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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8/7/26 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application with claims 15-18 withdrawn. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 7/17/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Akai does not teach the amended claims.
Examiner asserts that Akai does teach the amended claims as noted below. Additionally the ion emitter being part of the air outlet as a single unit depends on what structure is considered part of the air outlet. When the air outlet is considered part of a larger structure the ion emitter would be considered part of the air outlet. This orientation also appears to be shown in Akai.
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) 1-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP200412087 to Akai et al. (Akai).
Regarding claim 1, Akai teaches an air duct (52, Figure 9) including an air inlet (duct has an inlet because it has a flowpath) and an air outlet (53a, Figure 9), the air outlet extending into the aircraft galley (53a, Figure 9, Paragraph 0051 of translation); an ion emitter coupled to the air outlet (16, Figure 9); wherein the ion emitter is incorporated into the air outlet such that the ion emitter and the air outlet operate as a single unit to ionize and disperse air throughout the aircraft galley (This is shown in Figure 9 where the ion emitter is part of the air outlet) and a control unit electronically coupled to the ion emitter, the control unit configured to control an ion output of the ion emitter (control scheme in Figures 5 and 6 and control unit 9, Paragraphs 0051-0055 of translation disclose control as well).
Regarding claim 2, Akai teaches wherein the ion emitter is configured to be in an air flow passing through the air outlet (shown in Figure 9 and disclosed in Paragraphs 0051-0055 of translation).
Regarding claim 3, Akai teaches wherein the ion emitter is perpendicular to the air flow passing through the air outlet (appears perpendicular in Figure 9, additionally anything can be perpendicular to something else when coordinates or a particular side are not called out).
Regarding claim 6, Akai teaches wherein the air inlet extends to an exterior of the aircraft galley to provide the air duct with air from outside of the aircraft galley (shown in Figure 9).
Regarding claim 7, Akai teaches wherein the control unit comprises: a voltage input having a first voltage; and a voltage output having a second voltage that is greater than the first voltage, the voltage output being coupled to the ion emitter (Paragraphs 0024-0026 of translation).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akai in view of JP20110168159 to Kataoka (Kataoka).
Regarding claim 4, Akai is silent on wherein the air outlet includes an opening having an outer circumference and the ion emitter is coupled to the opening and extends inward from the outer circumference.
Kataoka teaches wherein the air outlet includes an opening having an outer circumference and the ion emitter is coupled to the opening and extends inward from the outer circumference (31 and 32, Figure 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Akai with the teachings of Kataoka to provide wherein the air outlet includes an opening having an outer circumference and the ion emitter is coupled to the opening and extends inward from the outer circumference. Doing so would be a simple rearrangement of parts and/or minimize the inhibition of flow in the duct.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akai in view of Kataoka and U.S. Patent 6668563 to Mirowsky et al. (Mirowsky).
Regarding claim 5, Akai is silent on a plurality of ion emitters arranged around the outer circumference of the opening, wherein each of the plurality of ion emitters is perpendicular to a flow of air passing through the opening.
Mirowsky teaches a plurality of ion emitters arranged around the outer circumference of the opening, wherein each of the plurality of ion emitters is perpendicular to a flow of air passing through the opening (Figure 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Akai with the teachings of Mirowsky to provide a plurality of ion emitters arranged around the outer circumference of the opening, wherein each of the plurality of ion emitters is perpendicular to a flow of air passing through the opening. Doing so would be a simple duplication of parts and/or allow for the flow to be treated more thoroughly.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akai in view of EP3925884 to Maben (Maben).
Regarding claim 8, Akai teaches claim 8 as disclosed in claim 1.
Akai is silent on an air duct extending into the galley.
Maben teaches an air duct extending into the galley (1226, Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Akai with the teachings of Maben to provide an air duct extending into the galley. Doing so would allow the flow to be directed as desired to a particular area and/or be a simple change in size/shape.
Regarding claim 9, Akai teaches wherein the ion emitter is configured to be in an air flow passing through the air outlet and into the galley (shown in Figure 9 and disclosed in Paragraphs 0051-0055 of translation).
Regarding claim 10, Akai teaches wherein the ion emitter is perpendicular to the air flow passing through the air outlet (appears perpendicular in Figure 9, additionally anything can be perpendicular to something else when coordinates or a particular side are not called out).
Regarding claim 13, Akai teaches wherein the galley further includes a wall disposed between the control unit and the galley (shown in Figure 4 of Maben).
Regarding claim 14, Akai teaches wherein the control unit comprises:a voltage input having a first voltage; anda voltage output having a second voltage that is greater than the first voltage, the voltage output being coupled to the ion emitter (Paragraphs 0024-0026 of translation).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akai in view of Maben and Kataoka.
Regarding claim 11, Akai is silent on wherein the air outlet includes an opening having an outer circumference and the ion emitter is coupled to the opening and extends inward from the outer circumference.
Kataoka teaches wherein the air outlet includes an opening having an outer circumference and the ion emitter is coupled to the opening and extends inward from the outer circumference (31 and 32, Figure 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Akai with the teachings of Kataoka to provide wherein the air outlet includes an opening having an outer circumference and the ion emitter is coupled to the opening and extends inward from the outer circumference. Doing so would be a simple rearrangement of parts and/or minimize the inhibition of flow in the duct.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akai in view of Maben, Kataoka, and U.S. Patent 6668563 to Mirowsky et al. (Mirowsky).
Regarding claim 12, Akai is silent on a plurality of ion emitters arranged around the outer circumference of the opening, wherein each of the plurality of ion emitters is perpendicular to a flow of air passing through the opening.
Mirowsky teaches a plurality of ion emitters arranged around the outer circumference of the opening, wherein each of the plurality of ion emitters is perpendicular to a flow of air passing through the opening (Figure 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Akai with the teachings of Mirowsky to provide a plurality of ion emitters arranged around the outer circumference of the opening, wherein each of the plurality of ion emitters is perpendicular to a flow of air passing through the opening. Doing so would be a simple duplication of parts and/or allow for the flow to be treated more thoroughly.
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
