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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged.
The amendment overcomes 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection.
Non-elected claims 11-15 are canceled.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s argument is directed to a newly added limitation to claim 1 which recites “wherein the plurality of second electrodes is connected to a ground through a ground portion and a ground line to be grounded”. It is agreed that Noh does not disclose said new limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO 01/16533 to Wada et al.
Applicant argues that dependent claims are allowable over Noh. In other words, Applicant appears to take the position that the dependent claims stand or fall with the independent claim. Since a new ground of rejection is made below in response to the amendment, the dependent claims are not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 20180250685) in view of Wada (WO 01/16533).
The following relies upon Figures 6-8 and their corresponding descriptions
[0086-0140].
Regarding claim 1, Noh teaches a dust collector 20 (i.e., dust collecting
filter)[0070] including:
a dust collecting sheet 200 (i.e., a first filter medium) formed by
continuously bending one sheet (i.e., bent into a corrugated shape) [0070] to form
a plurality of bent portions 203 (i.e., forms a plurality of bent portions) [0071];
a plurality of first electrodes 211 may be arranged on the first flat surface
201 (i.e., disposed on one surface of the first filter medium along the corrugated
shape of the first filter medium) [0094] and a high voltage of plus polarity may be
applied to the first electrode 211 (i.e., to which a high voltage is applied) [0107];
and a plurality of second electrodes 221 may be arranged on the second
flat surface 202 (i.e., disposed along the corrugated shape of the first filter
medium) and, accordingly, the plurality of first electrodes 211 and the plurality of
second electrodes 221 are alternately arranged(i.e., so as to be spaced apart from
each other between the plurality of first electrodes)[0094] and the second
electrode 221 may be grounded (i.e., a plurality of second electrodes and are
grounded) [0107].
While Noh teaches a configuration for ground the electrodes ([0106, [107], and [0129], Noh does not expressly disclose how the ground is configured (i.e. a line).
Wada like Noh teaches an air conditioning unit for dust collection (p. 9, lines 25-28) with a corrugated electrode (p. 10, lines 14-19) where the electrode is grounded through a ground line (p. 12, lines 11-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use as a grounding configuration for the corrugated electrode of Noh a ground line taught by Wada as it is a known configuration for grounding corrugated electrodes in dust air treatment systems and will provide the necessary grounding to the apparatus of Noh with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Noh teaches the dust collecting sheet 200 may include a
plurality of first flat surfaces 201 and a plurality of second flat surfaces 202 that
are alternately arranged in parallel to each other [0093], wherein the first
electrode 211 (i.e., the plurality of first electrodes) may be arranged on the first
flat surface 201 and the second electrode 221 (i.e., the plurality of second
electrode) may be arranged on the second flat surface 202 [0094]. Thus, the
plurality of first electrodes and the plurality of second electrodes are disposed
parallel to each other.
Regarding claim 3, Noh teaches one pair of facing flat surfaces 201 and 202
may include a first flat surface 201 and a second flat surface 202, the dust
collecting sheet 200 may include a plurality of first flat surfaces 201 and a plurality
of second flat surfaces 202 that are alternately arranged in parallel to each other,
and the bent portions 203 for connecting the first flat surfaces 201 and the
second flat surfaces 202 may be formed in a zigzag form at opposite sides as the
dust collecting sheet 200 is bent in a zigzag form (i.e., a first direction in which a
plurality of corrugations of the first filter medium are arranged) [0093], wherein
the first electrode 211(i.e., the plurality of first electrodes) may be arranged on
the first flat surface 201 and the second electrode 221 (i.e., the plurality of second
electrode) may be arranged on the second flat surface 202 [0094].
Regarding claim 4, Noh teaches the dust collecting sheet 200 may, in
certain embodiments, include the plurality of bent portions 203 formed via
bending between the plurality of first electrodes 211 and the plurality of second
electrodes 221 in a zigzag form in such a way that the first electrode 211 and the
second electrode 221 face each other(i.e., bent in a second direction crossing the
first direction in which the plurality of corrugations of the first filter medium are
formed and forms a pattern having a plurality of valleys and crests) [0133].
Regarding claim 5, Noh teaches the first electrode 211 may be arranged on
the first flat surface 201 (i.e., a first flat portion) and the second electrode 221
may be arranged on the second flat surface 202(i.e., the second flat portion) and,
accordingly, the plurality of first electrodes 211 and the plurality of second
electrodes 221 are alternately arranged in the dust collecting sheet 200 [0094].
Regarding claim 6, Noh teaches the first flat surface 201 including the first
electrode 211 formed therein may be arranged at one side of the bent portion
203 and the second flat surface 202 including the second electrodes 221 formed
therein may be arranged at the other end side of the bent portion 203 to face the
first flat surface 201 [0098]. Thus, the filter medium contains a bent portion 203
within the pattern unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
565
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, see Fig. 8 above with claimed imaginary lines L1, L2, L3,
and L4. FIG. 8 illustrates a plan view of the dust collecting sheet shown in FIG. 7
prior to a bending. [0049] It can be seen wherein a first imaginary line L1 passing
through a plurality of crests formed by the first electrode (211 in Fig. 8 above), asecond imaginary line L2 passing through a plurality of valleys formed by the first
electrode, a third imaginary line L3 passing through a plurality of crests formed by
the second electrode(221 in Fig. 8 above) and a fourth imaginary line L4 passing
through a plurality of valleys formed by the second electrode are defined,
wherein the first imaginary line and the fourth imaginary line are spaced apart
from each other, and the second imaginary line and the third imaginary line are
spaced apart from each other.
Regarding claim 8, Noh teaches a constant height (or a size; H)(i.e., the
distance between the first and second electrodes) of the gap G [0111]. It can be
seen in Figure 7 that this distance H is greater than the width of the of each
electrode.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Noh in view of Wada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dhau (US 20200030731
A1).
Regarding claims 9-10, Noh teaches all limitations as set forth above, but is
silent on a second filter medium disposed on at least one side of an upstream side
and a downstream side of the first filter medium, wherein a pores of the first filter
medium are wider than a pores of the second filter medium.
Dhau is directed to a filtration system (title). Dhau teaches the filter media
preferably includes one or more trapping layers 130 of the same or different
types that function to capture one or more contaminants [0074]. The particle-
trapping layer can be an active trapping layer (e.g., electrostatic), wherein the
particle-trapping layer may define a higher porosity (e.g., greater permeability)
versus a passive layer, because additional trapping occurs (e.g., beyond themechanical filtration of the layer) due to the electrostatic attraction between the
charged layer and contaminant particles [0086]. Thus, a first electrostatic trapping
layer (i.e., first filter medium) may have wider pores than a passive trapping layer
(i.e., second filter medium).
Noh and Dhau are both directed to filtration systems. Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Noh to add
an additional filter layer with a smaller pore size because filter media with
multiple layers shows improved particulate removal efficiency (e.g., by physically
filtering contaminants and/or particulates)[0027], and because the electrostatic
filter media may have higher porosity because additional trapping occurs due to
the electrostatic attraction between the charged layer and contaminant particles
[0086], as taught by Dhau.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 12 of copending Application No. 18/016713 (hereinafter “copending ‘713”) in view of Wada (WO 01/16533).
Each set of claims in instant application and copending ‘713 are directed to a dust collecting filter comprising a filter medium, a plurality of first electrodes and a plurality of second electrodes. The copending ‘713 does not claim the electrode is grounded through a ground line.
Wada teaches an air conditioning unit for dust collection (p. 9, lines 25-28) with a corrugated electrode (p. 10, lines 14-19) where the electrode is grounded through a ground line (p. 12, lines 11-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use as a grounding configuration for the corrugated electrode of copending ‘713 a ground line taught by Wada as it is a known configuration for grounding corrugated electrodes in dust air treatment systems and will provide the necessary grounding to the apparatus of copending ‘713 with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting 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 IN SUK C BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
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.
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772