Col. 13, lines 28-54).
However, Garing teaches a control unit electronically coupled to the air outlet assembly;
a graphical user interface; a processor electronically coupled to the control unit; and a memory operatively coupled to the processor, the memory comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive an input from the graphical user interface; and send a signal to the control unit to adjust a voltage to the ion emitter in response to the input.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wachsman by adding the control unit, as taught by Garing, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wachsman with these aforementioned teachings of Garing with the motivation of providing convenient control over all features of the passenger service unit.
B) As per Claims 2 & 9, Wachsman in view of Garing teaches that the ion emitter is configured to be in an air flow passing through the air gasper assembly (Wachsman: Figure 1, Item 19 ionizes air through Item 14).
C) As per Claims 4 & 11, Wachsman in view of Garing teaches that the air gasper assembly comprises: a base (Wachsman: Figure 2, Item 24); a shield (Wachsman: Figure 2, Item 40) coupled to the base; and a spoke (Wachsman: Figure 2, Item 38) coupled to the base and the shield, wherein the ion emitter (Wachsman: Figure 2, Item 47) is coupled to the spoke.
D) As per Claim 6, Wachsman in view of Garing teaches that a wire coupled to the spoke and configured to pass an electric voltage from the control unit to the ion emitter (Wachsman: Figure 2, wire within Item 46 bringing voltage to Item 47).
E) As per Claims 7, 13 & 18, Wachsman in view of Garing teaches that the control unit comprises: a voltage input having a first voltage; and a voltage output having a second voltage that is greater than the first voltage, the voltage output being coupled to the ion emitter (Wachsman: Col. 3, lines 28-16).
F) As per Claim 14, Wachsman in view of Garing teaches that an air condition system that provides an air flow to the air distribution box, wherein the ion emitter ionizes the air flow through the air gasper assembly (Wachsman: best shown in Figure 1).
G) As per Claim 16, Wachsman in view of Garing teaches that the signal includes an instruction to increase a voltage output from the control unit to the ion emitter to increase a number of ions produced by the ion emitter (Wachsman: Figure 3, signal to turn on).
H) As per Claim 17, Wachsman in view of Garing teaches that the signal includes an instruction to decrease a voltage output from the control unit to the ion emitter to decrease a number of ions produced by the ion emitter (Wachsman: Figure 3, signal to turn off).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 10 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wachsman in view of Garing as applied to claims 2, 4, 9, or 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2023/0056170 A1 to Wang.
A) As per Claims 3, 5, 10 & 12, Wachsman in view of Garing teaches all the limitations except a plurality of ion emitters arranged around a circumference of the spoke, each of the plurality of ion emitters being perpendicular to a flow of air passing through the air gasper assembly.
However, Wang teaches that a plurality of ion emitters arranged around a circumference of the spoke, each of the plurality of ion emitters being perpendicular to a flow of air passing through the air gasper assembly (Wang: Figures 4-5, items 41-42 spread around “spoke”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Wachsman in view of Garing by having a plurality of emitters arranged, as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wachsman in view of Garing with these aforementioned teachings of Wang with the motivation of providing more ions from a more protected position in the gasper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762