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.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 31 recites “where the state” in line 1. It should be “wherein the state”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 14, 17-25, 31, 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/120809 (hereinafter WO ‘809) in view of JP 2003290618 (hereinafter JP ‘618).
As regarding claim 14, WO ‘809 discloses the claim invention for a method for controlling filter cleaning (7) in a vacuuming device (pg 8 ln 4-17 and figs. 1-2), the vacuuming device including at least one filter (6) cleaned regularly by cleaning operations, the method comprising: regularly cleaning at least one filter in the vacuum device by cleaning operations; setting an intensity of the cleaning operations (reversed air flow) in dependence on a state of the filter ([0011], [0030], [0036]-[0039], [0047]-[0048] and [0051]-[0052]: the pressure differential across the filter indicates the degree of clogging of the filter element by comparing it with predetermined threshold values, which determine when the filter cleaning device 7 should be activated) of the vacuuming device, the intensity being set by setting lengths of time of cleaning pulses of the cleaning operations ([0047]-[0048] and [0051]-[0052]).
WO ‘809 does not disclose the length of time being set by varying a valve opening time.
JP ‘618 teaches the length of time being set by varying a valve opening time {[0021], [0022], figs. 1-13: solenoid valve 10 regulates the pulse length (injection time) of backwash compressed air, the control valve 12 regulates the injection pressure of the backwashing compressed air, by separately controlling a compressed air injection control valve provided in the supply path of the backwashing compressed air and a solenoid valve mounted to the blowing sub where the compressed air is injected, adjusting the injection pressure of the backwashing compressed air and the pulse length of the backwashing compressed air}. Both WO ‘809 and JP ‘618 are directed to filter cleaning module.
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 length of time being set by varying a valve opening time as taught by JP ‘618 in order to control the filter cleaning duration allows efficient use of cleaning energy and air, ensure effective removal of dust according to actual clogging conditions, and extends the service life of the filter.
As regarding claim 17, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention for wherein the valve opening time is varied using a control device {JP ‘618 - [0021], [0022], figs. 1-13: solenoid valve 10 regulates the pulse length (injection time) of backwash compressed air, the control valve 12 regulates the injection pressure of the backwashing compressed air}.
As regarding claims 18-20, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention except for wherein the lengths of time of the cleaning pulses are in a range from 1 to 500 ms; 30 to 500 ms; or 40 to 100 ms. 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 lengths of time of the cleaning pulses are in a range from 1 to 500 ms; 30 to 500 ms; or 40 to 100 ms in order to enhance effectiveness of filter cleaning ensure that the cleaning air pressure and duration are sufficient to remove dust particles adhered to the filter surface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As regarding claim 21, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention except for wherein the intensity is set by setting a number n of cleaning pulses per cleaning operation. However, it would been an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the intensity of cleaning operation by adjusting the number of cleaning pulses per cleaning operation, since intensity in pulse-based cleaning system is a result-effective variable that can be modified by varying the pulse parameters, including pulse duration, frequency, or number of pulses. Moreover, increasing or decreasing the number of the pulse per cleaning cycle is a known and predictable way to enhance or reduce cleaning effectiveness, depending on the condition of the filter. Therefore, modifying WO ‘809 to include setting the intensity via the number of cleaning pulses would have been an obvious variation yielding predictable results, namely improved or tunable filter cleaning efficiency.
As regarding claims 22-24, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention except for wherein the number n is in a range from 1 to 7, from 2 to 5, and n is 3. 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 number n is in a range from 1 to 7, from 2 to 5, and n is 3 in order to enhance effectiveness of filter cleaning ensure that the cleaning air pressure and duration are sufficient to remove dust particles adhered to the filter surface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As regarding claim 25, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention for wherein the number n of cleaning pulses per cleaning operation is set in dependence on progress of the filter cleaning (fig. 3).
As regarding claim 31, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified inherently discloses the claim invention for where the state of the filter depends on a degree of contamination of the filter (e.g., loading, pressure, airflow – these inherently correlate with contamination).
Claims 35-36 are rejected on the same grounds and substantially the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 18.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/120809 (hereinafter WO ‘809) in view of JP 2003290618 (hereinafter JP ‘618), as applied supra, and further in view of Taylor et al (US 20210260607; hereinafter Taylor).
As regarding claim 26, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention except for wherein the intensity of the cleaning operations is influenced by a settable cross section of a valve opening. 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 intensity of the cleaning operations is influenced by a settable cross section of a valve opening for the system adjusts cleaning pulses to the filter’s condition, thereby enhancing adaptability, energy efficiency, filter life, and overall performance while reducing maintenance requirement, since it was known in the art as shown in Taylor ([0038], [0043] and figs. 1-6).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/120809 (hereinafter WO ‘809) in view of JP 2003290618 (hereinafter JP ‘618), as applied supra, and further in view of Ulvestad (US 3893833).
As regarding claim 27, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention except for wherein the intensity is influenced by setting a valve acceleration or valve damping. 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 intensity is influenced by setting a valve acceleration or valve damping in order to be more efficient, less damaging, energy-conscious, and controllable, while maintaining stable airflow and reduce noise – essentially smarter, gentler, and more effective pulse-jet filter cleaning system, since it was known in the art as shown in Ulvestad (abstract, col 1 ln 66 – col 2 ln 11, col 3 ln 58 – col 4 ln 18, and figs. 6-7).
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/120809 (hereinafter WO ‘809) in view of JP 2003290618 (hereinafter JP ‘618), as applied supra, and further in view of Niculescu et al (US 20210052999; hereinafter Niculescu).
As regarding claim 32, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention except for wherein the state of the filter is determined based on a difference in a first pressure level and a second pressure level, the first pressure level being the pressure upstream of the filter and the second pressure level being the pressure downstream of the filter. 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 state of the filter is determined based on a difference in a first pressure level and a second pressure level, the first pressure level being the pressure upstream of the filter and the second pressure level being the pressure downstream of the filter in order to allow accurate, real-time assessment of the filter clogging, enabling cleaning operations to be triggered or adjusted precisely when needed for optimal efficiency, since it was known in the art as shown in Niculescu (fig. 2 and [0016]).
Claim(s) 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/120809 (hereinafter WO ‘809) in view of JP 2003290618 (hereinafter JP ‘618), as applied supra, and further in view of EP 3489592 (hereinafter EP ‘592).
As regarding claim 33, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention except for wherein the state of the filter depends on a type of material clogging the filter. 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 state of the filter depends on a type of material clogging the filter in order to enhance filter cleaning performance, since it was known in the art as shown in EP ‘592 ([0008], [0042], and [0047]-[0048] – different type of contamination environments [outside vs inside air]).
Claim(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/120809 (hereinafter WO ‘809) in view of JP 2003290618 (hereinafter JP ‘618), as applied supra, and further in view of Barris et al (US 5616171; hereinafter Barris).
As regarding claim 34, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention except for a series of pulses. However, 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 a series of pulses in order to enhance filter cleaning performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Barris (col 4 ln 22-25).
WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention except for wherein a first pulse of the cleaning pulses has a shorter length of time than each of a subsequent series of pulses of the cleaning pulses, the subsequent series of pulses being all of the cleaning pulses except the first pulse. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to implement the pulse sequence such that an initial pulse has a shorter duration than subsequent pulses, as this represents a predictable variation of pulse duration to optimize cleaning performance (e.g., initial loosening followed by a stronger cleaning).
Claim(s) 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/120809 (hereinafter WO ‘809) in view of JP 2003290618 (hereinafter JP ‘618), as applied supra, and further in view of Gillingham et al (US 20200230538; hereinafter Gillingham).
As regarding claim 37, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention except for wherein a valve having the valve opening time is a flap valve. 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 a valve having the valve opening time is a flap valve in order to enhance filter cleaning performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Gillingham ([0155]).
Claim(s) 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/120809 (hereinafter WO ‘809) in view of JP 2003290618 (hereinafter JP ‘618), as applied supra, and further in view of Kienzle et al (US 8961633; hereinafter Kienzle).
As regarding claim 38, WO ‘809 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘809 as modified discloses the claim invention except for wherein a valve having the valve opening time is a flap valve. 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 a valve having the valve opening time is a flap valve in order to enhance filter cleaning performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Kienzle ([0038]-[0039]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14, 17-27, and 31-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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 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