DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed 16 March 2026 have been entered. The amendment has addressed the previous claim objections. Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are pending.
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, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurgin (US 4231766) in view of Lee (US 4,789,801).
PNG
media_image1.png
897
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Spurgin fig 5
Claim 1, Spurgin discloses an electrohydrodynamic ventilation device (fig 5) comprising at least one emitter electrode (conducting ionizer wires 23) and at least two collector electrodes (fig 5, collecting plates 5, figs 1, 3-4, 6-9 show separation space between plates 5 defining the acceleration channel) defining an acceleration channel (figs 3, 6 and 7, parallel air passageways 11 between collection plates, c 3 ln 23; collecting plate may be charged to higher field strength to increase airflow between plates, c 7 ln 17-19) for a flow of ionic wind between the at least two collector electrodes (air movement is caused by arrangement, c 6 ln 66-68),
The at least two collector electrodes collectively have ends that connect the at least two collector electrodes at ends of the acceleration channel (upper and lower ends of collecting plates 5 define the acceleration channel vertically)
wherein the at least one emitter electrode (23) is disposed on the acceleration channel throughout a length of said acceleration channel (fig 1, fig 2, fig 4, fig 5 shows the length of 23 spans the vertical length of collector 5), wherein the at least one emitter electrode is configured to be anchored to supports (wires 23 are anchored to insulators 17, insulators 20 and enclosure 2, via springs 24, c 2 ln 60, c 3 ln 45, c 4 ln 1-32; any of insulators 17, 20, or enclosure 2 can fairly be called a support) made of insulating material (insulators 17 and 20 are implicitly made of an insulating material in order to accomplish said insulating; enclosure 2 is provided with a shock reducing covering, c 2 ln 56-59), the supports comprising a projection section (fig 2 and fig 5 depict cylindrical insulators 17, and insulators 20, and enclosure 2, all protrude away from wires 23; “projecting section” is given a BRI interpretation under the plain meaning, each of the components 17, 20, 2 fit the plain meaning of section because each is a part of a whole, and each 17, 20, and 2 can be considered a projection because they project away from wires 23) that is interposed between the at least one emitter electrode (23) and each of the ends of the at least two collector electrodes (insulators 17, 20, and enclosure 2 are all between both vertical ends the emitter electrode 23 and plates 5),
PNG
media_image2.png
630
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Spurgin fig 4
wherein the projection section extends across the at least two collector electrodes at the ends of the acceleration channel (the insulation projections 17/20 are in front of each acceleration channel between the several plates 5 See fig 6) and covers each of the ends of the at least two collector electrodes adjacent to the at least one emitter electrode (projections 17/20 extends beyond the plates 5 end of at least one acceleration channel, and thereby meet the limitation; the word “cover” is given a BRI interpretation under the plain meaning of cover; the plain meaning of “cover” is “a thing which lies on, over, or in front of something;” enclosure 2 houses the plates 5, c 2 ln 60-67, therefore the enclosure lies on, or over the plates and fits the plain meaning of covering said plates; fig 1, insulators 17 and 20 are depicted as overlapping the vertical height of the plates 5 as well as several channel widths when viewed in the direction of air flow; therefore the insulators lie in front of the electrodes 5 and meets the plain meaning of cover).
Spurgin is silent on 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 ranged 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 first body (Spurgin, collector electrodes 5) and a second body (enclosure 2), wherein the first body comprises the at least two collector electrodes (5)
And the ends of the at least two collector electrodes (the upper and lower ends of plates 5 are the ends),
the second body comprises the support (enclosure 2 is a support of the emitter electrode 23, See claim 1) for the at least one emitter electrode, and the second body (enclosure 2) is configured to be mounted on the first body (under a BRI of the term “mounted on” enclosure 2 is fixed to electrodes 5 and surround electrodes 5; c 2 ln 60-62; the fixing of the elements together meets the plain meaning of “mounted on” in one sense, where mount is synonymous to fix; the enclosure 2 surrounding, and therefore being larger than the electrodes 5, meets the plain meaning of “mounted on” in a second sense, where mount means to grow larger than).
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 the 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 as long as 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.
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), in order 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 in order to prevent / absorb vibrations of the electrode (Masuda, c 21 ln 40-46).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurgin in view of Lee in view of Bontempi (EP 2322280).
Claim 6, Spurgin in view of Lee teaches the electrohydrodynamic ventilation device according to claim 1,further comprising a plurality of emitter electrodes (Spurgin, 23). Spurgin in view of Lee does not teach a spacer made of insulating material on each collector electrode, wherein said spacer is configured to insulate the emitter electrodes from one another, minimizing the interference of the electric field of one emitter electrode with the electric field of another emitter electrode.
Bontempi teaches an electrode (400) mounted on support elements (300) formed of insulating material suitable for supporting the electrode elements (para 10, line 32-35), and electrically insulated in such a way that the failure of one module does not alter the electric field of the entire filter (par 0017).
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 configure the electrode support bracket (19) of Spurgin by manufacturing the support bracket of insulating material as taught by Bontempi in order to electrically insulate the electrodes such that failure of one electrode does not alter the electric field of the entire array.
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 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pg 2, applicant argues that Spurgin fails to teach the “the supports comprising a projection section that is interposed between the at least one emitter electrode and each of the ends of the at least two collector electrodes, wherein the projection section extends across the at least two collector electrodes at the ends of the acceleration channel and covers each of the ends of the at least two collector electrodes adjacent to the at least one emitter electrode,” because Spurgin’s collecting lates 5 do not form an acceleration channel; and that rather the acceleration plates 18 of Spurgin form the acceleration channel.
This argument is not convincing, the arrangement of Spurgin’s accelerator plates (fig 6, accelerator plates 18) followed by downstream collector plates (5) where there is a channel between plates (5) is the same arrangement as applicant’s emitter electrode (fig 3, emitter electrode 4) followed by collector plates (3).
PNG
media_image3.png
442
266
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s fig 4
PNG
media_image4.png
332
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Spurgin fig 6
Pg 3, applicant further argues that Spurgin insulators 17 and 20 considered to be the claimed projection section. That the insulator 17 is on a side of a backet 13 facing away from the ionizer wire 23 and therefore cannot be considered to extend across the collector electrodes at the ends of the acceleration channel, because insulator 20 does not extend across the collector electrodes.
Applicant’s arguments are not convincing under Spurgin the claimed “projection section” includes several insulators that extend across several acceleration channels.
While applicant’s argument may be relevant for a single accelerator channel, applicant’s disclosed invention is an open claim and can comprise a plurality of acceleration channels. Applicant’s fig 1 and 2 show a plurality of collector electrodes 3, with a plurality of accelerator channels between each plate. In order to meet the claimed limitation for “projection section” Spurgin’s insulators need only span the collector electrodes across a single acceleration channel with the two collector electrodes adjacent the one emitter electrode. Spurgin shows its insulators section 15/17 extending horizontally across several acceleration channels between plates 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
630
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Spurgin fig 4
Pg 4, applicant argues that Lee does not disclose the separation distance between collector electrodes between 1.5 to 2.5 and does not make it obvious because the 1.5 to 2.5 distance improves discharge efficiency and increases the power density per length of wire (Applicant’s paragraphs 0023, 0066). Applicant’s arguments are not convincing Lee teaches an overlapping range (See Rejection above, MPEP 2144.05), as well as teaching the same results of varying the distance between electrodes (ion density and dielectric pressure can be selected for a desired application; that as interarray distance is increased the parameters are adjusted to maintain the desired ion density and dielectric pressure, c 8 ln 31-37). The rule is that overlapping ranges are prima facie case of obviousness, particularly when there was no showing of criticality (MPEP 2144.05(i)). Applicant’s suggestion that the claimed range is critical because it improves discharge efficiency and increases power is not an unexpected result. Lee teaches the same results relating ion density to the separation of electrodes (interarray space”, c 8 ln 31-37). Therefore, because Lee teaches an overlapping range, and the Lee also teaches results of varying outside of that range which are the same as applicant, the claimed range and the argued result are obvious and not patentable.
The obvious rejection of Spurgin in view of Lee is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights