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 .
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.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-11, drawn to an air conditioner.
Group II, claim(s) 12-15, drawn to an air purifier.
Group III, claim(s) 16-20, drawn to an electrostatic precipitator.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I - III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of ESP, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of rejection below.
During a telephone conversation with Thomas Jones on 08/24/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-20 have withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH05200323 (hereinafter JP ‘323) in view of JP H03160232 (hereinafter JP ‘232), [KR 19980068096 (hereinafter KR ‘096) or KR 10-2021-0115511 (hereinafter KR ‘511)] and CN 211756012 (hereinafter CN ‘012).
As regarding claim 1, JP ‘323 discloses the claimed invention for an air conditioner comprising: and an electrostatic precipitator configured to treat the air sucked in from the air conditioning space by removing airborne particulate matter before discharging the treated air into the air conditioning space (fig. 1).
JP ‘323 does not disclose an indoor heat exchanger configured to perform heat exchange with air sucked in from an air conditioning space. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide an indoor heat exchanger configured to perform heat exchange with air sucked in from an air conditioning space in order to enhance air conditioner performance, since it was known in the art as shown in JP ‘232 ([0001] and [0003]).
JP ‘323 as modified discloses wherein the electrostatic precipitator includes: a plurality of charging electrodes configured to generate ions by corona discharge to charge the airborne particulate matter, the plurality of charging electrodes including one or more discharge electrodes (1), and a plurality of dust collection electrodes configured to collect the airborne particulate matter charged by the generated ions by using Coulomb force, the plurality of dust collection electrodes including one or more collection electrodes and one or more high-voltage electrodes ([0001], [0008], [0009] and fig. 1).
JP ‘323 as modified does not disclose charging electrodes including one or more ground electrodes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide charging electrodes including one or more ground electrodes in order to enhance ESP performance, since it was known in the art as shown in KR ‘096 (105) or KR ‘511 {ground electrode (30) and high-voltage electrode (40); [0055], [0057], [0096] and fig. 5}.
JP ‘323 as modified does not disclose the one or more discharge electrodes, the one or more ground electrodes, the one or more high-voltage electrodes, and the one or more collection electrodes are arranged on a same plane so that spaces therebetween extend in a direction parallel to an airflow direction inside the air conditioner. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the one or more discharge electrodes, the one or more ground electrodes, the one or more high-voltage electrodes, and the one or more collection electrodes are arranged on a same plane so that spaces therebetween extend in a direction parallel to an airflow direction inside the air conditioner in order to enhance ESP performance and low voltage loss, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen location (same plane) or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen location is critical and unexpected results.
JP ‘323 as modified does not disclose the one or more high-voltage electrodes and the one or more collection electrodes each include: a conductive member, and a non-conductive member formed on the conductive member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the one or more high-voltage electrodes and the one or more collection electrodes each include: a conductive member, and a non-conductive member formed on the conductive member in order to enhance ESP performance, since it was known in the art as shown in CN ‘012 ([0030]; conductive – 12; non-conductive - 11).
As regarding claim 2, JP ‘323 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘323 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the one or more discharge electrodes, the one or more ground electrodes, the one or more high-voltage electrodes, and the one or more collection electrodes are arranged along a direction perpendicular to the airflow direction inside the air conditioner (figs. 1-2) and KR ‘511 {ground electrode (30) and high-voltage electrode (40); [0055], [0057], [0096] and fig. 5}.
As regarding claim 3, JP ‘323 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘323 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the one or more discharge electrodes, the one or more ground electrodes, the one or more high-voltage electrodes, and the one or more collection electrodes are spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the airflow direction so that the air sucked in from the air conditioning space passes between adjacent ones of the one or more discharge electrodes, the one or more ground electrodes, the one or more high-voltage electrodes, and the one or more collection electrodes (figs. 1-2) and KR ‘511 {ground electrode (30) and high-voltage electrode (40); [0055], [0057], [0096] and fig. 5}.
As regarding claim 4, JP ‘323 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘323 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the plurality of charging electrodes are arranged so that any two discharge electrodes among the one or more discharge electrodes have at least one ground electrode among the one or more ground electrodes therebetween. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the plurality of charging electrodes are arranged so that any two discharge electrodes among the one or more discharge electrodes have at least one ground electrode among the one or more ground electrodes therebetween (or “alternately arrangement”) in order to enhance ESP performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As regarding claim 5, JP ‘323 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘323 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the plurality of the charging electrodes defines a plurality of ranges, and the one or more discharge electrodes, the one or more ground electrodes, the one or more high-voltage electrodes, and the one or more collection electrodes are arranged so that at least one among the one or more high-voltage electrodes and at least one among the one or more collection electrodes are disposed in at least one of the plurality of the plurality of ranges and no high-voltage electrode among the one or more high-voltage electrodes is adjacent to any discharge electrode among the one or more discharge electrodes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the plurality of the charging electrodes defines a plurality of ranges, and the one or more discharge electrodes, the one or more ground electrodes, the one or more high-voltage electrodes, and the one or more collection electrodes are arranged so that at least one among the one or more high-voltage electrodes and at least one among the one or more collection electrodes are disposed in at least one of the plurality of the plurality of ranges and no high-voltage electrode among the one or more high-voltage electrodes is adjacent to any discharge electrode among the one or more discharge electrodes in order to enhance ESP performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As regarding claim 8, JP ‘323 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘323 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the one or more discharge electrodes, the one or more ground electrodes, the one or more high-voltage electrodes, and the one or more collection electrodes are arranged so that at least one high-voltage electrode among the one or more high-voltage electrodes and at least one collection electrode among the one or more collection electrodes are arranged in one of two adjacent ranges among the plurality of ranges. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the one or more discharge electrodes, the one or more ground electrodes, the one or more high-voltage electrodes, and the one or more collection electrodes are arranged so that at least one high-voltage electrode among the one or more high-voltage electrodes and at least one collection electrode among the one or more collection electrodes are arranged in one of two adjacent ranges among the plurality of ranges in order to enhance ESP performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As regarding claim 9, JP ‘323 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘323 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein no two high-voltage electrodes among the one or more high-voltage electrodes are adjacent to each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein no two high-voltage electrodes among the one or more high-voltage electrodes are adjacent to each other in order to enhance ESP performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As regarding claim 10, JP ‘323 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘323 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the one or more ground electrodes include at least one of a flat plate-shaped member or a rod-shaped member (KR ‘511 - [0055] and fig. 5).
As regarding claim 11, JP ‘323 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘323 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the one or more discharge electrodes include at least one of a needle-shaped conductive member, a saw-toothed conductive member, or a plurality of fiber-shaped conductive members (KR ‘511 - [0068] and fig. 5).
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH05200323 (hereinafter JP ‘323) in view of JP H03160232 (hereinafter JP ‘232), [KR 19980068096 (hereinafter KR ‘096) or KR 10-2021-0115511 (hereinafter KR ‘511)] and CN 211756012 (hereinafter CN ‘012), as applied supra, and further in view of JP 2001-232240 (hereinafter JP ‘240).
As regarding claim 6, JP ‘323 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘323 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the plurality of ranges comprises one or more ranges between the plurality of charging electrodes and ranges outside the charging electrodes among the plurality of charging electrodes arranged either sides in an arrangement direction of the plurality of charging electrodes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the plurality of ranges comprises one or more ranges between the plurality of charging electrodes and ranges outside the charging electrodes among the plurality of charging electrodes arranged either sides in an arrangement direction of the plurality of charging electrodes in order to enhance ESP performance, since it was known in the art as shown in JP ‘240 ([0012]-[0013] and fig. 1).
As regarding claim 7, JP ‘323 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘323 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein at least one high-voltage electrode among the one or more high-voltage electrodes and at least one collection electrode among the one or more collection electrodes are arranged in any of the plurality of ranges defined by the plurality of charging electrodes (JP ‘240 - [0012]-[0013] and fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights