DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1 July 2026 has been entered.
New claims 14 and 15 have been added. Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
PNG
media_image1.png
477
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on applicant’s fig 1
The claim amendment filed 1 July 2026 amended claim 1 to state “a first body comprising the at least two collector electrodes and end pieces that connect the at least two collector electrodes at longitudinal ends of the at least two collector electrodes, the end pieces spanning a width of the acceleration channel between the at least two collector electrodes.” The newly claimed “end pieces” are not named in the originally filed specification. However, as discussed in the interview (16 June 2026) and restated in the interview summary (23 June 2026); the end pieces were agreed upon as the unlabeled shelf like part connecting the collector plates as seen in applicant’s original (fig 1 and fig 11).
The claim amendment filed 1 July 2026 added the limitation “wherein the projection section … is configured to block a direct path between the at least one emitter electrode and the end pieces.” The functional term “block a direct path” is not present in the originally filed specification. Nevertheless, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find the specification provides adequate written description for the structural component “projection section” implementing the functional limitation “block a direct path.” The “projection section” is a structural subcomponent component of the “supports made of insulating material,” so it is clear that “projection section” is a structural description and the 112(f) interpretation will not be applied.
The specification uses a structurally and functionally equivalent term “covers” on page 8, ln 31-34 explains:
“As can be seen in Figure 11, each support (5) comprises a projection section (5') that covers the end (3') of the collector electrodes (3) adjacent to the corresponding emitter electrode (4). In this
way, the end (3') of said collector electrodes (3) (which is a point of high density or high concentration of electric field) is far from the emitter electrode (4), thereby drastically reducing the
risk of electric arcs appearing between the emitter electrode (4) and collector electrodes (3).”
Furthermore, the specification uses the structurally and functionally equivalent term “interposed between” on page 3:
“In a novel way, in the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device object of the present invention, each support comprises a projection section that is interposed between the at least one emitter
electrode and each end of the at least two collector electrodes.
By means of the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device described above, it is possible to drastically reduce the possible appearance of continuous electric arcs between the emitter electrode (corona electrode) and the end of each collector electrode (which is an area of high electric field concentration and, therefore, an area with the greatest danger of generating electric arcs).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “covering” or “interposing” equates to “blocking a direct path” because an insulating projection section placed between two conductive elements (emitter and end piece) physically obstructs the shortest trajectory for an electric arc. In EHD devices, arcs follow the path of least resistance over the shortest distance. Inserting a projection made of insulation increases resistance along that specific path, effectively “blocking” it until the voltage exceeds a higher breakdown threshold or follows a longer route around the insulator. Therefore, the term “block” is interpreted in alignment with applicant’s disclosure and figures (Spec page 3, 8, figures 1, 7-11) as physically obstructing a direct electrical path via an insulating barrier (“covers”/ “interposed”, spec page 3, 8), consistent with engineering convention for preventing electric arcs between electrodes.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
One page 12, lines 2-3, the spec recites “the collector electrodes (39),” it appears to be a typo and should be replaced with “the collector electrodes (3).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant amended claim 1 and added the word “longitudinal” to ”two collector electrodes at longitudinal ends of the at least two collector electrodes,” on line 7 of the claim; for consistent terminology add “longitudinal” to “two collector electrodes at each of the [longitudinal] ends of the acceleration channel” on lines 16-17.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 and 9-15 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 recites “the collector electrodes have between them a separation (D) of between 1.5 and 2.5 times a distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to each of the at least two collector electrodes.” This limitation has an issue with applicant not explaining how to get from multiple distances (G) to a single distance separation (D).
The limitation refers to “separation (D)” in the singular tense, and then “distance (G)” first in the singular tense, and then immediately following, it refers to “distance (G)” as a plurality. “Distance (G)” is toward a plurality because there is a first distance between the emitter and the first electrode, and a second distance between the emitter and the second electrode.
This lacks written description because the disclosed formula requires an explanation of how to go from multiple measurements of distance (G) to a single measurement distance (G), and that explanation is not ever disclosed. The given formula is only for single values and does not give examples for how to manipulate multiple measurements; “the collector electrodes have between them a separation (D) of between 1.5 and 2.5 times a distance (G),” has an input of a single “distance (G)” and an output of a single “separation (D),” which shows it is only for single values. Applicant has not shown how to take the multiple measurement distances (G) and input them into this single value formula. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the conversion from the multiple measurements of distances (G) between electrodes to the single measurement distance (G) to enter the formula and determine the single separation (D).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for lack of written description. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 are correspondingly rejected.
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 1-7 and 9-15 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 recites “the collector electrodes have between them a separation (D) of between 1.5 and 2.5 times a distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to each of the at least two collector electrodes.”
The scope of the claim is unclear because applicant has not disclosed how to convert the multiple “a distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to each of the at least two collector electrodes,” to the singular “distance (G)” which determines the single “separation (D) of between 1.5 and 2.5 times a distance (G).” Since there are multiple distances (G) but the formula to determine separation (S) is singular, it is unclear whether multiple distances (G) are to be treated individually or collectively. Do all measurements (G) require that they meet the formula “separation (D) of between 1.5 to 2.5 times a distance (G)”, or are some measurements (G) not limited by the formula? Since it is unclear whether all measurements (G) must comply with the formula in the limitation, the limitation is indefinite. Therefore claim 1 is rejected for indefiniteness. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15 are correspondingly rejected.
In order to correct the indefiniteness issue, the applicant should explain how to convert the multiple “distance (G)” to the single distance “separation (D)” as it was presented in the originally filed specification or would be conventionally understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art; or applicant should delete the formula which requires the conversion of multiple “distances (G)” to a single measurement of “separation (D).”
For the limited purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the multiple distances (G) being converted to a single air gap distance between the closest point of an emitter electrode and the closest point a collector electrode. This interpretation is to align with applicant’s disclosed intent of preventing arc formation between the collector electrode and the emitter electrode.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3 6, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawyer (US 2012/0008249) in view of Lee (US 4,789,801).
PNG
media_image2.png
505
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Sawyer fig 3d
Claim 1, Sawyer discloses an electrohydrodynamic ventilation device (ion wind fan 56, par 0045-0073) comprising:
at least one emitter electrode (emitters 64, id) and at least two collector electrodes (fig 3b, collector 58 has rows of rectangular air passage openings, par 0057, under a BRI the continuous portions of the collector on either side of a longitudinal row of air passage openings is considered a collector electrode; this is in accord with applicant’s disclosure and the agreed upon interpretation of “end pieces”, See Interview summary (23 June 2026), applicant’s fig 1 shows collector electrodes 3 as integrally connected at the ends in order to form the channels 6 between electrodes) extending in longitudinal direction (See drawing, the longitudinal direction is parallel to the emitter electrodes 64, the collector electrodes also run in this direction) and defining an acceleration channel (air passage openings, par 0057),
the at least one emitter electrode and the at least two collector electrodes configured to generate a flow of ionic wind perpendicular to the longitudinal direction between the at least two collector electrodes (abstract);
a first body (isolator 40, par 0046) comprising the at least two collector electrodes and end pieces (fig 3b, collector supports 74, par 0046) that connect the at least two collector electrodes at longitudinal ends of the at least two collector electrodes (74 is insert molded to the collector, par 0046), the end pieces spanning a width of the acceleration channel between the at least two collector electrodes (fig 3b shows the air passages width are spanned by 74, par 0046-0053); and
supports (end portions 72 support emitters, par 0048) made of insulating material for supporting the at least one emitter electrode (end portions 72 and collector supports 74 are parts of the isolator 40 and made of dielectric material, par 0053; isolator is made of dielectric material which electrically isolates emitter electrodes from collector electrode, par 0034, 0050), wherein the at least one emitter electrode is disposed on the acceleration channel throughout a length of said acceleration channel (fig 3b shows each emitter 64 in the center of each group of air passages through the collectors), the at least one emitter electrode is configured to be anchored to the supports (emitters are connected to attachment ends 72a,b, par 0048), and
the supports comprise a projection section (fig 3b, shows 72 between 68 and 74; fig 4a shows how 72 projects from 74 on the x and y axis) that is interposed between the at least one emitter electrode (68) and each of the end pieces (74) that connect the at least two collector electrodes (fig 3b and fig 4a shows this relationship),
wherein the projection section extends across the at least two collector electrodes at each of the ends of the acceleration channel (fig 3b shows 72 extending across the width of the air channels) and is configured to block a direct path between the at least one emitter electrode and the end pieces (72 is made of dielectric insulating material, par 0053, par 0034), thereby increasing a distance (the presence of the intervening structure 72 inherently increases the distance vs if the structure 72 was not there) an electric arc must traverse from the at least one emitter electrode (64) to each of the end pieces (74, the insulating dielectric is meant to electrically isolate the emitter and collector, par 0034; electrical isolation prevents electric arcs) and reduce risk of electric arcs from appearing between the at least one emitter electrode (64) and the each of the end pieces (74; the insulation increases electric isolation, par 0034, reasonably increasing electric isolation reduces the risk of electric arcs because electric arcs are examples of electric conduction which are intended to be prevented by insulators), and
… a distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to each of the at least two collector electrodes (airgap D2 of 2mm – 5mm, par 0067-0068).
Sawyer is silent on wherein the collector electrodes have between them a separation (D) of between 1.5 and 2.5 times a distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to each of the at least two collector electrodes.
Lee teaches separation distances for electrodes air flow generators which use electrostatic precipitators (c 2 ln 23-28), which are from the same field of endeavor of applicant’s and therefore analogous, where the interelectrode distance B, vertically, (fig 3, c 4 ln 60-65, c 5 ln 66-c 6 ln 11) and the dimension D (distance between electrodes horizontally, in the direction of wind flow arrows) is selected such that B is greater than or equal to D/2 and less than or equal to 2D (c 4 ln 60-65; c 5 ln 66-c 6 ln 11). Therefore, Lee teaches a separation distance (D) of 0.5 to 2 times a distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to the two collector electrodes.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing of electrodes of Sawyer with the ratios taught by Lee in for the expected result of producing suitable dimensions for use with precipitators that produce less ozone and promote safety (c 5 ln 66 – c 6 ln 11).
As a result, the combination teaches the range of a separation distance (D) to distance (G) of 0.5 to 2 times, which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 to 2.5 times. Prior art anticipates the claimed range because there is an expectation in the prior art that electric field strength can be adjusted to the desired flow at the desired distance between electrodes (Sawyer, par 0064, 0067-0068). Furthermore, applicant’s rational for the claimed range is only that the claimed range is “much higher than the corresponding ratio found in other state of the art” (published application, par 0023). Since the prior art clearly falls within the range, applicant’s range is predictable and does not show an unexpected result that could not be achieved by the prior art’s disclosed structure.
Claim 2, Sawyer in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1, further comprising a second body (alignment posts 76, par 0053) including the supports (72) for the at least one emitter electrode (76 and ends 72 support emitters, par 0053), wherein the second body is mounted on the first body (fig 3c shows 76 is mounted/protruding from 72; 72 is a component of isolator 40, par 0050).
Claim 3, Sawyer in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one emitter electrode is configured to be anchored to the supports by screws (Screws to attach the emitter electrode, par 0035), so that by screwing or unscrewing the screws a tightening or loosening of the at least one emitter electrode is respectively allowed (conventionally screwing a screw causes fastening in place and unscrewing disengages the screw; therefore fastening the emitter electrode in place allows the electrode wire to be pulled taut from the end fixed to the device; in contrast disengaging the screw frees the ends of the electrode wire, such that the wire cannot be pulled taut from the end affixed to the device).
Claim 6, Sawyer in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one emitter electrode includes a plurality of emitter electrodes (fig 3d, 3 electrodes 64, par 0082) and a spacer (alignment posts 76) made of insulating material is arranged on each collector electrode (76, 74 and 72 are made of insulating material, par 0050, 0053; fig 3 shows how posts 76 align with each row of air flow ports formed by two collector electrodes), wherein said spacer is configured to insulate the emitter electrodes from one another (alignment posts 76 aids in the positioning of emitter electrodes, par 0053 under a BRI of the term insulate, posts 76 position the emitter electrodes which holds the electrodes apart and prevents touching, the separation is a synonym for insulate under a plain meaning), minimizing the interference of the electric field of one emitter electrode with the electric field of another emitter electrode (under a broad interpretation, the alignment posts 76 maintain electrical isolation at a fixed distance; inherently the positioning performs the electrical function by keeping the emitter electric fields distinct; reasonably the position prevents the emitter electrodes from drifting closer due to vibration or thermal expansion/sag of the electrodes during operation which is a known problem, par 0043, and thereby prevent electrical field overlap and the resultant interference).
Claim 7, Sawyer in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1, wherein the distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to each of the at least two collector electrodes is between 1 mm and 4 mm (Sawyer, distance between collector 58 and emitter 64 is 2mm, par 0067).
Claim 15, Sawyer in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one emitter electrode (64)includes a plurality of emitter electrodes (fig 3d, three electrodes 64, or more, par 0082) and a spacer (alignment points 76) made of insulating material is arranged on each collector electrode (76, 74 and 72 are made of insulating material, par 0050, 0053; fig 3 shows how posts 76 align with each row of air flow ports formed by two collector electrodes), wherein said spacer is configured to insulate the emitter electrodes from one another (alignment posts 76 aids in the positioning of emitter electrodes, par 0053 under a BRI of the term insulate, posts 76 position the emitter electrodes which holds the electrodes apart and prevents touching, the separation is a synonym for insulate under a plain meaning), minimizing the interference of the electric field of one emitter electrode with the electric field of another emitter electrode (under a broad interpretation, the alignment posts 76 maintain electrical isolation at a fixed distance; inherently the positioning performs the electrical function by keeping the emitter electric fields distinct; reasonably the position prevents the emitter electrodes from drifting closer due to vibration or thermal expansion/sag of the electrodes during operation, which is a known problem, par 0043, and thereby prevent electrical field overlap and the resultant interference), and wherein the spacer (76) is connected to the second body (76 is a component of the second body, see claim 2).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurgin (US 4231766) in view of Lee.
Claim 1, Spurgin discloses an electrohydrodynamic ventilation device (fig 1) comprising:
at least one emitter electrode (23) and at least two collector electrodes (5 or 7) extending in longitudinal direction (See annotated fig 1, longitudinal direction is parallel to the emitter and collector electrodes and perpendicular to the direction of flow through the acceleration channels) and defining an acceleration channel (channels between plates 5 and 7), the at least one emitter electrode and the at least two collector electrodes configured to generate a flow of ionic wind perpendicular to the longitudinal direction between the at least two collector electrodes (c 6 ln 66-68);
a first body (fig 1, enclosure 2 with plates 5 and 7 and supports 12a) comprising the at least two collector electrodes (5 or 7) and end pieces (12a) that connect the at least two collector electrodes at longitudinal ends of the at least two collector electrodes (fig 1 shows 12a on the longitudinal ends of 5), the end pieces spanning a width of the acceleration channel between the at least two collector electrodes (fig 3 shows 12a complete across the channel width of 5 and 7); and
supports (17 + 13) made of insulating material for supporting the at least one emitter electrode (23), wherein the at least one emitter electrode is disposed on the acceleration channel throughout a length of said acceleration channel (23 is parallel with acceleration channel in the longitudinal direction), the at least one emitter electrode (23) is configured to be anchored to the supports (23 is anchored to 17 + 13 via 20), and the supports (17 + 13) comprise a projection section (13) that is interposed between the at least one emitter electrode (23) and each of the end pieces (12a) that connect the at least two collector electrodes (fig 1 shows 13 between 23 and 12a),
wherein the projection section (13) extends across the at least two collector electrodes at each of the [longitudinal] ends of the acceleration channel (fig 1 shows 13 extending across 5 at the longitudinal ends) and is configured to block a direct path between the at least one emitter electrode and the end pieces (13 supports insulators 17 and 20, which are between emitter electrodes 23 and longitudinal ends 12a), thereby increasing a distance an electric arc must traverse from the at least one emitter electrode to each of the end pieces and reduce risk of electric arcs from appearing between the at least one emitter electrode and the each of the end pieces (13, with insulators 17 and 20 maintain the distance between electrodes because they are their mounting points; sufficient spacing is maintained to preclude arcing between ionizer wire and accelerator plates, c 6 ln 40-44; this indicates that arcing is considered generally undesirable; since the insulators 17 and 20 and 13 manage spacing between electrodes they would also provide the spacing that prevents the undesirable arcing; furthermore, 13 17 and 20 physically occupies the space between the emitter (23) and the end piece (12a); Therefore, any electrical arc attempting to travel directly from the emitter to the end piece must traverse through or around this insulating structure, inherently increasing the path length and blocking the direct path).
Spurgin is silent on wherein the collector electrodes have between them a separation (D) of between 1.5 and 2.5 times a distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to each of the at least two collector electrodes.
Lee teaches separation distances for electrodes air flow generators which use electrostatic precipitators (c 2 ln 23-28), which are from the same field of endeavor of applicant’s and therefore analogous, where the interelectrode distance B, vertically, (fig 3, c 4 ln 60-65, c 5 ln 66-c 6 ln 11) and the dimension D (distance between electrodes horizontally, in the direction of wind flow arrows) is selected such that B is greater than or equal to D/2 and less than or equal to 2D (c 4 ln 60-65; c 5 ln 66-c 6 ln 11). Therefore, Lee teaches a separation distance (D) of 0.5 to 2 times a distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to the two collector electrodes.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing of electrodes of Spurgin with the ratios taught by Lee in for the expected result of producing suitable dimensions for use with precipitators that produce less ozone and promote safety (c 5 ln 66 – c 6 ln 11).
As a result, the combination teaches the range of a separation distance (D) to distance (G) of 0.5 to 2 times, which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 to 2.5 times. The prior art anticipates the claimed range because there is an expectation in the prior art that electric field strength can be adjusted to the desired flow at the desired distance between electrodes (Spurgin, c 7 ln 10-20). Furthermore, applicant’s rational for the claimed range is only that the claimed range is “much higher than the corresponding ratio found in other state of the art” (published application, par 0023). Since the prior art clearly falls within the range, applicant’s range is predictable and does not show an unexpected result that could not be achieved by the prior art’s disclosed structure.
Claim 2, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1, further comprising a second body (Spurgin, fig 1, insulators 17 + 13) including the supports (17+13) for the at least one emitter electrode (23), wherein the second body is mounted on the first body (fig 1 shows insulators 17 mounted to enclosure 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
897
945
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Spurgin fig 5
Claim 4, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one emitter electrode (Spurgin, wires 23) is configured to be anchored to the supports (insulators 17, 20; enclosure 2) by metallic plates (mounting bracket 19) configured to act by way of springs (tension springs 24 maintain ionizer wires 23 at proper tension in their connection to mounting bracket 19, c 4 ln 12-24), allowing vibrations or shocks on the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device to be absorbed (springs absorbing vibrations and shock appears to be an inherent result of using springs to provide tension, See MPEP 2112, the inherency is reasonable because springs are known in the art as flexible and provide dampening against motion in accord with spring force).
Claim 7, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1. Spurgin in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to each of the at least two collector electrodes is between 1 mm and 4 mm.
The combination does not disclose the claimed range because Spurgin discloses that the collecting plates (5) are 0.5 inches apart (c 4 ln 64-65). Furthermore, the combination of Spurgin in view of Lee at claim 1 teaches a separation distance (D) of 0.5 to 2 times a distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to the two collector electrodes. Substituting 0.5 inches in for distance (G), the combination teaches (D) ranging from 0.25 inches to 1 inch. It is standard conversion that 1 inch is equal to 25.4 millimeters. Therefore, the range of D achieved by using the combination of Spurgin in view of Lee is 6.35 mm to 25.4 mm. Which is greater in size than the claimed range of 1 mm to 4 mm.
Nevertheless, the claimed range of 1 mm to 4 mm is an obvious change in size/proportion. The rule is that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), See MPEP 2144.01). In this case, Spurgin in view of Lee functions as an electrohydrodynamic ventilation device which collects particulate on its collector electrodes; applicant indicates no change in functionality of the device by changing said distance. It is reasonable to conclude that reducing the size of the ventilation device of Spurgin in view of Lee would not affect the function of the device if the polarities and voltage potential levels were adjusted in order to produce the desired electric fields that enable the device to function, as taught by Spurgin (c 7 ln 10-20).
Claim 9, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1, wherein the separation (D) between the collector electrodes is approximately twice the distance (G) from the at least one emitter electrode to the each of the at least two collector electrode (See Claim 1, a separation distance of D = 2G, is taught by Spurgin in view of Lee).
Claim 10, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1.
Spurgin does not explicitly disclose wherein the supports comprise V-shaped channels configured to help position the at least one emitter electrode correctly and parallelly.
Nevertheless, Spurgin teaches that the spaced parallel fine electrically conducting ionizer wires 23 are secured by means of tensions springs 24 connecting eyelets 24a to a loop formed in the end of the spring (c 4 ln 17-21).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed V-shaped channel is an obvious change in shape of the Spurgin’s loops at the end of spring 24 used to position the parallel wires 23. The rule is that the shape is a matter of obvious choice absent persuasive evidence that the claimed shape was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), See MPEP 2144.01). In this case, Spurgin’s loops at the end of springs 24, are used to position the wires (23) in parallel; applicant’s claimed V-shaped channels are disclosed and claimed as helping position the emitter electrode in parallel (Published app, par 0026, 0058). Therefore, there is no evidence that the claimed V-shaped channel provides any significant difference than the shape of Spurgin’s spring 24, which is also used to position parallel electrodes. Therefore, the claimed V-shape channel is rejected as obvious under Spurgin in view of Lee.
Claim 14, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1, wherein the supports (17 + 13) are connected by longitudinal elements (emitter electrodes 23, run longitudinally and can reasonably be called longitudinal elements, the term elements is a generic placeholder, so the electrodes being longitudinal satisfies said limitation) to form the second body.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurgin in view of Lee in view of Masuda (US 4,414,603).
Regarding claim 3, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1.
Spurgin is silent wherein the at least one emitter electrode is configured to be anchored to the supports by means of screws, so that by screwing or unscrewing the screws a tightening or loosening of the at least one emitter electrode is respectively allowed.
Masuda teaches mounting a corona discharge electrode anchored to support by means of screws (c 18 ln 1, 5-7), metallic plates (conducting washers, c 18 ln 7) and springs (c 18 ln 20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode mount between any of wire (23), spring (24) and mounting bracket (19) of Spurgin by substituting the equivalent fastening means taught by Masuda. The rule is that, in an equivalence rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art (In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958), MPEP 2144.06). In this case, Masuda identifies screws, conducting washers and springs, as mounting means for electrodes. Therefore, the substation of screws as an equivalent mounting means is obvious.
Furthermore, tightening and loosening a connection by screwing or unscrewing screws is a well-known and conventional function of screws.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to anchor said electrode with said screw so that said screw could be screwed or unscrewed as is known in the art and produce the predictable result of tightening or loosening the connection. Therefore, the combination makes obvious the claimed screwing or unscrewing the screws a tightening or loosening of the at least one emitter electrode.
Regarding claim 5, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1. Spurgin is silent wherein the at least one emitter electrode is configured to be anchored to the supports by means of a combination of plates and screws .
Masuda teaches mounting a corona discharge electrode anchored to support by means of metallic plates (conducting washers, c 18 ln 7) and springs (c 18 ln 20), to prevent / absorb vibrations of the electrode (c 21 ln 40-46).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic electrode mount of Spurgin by adding the conducting washers and springs as fastening means taught by Masuda to prevent / absorb vibrations of the electrode (Masuda, c 21 ln 40-46).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurgin in view of Lee in view of Hizer (US 2011/0,261,499).
Regarding claim 11, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1. Spurgin is silent wherein the collector electrodes comprise a drop-shaped geometry generating a channel with divergent walls between each two collector electrodes .
Hizer teaches an electrohydrodynamic ventilation device (ion wind fan, par 0024) where the collector electrodes (fig 6b, collector electrodes 90, par 0092-0093) comprise a drop-shaped geometry (teardrop shaped, par 0093) generating a channel with divergent walls between each two collector electrodes (fig 6B depicts channels diverging at the corners 94).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the collector electrodes of Spurgin in view of Lee with the teardrop shaped electrodes taught by Hizer in order to reduce airflow resistance of the electrode (par 0093), thereby increasing pumping efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1.
Spurgin is silent on wherein the at least two collector electrodes comprise a partially cylindrical and partially trapezoidal geometry, generating a channel with divergent walls between each adjacent pair of the at least two collector electrodes.
Hizer teaches an electrohydrodynamic ventilation device (ion wind fan, par 0024) where the collector electrodes (fig 6b, collector electrodes 90, par 0092-0093) comprise a drop-shaped geometry (teardrop shaped, par 0093) generating a channel with divergent walls between each two collector electrodes (fig 6B depicts channels diverging at the corners 94).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the collector electrodes of Spurgin in view of Lee with the teardrop shape electrodes taught by Hizer in order to reduce airflow resistance of the electrode (par 0093), thereby increasing pumping efficiency.
Applicant’s figure 6d shows a teardrop shape as the partially cylindrical, partially trapezoid shape. A person of ordinary skill in the art would see applicant’s teardrop shape as reasonably similar to Hizer’s collector electrode (90). Therefore, Spurgin in view of Lee in view of Hizer meets the claimed shape of the collector electrode.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurgin in view of Lee in view of McCullough (US 2006/0,250,746).
Regarding claim 13, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1. Spurgin is silent wherein the collector electrodes are made with a core made of insulating material and a coating of conductive material.
McCullough teaches an ionic flow generator (title) with a collector (106) having a core made of insulating material (dielectric material such as plastic, par 0018) and a coating of conductive material (metallic coated dielectric material, par 0018).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture said collector electrode from a core of insulating material coated with conductive material as suitable for its intended purpose. The rule is that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, selecting an insulator core coated with conductive material is obvious as a material suitable for a collector; thereby making the claimed insulating material coated with conductive material limitation obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 3, applicant argues that Spurgin and Lee fail to disclose the amendments because “the insulators 17, 20 of Spurgin do not increase the distance an electric arc must traverse between an emitter electrode and an end piece connecting the collector electrodes.” Applicant acknowledges that insulators 17, 20 are between the bracket 13 (supporting the ionizer wire / emitter electrode 23) and the enclosure 2 (supporting the collector electrodes) and provide electrical isolation (page 3).
Applicant argues that (point a) none of the insulators 17, 20 are arranged to increase the distance an electric arc must traverse between electrodes, and (point b) that even though insulators 17, 20 provide electrical isolation they do not teach or suggest a need to suppress electric arcs (page 3).
Regarding point A, Applicant’s argument is not convincing, because the suppression of electric arcs via increasing distance in the claimed arrangement is an inherent feature of the insulators between electrodes in an ion fan of Spurgin (MPEP 2112).
In an ion wind fan, electrical arcing is the result of voltage between the emitter electrode and collector electrode exceeding the dielectric breakdown voltage between the air gap between the emitter electrode and collector electrode (As evidenced by applicant’s admitted prior art Sawyer, US2011019228, par 0028). The electric arc forms across an electrically conductive path of least resistance over the shortest distance across the air gap. An increase of the air gap distance will decrease the likelihood that an arc would form. Therefore, Spurgin’s insulators (17, 20) which provide the spacing for the airgap between electrodes, inherently defines the air gap distance which prevents the formation of arcs.
Regarding point B, applicant’s argument is not convincing. Applicant has overlooked that Spurgin explicitly discloses that electrical arcing is undesirable in the pump (sufficient spacing is maintained to preclude arcing between ionizer wire and accelerator plates, c 6 ln 40-44). Reasonably, the intention to preclude arcing between the emitter electrode and accelerator plate of the pump, inherently also precludes arcing between the emitter electrode and the collector electrode end pieces on the far side of the accelerator plate of the pump. Furthermore, the teaching implies that arcing is considered generally undesirable between all electrodes of the pump. It is reasonable to conclude that pump is intended to ionize air without continuous arcing between the ionizing wire and any other component of the pump,
Therefore, the rejection under Spurgin is maintained toward the newly claimed points that the projection section is configured to block a direct path between the at least one emitter electrode and the end pieces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached on (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights