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
In light of amendment to claims 5, 7, and 10, the rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments regarding claim 1, see pages 8-9, filed January 27, 2025, 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 claim 1. Applicant asserts references Figs. 7 and 8 “clearly show the ionizing electrodes supported only by the lower high voltage support grid 41.” The originally filed specification discloses the following:
In various embodiments, a lower high voltage grid or support may be used to support the one or more ionizing electrode masts. This lower high voltage grid may be supported from insulators mounted to the top wall or roof of the WESP using one or more of the ionizing electrodes as a support, or from insulators mounted in the side walls of the WESP located below the collecting electrodes, or from an upper high voltage grid that is in turn supported from insulators mounted in either the top wall (roof) or side wall of the WESP above the collection electrodes. See pages 4-5.
In various embodiments, a lower high voltage grid or support may be used to support the one or more ionizing electrode masts. This lower high voltage grid may be supported from insulators mounted to the top wall or roof of the WESP using one or more of the ionizing electrodes as a support, or from insulators mounted in the side walls of the WESP located below the collecting electrodes, or from an upper high voltage grid that is in turn supported from insulators mounted in either the top wall (roof) or side wall of the WESP above the collection electrodes. See page 6.
FIG. 7 is a perspective internal view of a lower region of a particulate removal apparatus in accordance with certain embodiments;
FIG. 8 is another perspective internal view of a lower region of a particulate removal apparatus in accordance with certain embodiment; See pages 10-11.
Furthermore, the originally disclosed specification explicitly states that Figs. 7 and 8 illustrate perspective internal views of a lower region of a particulate removal apparatus according to certain embodiments, i.e., the drawings illustrate a portion of the particulate removal apparatus and not the particulate removal apparatus in entirety, and fails to state explicitly “one or more ionizing electrodes being supported only by said lower high voltage support grid” as recited in claim 16 [emphasis added]. Lastly, there is no showing that makes the configuration unexpected. Accordingly, a new rejection of claim 16 is here within.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon (i.e., gray, non-black font) make reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
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 Pierre (US 2983332 A). Citations found in the prior art to Pierre are in parentheses below for claim 1.
Claim 1. An electrostatic precipitator (Fig. 2), comprising: a housing having an inlet (Fig. 2; inlet 1) for a gas process stream and an outlet (Fig. 2; outlet 2) 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. 2; convergent-divergent tube 5, 6 and precipitating surface 9), one or more ionizing electrodes in said housing (Fig. 2; wires/electrodes 8) each ionizing electrode being associated with a respective collection electrode (Fig. 2; convergent-divergent tube 5, 6 and precipitating surface 9; col. 2, ll. 1-11, 46-52) and at least one collection surface extension in electrical communication with a collection electrode (Fig. 2; precipitating element 13; col. 3, ll. 49-51, 60-67), said at least one collection surface extension comprising a plurality of electrically conductive spaced fins (Fig. 2; precipitating element 13 that are grounded).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (US 2983332 A) in view of Young (US 4441897 A).
Regarding claim 2, Pierre is relied upon as indicated above with claim 1 above. Pierre 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. Young teaches a plurality of collection electrodes having a hexagonal cross-section (Fig. 5) forming a honeycomb array of hexagonal cells (Fig.3). Youngs discloses that it should be further appreciated that contrary to tubular designs, this embodiment generates no deadspaces. 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 Pierre to benefit utilizing both sides of each the hexagonal cells to collect particulate matter.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (US 2983332 A) in view of Pierre ‘403 (US 3363403 A).
Claim 7. An electrostatic precipitator (Fig. 2), comprising: a housing having an inlet (Fig. 2; inlet 1) for a gas process stream and an outlet spaced from said inlet for exhausting treated gases (Fig. 2; outlet 1), a particulate collection surface comprising one or more collection electrodes positioned within said housing between said inlet and said outlet (Fig. 2; 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). Pierre 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. Pierre ‘403 is analogous art and teaches said collection surface extension surface area is greater than said cell surface area for each said cell equivalent height to said collection surface extension height (Fig. 2; col. 2, l. 55-col. 3, l. 14). Pierre ‘403 does not specifically disclose said collection surface extension surface area at least four times greater than said cell surface area for each said cell equivalent height to collection surface extension height. The value at least four times greater is considered a result effective variable; it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). 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 Pierre ‘403 to have a surface area at least four times greater 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 involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre (US 2983332 A) and Pierre ‘403 (US 3363403 A) taken with Young (US 4441897 A).
For claim 8, the prior art disclose 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. 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 deadspaces. 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 the combined prior art to Pierre and Pierre ‘403 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 a plurality of collection surface extensions 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 deadspaces. 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 the combined prior art to Pierre and Pierre ‘403 and benefit from eliminating dead spaces.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200360935 A1). Citations found in the prior art to Lee are in parentheses below for claims 16, and 18-20 as indicated.
Claim 16. An electrostatic precipitator (101; Fig. 3), comprising: a housing (1200) having an inlet for a gas process stream (inlet 1210; arrows in Fig. 2 on entering louver 1600) and an outlet spaced from said inlet (outlet 1220) for exhausting treated gases, a particulate collection surface comprising one or more collection electrodes positioned within said housing between said inlet and said outlet (electrostatic precipitating electrodes 13; Figs. 3), one or more ionizing electrodes in said housing, each ionizing electrode being associated with a respective collection electrode (discharge electrodes 12; Fig. 3), 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 (Figs. 3, 7, 10; outer upper supports 61, central upper support 61/63, connector 65, tire rod 16), 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 lower high voltage support grid supporting said one or more ionizing electrodes (Figs. 3, 7, 10; discharge electrodes 12, lower supports 51, central lower support 51, lower frames 30, side protrusions 51a, lower protrusions 51b, support bar 51c, tie rod 17). Lee does not appear to disclose explicitly “one or more ionizing electrodes being supported only by said lower high voltage support grid” as recited in claim 16. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to relocate the one or more ionizing electrodes to be supported only by said lower high voltage support grid, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and relocating ELEM A would not have changed the function of the device. See MPEP § 2144.04(VIC).
Claim 18. The electrostatic precipitator of claim 16, wherein said housing has a roof (Figs. 1, 2, 17), said device further comprising electrical insulators supported from said roof wherein said lower high voltage support grid is connected to and supported by said insulators (Figs. 14, 15; pars [0110]-[0116]).
Claim 19. The particulate removal device of claim 16, wherein said lower high voltage support grid is connected to and supported by said upper high voltage support grid (Fig. 7).
Claim 20. The particulate removal device of claim 16, wherein said housing has side walls, and wherein said lower high voltage frame is supported from electrical insulators mounted in insulator compartments on said side walls, below said at least one collecting electrode (Figs. 1-3, 7, 10, 11; pars [0099]-[0103]).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200360935 A1) in view of Pierre (US 2983332 A).
Regarding claim 17, Lee is relied upon as indicated with claim 16 above but does not appear to disclose at least one collection surface extension in electrical communication with a collection electrode, said collection surface extension comprising a plurality of spaced fins. Pierre does teach at least one collection surface extension in electrical communication with a collection electrode (Fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 49-51), said collection surface extension comprising a plurality of spaced fins (Fig. 2; precipitating surfaces 17 that are grounded). 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 collection surface extension comprising a plurality of spaced fins (Fig. 2; precipitating surfaces 17 that are grounded) as disclosed in Pierre to increase the surface area and improve collection efficacy with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200360935 A1) in view of Pierre (US 2983332 A).
For claim 21, Lee discloses an electrostatic precipitator (101; Fig. 3), comprising: a housing (1200) having an inlet for a gas process stream (inlet 1210; arrows in Fig. 2 on entering louver 1600) and an outlet spaced from said inlet (outlet 1220) for exhausting treated gases, a particulate collection surface comprising one or more collection electrodes positioned within said housing between said inlet and said outlet (electrostatic precipitating electrodes 13; Figs. 3), one or more ionizing electrodes in said housing, each ionizing electrode being associated with a respective collection electrode (discharge electrodes 12; Fig. 3). Lee does not appear to disclose 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 surface area enhancing members. Pierre does disclose 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 (Fig. 2; precipitating surfaces 17 that are grounded; whereas, precipitating surfaces 17 are surface enhancing members). 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 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 as disclosed in Pierre for the electrostatic precipitator of Lee to increase the surface area and improve collection efficacy with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, Lee and Pierre are relied upon as indicated with claim 20 above. Pierre further discloses wherein each said portion of said second region occupied by said surface area members is downstream, in the direction of process gas flow during operation of said electrostatic precipitator, of said respective ionizing electrode that occupies said internal volume of said collection electrode (Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 3, the closest prior art of record fails to disclose 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 discloses the allowable subject matter.
Regarding dependent claim 10, the prior art of record fails to disclose each collection surface extension comprises an outer wall and an inner wall spaced from said outer wall, and a plurality spaced fins extending from said outer wall to said inner wall.
Therefore claims 3-6 and 10 are objected to for depending from rejected claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nonetheless, Applicant should consider the references in response to this Office Action.
US 3600653 A: Teaches fins are used to increase the surface area of collecting electrodes; (col. 4, ll. 24-26) collecting electrodes can be plates with fins to increase surface area.
US 4133652 A: discloses a conductive fin 42, increases surface area; Figs. 1-3.
US 20150053078 A1: Fig. 5 protruding portions 23 ("fins").
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 May 20, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights