DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected because of multiple capitalized “A” in claim 1.
Claim Interpretation—35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Here, the limitations of “an ionizer output means…providing ions to the contaminated air supplied to the first chamber,” “a baffle filter cleaning means for cleaning particles adsorbed on the surface of the baffle filter” and “a mesh filter cleaning means …to clean particles adsorbed on the surface of the mesh filter” in Claim 1 are written in means plus function format without reciting sufficient structures, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
The instant disclosure does not disclose the structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, the claims fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the specification fails to meet the description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because the means-plus-functions limitation as discussed in the previous section invokes 112(f) without providing sufficient written description.
Claims 2–5 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1–5 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 is indefinite because the structure of “ionizer output means,” baffle filter cleaning means” and mesh filter cleaning means” is unclear.
Claims 2–5 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jang et al., KR 20190131330 A (“Jang”) in view of Akira et al., JP 4168160 B2 (“Akira “), and in further view of Jeong et al., US 2019/0046908 A1 (“Jeong”).
Regarding claim 1:
Jang discloses that an air purification filter device 100 using an ionizer 200 comprising: a first chamber 120 connected to a blower 150 and supplied with contaminated air A1. Jang Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, ps. 5–6. Jang discloses an ionizer unit 200, 205 comprising an ionizer output means (where label 200 points) formed in a selected portion of the first chamber and providing ions to the contaminated air A1 supplied to the first chamber. Jang Fig. 3. Jang discloses a filter unit comprising a baffle filter (Jang’s flow change members 125. Jang Fig. 3, p. 7. Jang discloses a mesh filter 190 formed of a metal mesh for adsorbing fine dust and odor particles that have passed through the baffle filter (Jang discloses its metal filter 190 prevents fine dust D2 remaining in the first housing 120 from entering second housing 130). Jang Fig. 3, p. 8. Jang discloses that a cleaning unit (Jang’s mist unit 160) comprising a baffle filter cleaning means for cleaning particles adsorbed on the surface of the baffle filter by spraying a cleaning solution onto the baffle filter (Jang’s Fig. 3 shows the mist unit 160 arranged beneath baffle filter, and Jung also discloses its mist unit 160 could clean fine dust on an inner surface of metal filter 140, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understand that Jang’s mist unit 160 would clean fine dust on Jang’s baffle filter 125 because water from Jang’s mist unit 160 would be sprayed on baffle filter 125 and causing dust to drop due to gravity), and a mesh filter cleaning means that sprays a cleaning solution on the mesh filter to clean particles adsorbed on the surface of the mesh filter (Jang discloses its mist unit 160 could clean the fine dust on an inner surface of mesh filter 140, Jang’s mist unit 160 is shown away from its mesh filter 140, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include an additional mist unit 160 proximate inner surface of mesh filter 140 for a better cleaning results). Jang Fig. 3, p. 4. Jang also discloses a second chamber 130 comprising a rear filter (Jang discloses two metal filter unit 190, the filter unit 190 proximate closer to label 150 is the claimed “rear filter” that filters foreign substances in the air that have passed through the filter unit 125. Jang Fig. 3, p. 8.
Jang does not disclose the ionizer is an X-ray ionizer. Jang does not disclose that an ionizer body that provides a light source to the ionizer output means.
In the analogous art of ionizers for air filters, Akira discloses an ionization source 11 including a generation unit of a soft X-ray generation device. Akira [0019]. Akira also discloses its soft X-rays are weak X-rays having an energy of 3 to 9.5 keV, and can be easily shielded with a vinyl chloride plate having a thickness of about 2 mm. Akira [0021]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Jang’s ionizer to be a X-ray ionizer as disclosed by Akira because X-ray ionizer are known in the art as being suitable to generate ions, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Akira’s X-ray ionizer because it can be easily shieled. Since X-ray is a light source, Akira’s generation unit that generate soft X-ray would be the claimed “ionizer body that provides a light source.”
Modified Jang does not disclose that the baffle filter comprising a plurality of pillars with a semicircular cross-section and providing a surface for adsorbing fine dust and odor particles from contaminated air charged with positive or negative ions through the ionizer unit.
In the analogous art of baffle plates, Jeong discloses a filter comprising a plurality of semicircular cross-section shaped pillars 243 and 247. Jeong Fig. 7B, [0092]. Jeong discloses its structure has a complex air path, which allows oils (fine dust and odor particles) entrained in the air attached to the first and second baffles 243 and 247 upon colliding against the first and second baffles 243 and 247. Jeong discloses such design allows oil mists (particles) to be effectively collected. Jeong Fig. 7B, [0093]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Jang’s flow changing members 125 to look like Jeong’s baffle plates 243 and 247 to effective trap particles in Jang’s air flow A1.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Jang discloses that an air purification filter device using an X-ray ionizer according to claim 1, wherein the ionizer unit has a voltage of 3 to 30 kV (Akira discloses its X-ray ionizer is extracted at a low operating voltage of several tens of kV, overlapping the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3:
It is noted here that “Coanda effect” is caused by the tendency of a fluid jet, like an air or water to stick to and follow a curved surface. A key characteristic of Coanda effect is that the flow follows the contour of a curved surface instead of flowing straight. Such interpretation is consistent with what is disclosed in the instant specification (hereinafter “Spec.”), where it is stated that “the Coanda effect is an aerodynamic phenomenon in which a fluid (liquid, gas) with flowing properties flows along a material with a curved surface.” Spec. p. 9.
Modified Jang discloses that an air purification filter device using an X-ray ionizer according to claim 2, wherein the filter unit 241 of Jeong is configured to apply the Coanda Effect to the baffle filter (as clearly shown in Jeong’s Fig. 7B, flow does not flow straight, they follow the curved surface). Jeong Fig. 7B.
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Jang discloses that an air purification filter device using an X-ray ionizer according to claim 3, wherein the filter unit is configured to provide a ground connection to the the mesh filter 140. Jang p. 5.
Modified Jang does not disclose that the filter unit is configured to provide a ground connection to the baffle filter.
However, Jang teaches that when an ionizer generates negative ions, it is preferred to have its metal filter unit 140 to be positively charged or grounded, which facilitates fine dusts with negative charges from the ionizer to be adsorbed to the metal filter unit 140. Jang p. 5. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modify Jang’s baffle filter to be grounded to allow modified Jang’s baffle filter to adsorbed negatively charged fine dust.
Regarding claim 5:
It is noted that this limitation describes a process rather than directed any positive structural limitation of the claimed air purification filter device.
Modified Jang does not disclose that an air purification filter device using an X-ray ionizer according to claim 4, wherein the baffle filter cleaning means and the mesh filter cleaning means periodically clean the baffle filter and the mesh filter.
However, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Jang’s mist unit 160 to periodically clean the baffle filter and mesh filter for the best performance of modified Jang’s air purification filter device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776