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 Status
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claim 2 is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20210007256 by Woo et al. (Woo) in view of English Machine Translation of CN108059129 by Sun et al. (Sun).
Regarding limitations recited in the claims which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed magnetic filter, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). This applies to the following limitations: “receive passing therethrough a fluid or a powder containing metal particles” (claim 1); “configured to rotate the magnets to revolve around a rotation center” (claim 1); “receive an inflow therethrough of the fluid or the powder” (claim 5); “receive a discharge therethrough of the fluid or the powder form the inlet port” (claim 5).
In regard to claim 1, Woo teaches a magnetic filter (abstract; [0005]-[0006]). Woo teaches a housing (abstract; [0005]-[0006], housing 10); capable of receiving passing therethrough a fluid or a powder containing metal particles. Woo teaches magnets arranged inside the housing (abstract; [0005]-[0006], plurality of unit magnets 20). Woo teaches a rotation unit (abstract; [0005]-[0006]; [0013]-[0023]); capable of rotating the magnets to revolve around a rotation center. Woo teaches the magnets include a first magnet and second magnets with each of the second magnets located farther from the rotation center than the first magnet (abstract; [0005]-[0006]; [0013]-[0023]; Figure 1, Figure 2). Woo teaches wherein any one of the second magnets forms and equilateral triangle arrangement with a first magnets (abstract; [0005]-[0006]; [0013]-[0023]; Figure 1, Figure 2).
Woo does not teach a first set of magnets spaced apart from the rotation center.
Woo further teaches the distance between metal particles and the magnets affects the force of the magnetic field and collection efficiency ([0009]). Woo teaches residence time is affected by collection efficiency and it is desirable to increase strength of force in the magnetic field and equalize the residence time ([0009]). Woo teaches increasing force and collection efficiency ([0004]). Woo teaches rotation of second magnets increases circulation low of the particles around the magnets ([0040]).
Sun teaches two concentric circles comprising multiple magnets, centered around a central axis, (Figure 1, Figure 2; Detailed Description of the Embodiments). Sun teaches different zones have different separation properties (Figure 1, Figure 2; Detailed Description of the Embodiments; Summary of the Invention). Sun teaches the strength of the magnetic field enhances the gradient of the whole device to tune separations (Figure 1, Figure 2; Detailed Description of the Embodiments; Summary of the Invention). Sun teaches the size, arrangements, and density of magnets can maximize the gradient of the radial magnetic field (Figure 1, Figure 2; Detailed Description of the Embodiments; Summary of the Invention). Sun teaches the second magnets form an equilateral triangle arrangement with two of the first magnets that are closest to any of the second magnets (Figure 1, Figure 2; Detailed Description of the Embodiments; Summary of the Invention).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate multiple radial magnetic rings, as taught by Sun, in the magnetic filter of Woo in order to enhance the gradient of the device, tune separations, and maximize separations. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would be motivated to incorporate multiple magnetic rings in order to increase magnetic force and collection efficiency and tune residence time.
In regard to claim 3, Woo does not teach the first magnets are together arranged along a polygonal shape with respect to the rotation center.
It is well known in the art that the magnets can have a variety of shapes of configurations. The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnetic filter of Woo to have a polygonal shape arrangement in order to achieve desired separation efficiency and desired magnetic forces. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to tune the efficiency of separation and magnetic forces.
In regard to claim 4, Woo teaches the magnets each have a columnar shape extending in a first direction (abstract; [0005]-[0006]; [0022]).
In regard to claim 5, Woo teaches the housing includes an inlet port (abstract; [0005]-[0006], inlet 11); capable of receiving an inflow therethrough of the fluid or the powder. Woo teaches an outlet port (abstract; [0005]-[0006], outlet 12); capable of receiving a discharge therethrough of the fluid or the powder form the inlet port.
Woo teaches an opening direction of the inlet port and an opening direction of the outlet port are perpendicular to each other (abstract; [0005]-[0006]). Woo does not teach an opening direction of the inlet port and an opening direction of the outlet port are parallel to each other. Woo teaches the inlet and outlet are provided at positions spaced apparat from each other along the direction of the housing ([0020]; [0030]).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the inlet and outlet of Woo to be parallel to one another, because selecting one of known designs would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
In regard to claim 6, Woo teaches the magnets each have a columnar shape extending in a first direction perpendicular to a second direction extending from the inlet port towards the outlet port (abstract; [0005]-[0006]; [0022]).
In regard to claim 7, Woo does not teach third magnets each arranged equidistant from two of the second magnets that are closest thereto. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regard to claims 8-9, the configuration with a third arrangement of magnets will result in the claimed orientation.
In regard to claim 10, Woo teaches the rotation unit comprises a first rotation plate connected to a first end of each of the first magnets and a first end of each of the second magnets (abstract; [0005]-[0006]; Figure 1, Figure 2). Woo does not specifically teach a second rotation plate.
Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Woo does not explicitly teach a rotary motor. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that rotation is implemented by a motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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.
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 KARA M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9958. The examiner can normally be reached 9 to 5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/KARA M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights