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 .
Objections
The claim set dated September 16, 2025 is objected to because the heading lists instant application as “Application No. 18/308,187” when the application is docketed as Application No. 18/038,187.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Margraf, US 4,496,377.
Regarding claim 1, Margraf teaches a bag filter apparatus, which reads on the claimed “modular rapping dust remover.” See Margraf Fig. 1, Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–31.
The bag filter apparatus comprises a housing 1, which reads on the “dust-air chamber.” See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–31. The housing 1 comprises “at least one air inlet,” which is the opening that connects to the vertical tube at the top of the dedusting chamber 3. Id. The housing 1 also comprises “at least one dust outlet” provided at a bottom of the housing 1, which is the opening at the top of the dust collection funnel, located in the lower portion of the housing. Id. at Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–27.
The bag filter apparatus further comprises an “air intake pipeline,” which is the vertical tube at the top of the dedusting chamber 3, as seen in Fig. 1. An “air output end” of the vertical tube is in communication with the “air inlet” of the dedusting chamber 3, because dirty air is supplied into the dedusting chamber 3 through the vertical tube. See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–32.
The bag filter apparatus further comprises a plurality of filter bags 5 provided in the dedusting chamber 3. See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–32. The plurality of filter bags 5 read on the “plurality of filtering members.” A gap is formed between two adjacent filter bags 5, which is the space between the filter bags 5 seen in Fig. 1. Note that a gap exists between adjacent filter bags 5 because the filter bags 5 are installed horizontally in parallel and vertical rows in such a manner that open bag extremities are placed in coincidence with partition holes in partition 2. Id. A gap between the two, top-most filter bags 5 is visualized by the dashed lines of box “X” in Fig. 1. This gap can also be seen in Fig. 4, showing encircled part “Y” in Fig. 1, where a single filter bag 5 is shown with space above and below the filter bag 5.
The bag filter apparatus also comprises a vibrator 13 configured to vibrate the filter bags 5. See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 7–22. The vibrator 13 reads on the “at least one rapping device.”
The filter bag apparatus further comprises a purified gas space 4, which reads on the “at least one clean air chamber.” See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–35. The purified gas space 4 is provided at one side of the dedusting chamber 3. Id. Airflow in the dedusting chamber 3 enters the purified gas space 4 after flowing through the filter bags 5. Id.
The filter bag apparatus also comprises an “air outlet pipeline,” which is the horizontal pipe at the side of the purified gas space 4, as seen in Fig. 1. An “intake end” of the horizontal pipe is in communication with an “air outlet” of the purified gas space 4, because purified air exits from the purified gas space 4 through the horizontal pipe.
PNG
media_image1.png
1188
1250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Margraf teaches that the dedusting chamber 3and the purified gas space 4 are integrated in the same box body, as seen in Fig. 1. The dedusting chamber 3 and the purified gas space 4 are separated by a vertical partition 2, which reads on the “partition plate.” See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–31.
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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margraf, US 4,496,377 in view of Crapser et al., US 2006/0288871 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Margraf teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Margraf differs from claim 2 because it is silent as to the bag filter apparatus comprising a pre-charging device arranged upstream of the filter bags 5.
But the filter bags 5 can be used to remove dust from gas that passes through the bag filter apparatus. See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 33–35.
With this in mind, Crapser teaches an air cleaning device 100 that is able to remove dust from air with a filter 116. See Crapser Fig. 1, [0005], [0031]. The air cleaning device 100 comprises a pre-ionizer 118, which pre-charges the air before it enters the filter 116. Id. at Fig. 1, [0036]. The pre-ionizer 118 is beneficial because it enhances the function of the filter 116. Id.
It would have been obvious to provide the pre-ionizer 118 of Crapser upstream of the filter bags 5 of Margraf, to improve the function of the filter bags 5. With this modification, the pre-ionizer 118 would read on the “pre-charging device.”
Regarding claim 11, Margraf teaches that the dedusting chamber 3and the purified gas space 4 are integrated in the same box body, as seen in Fig. 1. The dedusting chamber 3 and the purified gas space 4 are separated by a vertical partition 2, which reads on the “partition plate.” See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–31.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margraf, US 4,496,377 in view of Gregg, US 2009/0020011 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Margraf teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Margraf differs from claim 3 because it silent as to a plurality of guide plates provided in the dedusting chamber 3 with the plates being arranged obliquely with a side wall of the dedusting chamber 3.
But Gregg teaches an industrial baghouse device a flow velocity reduction unit 31 within a dirty air chamber of the baghouse. See Gregg Fig. 2, [0026]. The flow velocity reduction unit 31 comprises a series of baffle plates 32 disposed at an oblique angle with respect to the sidewalls of the housing of the device. See Gregg Fig. 2, [0026]. The baffles 32 are beneficial because they slow the velocity of the incoming gas before it enters filters within the baghouse, which enables more equal distribution of the incoming gas stream on the filters while also minimizing localized wear on the filters. Id. at [0005]. It would have been obvious to provide the baffle plates 32 of Gregg within the dedusting chamber 3 of Margraf to reduce the velocity of the incoming gas stream to provide more equal distribution of the incoming gas while reducing wear on the filter bags 5.
With this modification, the baffle plates 32 would read on the “plurality of guide plates.”
Regarding claim 12, Margraf teaches that the dedusting chamber 3and the purified gas space 4 are integrated in the same box body, as seen in Fig. 1. The dedusting chamber 3 and the purified gas space 4 are separated by a vertical partition 2, which reads on the “partition plate.” See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–31.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margraf, US 4,496,377 in view of Mangiaforte, US 6,179,888 B1.
Regarding claim 4, Margraf teaches that the filter bags 5 are filter cartridges, as seen in Fig. 1. Each filter bag 5 comprises a cylindrically-shaped internal basket 7, which reads on the “support cylinder.” See Margraf Fig. 4, col. 2, ll. 22–31. Each filter bag 5 also comprises a filter material, which is the material surrounding the basket 7. Id. Each filter bag 5 also comprises a clamping frame 6 (a “first cover”) fixedly connected to one end of the basket 7 and an end-cap structure (the “second cove”) fixedly connected to the other end of the basket 7. Id. at Figs. 3, 4, col. 2, ll. 22–31. The basket 7 has a plurality of “through-holes” formed on a cylinder wall, seen in Fig. 4. Also, the left-hand end of the basket 7 (in Fig. 4) forms an “air outlet” because this end communicates with an perforation in partition 2, which separates the dedusting chamber 3 from the purified gas space 4. Id. at Fig. 4, col. 2, ll. 16–31. The airflow, after entering the basket 7 is discharged through the outlet. Id.
Margraf differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to the filter material surrounding the basket 7 being pleated.
But Mangiaforte teaches that it is beneficial to pleat the filter material of a filter bag to increase the surface area of the filter bag. See Mangiaforte col. 4, ll. 49–62. It would have been obvious to pleat the filter material of the filter bag 5 of Margraf to increase the surface area of the filter bag 5.
Regarding claim 13, Margraf teaches that the dedusting chamber 3and the purified gas space 4 are integrated in the same box body, as seen in Fig. 1. The dedusting chamber 3 and the purified gas space 4 are separated by a vertical partition 2, which reads on the “partition plate.” See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–31.
Claims 5, 6, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margraf, US 4,496,377 in view of Forgac, US 4,411,674 and in further view of Balcik, US 2018/0111076 A1.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Margraf teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Margraf differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the vertical pipe that supplies dirty air to the dedusting chamber 3 (the “air intake pipeline”) having the claimed structure.
But Forgac teaches a bag filter apparatus 10 comprising an inlet that supplies dirty air to the bag filter apparatus 10. The inlet comprises a connection duct 22 (the “air intake pipe”) and a flared inlet 23 (the “air intake box”) connected in sequence. Se Forgac Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 49–63. The inlet 23 is connected to an output end of the connection duct 22. Id. The flared inlet 23 is horn-shaped, and a “ventilation section” of the inlet 23 is gradually increased in size in a direction towards the interior of the baghouse apparatus 10. Id. The flared inlet 23 is beneficial because it is able to spread the incoming air relatively evenly to the filter bags 28 within the apparatus, as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
455
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the inlet of the dedusting chamber 3 of Margraf to comprise the connection duct 22 and flared inlet 23 of Forgac so that the incoming air is evenly spread over the filter bags 5.
Margraf also differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the horizontal pipe that removes cleaned air from the purified gas space 4 (the “air output pipeline”) comprising the claimed structure.
But Balcik teaches an air dust filter apparatus comprising a chimney 5 for expelling cleaned air to the environment. See Balcik Fig. 1, [0057]. The chimney 5 comprises an “air output pipe” which is the upper cylindrical section of the chimney 5 and an “air output box,” which is the tapered section of the chimney 5. Id. The “air output box” is connected to an “air intake end” of the “air output pipe,” as seen in Fig. 1. The “air output box” Is horn-shaped, as seen in Fig. 1. The “air output box” is gradually increased in size in a direction towards the clean air chamber of the dust filter apparatus, because it tapers in the direction away from the clean air chamber, as seen in Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
663
854
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The chimney 5 of Balcik is a known technology for expelling cleaned air from a dust cleaning apparatus. See Balcik [0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the “air output pipeline” of Margraf to comprise the chimney 5 of Balcik because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). With this modification, it also would have been obvious for the “air output box” of Balcik to be connected to the top of the purified gas space 4 of Margraf (claim 6) because the “air output box of Balcik is illustrated in Fig. 1 as being attached to the top of a clean gas chamber.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Margraf teaches that the dedusting chamber 3and the purified gas space 4 are integrated in the same box body, as seen in Fig. 1. The dedusting chamber 3 and the purified gas space 4 are separated by a vertical partition 2, which reads on the “partition plate.” See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–31.
Claims 7, 9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margraf, US 4,496,377 in view of Volk et al., US 4,445,912.
Regarding claim 7, Margraf teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Margraf differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to the bag filter apparatus comprising two purified gas spaces 4, which are respectively provided at two opposite sides of the dedusting chamber 3.
But the dedusting chamber 3 of Margraf is illustrated as containing a single row of filter bags 5.
With this in mind, Volk teaches an air filtration apparatus where the filter module A comprises two parallel rows of filter cartridge D on either side of the filter module A and with each side of the filter module A having an exhaust duct manifold 116 for expelling purified gas. See Volk Figs. 1, 3, col. 4, ll. 24–41, col. 7, ll. 49–53.
It would have been obvious to modify Margraf such that the dedusting chamber 3 comprises two parallel rows of filter bags 5 with a purified gas space 4 being located on either side of the dedusting chamber 3 for receiving purified gas, because this configuration is known in the art and would merely represent duplicating parts to increase the amount of gas that can be processed by the system.
Regarding claim 9, Margraf teaches that the bag filter apparatus comprises a dust collection funnel in communication with the “dust outlet,” which reads on the “dust hopper.” See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–26.
Margraf differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to a dust conveying device connected to a bottom of a hopper.
But Volk teaches an air filtration apparatus comprising a hopper 12 used to collect dust that is removed from filter cartridges D, with the hopper 12 having a discharge gate 14 at the lower end of the hopper 12 for selectively discharging particles that accumulate in the hopper. See Volk Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 4–11.
It would have been obvious for the dust collection funnel of Margraf to comprise a discharge gate at the bottom to selectively discharge particles that accumulate in the funnel.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Margraf teaches that the dedusting chamber 3and the purified gas space 4 are integrated in the same box body, as seen in Fig. 1. The dedusting chamber 3 and the purified gas space 4 are separated by a vertical partition 2, which reads on the “partition plate.” See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–31.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margraf, US 4,496,377 in view of Tooker et al., US 2010/0293908 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Margraf teaches that the bag filter apparatus comprises an auxiliary wall 9 (a “frame”) arranged inside the dedusting chamber 3. See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 51–60. The filter bags 5 are fixedly connected to the auxiliary wall 9. Id.
The bag filter apparatus further comprises a vibrator 13, which reads on the “rapping device.” See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 7–22. The vibrator 13 is configured to rap the auxiliary wall 9 so as to make the auxiliary wall 9 and the filter bags 5 to vibrate. Id.
Margraf differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the material used to construct the auxiliary wall 9. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the wall 9 being a “metal frame” as claimed.
But Tooker describes a baghouse 12 comprising a housing 14 that is made from a suitable material, such as sheet metal. See Tooker Fig. 1, [0012]. It would have been obvious to manufacture the wall 9 of Margraf from sheet metal because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 17, Margraf teaches that the dedusting chamber 3and the purified gas space 4 are integrated in the same box body, as seen in Fig. 1. The dedusting chamber 3 and the purified gas space 4 are separated by a vertical partition 2, which reads on the “partition plate.” See Margraf Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 16–31.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that Margraf fails to teach “a gap is formed between two adjacent filtering members,” as required by claim 1. See Applicant Rem. filed September 16, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) 7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figures 1 and 4 of Margraf clearly show a gap between each adjacent filter bag 5. For instance, the gap is seen in Fig. 1 by the dashed lines of box “X” encircling the top filter bag 5. The gap is also seen in Fig. 4, which is an enlarged scape of encircled part “Y” of Fig. 1. Encircled part “Y” of Fig. 1 is on the middle filter bag 5. See Margraf Figs. 1, 4, col. 2, ll. 3–12. Figure 4 shows this middle filter bag 5 as a single filter bag with no other filter bags above or below it, indicating that there is a gap between the middle filter bag 5 and the top filter bag 5, and a gap between the middle filter bag 5 and the bottom filter bag 5 of Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
1188
1250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant also argues that the claimed “gap…between two adjacent filtering members” is distinguishing because it produces a technical effect. See Applicant Rem. 7–8. Specifically, the Applicant argues that the technical effect is that during operation, dust-laden smoke enters the dust-air chamber under guidance of flow guide plates, and after passing through the plates, the smoke changes direction, which prevents the filters from being worn down while ensuring uniform airflow distribution. Id. It is argued that this structural design creates not just a physical “gap” but also gives the gap a functional role. Id. at 8. The Applicant further argues that the specification states that the guide plates have an inclined angle with both eh side wall and a bottom wall of the dust-air chamber, with such an inclined arrangement requiring that the gap between the flow guide plates is specific. Id. As such, it is argued that although a visual gap might be present in Margraf, any details regarding the gap, the manner of forming the gap, or its function or technical effect are not disclosed. Id. 8. Therefore, it is argued that Margraf neither disclsoes the specific functional gap between the filter bags as recited in the currently claimed embodiments nor reveals a technical solution employing a flow guide plate structure to control airflow direction, protect the filter bags and optimize airflow distribution. Id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, it appears that the Applicant is arguing that claim 1 is patentable over Margraf because of secondary considerations, such as an unexpected technical effect produced by the gap as disclosed in the specification. The arguments of secondary considerations are unpersuasive because claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Margraf, and evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results, is irrelevant to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP 2131.04.
Also, even if the alleged technical effect was pertinent to the anticipation rejection of claim 1 (i.e., if claim 1 was rejected for obviousness instead of anticipation), the arguments are unpersuasive because neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem solved by the inventor controls in determining obviousness. See MPEP 2141, subsection III. Instead, the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious as of the relevant time to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. Id.
Further, it is noted that claim 1 is silent as to the flow guide plates described by the Applicant in relation to a preferred embodiment from the disclosure, while it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claim. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection II. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments about Margraf failing to disclose details regarding the gap, the manner of forming the gap or its function or technical effect are unpersuasive. The Applicant’s arguments that Margraf fails to solve the technical problem captured by the claimed embodiments is also unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776