DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 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
The phrase “in particular” in lines 1 and 15 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “in particular”).
The phrase “the electrode assembly contains an electrode that has at least one emitter and a counter electrode, between which there is a voltage for generating a corona discharge” renders the claim unclear. Grammatically the phrase “that has” may be read as modifying “an electrode,” such that both the emitter and the counter electrode are part of the electrode. However, the phrase “between which” appears to refer to the electrode and the counter electrode as separate structures. Therefore, it is unclear whether the counter electrode is part of the electrode or is a distinct component of the electrode assembly. The claim can be clarified by the amendment: “wherein the electrode assembly contains an electrode having at least one emitter and a counter electrode, wherein a voltage is applied between the electrode and the counter electrode for generating a corona discharge in the air during operation.”
Claim 2
The phrase “in particular” in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “in particular”).
The phrase “connected to a second pole a counter pole of the power source” is unclear since it recites two nouns without grammatical relationship. It is unclear whether the electrode is connected to a second pole, a counter pole, or whether the counter pole is merely intended to identify the second pole.
The phrase “such that the at least one conductive sections” render the scope unclear because “electrically connected by the power source” does not clearly define whether the conducive section is connected to the counter electrode, to the second pole, or merely held a the same potential as the counter electrode. Furthermore, the phrase “at least one conductive sections” is unclear if the phrase means singular or plural. A clarifying amendment would be “at least one conductive section.”
Claim 6
The phrase “the value” lacks clear antecedent basis. It is unclear if the value is the air quality or another entity.
Claim 7
The phrase the phrase “at least one conductive sections” is unclear if the phrase means singular or plural. A clarifying amendment would be “at least one conductive section.”
The phrase “in particular” in line 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “in particular”).
The phrase “the line” in line 7 of the claim lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if it should map to “an electrical line” cited in line 3 of the claim.
Claim 14 and Claim 15
The phrase “in particular” in lines 1 and 15 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “in particular”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art is McKinney US Patent 9,797,864 who teaches an electrically enhanced air filtration system having an upstream ionization array 22, a downstream media filter 28, and a conductive surface 36 located at the media filter (column 2 lines 38- 57). McKinney further teaches monitoring an ionization current, comparing a difference between those currents to a predetermined range, and either shutting down or restarting the system if a leak is detected (column 2 line 55 – column 3 line 4).
Ma US Patent 8,597,405 teaches a self-cleaning electret filter having a conductive material over an electret material, wherein a charge generator may apply charge to the conductive material to repel particles from the filter (abstract). Ma also teaches using a switch to control frequency, intensity, and duration of the cleaning charge. However, Ma’s cleaning charge is applied to repel collected particles from an electret surface, not to connect a filter conductive section to an ionizer counter electrode to reactivate the filter charge.
Eberle US20230166271 teaches a device comprising a first air treatment device; an ionizer including an electrode; and wherein a counter-electrode of the ionizer is electrically conductively connected to the first air treatment device. However, Eberle does not teach operating the system in a successive regular and reactivation modes in which a conductive section of the filter is connected to the counter electrode during reactivation and disconnected during regular operation. In Eberle, the air-treatment device and counter-electrode connection is a fixed integration used to reduce installation space and is not a switchable filter-reactivation arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights