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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed July 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishigami et al. (US 20180034248 A1) in view of Temporin et al. (US 20150083931 A1) and Machi et al. (US 20160031708 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Ishigami discloses an atomization device (entire system, Fig. 9, Paragraph 0042), comprising:
a cooling chip (30, 301, cooler 30 includes Peltier elements 301 with a cooling side and is a heat exchanger configured to cool discharge electrode 1, Fig. 9, Paragraphs 0105-0106);
a discharge electrode (1, Fig. 9), comprising a first side (13, Fig. 9) and a second side (15, Fig. 9) opposite to each other (shown in Fig. 9) and a first tip portion (tip of discharge electrode 1 located at front-end portion 13, shown in Fig. 9) located on the first side (13, shown in Fig. 9), wherein the second side (15, Fig. 9) is connected to the cooling chip (30, 301, shown in Fig. 9);
a heat sink (302, Fig. 9), wherein the cooling chip (30, 301, Fig. 9) is located between the heat sink (302, shown in Fig. 9) and the discharge electrode (1, shown in Fig. 9); and
a counter electrode (4, Fig. 9), spaced apart from the discharge electrode (1, shown in Fig. 9) and comprising a plurality of second tip portions (41, Fig. 9), wherein the second tip portions (41, Fig. 9) and the first tip portion (tip of discharge electrode 1 located at front-end portion 13, shown in Fig. 9) are opposite to each other (shown in Fig. 9).
Ishigami discloses all aspects of the present invention except for a plurality of first tip portions. Temporin teaches a discharge electrode (5, Figs. 1-2), comprising a first side (side of discharge electrodes 5 next to discharge opening 12, shown in Fig. 2) and a second side (side of discharge electrodes 5 next to ion generating element 1, shown in Fig. 2) opposite to each other (shown in Fig. 2) and a plurality of first tip portions (tips of discharge electrodes 5, shown in Fig. 2) located on the first side (side of discharge electrodes 5 next to discharge opening 12, shown in Fig. 2).
Ishigami and Temporin are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrostatic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the plurality of first tip portions taught in Temporin’s device to Ishigami’s device, to have a plurality of first tip portions located on the first side. Ishigami's device, as modified in view of Temporin, would include a plurality tip portions on the first side. Using plural tips is more productive due to more ions being generated per cycle or timed unit, compared to using a single tip (Temporin, Paragraphs 0005, 0041).
However, Ishigami and Temporin do not teach wherein a number of the first tip portions is equal to a number of the second tip portions. Machi teaches wherein a number of the first tip portions (number of tip portions of discharge electrodes 111 and 121, shown in Fig. 2) is equal to a number of the second tip portions (number of tip portions of counter electrodes 112 and 122, shown in Fig. 2).
Ishigami, Temporin, and Machi are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrostatic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the number of first tip portions and the number of second tip portions disclosed in Ishigami’s device, as modified by Temporin, for the number of first tip portions and the number of second tip portions taught in Machi’s device, to have wherein a number of the first tip portions is equal to a number of the second tip portions. There is a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the number of first tip portions and the number of second tip portions taught in Machi’s device to Ishigami’s device, as modified by Temporin, because doing so ensures radicals are efficiently generated in the discharge space (Machi, Paragraph 0033).
It would have also been an obvious matter of design choice to have a number of the first tip portions is equal to a number of the second tip portions, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/proportion of a component. A change in size/proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, since there is only a finite number of solutions to modify the number of first tip portions and the number of second tip portions to produce a predictable solution of having a number of the first tip portions is equal to a number of the second tip portions, with a reasonable expectation of success, a person of ordinary skill would have a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Please note that in the instant application, in paragraph 0033 of the specification, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 2, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 1. Ishigami further discloses wherein the discharge electrode (1, Fig. 9) comprises an annular body (center body of discharge electrode 1, shown in Figs. 9-10B).
Regarding claim 3, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 2. Ishigami further discloses wherein the first tip portion (tip of discharge electrode 1 located at front-end portion 13, shown in Fig. 9) extends and protrudes from a side of the annular body (center body of discharge electrode 1, shown in Figs. 9-10B) away from the cooling chip (30, Fig. 9) toward the counter electrode (4, shown in Fig. 9), and as modified by Temporin and Machi regarding claim 1 above, would result in wherein the first tip portions extend and protrude from a side of the annular body away from the cooling chip toward the counter electrode.
With respect to claim 4, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 2. Ishigami further discloses wherein the counter electrode (4, Fig. 9) comprises a hole (43, Figs. 10A-10B), the hole (hole between electrode portions 41, shown in Fig. 10B) comprises a first diameter (diameter of opening 43, shown in Figs. 10A-10B), the annular body (center body of discharge electrode 1, shown in Figs. 9-10B) comprises a second diameter (diameter of center body of discharge electrode 1, shown in Figs. 10A-10B), and the first diameter is greater than the second diameter (shown in Figs. 10A-10B).
With respect to claim 5, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 2. Ishigami further discloses wherein the first tip portion (tip of discharge electrode 1 located at front-end portion 13, shown in Fig. 9) is integrated with the annular body (center body of discharge electrode 1, shown in Figs. 9-10B), and as modified by Temporin and Machi regarding claim 1 above, would result in wherein the first tip portions are integrated with the annular body.
In regards to claim 6, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 1. Ishigami further discloses the discharge electrode (1, Fig. 9) comprises a rod-shaped body (center body of discharge electrode 1, shown in Figs. 9-10B).
Regarding claim 7, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 6. Ishigami further discloses wherein the first tip portion (tip of discharge electrode 1 located at front-end portion 13, shown in Fig. 9) extends and protrudes from an end of the rod-shaped body (center body of discharge electrode 1, shown in Figs. 9-10B) away from the cooling chip (30, Fig. 9) toward the counter electrode (4, shown in Fig. 9), and as modified by Temporin and Machi regarding claim 1 above, would result in wherein the first tip portions extend and protrude from an end of the rod-shaped body away from the cooling chip toward the counter electrode.
Regarding claim 8, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 6. Ishigami further discloses wherein the first tip portion (tip of discharge electrode 1 located at front-end portion 13, shown in Fig. 9) is integrated with the rod-shaped body (center body of discharge electrode 1, shown in Figs. 9-10B), and as modified by Temporin and Machi regarding claim 1 above, would result in wherein the first tip portions are integrated with the rod-shaped body.
Regarding claim 9, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 1. Ishigami further discloses the counter electrode (4, Fig. 9) comprises a plate body (42, Fig. 9), the plate body (42, Fig. 9) comprises a hole (43, shown in Fig. 9), and the second tip portions (41, Figs. 9-10B) are arranged along an edge of the hole (43, shown in Figs. 9-10B) and extend and protrude toward the discharge electrode (4, shown in Figs. 9-10B).
With respect to claim 10, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 9. Ishigami discloses the device (entire structure, Fig. 9) further comprising a base (80, Fig. 9) disposed on the heat sink (302, shown in Fig. 9), wherein the counter electrode (4, Figs. 7-9) is connected to the base (80, shown in Figs. 7-9).
In regards to claim 11, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 10. Ishigami further discloses wherein the base (80, Figs. 7-9) comprises a side wall (side walls of housing 80, shown in Figs. 7-9), the side wall (side walls of housing 80, shown in Figs. 7-9) surrounds the discharge electrode (4, shown in Figs. 7-9), the side wall (side walls of housing 80, shown in Figs. 7-9) has a top portion (top surface of side walls of housing 80, shown in Figs. 7-9) away from the heat sink (302, shown in Fig. 9), and the plate body (42, Figs. 8-9) is connected to the top portion (top surface of side walls of housing 80, shown in Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 12, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 10. Ishigami further discloses a material of the base (80, Fig. 9) comprises an insulating material (housing 80 is made of synthetic resin, and the examiner takes official notice that synthetic resin is widely known in the art to be an insulating material, Paragraph 0105).
With respect to claim 13, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 9. Ishigami further discloses wherein the second tip portions (41, Fig. 9) are integrated with the plate body (42, shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, Ishigami, as modified by Temporin and Machi, discloses the atomization device according to claim 1. Temporin further teaches wherein a number of the first tip portions (tips of discharge electrodes 5, shown in Fig. 2) is an even number (shown in Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Ishigami, in view of Temporin and Machi, does not disclose a single discharge electrode having a plurality of tip portions, see Remarks, pg. 6, Temporin does teach this feature as cited above in the 103 rejection for claim 1. A plurality of first tip portions, which are cited as the tips of discharge electrodes 5 in Fig. 2, are located on the first side, the side of discharge electrodes 5 next to discharge opening 12. This can be shown below in the annotated Fig. 2. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single discharge electrode) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s argument that Ishigami, in view of Temporin and Machi, does not teach the amended limitations of claim 1, see Remarks, pg. 7-8, Mach does teach these features as cited above in the 103 rejection for claim 1. Machi teaches a number of the first tip portions, the number of tip portions of discharge electrodes 111 and 121, is equal to a number of the second tip portions, the number of tip portions of counter electrodes 112 and 122, as annotated in Fig. 2 below. Machi states that 111 is a first discharge electrode, 121 is a second discharge electrode, 112 is a first counter electrode, and 122 is a second counter electrode (Paragraphs 0030, 0036).
PNG
media_image2.png
818
767
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the features in Temporin and Machi could not be combined to Ishigami, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights