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 1-11 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/14/2023 has 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, 3-5 & 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 4,884,416 to Hwang in view of US Patent Number 10,532,318 B2 to Chew . A) As per Claims 1 & 9-11, Hwang teaches a n apparatus for preventing contamination in a car air conditioner, which is coupled to the car air conditioner including an evaporator that cools inhaled air with a refrigerant (Hwang: Figure 1, evaporator Item 15) , the apparatus comprising: an electrode part disposed on one surface of the evaporator or filter and including a first electrode and a second electrode spaced apart from each other (Hwang: Figure 1, Items 23 & 24) ; and a signal supply (Hwang: Col. 2, lines 25-28) . Hwang does not explicitly teach the signal supply configured to generate a driving signal by mixing an AC signal and a DC signal and supply the driving signal to the electrode part. However, Chew teaches the signal supply configured to generate a driving signal by mixing an AC signal and a DC signal and supply the driving signal to the electrode part (Chew: Claim 15) . 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 Hwang by mixing an AC/DC signal , as taught by Chew , 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 Hwang with these aforementioned teachings of Chew with the motivation of more effectively killing organic air pollutants. B) As per Claim 3, Hwang in view of Chew teaches that the first electrode has a shape in which a plurality of bars is arranged along a first direction, and the second electrode has a shape in which a plurality of bars is arranged along a second direction intersecting the first direction (Hwang: Figure 1, Items 23 & 24 having bars extending in a mesh) . C) As per Claim 4, Hwang in view of Chew teaches that the signal supply module is configured to modify at least one of the characteristics of the driving signal in response to an external input (Chew: Claim 15) . D) As per Claim 5, Hwang in view of Chew teaches that the characteristics of the driving signal include an amplitude and a DC offset (Chew: Claim 15) . Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Chew as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Number 9,333,835 B2 to Gu . A) As per Claim 2, Hwang in view of Chew teaches the electrode part further includes an electrode holder, and wherein the electrode holder includes: a frame in which the first electrode and the second electrode are disposed (Hwang: frame around Item 20) . Hwang in view of Chew does not teach at least one fixture configured to extend from the frame and provided with a fitting groove formed to be fitted into the evaporator. However, Gu teaches at least one fixture configured to extend from the frame and provided with a fitting groove formed to be fitted into the evaporator (Gu: Figure 5, Items 241 & 252) . 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 Hwang in view of Chew by having the filters snap connected to the exchanger, as taught by Gu, 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 FILLIN "Insert the date of the restriction requirement being fully or partially withdrawn." Hwang in view of Chew with these aforementioned teachings of Gu s ince each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the holder of Gu for the holder of Hwang in view of Chew. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Claim(s) 6 -7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Chew as applied to claim s 1 or 5 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2021/0108810 A1 to Benedek . A) As per Claim 6, Hwang in view of Chew teaches all the limitations except that the signal supply is configured to modify at least one of the characteristics of the driving signal according to an operating time of the car air conditioner. However, Benedek teaches a signal supply is configured to modify at least one of the characteristics of the driving signal according to an operating time of the car air conditioner ( Benedek : Paragraph 0044) . 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 Hwang in view of Chew by controlling based on an operating time of the air conditioner, as taught by Benedek , 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 Hwang in view of Chew with these aforementioned teachings of Benedek with the motivation of having ensuring a clean airflow while minimizing energy use. B) As per Claim 7, Hwang in view of Chew teaches all the limitations except that the signal supply module is configured to generate a first driving signal and supply it to the electrode part during a period of operation of the car air conditioner, and generate a second driving signal and supply it to the electrode part when the operation of the air conditioner is stopped, and a magnitude of the second driving signal is larger than a magnitude of the first driving signal. However, Benedek teaches the signal supply module is configured to generate a first driving signal and supply it to the electrode part during a period of operation of the car air conditioner, and generate a second driving signal and supply it to the electrode part when the operation of the air conditioner is stopped, and a magnitude of the second driving signal is larger than a magnitude of the first driving signal ( Benedek : Paragraph 0044) . 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 Hwang in view of Chew by having a larger signal when the device air conditioner is off, as taught by Benedek , 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 Hwang in view of Chew with these aforementioned teachings of Benedek with the motivation of using strong cleaning when the ionization can have the maximum impact of the organic pollutants. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Chew as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication Number 2014/0080398 A1 to Tabei . A) As per Claim 8, Hwang in view of Chew teaches all the limitations except that a resistance measuring device configured to measure the resistance of at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode, and wherein the signal supply module is configured to modify at least one of an amplitude and a DC offset of the drive signal in response to a resistance value measured by the resistance measuring device. However, Tabei teaches a resistance measuring device configured to measure the resistance of at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode, and wherein the signal supply module is configured to modify at least one of an amplitude and a DC offset of the drive signal in response to a resistance value measured by the resistance measuring device ( Tabei : Paragraph 0048) . 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 Hwang in view of Chew by adding a resistance sensor, as taught by Tabei , 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 Hwang in view of Chew with these aforementioned teachings of Tabei with the motivation of sensing a humidity around the exchanger and controlling the purification based on that humidity. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8511 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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