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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the specification [0067], Applicant recites that reference character 11 can represent power supply unit and control unit. It is respectfully requested that a different reference character be assigned to the control unit. And please add the control unit to the drawings. 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.
Claims 1-20 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.
In claim 1, line 12; Applicant recites “a certain distance on a plane perpendicular to the first direction”. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim 1, since the term “certain distance” is vague and there is no standard to compare to. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to clearly and concisely understand what “certain” represents. It is respectfully requested that the word “certain” be replaced with a numerical range value.
In claim 14, lines 2-4; Applicant recites “the discharge region”. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim 14, since it is not clear to what “discharge region” Applicant is referring to. Is Applicant referring to the region within the reactor? It is respectfully requested that Applicant amend claim 14 to clearly describe to what region is Applicant referring to.
In claim 9, line 1; Applicant recites “the discharge element”. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim 9, since it is not clear what “discharge element” Applicant is referring to. Is Applicant referring to the plurality of the discharge elements? It is respectfully requested that Applicant amend claim 9 to clearly describe to what discharge element is Applicant referring to. The same applies to claim 16, line 3 and claim 17, line 3.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "discharge elements" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The same applies to claim 1, line 13.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second discharge units" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The same applies to claim 12, line 2; claim 13, line 2; claim 15, line 2; claim 16, line 2; and claim 17, line 2.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second discharge unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second electrode unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 1 is the inclusion that “the supports are spaced apart from each other and that the supports include a plurality of through holes extending in the first direction”. The closest prior art found (Hammer et al., Bergeron et al., and Yasui et al.), and upon additional searches do not teach or suggest adding “spaced apart supports that include through holes extending in the first direction” to the combined structural limitations of the air purifier of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights