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The objection of the claims has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments regarding claim 1, filed June 22, 2026, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument associated with claims 1, 7, and 21. Applicant remarks with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 16-22 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunn (US 8894745 B2).
Regarding claim 1, under BRI, Dunn discloses an electrostatic precipitator (Fig. 1), comprising: a housing (Fig. 1) having an inlet (Fig. 1; input orifice 12) for a gas process stream and an outlet (Fig. 1; exit orifice 13) spaced from said inlet for exhausting treated gases, a particulate collection surface comprising one or more collection electrodes positioned within said housing between said inlet and said outlet (Fig. 1; vane electrode 1 found in the portion to the left of reference character 14 in Fig. 1), one or more ionizing electrodes in said housing (Fig. 1; discharge electrode 3) each ionizing electrode being associated with a respective collection electrode (Fig. 1) and at least one collection surface extension in electrical communication with a collection electrode (Fig.1; section of diagram to the right of reference character 14 in Fig. 1), said at least one collection surface extension comprising a plurality of electrically conductive spaced fins (Fig. 1; vane electrode 1 found in the portion to the right of reference character 14 in Fig. 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn (US 8894745 B2).
Claim 7. An electrostatic precipitator (Fig. 1), comprising: a housing (Fig. 1) having an inlet (Fig. 1; input orifice 12) for a gas process stream and an outlet spaced from said inlet for exhausting treated gases (Fig. 1; exit orifice 13), a particulate collection surface comprising one or more collection electrodes positioned within said housing between said inlet and said outlet (Fig.1; convergent-divergent tube 5 and 6, precipitating surface 9; col. 2, ll. 1-11, 46-52), one or more ionizing electrodes in said housing (Fig. 2; wires/electrodes 8; col. 2, ll. 1-11, 46-52), each ionizing electrode being associated with a respective collection electrode, and at least one collection surface extension in electrical communication with a collection electrode (Fig. 2; precipitating element 13 that are grounded), wherein each collection electrode comprises a cell having a cell surface area and a cell height (Fig. 2; convergent-divergent tube 5 and 6, precipitating surface 9), each at least one collection surface extension having a collection surface extension surface area and a collection surface extension surface height (Fig. 2; precipitating element 13). Dunn does not explicitly appear to disclose wherein said collection surface extension surface area is at least four times greater than said cell surface area for each said cell equivalent height to said collection surface extension height. Dunn discloses overall dimensions, length, width and thickness of the vanes depend on the application and operational requirements such as volumetric air flow rate (CFM), particle size and concentration. Air flow measurements between some of the vane designs have been six times lower (0.3 m/sec) than the main air flow. These figures are used to illustrate the potential of the vane electrostatic precipitators to efficiently collect particulates (col. 3, ll. 56-65) and increasing the number of parallel and opposed vanes increases the surface area per linear foot, and exposes particles, as well as increasing the number of electrical flux lines (col. 3, l. 66-col. 4, l. 1). Dunn further teaches the Deutsch-Anderson equation, n=1̄ (-AW/V), is useful for determining particulate collection efficiency in electrostatic precipitators, including grid and vane electrostatic precipitators; whereas, in this equation, n is the collection efficiency decimal fraction; A is the collection area in square feet of an electrostatic precipitator (ESP); V is the flow rate of the gas as it enters the ESP in cubic feet per second, and W is the migration velocity of a particle under the influence of electrical field in feet per second. The previous equation refers to the migration of charged particles to a collecting surface of vanes, plates, grids, porous type material, etc., and the time taken for charged particles to migrate to the collecting surface determines the overall size of the precipitator and is affected by field strength, gas viscosity, and the distance it has to travel to a collecting surface (col. 4, 26-34). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to modify the said collection surface extension disclosed by Dunn to have a surface area at least four times greater than said cell surface area for each said cell equivalent height to collection surface extension height because discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable the collection area of an electrostatic precipitator as disclosed in Dunn involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 2, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunn (US 8894745 B2) in view of Young (US 4441897 A).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Dunn is relied upon as indicated with claims 1 and 7. Dunn teaches one or more collection electrodes but does not appear to disclose a plurality of collection electrodes having a hexagonal cross-section and forming a honeycomb array of hexagonal cells as recited in claims 2 and 8. Young teaches a plurality of collection electrodes having a hexagonal cross-section (Fig. 5) forming a honeycomb array of hexagonal cells (Fig.3). Young discloses that it should be further appreciated that contrary to tubular designs, this embodiment generates no dead spaces. Both sides of each plate (i.e., hexagonal cell) are utilized to collect particulate matter (col. 3, ll. 15-39). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the plurality of collection electrodes having a hexagonal cross-section and forming a honeycomb array of hexagonal cells as taught in Young in the device of Dunn to benefit utilizing both sides of each the hexagonal cells to collect particulate matter.
For claim 9, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and discloses the collection surface extension in electrical communication with a respective collection electrode but is silent for the plurality of collection surface extensions comprising a hexagonal perimeter surface extensions. Young teaches a plurality of collection electrodes having a hexagonal cross-section (Fig. 5) forming a honeycomb array of hexagonal cells (Fig.3). Young discloses that it should be further appreciated that contrary to tubular designs, this embodiment generates no dead spaces. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include each collection surface extension comprising a hexagonal perimeter and being in electrical communication with a respective collection electrode as taught in Young for the electrostatic precipitator of Dunn and benefit from eliminating dead spaces. Furthermore, a plurality of collection surface extensions would be considered as duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to duplicate the collection surface extension, resulting in a plurality collection surface extensions, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In the instant case this is obviously beneficial because of the collection surface extension to improve collection efficacy further. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI‐B).
For claim 10, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Dunn further discloses a wherein each collection surface extension comprises an outer wall and an inner wall spaced from said outer wall, and a plurality of spaced fins extending from said outer wall to said inner wall (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest wherein there are a plurality of collection surface extensions, each collection surface extension comprising a hexagonal perimeter and being supported on a respective collection electrode. Claims 4-6 depend from claim 3 and would also disclose the allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, Dunn discloses the instant invention except for an upper high voltage support grid positioned in said housing downstream, in the direction of gas process stream flow from said inlet to said outlet, of said particulate collection surface, and a lower high voltage support grid positioned in said housing upstream, in the direction of gas process stream flow from said inlet to said outlet, of said particulate collection surface, said one or more ionizing electrodes being supported only by said lower high voltage support grid. Additionally, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest for an upper high voltage support grid positioned in said housing downstream and a lower high voltage support grid positioned in said housing upstream. Claims 17-20 depend from claim 16. Therefore, claims 16-20 disclose allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 21, Dunn discloses the instant invention except for each collection electrode having an internal volume a first region of which is occupied by its respective ionizing electrode and at least a second region of which is unoccupied by said ionizing electrode, wherein at least a portion of said second region is occupied by one or more electrically conductive surface area enhancing members. Additionally, the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest these structures as recited in claim 21. Claim 22 depend from claim 21. Therefore, claims 21 and 22 disclose allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. Also, see the prior art examples provided below in response to this correspondence. Examples follow:
US 3807140 A: discloses latticed projections 2 assists in a more intensive accumulation of dust on the electrode.
CN 105396405 A: chimney/outlet 1; corona electrode 12; dust collecting electrode 13; portion above bottom plate 7 of wet cyclone 31 in Fig. 1; distribution chamber/inlet 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (EST).
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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 July 27, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights