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 Objections
Claims 3, 4, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 2, “a power source providing alternating current (AC) direct current (DC) [[DC]] adapter”
Claim 4 line 2-3, “transforms the DC
Claim 10 line 1, “the at least one collecting plate”
Appropriate correction is 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.
Claim 1 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 1 recites the phrase “wherein the electric field ionizes the airborne particulate matter causing the airborne particulate matter to become negatively charged” in lines 8-9. The function of the electric field is not to ionize airborne particulate matter in order to impart a negative charge. Ion or electrons are present in the electric field move because of the electric energy in the electric field, but the electric field does not create new ions or electrons. To ionize particulate matter, a corona discharge (i.e., free electrons and ions generated with a corona discharge electrode, which in this case is a negative plate) must first be exerted for ionization to occur, and then a charge transfer follows to produce negatively charged particulate matter. The phrase is not precise, and therefore, is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham (US 5833736 A) in view of Willey (US 20030196552 A1) taken with Hayashi (US 3958962 A).
For claims 1 and 2, Durham discloses an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) air purifier for removing particulate matter (Fig. 1), the ESP air purifier comprising: a negative “structure” (discharge electrodes 26) that is negatively charged; at least one collecting plate (collection plate 28) that is positively charged (col. 8, l. 67-col. 9, l. 3); an electric field that extends from the negative plate to the at least one collecting plate (col. 1, ll. 37-49), wherein the electric field ionizes the airborne particulate matter causing the airborne particulate matter to become negatively charged, and wherein the electric field repels the ionized particulate matter away from the negative plate and towards the at least one collection plate causing the ionized particulate matter to attach to the at least one collecting plate (col. 1, ll. 37-49); at least one rapper configured to vibrate and dislodge the ionized particulate matter from the at least one collecting plate (col. 1, ll. 41-49, “undesired particles accumulate on the collection plates and are removed by…rapping of the collection plates”; col. 9, ll. 43-45); a collection tray positioned below the at least one collecting plate (hopper 18; Fig. 1), wherein the collection tray collects the dislodged ionized particulate matter from the at least one collecting plate (col. 9, ll. 45-49; Fig. 1); and wherein purified air exits the ESP air purifier (Fig. 1; col. 6. Ll. 56-57). NOTE: The phrase wherein purified air exits the ESP air purifier is considered an intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
Durham does not appear to disclose a suction fan configured to pull air into the ESP air purifier, wherein the air comprises airborne particulate matter that is neutrally charged and an exhaust fan positioned opposite the suction fan, wherein purified air exits the ESP air purifier via the exhaust fan (claim 2).
Willey does disclose fan 62 and fan 64 to assist in pushing or drawing air flow 18 from inlet 14 through first and second chambers 24 and 32, respectively, for air purifying apparatus to better maintain a desired air flow (par [0095]).
Furthermore, Durham does not explicitly appear to state the negative “structure” (discharge electrodes 26 that is negatively charged) is a negative plate. Nonetheless, Hayashi teaches precipitator improvements are made to increase efficiency of dust collection and the improvement concerns in-part are associated with types of discharge electrodes including plural flat plates arranged in parallel at fixed intervals (col. 9, l. 58 - col. 10, l. 23). Regarding the negative plate, changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed the negative plate were significant. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). Furthermore, the specification provides no description of why such changes in shape are unique, unpredictable, or advantageous. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to have said discharge plate disclosed in Hayashi as the negative plate since changes in shape are a matter of choice, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention include the suction fan and exhaust fan as taught in Willey for the ESP air purifier of Durham to maintain the desired airflow since Willey teaches the benefit to better maintain the air flow.
For claims 5 and 6, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Durham disclose wherein the negative plate is connected to a negative terminal of the power source causing the negative plate to be negatively charged and wherein the at least one collecting plate is connected to a positive terminal of the power source causing the at least one collecting plate to be positively charged (col. 4, ll. 33-40).
For claim 7, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. The phrase wherein the electric field is generated by accumulating electric charges on the negative plate and the at least one collecting plate is considered an intended result/use. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
For claim 8, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Electric field strength is the ratio of applied voltage over distance between electrodes that is a result effective variable dependent that satisfies the ratio without causing breakdown or arcing. Regarding an electric field strength, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to routinely experiment and optimize the strength of the electric field to between 10 to 45 kV as claimed in order to prevent arcing and breakdown of the instant invention.
For claims 9 and 10, as interpreted, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and teaches the negative plate is a flat sheet and the at least one collecting plate is a flat sheet. It would appear that the prior art is silent for a metal material; however, Hayashi discloses the negative plate and the at least one collecting plate are constructed as flat, metal sheets (col. 2, ll. 35-39, “stainless steel”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to use metal to construct the negative plate and the at least one collecting plate as flat, metal sheets to generate an electric field therebetween since metals have the physical property to conduct electricity.
For claim 11, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Durham teaches wherein the at least one collecting plate is positioned parallel to the negative plate (col. 4, ll. 33-40; Fig. 1).
For claim 12, the prior art as relied upon as indicated above and discloses the at least one collecting plate positioned parallel to the negative plate. The prior art does not explicitly indicate the at least one collecting plate is positioned within 10 cm of the negative plate, but Hayashi does teach distance between the positive and negative collecting electrode is approximately 10 mm, which is within (i.e., less than) 10 cm (col. 11, ll. 15-25 A). The distance between the plates is considered a result effective variable (see claim 8 above). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to routinely experiment and optimize the distance between the at least one collecting plate and the negative plate to arrive at spacing therebetween within 10 cm to operate the ESP air purifier efficiently.
For claims 13, 14, and 15, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Durham teaches wherein the at least one collecting plate comprises a first collecting plate and a second collecting plate, and the negative plate is positioned between the first collecting plate and the second collecting plate (Fig. 1); wherein the first collecting plate is positioned parallel to the second collecting plate (Fig. 1); and wherein the negative plate is positioned parallel to the first and second collecting plates (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the phrase wherein the airborne particulate matter has a diameter between 0.5 and 10 micrometers in lines 1-2 is material worked upon. Material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP § 2115.
Claims 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham, Willey, and Hayashi in further view of Chen (US 5614002 A).
For claim 3, as interpreted, the prior art as relied upon as indicated above and discloses the ESP air purifier. The prior art does not appear to state specifically the ESP air purifier is connected to a power source providing alternating current (AC) and, further comprising a direct current (DC) adapter, wherein the DC adapter is configured to convert current from AC to DC.
For claim 4, the prior art as relied upon above and discloses the ESP air purifier. The prior art does not appear to state specifically a step-up voltage module that transforms the current from DC to a stepped-up DC.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Chen is analogous art and discloses a circuit diagram (Fig. 4) of the high voltage generating circuit according to the present invention. As illustrated, alternating current is first converted into direct current by a rectifier 5, which is then stepped up by a high voltage generating circuit 6. The high voltage generating circuit 6 is connected with a high voltage stabilizing detecting circuit 7 for stabilizing the output voltage (col. 2, ll. 51-61; Fig. 4). The phrase wherein the stepped-up DC is between 10 and 30 kilovolts in lines 2-3 is considered an intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use, result, or function. See MPEP § 2114. Nonetheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize the teaching disclosed in the prior art to Chen in the ESP air purifier of the combine art for the efficiency of the apparatus.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham, Willey, and Hayashi in further view of Hayashi ‘327 (US 4056372 A).
For claim 17, the prior art as relied upon as indicated above and discloses a support connected to the at least one collecting plate (Fig. 2). The prior art does not explicitly state wherein the at least one rapper is connected to the support and configured to vibrate the support in dislodging the ionized particulate matter from the at least one collecting plate. Hayashi ‘327 does teach hangers 25 connected to a rapping device for periodically cleaning the electrode plates of particles collected thereon (Fig. 6; col. 6, ll. 41-61; col. 7, ll. 27-34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention connect the at least one collecting plate to a support as disclosed in Hayashi ‘327 for periodically cleaning the at least one collecting plate of particulate matter to prevent sparking and flashovers in the ESP air purifier.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham, Willey, Hayashi and Hayashi ‘327 in further view of Glaeser (US 3360902 A).
For claim 18, the prior art as relied upon as indicated above. Hayashi ‘327 discloses the rapping device for periodically cleaning the electrode plates of particles collected thereon but does not specifically disclose a timer. Glaeser discloses a timer to periodically activate the at least one rapper to vibrate the support (col. 6, ll. 26-51). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the timer disclosed by Glaeser with the combined teaching of the prior art to periodically clean the at least one collecting plate and maintain operational efficacy of the device.
Claims 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham, Willey, and Hayashi in further view of Hein (US 4695297 A).
For claim 19, the prior art as relied upon as indicated above. Durham further discloses a baffle(col. 14, ll. 37-42) but does not appear to state specifically wherein the baffle comprises a perforated plate configured to increase residency time of the air pulled into the ESP air purifier. Hein does teach a baffle a perforated plate configured to increase residency time of the air pulled into the ESP air purifier (col. 3, ll. 6-10). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to utilize the teaching of Hein with the ESP air purifier of the prior art to increase residence time to influence the collection efficiency.
For claim 20, the prior art as relied upon as indicated above but does not appear to disclose a nozzle configured to modify flow direction of the air pulled into the ESP air purifier but Hein does (col. 5, ll. 10-36; Figs. 1-4, 37-42). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to use the nozzles of Hein with the ESP air purifier disclosed by the prior art reference above to control distribution of flow that enters the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the following:
US 5920474 A: discloses power supply that transforms AC power source 12 into direct current and either steps up or steps down the voltage.
US 5629844 A; US 5737197 A: power supply with conversion between direct current (DC) high and alternating current (AC); transformer and rectifier.
US 20100313749 A1; US 8465568 B2: disclose time is controlled during rapping for ESP.
US 1800529 A: ESP with rapping means for collecting electrodes; effecting rotation of said shafts and cause hammers 2 to deliver blows against supporting beams 29.
US 1957560 A; US 1992974 A: disclose ESPs with parallel plates.
US 3664092 A: ESP with parallel vertical element having a plurality of perforations.
JP 2010131515 A: parallel plate structure with a metal discharge plate and a ground electrode plate.
US 20100313749 A1: a method of controlling the operation of a rapper of an ESP.
US 20130284025 A1: ESP comprising a collecting electrode plate assembly including at least two electrode plates disposed parallel forming a space between and a discharge electrode interposed in said space.
US 20150028117 A1: discloses residency time and baffle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (EST).
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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 October 24, 2025
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776