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 .
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 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick, US 2011/0209611 A1 in view of Franzen et al., EP 1,907,124 B11.
Regarding claim 5, Kruglick teaches a filtration system that reads on the claimed “apparatus for performing centrifugal separation of particles, wherein a gas flow is provided containing the particles.” See Kruglick Fig. 1, [0016].
The system comprises, in serial fluid interconnection:
A particle charging chamber 110 for charging particles in the gas that is filtered in the system. See Kruglick Fig. 1, [0017]. The particle charging chamber 110 reads on the “electrostatic charging device.”
A plume chamber 120 comprising a plume generator 400 for generating an aerosol plume of liquid water droplets 424 (which are polar). See Kruglick Figs. 1, 4, [0028], [0056], [0062]. The plume chamber 120 reads on the “mixing vessel” and the plume generator 400 reads on the “aerosol generator.” The plume 424 is introduced into the gas flow to attract the charged particles. Id. at [0015].
A pair of cyclonic separators 140, each using centrifugal separation to remove the liquid droplets comprising the attracted particles from the gas flow. See Kruglick Fig. 1, [0032].
PNG
media_image1.png
1030
1309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kruglick differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to either of the cyclonic separators 140 comprising a rotor having a plurality of mutually spaced apart frusto-conical surface elements comprising inclined inner faces for trapping and agglomerating polar liquid droplets and particles separated from the air flow.
But each cyclonic separator 140 is configured to use centrifugal separation to remove liquid particles, which have been charged in particle charging chamber 110, from the gas flowing through each separator 140. See Kruglick [0032], [0026].
With this in mind, Franzen teaches an apparatus for separating particles from a flow of gas comprising a centrifugal separator 10 comprising a rotor 14 having a plurality of mutually spaced apart frusto-conical plates 162 comprising inclined inner surfaces 36 that are capable of trapping and agglomerating polar liquid particles that have been charged by ionization unit 44, with the particles being separated from the gas flow. See Franzen Fig. 1, [0001], [0012]–[0013]. The centrifugal separator 10 is beneficial because the inner surfaces 36 are connected to an electrical voltage source 38 so that they have an opposite potential compared to the particles in the gas that are ionized by ionization unit 44, with the difference in potential causing small and light particles that are difficult to separate by centrifugal force to be trapped on the inner surfaces 36. Id. at [0012]–[0013].
PNG
media_image2.png
895
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the centrifugal separator 10 of Franzen as each of the cyclonic separators 140 of Kruglick to provide the benefit of improving separation of small, light particles that are difficult to separate by centrifugal force.
With this modification, one of the centrifugal separators 10 reads on the “centrifugal separator.” The centrifugal separator 10 comprises the rotor 14 (reading on the claimed “rotor”) having a plurality of spaced apart frusto-conical plates 16 (the “spaced apart frusto-conical surface elements”) comprising inclined inner surfaces 36 (the “inclined inner surfaces for trapping and agglomerating polar liquid droplets and particles separated from the air flow”).
Regarding claim 6, Kruglick teaches that the plume generator 400 (the “aerosol generator”) comprises an ultrasonic generator 421 to generate the aerosol of droplets from a liquid volume 420 occupied in the plume chamber 120 (the “mixing vessel”). See Kruglick Fig. 4, [0056]. The ultrasonic generator 421 reads on the “vibration generator.”
Regarding claim 7, Kruglick teaches that the plume generator 400 (the “aerosol generator”) comprises an “aerosol-forming spray nozzle,” which is the nozzle-like structure seen in Fig. 4.
Claims 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick, US 2011/0209611 A1 in view of Franzen et al., EP 1,907,124 B1 and in further view of Laslo, US 2008/0079181 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Kruglick as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as explained above.
Kruglick as modified differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the plume chamber 120 (the “mixing vessel”) comprising a partition comprising a constricted opening.
But the plume chamber 120 is configured with at least one nozzle to spray liquid droplets into a gas stream so that the liquid droplets become suspended in the gas, with the droplets adhering to nanoparticles in the gas. See Kruglick Figs, 1, 4, [0015], [0028].
PNG
media_image3.png
779
832
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With this in mind, Laslo teaches an apparatus for improved gas/fluid contact comprising a tower 20 comprising nozzles 28 for spraying liquid into gas as the gas flows through the tower 20. See Laslo Fig. 1, [0022]. The tower 20 also comprises a perforated plate 30 located upstream of the nozzles 28. Id. The perforations 44 in the plate 30 are oriented so that the gas is directed into a relatively dense part of the spray cone 40 of liquid ejected from each nozzle 28. Id. This is beneficial to improve the contact between the gas flowing through the tower 20 and the liquid sprayed by the nozzles 28. Id. at [0008].
PNG
media_image4.png
875
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the perforated plate 30 of Laslo in the plume chamber 120 of Kruglick to improve the contact between the gas flowing through the plume chamber 120 and the liquid sprayed into the gas.
With this modification, the plate 30 would read on the “partition” and one of the perforations 44 in the plate 30 would read on the “constricted opening.”
Regarding claim 11, Kruglick teaches that the plume chamber 120 (the “mixing vessel”) comprises a liquid transfer tank 422 housing the ultrasonic generator 421 of the plume generator 400. See Kruglick Fig. 4, [0056]. The liquid transfer tank 422 reads on the “premix chamber.”
Regarding claim 12, Kruglick teaches that the plume chamber 120 (the “mixing vessel”) comprises a liquid transfer tank 422 housing the ultrasonic generator 421 of the plume generator 400. See Kruglick Fig. 4, [0056]. The liquid transfer tank 422 reads on the “premix chamber” and the ultrasonic generator 421 reads on the “vibration generator to generate the aerosol of droplets from a liquid volume occupied in the mixing vessel.”
Kruglick differs from claim 12 because it is silent as to the cyclonic separator 140 (the “centrifugal separator”) comprising a plurality of spaced-apart surfaces to trap and agglomerate liquid droplets and particles separated from the gas flow.
Kruglick differs from claim 12 because it is silent as to the plume chamber 120 comprising one or more constricted openings in one or more partitions of the plume chamber 120.
But the plume chamber 120 is configured with at least one nozzle to spray liquid droplets into a gas stream so that the liquid droplets become suspended in the gas, with the droplets adhering to nanoparticles in the gas. See Kruglick Figs, 1, 4, [0015], [0028].
With this in mind, Laslo teaches an apparatus for improved gas/fluid contact comprising a tower 20 comprising nozzles 28 for spraying liquid into gas as the gas flows through the tower 20. See Laslo Fig. 1, [0022]. The tower 20 also comprises a perforated plate 30 located upstream of the nozzles 28. Id. The perforations 44 in the plate 30 are oriented so that the gas is directed into a relatively dense part of the spray cone 40 of liquid ejected from each nozzle 28. Id. This is beneficial to improve the contact between the gas flowing through the tower 20 and the liquid sprayed by the nozzles 28. Id. at [0008].
It would have been obvious to use the perforated plate 30 of Laslo in the plume chamber 120 of Kruglick to improve the contact between the gas flowing through the plume chamber 120 and the liquid sprayed into the gas.
With this modification, the plate 30 would read on the “partition” and one of the perforations 44 in the plate 30 would read on the “constricted opening.”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick, US 2011/0209611 A1 in view of Franzen et al., EP 1,907,124 B1 in view of Laslo, US 2008/0079181 A1 and in further view of Kojima, US 2008/0169576 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Kruglick in view of Laslo teaches the limitations of claim 8, as explained above.
The prior art combination differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to a plurality of constricted openings in partitions in the mixing vessel.
But, as noted, the plume chamber 120 of Kruglick is configured with at least one nozzle to spray liquid droplets into a gas stream so that the liquid droplets become suspended in the gas, with the droplets adhering to nanoparticles in the gas. See Kruglick Figs, 1, 4, [0028].
With this in mind, Kojima teaches a gas-liquid contact system comprising a pair of spray nozzles 52a, 52b arranged in series with spray nozzle 52b being upstream of spray nozzle 52a. See Kojima Fig. 5, [0119]. The multiple spray nozzles 52a, 52b are beneficial because it increases the amount of cleaning liquid that is sprayed into gas moving through the system. Id.
PNG
media_image5.png
418
490
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify Kruglick to include two sets of nozzles arranged in series to spray liquid into the gas moving through the plume chamber 120, with two partition plates 30 for each set of nozzles, in view of Kojima, to increase the amount of liquid that is sprayed into the gas. With this modification, the plume chamber 120 would comprise a plurality of perforations 44 (a “plurality of constricted openings”) in the two partition plates 30 (“partitions”) in the plume chamber 120 (the “mixing vessel”), as claimed.
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.
Claims 5–7 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,686 B2 in view of Franzen et al., EP 1,907,124 B1.
Regarding instant claim 5, claim 8 of the ’686 patent teaches an apparatus for cleaning an air flow from particles, which reads on the claimed “apparatus for performing centrifugal separation of particles, wherein a gas flow is provided containing the particles.” The apparatus comprises an aerosol generator in a mixing chamber (the claimed “aerosol generator” and “mixing vessel”) with the droplets being a polar liquid as they can be water. The apparatus also comprises a centrifugal separator for trapping and agglomerating liquid droplets and particles separated from the airflow (the claimed “centrifugal separator for separating the liquid droplets comprising the attracted particles from the gas flow by centrifugal separation”). The mixing chamber and centrifugal separator are in serial fluid connection because the mixing chamber communicates with a suction inlet of the centrifugal separator.
Claim 8 of the ’686 patent differs from instant claim 5 because it is silent as to an electrostatic charging device for charging the particles in the gas flow, with the electrostatic charging device being in serial fluid interconnection with the aerosol generator and centrifugal separator as claimed. Claim 8 of the ’686 patent also differs from instant claim 5 because claim 8 is silent as to the centrifugal separator comprising a rotor having a plurality of mutually spaced apart frusto-conical surface elements comprising inclined inner faces for trapping and agglomerating polar liquid droplets separated from the air flow.
But claim 8 teaches that the centrifugal separator comprises a plurality of spaced-apart surfaces for trapping and agglomerating liquid droplets and particles separated from the air flow.
With this in mind, Franzen an apparatus for separating particles from a flow of gas comprising an ionization unit 44 upstream from a centrifugal separator 10, with the ionization unit 44 charging the particles before they reach the centrifugal separator 10. See Franzen Fig. 1, [0012]. The centrifugal separator 10 comprises a rotor 14 having a plurality of mutually spaced apart frusto-conical plates 163 comprising inclined inner surfaces 36 that are capable of trapping and agglomerating polar liquid particles that have been charged by ionization unit 44, with the particles being separated from the gas flow. See Franzen Fig. 1, [0001], [0012]–[0013]. The centrifugal separator 10 is beneficial because the inner surfaces 36 are connected to an electrical voltage source 38 so that they have an opposite potential compared to the particles in the gas that are ionized by ionization unit 44, with the difference in potential causing small and light particles that are difficult to separate by centrifugal force to be trapped on the inner surfaces 36. Id. at [0012]–[0013].
It would have been obvious to modify claim 8 of the ’686 patent to include the ionization unit 44 of Franzen (the “electrostatic charging device”) upstream of the mixing chamber while also including the centrifugal separator 10 of Franzen as the centrifugal separator of claim 8 of the ’686 patent to improve the ability of the apparatus of claim 8 of the ’686 patent to remove small and light particles that are difficult to separate by centrifugal force.
Regarding instant claim 6, claim 8 of the ’686 patent teaches that the aerosol generator comprises a vibration generator to generate aerosol droplets from a liquid volume occupied in the mixing chamber.
Regarding instant claim 7, claim 8 of the ’686 patent teaches that some mechanism transfers aerosol droplets so that they are in contact with air flow. This mechanism is interpreted as reading on the claimed “spray nozzle.”
Regarding instant claim 11, claim 8 of the ’686 patent teaches that the mixing chamber comprises a bottom portion housing the aerosol generator. The bottom portion reads on the “premix chamber housing the aerosol generator.”
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,686 B2 in view of Franzen et al., EP 1,907,124 B1 and in further view of Laslo, US 2008/0079181 A1.
Regarding instant claim 8, claim 8 of the ’686 patent in view of Kruglick teaches the limitations of instant claim 5, as explained above.
The combination differs from instant claim 8 because it is silent as to the mixing chamber comprising a partition comprising a constricted opening.
But the mixing chamber has a mechanism for introducing liquid droplets into an air stream so that the liquid droplets mix with particles in the air flow. See Kruglick Figs, 1, 4, [0015], [0028].
With this in mind, Laslo teaches an apparatus for improved gas/fluid contact comprising a tower 20 comprising nozzles 28 for spraying liquid into gas as the gas flows through the tower 20. See Laslo Fig. 1, [0022]. The tower 20 also comprises a perforated plate 30 located upstream of the nozzles 28. Id. The perforations 44 in the plate 30 are oriented so that the gas is directed into a relatively dense part of the spray cone 40 of liquid ejected from each nozzle 28. Id. This is beneficial to improve the contact between the gas flowing through the tower 20 and the liquid sprayed by the nozzles 28. Id. at [0008].
It would have been obvious to use the perforated plate 30 of Laslo in the mixing chamber of claim 8 of the ’686 patent to improve the contact between the air flow and the liquid introduced into the airflow.
With this modification, the plate 30 would read on the “partition” and one of the perforations 44 in the plate 30 would read on the “constricted opening.”
Regarding instant claim 12, claim 8 of the ’686 patent teaches that the mixing chamber comprises a bottom portion housing the aerosol generator. The bottom portion reads on the “premix chamber housing the aerosol generator.” Also, the aerosol generator comprises a vibration generator to generate aerosol droplets from a liquid volume occupied in the mixing chamber.
The combination differs from instant claim 12 because it is silent as to the mixing chamber comprising a partition comprising a constricted opening.
But the mixing chamber has a mechanism for introducing liquid droplets into an air stream so that the liquid droplets mix with particles in the air flow. See Kruglick Figs, 1, 4, [0015], [0028].
With this in mind, Laslo teaches an apparatus for improved gas/fluid contact comprising a tower 20 comprising nozzles 28 for spraying liquid into gas as the gas flows through the tower 20. See Laslo Fig. 1, [0022]. The tower 20 also comprises a perforated plate 30 located upstream of the nozzles 28. Id. The perforations 44 in the plate 30 are oriented so that the gas is directed into a relatively dense part of the spray cone 40 of liquid ejected from each nozzle 28. Id. This is beneficial to improve the contact between the gas flowing through the tower 20 and the liquid sprayed by the nozzles 28. Id. at [0008].
It would have been obvious to use the perforated plate 30 of Laslo in the mixing chamber of claim 8 of the ’686 patent to improve the contact between the air flow and the liquid introduced into the airflow.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,686 B2 in view of Franzen et al., EP 1,907,124 B1 in view of Laslo, US 2008/0079181 A1 and in further view of Kojima, US 2008/0169576 A1.
Regarding instant claim 9, claim 8 of the ’686 patent in view of Kruglick and Laslo teaches the limitations of instant claim 8, as explained above.
The combination differs from instant claim 9 because it is silent as to a plurality of constricted openings in partitions in the mixing chamber.
But Kojima teaches a gas-liquid contact system comprising a pair of spray nozzles 52a, 52b arranged in series with spray nozzle 52b being upstream of spray nozzle 52a. See Kojima Fig. 5, [0119]. The multiple spray nozzles 52a, 52b are beneficial because it increases the amount of cleaning liquid that is sprayed into gas moving through the system. Id.
It would have been obvious to modify claim 8 of the ’686 patent to include two sets of mechanisms arranged in series to introduce liquid droplets into the air flow into the air moving through the mixing chamber, with two partition plates 30 for each set of liquid introducing mechanisms, in view of Kojima, to increase the amount of liquid that is sprayed into the gas. With this modification, the mixing chamber would comprise a plurality of perforations 44 (a “plurality of constricted openings”) in the two partition plates 30 (“partitions”).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5–9, 11 and 12 have been 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.
Double Patenting
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5–9, 11 and 12 have been 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.
It is noted that the Applicant argues that the design of the ’686 patent depends on stable rotation flow, while asserting that adding charged polar droplets from an electrostatic system, such as taught in Kruglick, near high speed rotor elements would likely cause turbulence or electrical instability, interfere with rotor operation or droplet trajectory, and potentially result in undesirable discharges within the rotating field. See Applicant Rem. filed October 08, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) 8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s analysis because it is speculative and fails to cite evidence. Instead, the ’686 patent suggests that charged droplets can be added near rotor elements because it teaches that the particles in the air to be purified can be electrostatically charged and introduced into a centrifugal separator comprising a stack of frusto-conical surface elements rotated by a rotor. See ’696 patent, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 57.
The Examiner strongly encourages the Applicant to file a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejections to avoid unnecessary delays in prosecution.
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 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
1 Franzen is in the record as the 14-page Foreign Reference filed February 07, 2023.
2 The plates 16 are “frusto-conical” because they each have the shape of the solid part of a cone that remains when the top is sliced off by a plane parallel to the base, as seen in Fig. 1.
3 The plates 16 are “frusto-conical” because they each have the shape of the solid part of a cone that remains when the top is sliced off by a plane parallel to the base, as seen in Fig. 1.