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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Amend claims 1-11 by deleting dashes (“-“).
Claim 10 line 7 “the needle-shaped or conical electrode body”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For examination on the merits, the phrase “in particular a vehicle interior air filtering device for a vehicle air conditioner” is interpreted as intended use in claim 1. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP § 2114.
The limitation filtering layer recited in claims 2, 4, 8, and 9 is interpreted as an electrically conductive flat filtering layer. Support is found in claim 1 line 16—the antecedent “an electrically conductive flat filtering layer.”
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 1-14 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 limitations “an electrostatically charged filter,” “the…and filter,” and “the filter” in lines 5, 7, and 16, respectively, that lack precision. If the antecedent for the limitations “the…and filter,” and “the filter” are not distinct from the limitation “an electrostatically charged filter,” amend as follows: “the electrostatically charged filter” to obviate any ambiguity.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one counter electrode is electrically connected to an electrically conductive, flat, filtering layer in the filter, and to the grid element” lines 15-17 that is indefinite because the punctuation (i.e., comma placement) makes the claim language unclear and raises the following question: Is the at least one counter electrode electrically connected to both the electrically conductive flat filtering layer and the grid element? Consider amending as follows: “wherein the at least one counter electrode is electrically connected to an electrically conductive, flat[[,]] filtering layer in the filter[[,]] and [[to]] the grid element.” Additionally, the term “flat” in line 16 is a relative term and raises the question: What is the degree of flatness and compared to what other claim element, or structure?
Claim 4 recites the phrase "is or is configured to be applied between the at least one electrode and the at least one counter electrode, the filtering layer, and the grid element" that is indefinite. The word between denotes a relationship involving two elements; however, four elements are recited—the at least one electrode, the at least one counter electrode, the filtering layer, and the grid element. Between which two elements of the four elements or between which groups of the four elements is the claimed potential difference measured. Although the specification discloses, "This results in a first electric potential 33 being supplied to the electrodes 11 by the high voltage source 4 when the air filtering device 1 is in use, while the counter electrodes 15, filtering layer 21, and grid element 40 are supplied with a second electric potential 34, that differs from the first 33" at page 9 lines 25-29, this disclosure refers to two electrical node relationships (i.e., one element and one group) that are not explicitly recited in the claim. Claim language is read in light of the specification. A claim limitation that are not part of the claim is not imported into the claim. See MPEP § 2111.01(II).
Claims 5 and 13 recite the limitation “the negative potential difference” in lines 3 and 1, respectively, that lack proper antecedent basis. The limitation “negative potential difference” was not previously recited.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the electrodes” in line 5 that lacks proper antecedent basis. Amend as follows: the at least one electrode[[s]]. Also, see “the electrodes” claim 11 in lines 4 and 5 and claim 14 line 2.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “which are each dedicated to the electrodes, wherein the electrodes are electrically connected to one another” in line 4 which is unclear. The metes and bounds of the limitations are not defined in claim 11 making the scope of the claim unclear. Consider amending as follows: “…two or more counter electrodes [[which]] that are each dedicated to the two or more electrodes, wherein the two or more electrodes are electrically connected to one another…”. The suggested amendment provides proper antecedent basis and obviates ambiguity.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the counter electrode body" in lines 7 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “a counter electrode body” had not been recited in the claims. See line 5 in the claim.
Due to dependency to rejected claim 1, claims 2-14 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pradler (US 20230249195 A1).
For claim 1, Pradler discloses an air filtering device (par [0085]; air purification system 100; Figs. 6-7), in particular a vehicle interior air filtering device for a vehicle air conditioner, comprising (Figs. 6, 7; pars [0085]-[0096]):
a flow path through which an air flow passes (Fig. 7 “from unfiltered air inlet 177 to flow direction V”; pars [0088]-[0089], [0091]-[0092], [0095])
an ionizer configured to ionizing the air flow in the flow path (first electric filter stage 121; Fig. 7; pars [0005], [0016], [0095]-[0096]), and
an electrostatically charged filter configured to filter the air flow downstream of the ionizer, such that the air flow can flow through the ionizer and filter (third electrode 126; Fig. 7; pars [0095]-[0096]),
wherein the ionizer comprises at least one electrode configured to generate a corona discharge in the air flow, that is or is configured to be electrically connected to a high voltage source for the air filtering device (first electrodes 122, power supply source 107; pars [0005], [0015], [0072], [0095]-[0096]; Fig. 7),
at least counter electrode that is dedicated to the at least one electrode (first electrodes 122), and further comprising an electrically conductive, flat, grid element upstream of the at least one electrode in the flow path (second electrodes 124; Fig. 7; pars [0005], [0095]-[0096]), [and]
wherein the at least one counter electrode is electrically connected to an electrically conductive, flat, filtering layer in the filter, and to the grid element (Fig. 7).
Also see Figs 1-5 and pars [0065]-[0084] for similar elements (corresponding to electric filer module 2 shown in Figs. 1-5)—first electric filer stage 21 (ionizer), first electrodes 22, second electrodes 24.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “wherein the first electric potential is a supply potential and the second electric potential is the counter-potential thereto, or vice versa” is considered an intended result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art is relied upon as set up above according to claim 1. Pradler further discloses wherein a negative or positive potential difference is or is configured to be applied between the at least one electrode and the at least one counter electrode, the filtering layer, and the grid element, when the air filtering device is in use (pars [0014], [0072]).
Regarding claim 11, as interpreted above, the prior art is relied upon as set up above and further discloses wherein there are two or more electrodes and two or more counter electrodes that are each dedicated to the two or more electrodes, wherein the two or more electrodes are electrically connected to one another, wherein the counter electrodes are electrically connected to one another (Fig. 7; par [0096]).
For claim 12, the prior art is relied upon as set up above and further vehicle air conditioner that contains at least one air filtering device according to claim 1 (pars [0002], [0038]).
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.
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) 2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradler.
For claim 2, the teaching of the prior art is relied upon as set up above. Regarding the limitation “wherein a first electric potential is or is configured to be applied to the at least one electrode, and a second electric potential is or is configured to be applied to the at least one counter electrode, the filtering layer, and the grid element, when the air filtering device is in use,” Pradler does not appear to teach specifically a second electric potential which is different from the first electric potential but does teach a power supply module 107 provides the high electric voltage that is varied in a controlled or regulated manner and is applied to the at least one electrode and the at least one counter electrode (first electrodes 122 and second electrodes 124; par [0096]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention that the power supply module 107 would apply a first potential to the at least one electrode and a second potential to the at least one second electrode, the filtering layer, and the grid element for each of these components to receive power and operate as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success.
For claim 9, the teaching of the prior art is relied upon as set up above. Pradler does not appear to teach explicitly wherein the filtering layer contains or is formed from an activated carbon layer. However, Pradler discloses “[i]f the mechanical filter module 103 included in the electric filter module 102 already includes an activated carbon filter bed in addition to the mechanical filter element 103′ designed as a HEPA filter, the adsorption filter module 125 may also be omitted.” It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention for the filtering layer to contain or form from an activated carbon layer since Pradler discloses an embodiment that eliminates the adsorption filter module; thereby, reducing costs.
Claim(s) 5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradler taken with Fodor (SE 544046 C2).
For claims 5 and 13, Pradler is relied upon as indicated above. Pradler discloses the potential difference between the at least one cathodic electrode of the electrode pair of the first electric filter stage including or consisting of the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode and the negative (at least one third) electrode in or downstream the mechanical filter element, but does not specifically teach the claimed range. However, the potential difference is a result effective value and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a negative potential difference is dependent upon the voltage application of positive or negative voltage from the power supply to the electrodes creating an electric field that resulted from the volage difference among the electrodes. Fodor is analogous art and teaches that corona generated from application of a voltage to the emitter may be positive or negative and voltage applied to the emitter electrode may be between -10 and 10kV DC, more preferably between -7 and 7 kV DC. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to optimize the negative electrical potential for the air filtering device to achieve particle collection efficiency at the ranges as claim because Fodor supports this teaching. Additionally, a similar rational would be applicable to a negative potential difference of -7 kV recited in claim 13.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradler in view of Jaisinghani (US 5403383 A).
For claims 6 and 14, Pradler is relied upon as indicated above. Pradler does not explicitly teach said the ionizer has a first spacing to the downstream filter and/or the electrodes have a second spacing to the upstream grid element as recited in claims 6 and 14 but does teach that proper spacing leads to increased ionization efficiency (par [0021],[0070], [0079]). Jaisinghani is analogous art and discloses gaps or spacing, are result effective variables (Figs. 1, 2; col. 6, ll. 26-34, 59-68, col. 7, ll. 1-10, col. 8, ll. 55-68). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to arrive at the range spacing range distances recited in claims 6 and 14 for the air filtering device since the combined teaching of Pradler discloses gaps and Jaisinghani teaches that spacing is an optimizable variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
For claim 7, Pradler is relied upon as indicated above. Pradler does not explicitly teach said [electrostatically charged] filter contains a dielectric layer but Jaisinghani does teach said [electrostatically charged] filter contains a dielectric layer (Fig. 1) that results in increased current flow or ionization downstream of the ionizer (col. 5, ll. 24-29). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to have the dielectric layer as taught in Jaisinghani for the said [electrostatically charged] filter of Pradler to result in have efficiency.
For claim 8, Pradler is relied upon as indicated above. Pradler fails to teach the dielectric layer is placed on the filtering layer on the upstream side of the filter facing the ionizer and the air flow. Jaisinghani does teach the dielectric layer is placed on the filtering layer on the upstream side of the filter facing the ionizer and the air flow (Fig. 1) and results in increased current flow or ionization downstream of the ionizer, thereby providing adequate charging or polarization of the dielectric filter material 116 and consequently a higher efficiency (col. 5, ll. 24-29). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to have the dielectric layer is placed on the filtering layer on the upstream side of the filter facing the ionizer and the air flow as taught in Jaisinghani for the filtering layer of Pradler to result in have efficiency.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradler taken with Park (US 20240408616 A1).
For claim 10, Pradler is relied upon as indicated above. Pradler discloses the at least one electrode and the at least one counter electrode but not in the shape as recited in the claim. Park is analogous art and does teach wherein the at least one electrode has a needle-shaped or conical electrode body (an electrification pin 14; Fig. 2; par [0006]), which has a central axis, the at least one counter electrode has an annular or cylindrical body, which delimits an internal volume (an electrification plate 12; Fig. 2; par [0006]), wherein the electrode body is placed in relation the counter electrode body such that the central axis of the electrode body is parallel and coaxial to the central axis of the counter electrode, wherein the electrode body is substantially or entirely inside the internal volume of the counter electrode body (Fig. 2), and wherein a tip of the needle-shaped or conical electrode body faces into the air flow (Figs. 1, 2). Also see, counter electrode 120 and discharge electrode 130 with discharge pin 132 extending toward the upstream side in the direction in which air flows in Figs. 3-4; pars [0034]-[0038] with corona discharge that occurs between the discharge electrode and the counter electrode. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention have found it obvious to change the shape to another suitable shape as there is no structural benefit and another shape would perform substantially identically. As evidenced by Park who teaches that shapes are equivalent for the at least one electrode and the at least one counter electrode. See MPEP § 2144(IV)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant should consider prior art examples provided below in response to this correspondence. See the following:
DE 102018205332 A1: air purification with an electric filter module first and second electrodes form an ionizer, and wherein a mechanical filter module with a mechanical filter element is arranged downstream of the electric filter module in the direction of flow of the air to be purified, wherein a third electrode is provided in the mechanical filter element or in the mechanical filter module downstream of the mechanical filter element, and wherein a second electric field can be generated between the second electrode and the third electrode by applying an electric voltage; Figs. 1-9.
DE 2636138 A1: air filter assembly filtering elements arranged in series in a common housing. The assembly contains a mechanical prefilter, an electrostatic charging chamber, an electrostatic precipitating chamber, a chemical filter and a fan providing forced flow through the assembly.
JP 2001334172 A: 1st discharge part by an upstream side electrode 2 and a downstream side electrode 3 and a 2nd discharge part by the downstream side electrode 3 and a low voltage side electrode 11 disposed in a filter part 6. The formation of a 3rd discharge part by an inner filter part electrode which is disposed further inside the filter part 6, and the low voltage side electrode 11 can further improve the efficiency.
JP 6290891 B2: Fig. 1; the discharge electrode 20, the dust collection filter 10, and the ground electrode 30 are arranged apart from each other; the dust collection filter 10 is connected to the discharge electrode 20 and the ground electrode 30; electric field occurs when the dust collection filter 10 is sandwiched (clamped) in contact with the discharge electrode 20 and the ground electrode 30 because the dust collection filter 10 is disposed between the discharge electrode 20 and the ground electrode 30.
KR 102205159 B1: high voltage generator 22 may apply a pulse negative voltage to the discharge electrode 21. When a pulse negative voltage is applied to the discharge electrode 21, the discharge start voltage is lower than that of the discharge applying a positive voltage, the spark discharge start voltage is high, and there is stability, so more corona current can be passed. Greater electric field strength can be obtained.
US 20100251894 A1: air handling device having an air flow path (13), a charge section (20), and a precipitator (30), wherein the charge section (20) includes a discharge electrode (25) and a counter electrode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (EST).
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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 June 25, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights