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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 9, in the reply filed on September 17, 2025 is acknowledged. The examiner agrees new claims 29 and 30 can be examined with Group I.
New claims 20 – 28, however, are not considered to be part of Group I. Group I and new claims 20 – 28 are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have materially different designs. Group I requires a booth gas inflow line, an oven gas inflow line, a mixing portion, a separating portion, and a filter portion, which is not required in new claims 20 – 28. New claims 20 – 28 require a paint spraying booth, a paint baking oven, a VOC concentrator, and a VOC removing apparatus, which is not required in Group I. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 4,297,116 to Cusick (hereinafter referred to as Cusick).
In regard to claim 1, as shown in figures 1 and 6, Cusick discloses device that can be considered a chamber capable of VOC removal. The device includes a single inflow line (48, 81). In figure 1, the diffuser member (30) forms a separating portion capable of separating a liquid VOC from the gas stream. The filter elements (22) forms a filter portion capable of filtering a foreign substance form the gas having passed through the separating portion. In figure 6, the separating chamber (71) and filters (73) form a separating portion capable of separating a liquid VOC from the gas stream. The mesh (78) forms a filter portion capable of filtering a foreign substance form the gas having passed through the separating portion. Cusick does not disclose two inflow lines and a mixing portion that mixes the flow from the inflow lines. There is no evidence the amount of inflow lines affects the operation of the device. Further, “T” or “Y” shaped pipe joints are well known connectors that can mix flow from two lines into one. Given a requirement to separate foreign matter out of a gas stream from different locations, multiple inflow lines predictably could be mixed into one and fed to the device of Cusick.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cusick to include two inflow lines and a mixing portion in order to be able to separate foreign matter from gas streams originating in different locations. It is noted that a paint spraying booth and a paint baking oven are not positively recited in the claim. The two inflow lines in modified Cusick are capable of being connected to a paint spraying booth and a paint baking oven.
In regard to claim 2, Cusick does not disclose two inflow lines and thus does not disclose an integrate line with one inflow line connected to an interior of the other. It is well known in the art to connect a smaller flow line to a larger flow line by passing through the wall of the large line into its interior. There is no evidence how the lines are mixed is critical. Predictably large and smaller inflow lines could be used depending on the amount of flow from each location. Thus, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cusick to include an integrated inflow line where one inflow line connects to an interior of the other such that the large lie surrounds the smaller line given this is a known connection that can allow different sized lines to be connected.
In regard to claim 3, in the embodiment of figure 6, the mixing portion can be considered to be located at the inlet (81). The connection to the inlet is located on its upper surface. Therefore, in modified Cusick, the integrated line would be connected to the mixing portion on an upper surface of the mixing portion.
In regard to claim 5, the separating portion in Cusk includes a drain portion (26, 82) capable of discharging liquid VOC.
In regard to claim 6, the partitioning wall (18) in Cusick can be considered to form a vertical plate capable of blocking liquid VOC from moving to the filter portion.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0192433 to Steiner (hereinafter referred to as Steiner).
In regard to claim 1, as shown in figure 1, Steiner discloses device (10) that can be considered a chamber capable of VOC removal. The device includes a single inflow line (20). In figure 1, the centrifugal separator (14) forms a separating portion capable of separating a liquid VOC from the gas stream. The filter element (18) forms a filter portion capable of filtering a foreign substance form the gas having passed through the separating portion. Steiner does not disclose two inflow lines and a mixing portion that mixes the flow from the inflow lines. There is no evidence the amount of inflow lines affects the operation of the device. Further, “T” or “Y” shaped pipe joints are well known connectors that can mix flow from two lines into one. Given a requirement to separate foreign matter out of a gas stream from different locations, multiple inflow lines predictably could be mixed into one and fed to the device of Steiner.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steiner to include two inflow lines and a mixing portion in order to be able to separate foreign matter from gas streams originating in different locations. It is noted that a paint spraying booth and a paint baking oven are not positively recited in the claim. The two inflow lines in modified Steiner are capable of being connected to a paint spraying booth and a paint baking oven.
In regard to claim 2, Steiner does not disclose two inflow lines and thus does not disclose an integrate line with one inflow line connected to an interior of the other. It is well known in the art to connect a smaller flow line to a larger flow line by passing through the wall of the large line into its interior. There is no evidence how the lines are mixed is critical. Predictably large and smaller inflow lines could be used depending on the amount of flow from each location. Thus, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steiner to include an integrated inflow line where one inflow line connects to an interior of the other such that the large lie surrounds the smaller line given this is a known connection that can allow different sized lines to be connected.
In regard to claim 5, the separating portion in Steiner includes a drain portion (25) capable of discharging liquid VOC.
In regard to claim 9, as shown in figures 4 and 4a, the filter element (18) can include multiple layers (40 and 44, or 52, 54, and 56) that can be considered to form a plurality of filters disposed in series in a flowing direction of the mixture gas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 29 and 30 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 4, there is no teaching or suggestion in Cusick or Steiner for a mixing portion having a vortex generator at an end of the integrated line.
In regard to claims 7 and 8, the partition plate (18) in Cusick is considered to form the vertical plate of claim 6. There is no teaching or suggestion for the partition plate to include an upper end inclined toward an upstream side. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion in Cusick for the separating portion to comprise: a pre-chamber configured to have the mixture gas move vertically; and a main chamber configured to have the mixture gas horizontally pass through at a downstream side of the pre-chamber, wherein the pre-chamber comprises a horizontal plate horizontally disposed in the pre-chamber, and the vertical plate is vertically disposed in the main chamber.
In regard to independent claim 29, as discussed above, modified Cusick and Steiner disclose devices having the same structure as the claimed integration chamber. Claim 29, however, positively recites the paint spraying booth and the paint baking oven. There is no teaching or suggestion in Cusick or Steiner of including both a paint spraying booth and a paint baking oven with an inflow line from each to the device forming the integration chamber. Claim 30 depends from claim 29 and is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 29.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Other prior art references listed on the PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) are considered to be of interest disclosing similar devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773