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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20170203305).
As regarding claim 1, Lee discloses the claimed invention for an electronic air cleaner comprising: a control housing (30) having an internal cavity; an ion generation power supply (annotated fig. 5) arranged within the internal cavity; and a brush assembly ([0059]) having at least one electrode directly connected to the ion generation power supply (annotated fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention for wherein the brush assembly includes a plurality of electrodes (30 of fig. 1), each of the plurality of electrodes being directly connected to the ion generation power supply.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170203305) as applied to supra, and further in view of Fujii (US 6744617).
As regarding claim 3, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the control housing includes a first housing portion and a second housing portion, the second housing portion being connectable to the first housing portion to selectively seal the internal cavity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the control housing includes a first housing portion and a second housing portion, the second housing portion being connectable to the first housing portion to selectively seal the internal cavity in order to access internal components inside internal cavity in order to allow convenient access to components housed within the internal cavity, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179 and In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
As regarding claim 4, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the second housing portion is slidably connectable to the first housing portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the second housing portion is slidably connectable to the first housing portion in order to permit selective access to the internal cavity and enables modular removal of the ion generation assembly, thereby improving serviceability without requiring completely disassembly of the housing while maintaining structural integrity during operation, since it was known in the art as shown in Fujii (col 3 ln 63-66 and col 4 ln 39-41).
As regarding claim 5, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first housing portion further comprises a first end, and a plurality of sidewalls extending from the first end, wherein at least one opening (36) for receiving the at least one electrode is formed in one of the plurality of sidewalls.
As regarding claim 6, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one opening is formed in a sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls that defines an upper surface (16 of fig. 1) of the control housing.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170203305) as applied to supra, and further in view of Okano et al (US 20180243462; hereinafter Okano).
As regarding claim 7, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for at least one collar, the at least one electrode being receivable within the at least one collar such that at least a portion of the at least one electrode extends beyond the at least one collar. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide at least one collar, the at least one electrode being receivable within the at least one collar such that at least a portion of the at least one electrode extends beyond the at least one collar in order to provide structural support, guide airflow toward the electrode, enhance safety by preventing accidental contact, and facilitate removal or replacement of the electrode while maintaining optimal ionization efficiency, since it was known in the art as shown in Okano (23 of fig. 3).
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170203305) as applied to supra, and further in view of Alam (US 20080190296).
As regarding claim 8, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one electrode includes fibers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the at least one electrode includes fibers in order to provide multiple high-field emission points, increasing ion generation efficiency, lowering operating voltage, distributing corona discharge evenly, enhancing durability under mechanical stress, since it was known in the art as shown in Alam ([0008], [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide between about 24,000 and about 60,000 fibers in order to enhance electronic air cleaner performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 9 is likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claim 8 above.
As regarding claim 10, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the fibers are silicon carbide (Alam - [0008], [0033]).
Claim(s) 11, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170203305) as applied to supra, and further in view of Waddell (US 20200388994; hereinafter Waddell ‘994).
As regarding claim 11, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one electrode includes at least one bristle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the at least one electrode includes at least one bristle in order to enhance electronic air cleaner, since it was known in the art as shown in Waddell ‘994 ([0043]).
As regarding claim 13, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention for a circuit board (Waddell ‘994 - [0040]) operably coupled to the ion generation power supply, the circuit board being positioned within the internal cavity.
As regarding claim 18, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the control housing further comprises a plurality of feet (Waddell ‘994 - 58) operable to mount the electronic air cleaner to a duct (abstract).
As regarding claim 19, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention for wherein the plurality of feet are connectable to the duct via a plurality of fasteners (Waddell ‘994 - 58).
As regarding claim 20, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention for wherein the plurality of feet are formed from a magnetic material (Waddell ‘994 - [0052]) such that the plurality of feet are magnetically coupled to the duct.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170203305) as applied to supra, and further in view of Gefter et al (US 10136507; hereinafter Gefter).
As regarding claim 12, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one electrode includes at least one piece having an exposed pointed end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the at least one electrode includes at least one piece having an exposed pointed end in order to enhance electronic air cleaner, since it was known in the art as shown in Gefter (col 12 ln 58-63).
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170203305) as applied to supra, and further in view of Lehman et al (US 20230065898; hereinafter Lehman).
As regarding claim 14, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the control housing further comprises a plurality of protrusions arranged within the internal cavity, the plurality of protrusions being arranged in contact with the circuit board to restrict movement of the circuit board within the internal cavity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the control housing further comprises a plurality of protrusions arranged within the internal cavity, the plurality of protrusions being arranged in contact with the circuit board to restrict movement of the circuit board within the internal cavity in order to provide support for the internal components, since it was known in the art as shown in Lehman (fig. 3; no number).
Claim 15 is likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claim 14 above.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170203305) as applied to supra, and further in view of Waddell (US 20190247893; hereinafter Waddell ‘893).
As regarding claim 16, Lee discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee discloses the claimed invention except for a light source operably coupled to the circuit board. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a light source operably coupled to the circuit board in order to enhance electronic air cleaner performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Waddell ‘893 ([0038]).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20170203305) as applied to supra, and further in view of Waddell (US 20190247893; hereinafter Waddell ‘893) and further in view of Bender et al (US 20190374669; hereinafter Bender).
As regarding claim 17, Lee as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Lee as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the control housing further comprises a logo element, and the light source is operable to illuminate the logo element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the control housing further comprises a logo element, and the light source is operable to illuminate the logo element in order to enhance electronic air cleaner performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Bender ([0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights