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 .
Notes
In claims 1 and 6, “and” may be inserted before the final clause for clarity. This is a suggestion and not required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the filtered fluid" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This may be changed to “a filtered fluid.”
Claims 2-5 are rejected for depending from an indefinite parent claim.
Claim Interpretation
In the claims, “filter” and “ballast” are given their broadest reasonable interpretation because neither is clearly defined in the specification. Here, a filter is considered to be anything that is capable of collecting a solid molybdenum and/or tungsten residue, which are powders, even if the powder or conditions are destructive to the filter. A ballast is considered to be anything that can mitigate or affect pressure fluctuations in the fluid flow, such as an expanded flow area or valve, even if the mitigation is minor.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applegarth et al. (2020/0368669 A1).
Applegarth et al. ‘669 teach an industrial process gas filter (500) for removing organometallic vapors and solid particles from the gas, comprising an upper manifold including a separated inlet (518) and outlet (516), a central conduit, an expanded impaction stage (520) that will function as a ballast, and flow-through particle filter stages (526,528,530). Gas flows into the conduit in one direction and through the filter stages in an opposite direction (see figure 5B, paragraphs 50-55). The particle filter stages are inherently capable of removing a molybdenum or tungsten residue from a gas stream and the filter is capable of receiving a gas comprising molybdenum or tungsten chloride compounds. In the embodiment of Figure 3, the heat exchanger (400) can also function as a ballast with an inlet fluidly connected to the conduit and an outlet fluidly connected to the filter. The central conduit is fluidly connected to the inlet (518) and the filter, and the filter is fluidly connected to the conduit and the fluid outlet (516).
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.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applegarth et al. ‘669.
Applegarth et al. ‘669 disclose all of the limitations of the claims except that the filter is configured for filtration with fluids at a preferred pressure or temperature range. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the temperature and pressure specifications of the filter are considered to be parameters that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill on the art in order to provide a filter that is effective in a given process stream to ensure that it does not fail.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applegarth et al. ‘669 in view of Harkonen et al. (6,936,086).
Applegarth et al. ‘669 disclose all of the limitations of the claims except that the filter and/or conduit has a metal oxide coating. Harkonen et al. ‘086 disclose a particle filter that can have an alumina coating (see abstract, col. 4, lines 8-19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the filter of Applegarth et al. ‘669 by using a metal oxide coating in order to provide protection from chemically corrosive vapors or abrasive particles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose gas filter arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm.
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.
/FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
fl