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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites the limitation “the the electrode rods” in lines 2-3. Applicant is respectfully advised to amend “the the electrode rods” to “the electrode rods” to correct an apparent typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 9, 12, and 25 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 limitation “in particular for filtering particles, preferably pollutants” in line 2. It is unclear if these limitations are being claimed or if this is optional due to the terms “in particular” and “preferably”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the ionizer electrode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the ionizer electrode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the at least one electrode" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is referring to the “electrode rod” of claim 10 or either of the other electrodes in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi (US20110171094A1) in view of Volodina (US5474600).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi in view of Volodina further in view of Bergeron (US20080170971A1).
Claim(s) 13, 14, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi in view of Volodina further in view of Belok (Performance of Ionizer Assisted Air Filtration).
Claim(s) 17 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi in view of Volodina further in view of Jaisinghani (US5403383A).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi in view of Volodina further in view of Segawa (US20020172628A1).
Rejection in view of Zahedi and Volodina
Claim 1: Zahedi teaches an air filtering device for an air conditioner (abstract), in particular for filtering particles from air, preferably pollutants (intended usage), containing a flow path through which air can flow in a flow direction (fig. 4), an ionizer (4), containing numerous discharge electrodes (metal pins 4a), for generating ions in the flow path ([0020]), a grid structure (fig. 5b) formed from an electrically conductive material (perforated metal plate 5, [0020]), the grid structure being positioned upstream of the ionizer in the flow path in the flow direction, and forms a first electrode (fig. 4, [0020]), a filter (filter 6) positioned downstream of the ionizer in the flow path in the flow direction (fig. 4), the filter has a layer forming a second electrode, comprising an electrically conductive material or formed from an electrically conductive material (porous conductive material backing 8, [0024]), a high voltage power source (voltage power supply 11) configured to generate a high voltage between 5 kV and 15 kV (10-30 kV, [0022]).
Zahedi does not explicitly teach a high voltage power source containing an electric pole and an electric counter-pole, configured to generate a high voltage between 5 kV and 15 kV between the pole and counter-pole, wherein the pole is electrically connected to the ionizer, and the counter-pole is electrically connected to the first and second electrodes. Zahedi teaches in figure 4 and [0035] that the device charges the particles then has it attract to positive and negative sites on the surface of the fibers. Zahedi teaches that an electric pole is connected to the ionizer ([0022]). Volodina teaches a device for purification of air with an ionizer (5), filter (13), and electrodes (2, 3, 9, 11, 12) connected to a power supply 23. Volodina teaches in figure 2 a power supply that has an electric pole connected to the ionizer 9 and and counter electric pole that is connected to electrodes upstream and downstream of the ionizer (3 and 15’). Volodina teaches in column 5 line 42-57 that the power source has both terminals connected to the different elements to make electric fields. Column 5 line 42 to column 6 line 48 that having these electric fields allows for better filtration as any particles, microorganisms and viruses will always be under the influence of an electric field to obtain another charge and be captured. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zahedi with the power supply of Volodina as Volodina teaches that having multiple electric fields allows for better purification of air since it can capture particles, microorganisms, and viruses as they leave section of the filter.
Claim 2: Volodina teaches the electric pole is negative and the electric counter pole is positive in the high voltage source or the electric pole is positive and the electric counter pole is negative in the high voltage source (power source 23, fig. 2).
Claim 3: Zahedi teaches the filter comprises a layer formed from an electrically insulating material (dielectric pleated filter medium, [0024]) through which air can flow for removing particles from the air (filter media attracts and removes particles, [0024]), the layer formed from the electrically insulating material is positioned either upstream or downstream of the layer forming the second electrode in the flow path (filter 6 upstream plate 8, fig. 4).
Claim 6: Volodina teaches the first electrode is electrically connected to the second electrode (Fig. 2 shows all of the components are connected via the power supply 23.).
Claim 7: Volodina teaches grid structure and the filter are electrically connected to one another (Fig. 2 shows all of the components are connected via the power supply 23.).
Claim 8: Zahedi teaches the ionizer contains an ionizer electrode for generating the ions in the flow path (second electrode 4 has metal grid 4b, [0020]).
Claim 9: Zahedi teaches the ionizer electrode has at least one electrode rod (metal grid 4b, fig. 3A, [0020]), from which at least one electrode tip extends toward the first electrode to generate the ions (pins 4a point to 5, fig, 4).
Claim 10: Zahedi teaches the at least one electrode rod extends in a straight line, in a direction of extension that is transverse to the flow direction in the flow path (Grid 4b, fig. 2 and bolded lines in fig. 4).
Claim 11: Zahedi teaches at least two electrode tips protrude from at least one electrode rod, which are spaced apart from one another along the direction of extension of the electrode rod, wherein at least one electrode tip extends in a direction opposite the flow direction (pins 4a on ionizer 4, Fig. 3a, 4, 5a, and 5c).
Claim 12: Zahedi teaches the ionizer electrode comprises at least two electrode rods that are spaced apart from one another (Grid 4b, fig. 2 and bolded lines in fig. 4).
Claim 13: Zahedi and Volodina do not explicitly teach at least two adjacent electrode rods are spaced apart from one another at a distance in a direction orthogonal to the direction of extension, which is 15 mm to 60 mm. Zahedi teaches that the electrode rods are spaced apart orthogonal to a direction of the extension and each pin 4a is attached to them (bolded lines of 4, fig. 4). Zahedi is silent as to the distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the invention to modify the electrode rod distance to be 15-60mm as this would change the electric field size depending on what particulates are being captured and where the device is being placed in, as the electrode tips are all arranged on the rods.
Claim 15: Zahedi teaches the electrode tips are arranged in the manner of a grid in the flow path ([0021] teaches pins are arranged to be centered on holes of plate 5).
Claim 16: Zahedi teaches at least one of the electrode tips taper toward the first electrode ([0020] teaches they are sharp metal pins).
Claim 20: Zahedi teaches at least two electrode rods are parallel to one another (Grid 4b, fig. 2 and bolded lines in fig. 4).
Claim 21: Zahedi and Volodina do not explicitly state all of the adjacent electrode rods are spaced apart from one another in the direction orthogonal to the direction of extension at a distance of 25 mm to 35 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the adjacent electrode rods of Zahedi and Volodina to be an optimal distance, such as 25-35mm because this would change the electric field size depending on what particulates are being captured and where the device is being placed in, as the electrode tips are all arranged on the rods.
Claim 23: Zahedi teaches all of the electrode tips taper toward the first electrode conically ([0020] teaches they are sharp metal pins) and in a direction opposite the flow direction (fig. 4).
Claim 25: Zahedi teaches at least one electrode extends in a direction that is orthogonal to the flow direction in the flow path (fig. 4 shows them all orthogonal).
Rejection in view of Zahedi, Volodina, and Bergeron
Claim 4: Zahedi and Volodina do not explicitly teach the layer forming the second electrode in the filter is formed by activated carbon or comprises activated carbon. Zahedi and Volodina teach the invention of claim 1. Zahedi teaches the filter 6 and second electrode 8. Bergeron teaches air purification with electrostatic filter (abstract). Bergeron teaches that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a type of contaminant found in many environments ([0088]). Bergeron teaches activated carbon is known to be used to help eliminate VOCs ([0118]). Bergeron also teaches that these materials may be coated onto components such as the electrodes of dielectric of the filter ([0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter and second electrode of Zahedi and Volodina with the activated carbon coating of Bergeron, as this would help eliminate VOCs (Bergeron [0118]) which are found in many environments and are hard to remove with electrostatic filters (Bergeron [0088]).
Claim 5: Zahedi and Volodina do not explicitly teach the grid structure comprises at least two first rods that are spaced apart from one another, which extend in the flow path in a direction transverse to the flow direction, the grid structure comprises at least two second rods that are spaced apart from one another, which extend in the flow path in a direction transverse, to both the first rods and the flow direction.
Zahedi and Volodina teach the invention of claim 1. Zahedi teaches a grid structure (fig. 5A, 5B). Bergeron teaches air purification with electrostatic filter (abstract). Bergeron teaches a grid structure of an insulated electrode with first and second rods being transverse to the flow direction and each other (190, Fig. 6, 7A, 7B). Bergeron teaches the charge distribution grids are used to distribute, mitigate, or prevent accumulation of opposing charges on the surface of the electrode ([0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the grid electrode of Zahedi and Volodina with the grid structure electrode of Bergeron as Bergeron teaches that having a charge distribution grid is able to help prevent local charge buildup ([0067]).
Claim 19: Bergeron teaches the at least two first rods extend in an orthogonal flow path to the first direction, and the at least two second rods extend in an orthogonal direction to both the first rods and the flow direction (190, Fig. 6).
Rejection in view of Zahedi, Volodina, and Belok
Claim 13: Zahedi and Volodina do not explicitly teach at least two adjacent electrode rods are spaced apart from one another at a distance in a direction orthogonal to the direction of extension, which is 15 mm to 60 mm. Zahedi teaches that the electrode rods are spaced apart orthogonal to a direction of the extension and each pin 4a is attached to them (bolded lines of 4, fig. 4). Zahedi is silent as to the distance. Belok teaches testing various ionizer distributions to improve performance (page 4, second and third paragraph). Belok teaches that the distance between ionizers influences the filtration efficiency (page 15). Belok teaches that the influences are placed on the ionizer electrodes (page 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the adjacent electrode rods of Zahedi and Volodina to be 15-60mm as taught by Belok because Belok teaches the distance between the ionizers influences the filtration efficiency, and since they are attached to the ionizer grid rods, those would have to be at an optimal spacing in order to accommodate the ionizer influences (page 15).
Claim 14: Zahedi and Volodina do not explicitly teach at least two adjacent electrode tips are spaced apart from one another along the direction of extension at a distance of 1 mm to 30 mm. Zahedi teaches that the tips are spaced apart in a direction of extension (fig. 4) but is silent as to the distance. Belok teaches testing various ionizer distributions to improve performance (page 4, second and third paragraph). Belok teaches that the distance between ionizers influences the filtration efficiency (page 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the adjacent electrode tips of Zahedi and Volodina to be an optimal distance, such as 1-30mm, as taught by Belok as Belok teaches that this is a result effective variable for filtration efficiency (Belok page15).
Claim 21: Zahedi, Volodina, and Belok do not explicitly state all of the adjacent electrode rods are spaced apart from one another in the direction orthogonal to the direction of extension at a distance of 25 mm to 35 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the adjacent electrode rods of Zahedi and Volodina to be an optimal distance, such as 25-35mm, as taught by Belok as Belok teaches that this is a result effective variable for filtration efficiency as the ionizer influences are placed on the grid structure (Belok page15).
Claim 22: Zahedi, Volodina, and Belok do not explicitly teach all of the adjacent electrode tips are spaced apart from one another along the direction of extension at a distance of 5 mm to 9 mm. Belok teaches that the distance between ionizers influences the filtration efficiency (page 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrode tips of Zahedi and Volodina to be an optimal distance, such as 5-9mm, as taught by Belok as Belok teaches that this is a result effective variable for filtration efficiency (Belok page15).
Rejection in view of Zahedi, Volodina, and Jaisinghani
Claim 17: Zahedi and Volodina do not explicitly teach the distance between the electrode rods in the ionizer and the filter is no more than 30 mm. Zahedi teaches there is a distance between the ionizer and the filter (fig. 4). Jaisinghani teaches an electrostatic filter (abstract). Jaisinghani teaches that a distance between the ionizer and filter (d2, fig. 1) can be adjusted in order to prevent spark discharge and ensure there is a uniform space charge around the ionizer (column 6 lines 26-34 and column 6 line 59 to column 7 line 45). Jaisinghani teaches that the gaps appear to be result effective variables that is dependent upon the filter, pleat depth, pleat density, dielectric constant, conductivity of the filter material, allowable limit of high voltage, and base dimension of d1 (Column 7 lines 29-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the distance between the electrode rods in the ionizer and the filter to be no more than 30 mm of Zahedi and Volodina as taught by Jaisinghani because the distance between the ionizer and the filter is a result effective variable with regards to the filter parameters (Jaisinghani, column 7 lines 29-35) and should be optimized to ensure there is no spark discharge and a uniform space charge around the ionizer (Jaisinghani, column 6 lines 26-34 and column 6 line 59 to column 7 line 45).
Claim 24: Zahedi, Volodina, and Jaisinghani do not explicitly state the distance between the electrode rods in the ionizer and the filter is no more than 7 mm. However this is obvious in view of Jaisinghani because the distance between the ionizer and the filter is a result effective variable with regards to the filter parameters (Jaisinghani, column 7 lines 29-35) and should be optimized to ensure there is no spark discharge and a uniform space charge around the ionizer (Jaisinghani, column 6 lines 26-34 and column 6 line 59 to column 7 line 45).
Rejection in view of Zahedi, Volodina, and Segawa
Claim 18: Zahedi and Volodina do not explicitly teach the grid structure, or the first rod and/or the second rod rods, comprises at least in part steel, and/or the ionizer, or the ionizer electrode, comprises at least in part steel. Zahedi and Volodina teach the ionizer and ionizer electrode of claim 1. Zahedi teaches that this is for removing contaminants from an airstream (abstract). Segawa teaches an electrostatic filter to remove hazardous substances from the atmosphere ([0005]-[0006]). Segawa teaches that hazardous substances such as dioxins and NOx can cause corrosion to electrodes ([0005] and [0009]). Segawa teaches using stainless steel for the electrode body as it is corrosion resistant ([0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrodes of Zahedi and Volodina to be made of stainless steel as taught by Segawa, because stainless steel is resistive to corrosive substances that can be present in the atmosphere ([0035] and [0038]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US5695549 teaches a power supply connected to opposite charged electrodes with needles in a flow direction of the air. US4265641 teaches corona needles in multiple directions for creating electric fields.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 08/25/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights