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
Claims 11–19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on Dec. 09, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the term “a plurality of parallel flow diverters” and “the flow diverters” are not consistently used. Please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Claim 6 has similar issues as claim 1.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There is a typo in the term “top had”, the instant disclosure recites “top hat”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed “an inner surface of the outer housing” recited in claim 5 is the same as that recited in claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–3, 6–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Prochaska et al., US 2005/0178704 A1 (“Prochaska”) in view of Fonseca et al., US 6,325,834 B1 (“Fonseca”).
Regarding claim 1:
Prochaska discloses that an adsorption filter (Prochaska’s filter system B as shown in Fig. 4, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0042]) for removing particulate matter from a fluid (Prochaska Fig. 4, [0002]), the adsorption filter comprising:
an outer housing (Prochaska’s housing 12, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0032]) including an upper end (proximate Prochaska’s port 20, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0042]), a lower end (proximate Prochaska’s inlet fitting 40, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0051]), and an inner cavity (see Fig. 4 of Prochaska);
a filter assembly (Prochaska’s ring discs 32, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0032]) disposed in the inner cavity of the outer housing, wherein the filter assembly comprises:
a supply conduit (Prochaska’s spray tube 36, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0038]) having an inlet end (Prochaska’s inlet fitting 40, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0037]), an outlet end disposed in the inner cavity (Prochaska’s orifice 38a proximate compression plate 30a, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0049]), and a linear section extending vertically from the outlet end (as shown in Prochaska’s Fig. 4), wherein the supply conduit (36 of Prochaska) is configured to flow the fluid into the inner cavity (Prochaska Fig. 7, [0050]);
a first pair of filter discs (see Prochaska’s Fig. 7a, shows a pair of discs 32, Prochaska Fig. 7a, [0049]) mounted to the linear section of the supply conduit (36 of Prochaska), wherein the first pair of filter discs includes an upper filter disc (pointed by label 32a in Fig. 7a of Prochaska) and a lower filter disc (pointed by label 32d in Fig. 7a of Prochaska) positioned below the upper filter disc;
wherein each filter disc (32 of Prochaska) includes a base (where label 32 points in Fig. 7a of Prochaska) and a plurality of parallel flow diverters (Prochaska’s ridges 32d) extending from the base (see Prochaska’s Fig. 7a, [0033]), wherein each base and each flow diverter slidingly engages an inner surface (Prochaska’s spine legs 34a, Prochaska Fig. 11a, [0038]) of the outer housing;
wherein each base includes a flow orifice (as shown in Fig. 11a, pointed by label 32c, Prochaska Fig. 11a, [0046]) extending vertically therethrough (as shown in Fig. 7, Prochaska Fig. 7);
wherein the flow diverters (32d of Prochaska) of the upper filter disc extend downward from the base of the upper filter disc and the flow diverters of the lower filter disc extend upward from the base of the lower filter disc (see Fig. 7a of Prochaska), and wherein the flow diverters of the upper filter disc intermesh with the flow diverters of the lower filter disc (see Prochaska Fig. 5a, [0033]).
Prochaska does not disclose that an outer surface of each base and an outer surface of each flow diverter is coated in an adhesive configured to capture the particulate matter.
In the analogous art of disc filters, Fonseca discloses a plurality of louvered plates 125, configured to collect condensations, which then acts as glue or adhesive to trap additional particulate matter in the exhaust flow, Fonseca Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 18–21. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a layer of adhesive on Prochaska’s ring discs for the purpose of capture additional particulate matters.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Prochaska discloses that the adsorption filter of claim 1, further comprising a diffuser (Prochaska’s flow diverter 41, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0032]) positioned in the inner cavity below the outlet end (38 of Prochaska) of the supply conduit (36 of Prochaska), wherein the diffuser (41 of Prochaska) is configured to change the direction of flow of the fluid exiting the outlet end of the supply conduit (Prochaska’s flow diverter 41 is capable of changing flow direction when the flow hits the flow diverter 41).
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Prochaska discloses that the adsorption filter of claim 2, wherein the diffuser has an upper end proximal the outlet end of the supply conduit, a lower end distal the outlet end of the supply conduit, and a width that increases moving vertically from the upper end to the lower end (Prochaska’s flow diverter 41 comprises a plurality of small nubs 41a, which is a vertically oriented semi-circle shape, the end flush with top surface of flow divertor 41 would be the claimed “upper end” and the point where the semi-circle shape reaches the radius would be the claimed “lower end” as clearly shown in Prochaska’s Fig. 4, a width increase from top of flow diverter moving vertically from the upper end to the lower end, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0040]).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Prochaska discloses that the adsorption filter of claim 1, further comprising:
a plurality of pairs of filter discs mounted to the linear section of the supply conduit (see Prochaska, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0042]),
wherein the plurality of pairs of filter discs (32 of Prochaska) are vertically spaced apart (Prochaska Fig. 4, [0042]);
wherein each pair of filter discs includes an upper filter disc and a lower filter disc positioned below the upper filter disc (see Prochaska Fig. 4, [0042]);
wherein each filter disc (32 of Prochaska) includes a base and a plurality of parallel flow diverters extending from the base, wherein each base and each flow diverter slidingly engages an inner surface of the outer housing (all of Prochaska’s disc 32 look alike and this limitation is mapped in claim 1, Prochaska Figs. 5a, 7a, [0046]);
wherein each base includes a flow orifice (as shown in Fig. 11a, pointed by label 32c, Prochaska Fig. 11a, [0046]) extending vertically therethrough ((as shown in Fig. 7, Prochaska Fig. 7);
wherein the flow diverters (32d of Prochaska) of each upper filter disc extend downward from the base of the upper filter disc and the flow diverters of each lower filter disc extend upward from the base of the lower filter disc (see Fig. 7a of Prochaska), and wherein the flow diverters of the upper filter disc of each pair of filter discs intermesh with the flow diverters of the lower filter disc of the pair of filter discs (see Prochaska Fig. 5a, [0033]);
wherein an outer surface of each base and an outer surface of each flow diverter is coated in an adhesive configured to capture the particulate matter (as discussed in claim 1, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a layer of adhesive on Prochaska’s ring discs for the purpose of capture additional particulate matters).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Prochaska discloses that the adsorption filter of claim 6, wherein each filter disc has a central axis, and wherein the central axes of the filter discs of the plurality of pairs of filter discs are coaxially aligned (see Prochaska Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Prochaska discloses that the adsorption filter of claim 7, wherein the flow orifice of the base of each upper filter disc is angularly spaced from the flow orifice of the base of the corresponding lower filter disc by 180° as measured about the central axes of the filter discs of the plurality of pairs of filter discs (see annotated Fig. 11b of Prochaska below).
PNG
media_image1.png
832
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Prochaska discloses that the adsorption filter of claim 8, further comprising a top had (Prochaska’s flow diverter 41, Prochaska Fig. 7, [0041]) mounted to the linear section of the supply conduit (36 of Prochaska) above the plurality of pairs of filter discs (Prochaska’s flow divertor located upstream of ring discs 32 and therefore, could be interpreted as above, Prochaska Fig. 7), wherein the top hat includes a flow orifice extending vertically therethrough (where 36 of Prochaska passes, Prochaska Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Prochaska discloses that the adsorption filter of claim 1, further comprising:
a bypass conduit (Prochaska’s outlet 18, Prochaska Fig. 4, [0035]) extending through the outer housing (see Prochaska Fig. 4), wherein the bypass conduit (18 of Prochaska) has an inlet end (see annotated Fig. 4 below) disposed in the inner cavity of the outer housing and an outlet end external the outer housing (see annotated Fig. 4 below), wherein the outlet end (38 of Prochaska) of the supply conduit is disposed in the inlet end of the bypass conduit (see annotated Fig. 4 below);
a flowmeter (Prochaska’s pressure measurement port 24, Prochaska Fig. 7, [0051]) disposed along the bypass conduit and configured to choke the flow of the fluid through the bypass conduit (Prochaska’s pressure measurement port 24 is capable of choke the flow of the fluid the bypass conduit to get an accurate pressure measurement, Id.).
Claims 4–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Prochaska in view of Fonseca, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Volker et al., WO 2021/185583 A1 (“Volker”)1.
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Prochaska does not disclose that the adsorption filter of claim 3, wherein the diffuser has an outer surface coated in the adhesive.
In the analogous art of particulate filters, Volker discloses an interior 20 of filter housing 10, the particles are deposited along the flow path in the filter housing 10 by adhesive forces on the inner walls. Volker p. 8. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include adhesive along the flow path of modified Prochaska’s apparatus to attract more particles and increase the filtration efficiency and capacity. And since the diffuser is along the flow path and is part of the interior housing structure, it would be coated with the adhesive based on the teaching of Volker.
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Prochaska does not disclose that the adsorption filter of claim 1, wherein an inner surface of the outer housing is coated in the adhesive.
In the analogous art of particulate filters, Volker discloses an interior 20 of filter housing 10, the particles are deposited along the flow path in the filter housing 10 by adhesive forces on the inner walls. Volker p. 8. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include adhesive in the interior of the filtering housing as disclosed by Volker to attract more particles and increase the filtration efficiency and capacity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 A copy of Volker’s original document and machine translation are provided with the Office Action. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text.