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 .
Specification
The amended specification filed August 12, 2024 is accepted.
Drawings
The amendments to the drawings dated August 12, 2024 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because “The” in “The connection” is inadvertently capitalized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4 and 6–19 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 4 recites:
4. The air filtering process according to claim 1, wherein
-the discharge electrodes have a negative polarity, while the counter electrodes and the counter-potential have a positive polarity. Emphasis added.
Claim 4 is indefinite because claim 1 indicates that it includes “at least one polarized discharge electrode” (singular or plural) and “at least one counter electrode” (singular or plural), while claim 4 requires that the process uses multiple discharge electrodes and counter electrodes (without first specifying that the plural option has been selected). To overcome this rejection, claim 4 could be amended to read:
4. The air filtering process according to claim 1, wherein
-the at least one polarized discharge electrode has at least one counter
Claim 6 recites:
6. A heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC system) for a motor vehicle, comprising
– an ionizer configured to generate a corona discharge field, which contains at least one polarized discharge electrode and at least one counter electrode with the opposite polarity of the discharge electrode…
– the HVAC system has an electrical connection configured to connect the conductive layer to a counter-potential, which has the opposite polarity to that of the discharge electrodes. Emphasis added.
Claim 6 is indefinite because the claim initially requires “at least one polarized discharge electrode,” which can be singular or plural, but then requires “the discharge electrodes” in the plural without first specifying that there are plural discharge electrodes. To overcome this rejection, claim 6 could be amended to read:
6. A heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC system) for a motor vehicle, comprising
– an ionizer configured to generate a corona discharge field, which contains at least one polarized discharge electrode and at least one counter electrode with the opposite polarity of the discharge electrode…
– the HVAC system has an electrical connection configured to connect the conductive layer to a counter-potential, which has the opposite polarity to that of the at least one polarized discharge electrode
Claims 7–19 are indefinite because they depend from claim 6.
Also, claim 9 recites:
9. The HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein
– the discharge electrodes each comprise numerous needles that point in or against the flow direction for the air, and
– the discharge electrodes and dedicated counter electrodes are spaced apart in a direction transverse to the flow direction for the air. Emphasis added.
Claim 9 is indefinite because claim 6 initially requires “at least one polarized discharge electrode,” which can be singular or plural, but then claim 9 requires “the discharge electrodes” in the plural without first specifying that there are plural discharge electrodes.
Claim 9 is also indefinite because “the…dedicated counter electrodes” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is further indefinite because it is unclear if the discharge electrodes and the dedicated counter electrodes are spaced apart from each other, or whether the discharge electrodes and dedicated counter electrodes can be spaced apart from themselves.
Further clarification is required.
Claims 10 and 11 are indefinite because they depend from claim 9.
Also, claim 10 recites:
10. The HVAC system according to claim 9, wherein
– the discharge electrodes each comprise numerous downstream needles that point toward the particle filter, such that the tips of the downstream needles face toward the particle filter. Emphasis added.
Claim 10 is indefinite because “the discharge electrodes” raises the same indefiniteness issue as “the discharge electrodes” of claim 9.
Claim 10 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the “numerous downstream needles” are the same or different as the “numerous needles” of claim 9.
Further clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites:
11. The HVAC system according to claim 9, wherein
– the discharge electrodes each comprise numerous upstream needles, which point away from the particle filter, such that the tips of these upstream needles face away from the particle filter. Emphasis added.
Claim 11 is indefinite because “the discharge electrodes” raises the same indefiniteness issue as “the discharge electrodes” of claim 9.
Claim 11 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the “numerous upstream needles” are the same or different as the “numerous needles” of claim 9.
Claim 12 recites:
12. The HVAC system according to claim 6, wherein
– the counter electrodes form flat plates, which are parallel to the discharge electrodes and/or
– the discharge electrode and the dedicated counter electrodes extend in a straight line. Emphasis added.
Claim 12 is indefinite because claim 6 initially requires “at least one polarized discharge electrode” and “at least one counter electrode,” which can be singular or plural, but then claim 12 requires “the counter electrodes” and “the discharge electrodes” in the plural without first specifying that there are multiple counter and discharge electrodes.
Claim 12 is also indefinite because “the dedicated counter electrodes,” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18 recites:
18. The HVAC system of claim 12, wherein the discharge electrode and the dedicated counter electrodes extend transverse to the flow direction of the air. Emphasis added.
Claim 18 is indefinite because “the dedicated counter electrodes” lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, claim 18 could be rewritten as:
18. The HVAC system of claim 12, wherein the discharge electrode and the at least one counter electrode
Claim 19 recites:
19. The HVAC system of claim 8, wherein the air filtering process comprises:
- air flow polluted with particles first flows through the ionizer and then through the particle filter with multiple layers
- the ionizer generating a corona discharge field with at least one polarized discharge electrode and at least one counter electrode that has the opposite polarization of the discharge electrode,
-the air flow to be filtered passing through the corona discharge field, such that the particles therein are ionized, and
- the conductive layer in the particle filter being connected to a counter- potential that has the opposite polarity to that of the discharge electrode, and generating an electric field for polarizing the particle filter between the ionizer and the particle filter.
Claim 19 is indefinite because “the air filtering process” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 19 is also indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus (the HVAC system) and method steps for using the apparatus (in the body of the claim). See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite).
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.
Claims 6, 9, 11, 12, and 15–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zahedi, US 2011/0171094 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Zahedi teaches an HVAC system, which reads on the claimed “heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC system).” See Zahedi [0011]. Note that the preamble limitation indicating that the HVAC system is for a motor vehicle fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II. The HVAC system comprises:
An “ionizer” configured to generate a corona discharge filed comprising a polarized second electrode 4 (the “at least one polarized discharge electrode”) and a first electrode 5 that has an opposite charge (e.g., grounded) (the “at least one counter electrode with the opposite polarity of the discharge electrode”). See Zahedi Fig. 1A, [0020]–[0022].
A “particle filter” made of fibrous filter media 6 and expanded metal sheet 8 configured to remove particles from an air stream, as claimed. See Zahedi Fig. 1A, [0024].
A “flow path that defines a flow direction” (seen in Fig. 1A) for air leading to an interior, with the flow path being configured to conduct the air through the “ionizer” 4, 5 and the “particle filter” 6, 8, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1A.
The “ionizer” 4, 5 is upstream of the “particle filter,” 6, 8 in the flow path, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1A.
The “particle filter,” 6, 8 has multiple layers and contains the media filter made of a dielectric filter medium (the “dielectric layer”) and the expanded metal layer 8 made of a conductive material (the “at least one electrically conductive layer”).
The HVAC system has an ground (the “electrical connection”) that is configured to connect the expanded metal layer 8 to the ground (the “counter-potential”) which has the opposite polarity to the second electrode 4, as claimed. See Zahedi Fig. 1A, [0022], [0024].
PNG
media_image1.png
679
1233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Zahedi teaches that the second electrode 4 comprises numerous needles that point against the flow direction of air, as seen in Fig. 1A. The needles of the second electrode 4 are spaced apart in a direction transverse to the flow direction of air, and at least one needle of the second electrode 4 is spaced apart from a portion of the first electrode 5 in a direction transverse to the direction of flow for the air, as seen in Fig. 1A.
Regarding claim 11, Zahedi teaches that the second electrodes 4 each comprise numeral upstream needles which point away from the “particle filter” 6, 8 such that the tips of these upstream needles face away from the “particle filter” 6, 8, as seen in Fig. 1A.
Regarding claim 12, Zahedi teaches that the second electrode 4 and the first electrode 5 extend in a straight line, as they are space apart in a straight line, as seen in Fig. 1A.
Regarding claim 15, Zahedi teaches that the expanded metal layer 8 is a grid structure (as it is expanded metal) and comprises conductive wires (the metal of the expanded metal) or filaments (the metal of the expanded metal), as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Zahedi teaches that the dielectric fibrous media layer 6 is placed on the expanded metal layer 8 and therefore is in contact therewith, as claimed. See Zahedi [0024].
Regarding claim 17, Zahedi teaches that the dielectric fibrous media layer 6 is upstream of the expanded metal layer 8, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1A.
Regarding claim 18, Zahedi teaches that the second electrode 4 and the first electrode 5 each extend transverse to the flow direction of the air, as seen in Fig. 1A.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi, US 2011/0171094 A1 in view of Wennerstrom, US 2016/0229267 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Zahedi teaches a filtering process for an HVAC system, which reads on the claimed “air filtering process for a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC system).” See Zahedi [0011]. The process involves:
A VOC and particulate laden air stream flows through an ionizing assembly comprising first and second electrodes 5, 4 and then through a multilayer filter made of fibrous media filter 6 (comprising a dielectric filter medium) and expanded metal sheet 8 (a conductive layer). See Zahedi Fig. 1A, [0020]–[0024]. This reads on “an air flow polluted with particles first flows through an ionizer and then through a multilayered particle filter, wherein the particle filter comprises at least one dielectric layer and at least one electrically conductive layer.”
The ionizer 4, 5 generates a corona discharge filed with the second electrode 4 (which is polarized) and the first electrode 5 which is grounded (having the opposite charge as the second electrode 4). See Zahedi Fig. 1A, [0020]–[00222]. This reads on “the ionizer generates a corona discharge field with at least one polarized discharge electrode and at least one counter electrode that has the opposite polarization of the discharge electrode.”
The air stream to be filtered passes through the corona discharge filed such that particles are ionized. See Zahedi Fig. 1A, [0022]. This reads on “the air flow to be filtered passes through the corona discharge field such that the particle therein are ionized.”
The expanded metal layer 8 is connected to a ground that has an opposite polarity as the second electrode 4, to generate an electric field for polarizing the fibrous media filter 6 between the ionizer 4, 5, and the particle filter 6, 8. See Zahedi [0024]. This reads on “the conductive layer in the particle filter is connected to a counter-potential that has the opposite polarity to that of the discharge electrode, to generate an electric field for polarizing the particle filter between the ionizer and the particle filter.”
PNG
media_image1.png
679
1233
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zahedi differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the method being used in a motor vehicle. But Wennerstrom teaches an ionizing unit (similar to the system of Zahedi) that is used to clean air to a vehicle cabin. See Wennerstrom abstract. It would have been obvious to use the method of Zahedi with an HVAC system of a vehicle because this is a suitable use for the type of air purification system of Zahedi.
Regarding claim 4, Zahedi teaches that the second electrode 4 has a negative polarity while the first electrode 5 and the counter-potential have a positive polarity, as claimed. See Zahedi [0022].
Regarding claim 5, Zahedi teaches that the first electrode 5 (the “counter electrode”) and the expanded metal 8 (the “conductive layer”) are both electrically connected to the ground. See Zahedi Fig. 1A, [0020], [0024]. This reads on “the counter electrode is electrically connected to the counter-potential, and the conductive layer in the particle filter is connected to the counter electrode (via the ground), in order to connect the conducitve layer to the counter-potential.”
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi, US 2011/0171094 A1 in view of Wennerstrom, US 2016/0229267 A1 and in further view of Shin et al., US 2023/0149948 A1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Zahedi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Zahedi as modified differs from claims 2 and 3 because it is silent as to the method involving the claimed steps.
But Shin teaches an electrostatic precipitator comprising a filter assembly 3 that can be made of a conductive material with the filter assembly 3 being connected to the ground, with a relay 310 being configured to be opened or closed based on a predetermined time period to connect or disconnect the filter assembly 3 to the ground. See Shin Fig. 4, [0100]–[0102]. The relay 310 is beneficial because it increases the dust collecting efficiency of the precipitator by stabilizing potential between dust collecting sheet 10 (at high voltage) and the filter assembly 3 (at ground). Id. at [0101]–[0102].
It would have been obvious to use the relay 310 of Shin with the ground of the expanded metal sheet 8 of Zahedi to stabilize the potential between the expanded metal sheet 8 and the ionizer 4, 5 to increase dust collecting efficiency.
With this modification, the expanded metal sheet 8 (the “conductive layer”) would be connected to the ground (the “counter potential”) for a predetermined period. See Shin [0102]. This reads on “the conductive layer is connected to the counter-potential until… a predetermined regeneration time has elapsed…when the…regeneration time has elapsed, the conductive layer in the particle filter is disconnected from the counter potential” (claim 2). This also reads on “the conductive layer is disconnected from the counter-potential until…a predetermined depolarization time has elapsed, the conductive layer in the particle filter is reconnected to the counter-potential when…the depolarization time has elapsed” (claim 3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi, US 2011/0171094 A1 in view of Shin et al., US 2023/0149948 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Zahedi teaches the limitations of claim 6, as explained above.
Zahedi differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to the connection between the expanded metal layer 8 and the ground having a switch with which the expanded metal layer 8 can be connected to and disconnected from the ground, as needed.
But Shin teaches an electrostatic precipitator comprising a filter assembly 3 that can be made of a conductive material with the filter assembly 3 being connected to the ground, with a relay 310 being configured to be opened or closed based on a predetermined time period to connect or disconnect the filter assembly 3 to the ground. See Shin Fig. 4, [0100]–[0102]. The relay 310 is beneficial because it increases the dust collecting efficiency of the precipitator by stabilizing potential between dust collecting sheet 10 (at high voltage) and the filter assembly 3 (at ground). Id. at [0101]–[0102].
It would have been obvious to use the relay 310 of Shin with the ground of the expanded metal sheet 8 of Zahedi to stabilize the potential between the expanded metal sheet 8 and the ionizer 4, 5 to increase dust collecting efficiency.
With this modification, the relay 310 reads on the “switch.”
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi, US 2011/0171094 A1 in view of Kleinow, US 2020/0247219 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Zahedi teaches the limitations of claim 6, as explained above.
Zahedi differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the HVAC system comprising a control unit.
But Kleinow teaches an HVAC system with an ionizer where the HVAC system comprises a controller. See Kleinow abstract. The controller is beneficial because it is able to activate the ionizer as needed. Id. It would have been obvious for the HVAC system of Zahedi to comprise a controller to activate the ionizer when needed.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 fail to patentably distinguish over Zahedi as modified because the limitations of claim 19 describe the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed system. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi, US 2011/0171094 A1 in view of Yuge et al., US 2017/0341087 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Zahedi teaches the limitations of claim 9, as explained above.
Zahedi differs from claim 10 because it is silent as to the discharge electrodes have numerous downstream needles that point toward the “particle filter” 6, 8.
But Yuge teaches an electrostatic precipitator comprising an electrode having teeth 111 (i.e., needles) that point in the direction of airflow. See Yuge Fig. 49A, [0619]–[0622].
It would have been obvious for the needles of the second electrode 4 of Zahedi to point in the direction of airflow (i.e., toward the filter 6, 8) because this is a conventional orientation for needles of an electrostatic precipitator.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi, US 2011/0171094 A1 in view of Wiser, III et al., US 2019/0283040 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Zahedi teaches the limitations of claim 6, as explained above.
Zahedi differs from claim 13 because it is silent as to the material of the dielectric filter media layer 6. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach this layer being made of a nonwoven sheet.
But Wiser teaches an electrostatic filter comprising a filter media made of a dielectric material, such as a nonwoven. See Wiser [0018].
It would have been obvious for the dielectric filter media layer 6 of Zahedi to be made of a nonwoven material because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahedi, US 2011/0171094 A1 in view of Cwik, US 2019/0160475 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Zahedi teaches the limitations of claim 6, as explained above.
Zahedi differs from claim 14 because it is silent as to the expanded metal layer 8 forming an adsorptive filtering layer comprising activated carbon particles.
But Cwik teaches an electrostatic air filter comprising a downstream electrode 8 (similar to the expanded metal layer 8 of Zahedi) that can be made from a spongiform material coated with activated carbon (presumed to be adsorptive because it contains activated carbon). See Cwik Fig. 1, [0049].
It would have been obvious to use the spongiform material coated with activated carbon of Cwik as the material for the expanded metal layer 8 of Zahedi because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsuda et al., US 2011/0150710 A1 (ion generating apparatus for air purification).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights