DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, filed August 7, 2025, with respect to detail of prior art to Hayashi has been fully considered and is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the Hayashi references “shows non-unitary, non-integral discharge electrodes, which are welded to a bracket that, in turn, is riveted to the plates. They are not undivided.” Given the broadest reasonable interpretation for integral and unitary, in this particular case, Hayashi discloses that repelling electrodes (said repelling electrode comprises electrodes 1, 2 that are disclosed in Hayashi as discharge electrodes/needles 1 and positive electrode plate 2; whereas, a grounded dust-collecting electrode plate 3 is considered said collecting electrode ) are welded and fastened through holes in brackets with rivets to attach the structural components of said repelling electrode (Figs. 1, 4). Regarding applicant’s arguments at pages 7-8 that show Figs 7, 8 (which were not cited in the Office action mailed May 8, 2025), the attached structural components are joined and connected, and therefore, no longer divided, i.e., undivided. The term undivided can mean that at least two components are glued, welded, fastened, combined, joined, or attached because once the at least two components are connected together these components are no longer separated, or divided, and would be considered “undivided.” The prior art to Hayashi discloses a repelling electrode that is unitary as illustrated in Figs. 1, 4 and disclosed in column 4, lines 16-20. These components are not separate. See annotated excerpts of Figs 1, 4 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
409
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the instant invention is an apparatus, or device, not a method of making nor product-by-process limitations presented.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (in this case the reference to Hayashi), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Vandenbelt discloses various conductive materials (par [0026]) that are considered art recognized equivalents. The citations for the combined teaching of Hayashi and Vandenbelt disclose the limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding remarks for claim 5, see pages 8-10, Applicant’s arguments with respect to have been considered. The combined teaching of Hayashi and Vandenbelt disclose said conductive polymer material but does not provide specific teaching for the resistivity of said conductive polymer material including a polymer material. Ni discloses that resistivity of said conductive polymer material including a polymer material is known in the polymer art and discloses “electrically conductive polymers can be classified as polymers with surface resistivities from 101 to 107 ohms/square, which can be achieved by adding electrically conductive additives to the polymers.” See MPEP § 2144(IV). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the current invention to optimize the resistivity range as claimed in order to provide optimal collection efficacy with a reasonable expectation of success, particularly since Ni discloses in general, electrically conductive polymers can be classified as polymers with surface resistivities from 101 to 107 Ω/sq.
It is noted that applicant appears to suggest a single mold that forms the collecting and repelling electrodes. Applicant should review the addition for product-by-process language as a potential, possibility to clarify the features which applicant appears to suggest in remarks. Also, see additional cited references below.
The previous rejection of claims 1-16 is maintained here within.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 3958962 A) in view of Vandenbelt (US 20150013541 A1).
For claim 1, Hayashi discloses an electrostatic air precipitator electrode system comprising: a corona electrode (needle discharge electrodes 1); a collecting electrode (positive collecting electrodes 2 at positive potential) in close proximity to said corona electrode (Figs. 1, 4), a repelling electrode (negative collecting electrodes 3 at negative potential) positioned to cooperate with said collecting electrode such that charged particles between said repelling electrode and said collecting electrode are repelled away from said repelling electrode and urged toward said collecting electrode (col. 4; l. 25 - col. 5, l. 12); wherein said corona electrode integral with said repelling electrode said repelling electrode exhibits at least one ion emitting site (col. 4, ll. 16-20; Figs. 1, 4). Hayashi teaches the collecting electrode but does not appear to disclose specifically said collecting electrode is a synthetic conductive polymer material. Vandenbelt is analogous art (attraction electrode 140, drive electrode 150 in Fig. 1; pars [0026], [0028]) and does disclose the collecting electrode is a synthetic conductive polymer material (par [0026] “polymer”). Both the collecting electrode of Hayashi and the attraction electrode of Vandenbelt are conductive. Furthermore, Vandenbelt discloses various conductive materials (par [0026]) that are considered art recognized equivalents. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the synthetic polymer conductive material taught in Vandenbelt for the conductive collecting electrode of Hayashi since the selection of art recognized structural equivalents would have been available as an art recognized substitute at the filing date of the current invention with a reasonable expectation for success.
For claims 2, 3, and 4, the prior art of Hayashi and Vandenbelt are relied upon as indicated above. Hayashi discloses the at least one ion emitting site is a protrusion having a small diameter (pointed needle discharge electrodes 1; Figs. 6-8; col. 7, ll. 5-15); said protrusion having a small diameter is a cone shaped protrusion (Figs. 7, 8); and said protrusion having a small diameter is a laterally oriented ridge (Figs. 1, 4, 6-8).
For claim 6, the prior art of Hayashi and Vandenbelt are relied upon as indicated above. Vandenbelt further discloses the limitation "a synthetic conductive material" (see claim 1 above and discussion for claim 6 in the 112 Section).
For claims 7, 8, 11, and 12, the recitations "wherein said conductive material comprises material formed by the introduction of two or more components into a mold for in situ reaction" and "wherein said synthetic conductive polymer material comprises material formed by a RIM process" are process limitations (i.e., product-by-process), and patentability of a product is determined by the product itself (i.e., the structural components of the electrostatic air precipitator electrode system) and not the manner in which the product is made. Even though the product-by-process claims have been limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product, see MPEP § 2113.
For claims 9 and 13, the prior art of Hayashi and Vandenbelt are relied upon as indicated above. Vandenbelt further discloses said synthetic conductive polymer material comprises thermoplastic as in claim 9 and said conductive polymer material comprises thermoplastic as in claim 13 (par [0026] "polymer").
For claim 10, the prior art of Hayashi and Vandenbelt are relied upon as indicated above. Vandenbelt further discloses said collecting electrode plates and said repelling plates are made from the same material (pars [0026], [0027]).
For claims 14, 15, and 16, the prior art of Hayashi and Vandenbelt are relied upon as indicated above. Vandenbelt discloses said corona electrode further comprises a brush segment as in claim 14; wherein said brush segment is a carbon brush as in claim 15; and wherein said corona brush has sharp edges as in claim 16 (“ion emitters such as for example, carbon fiber brushes, corona discharge points” par [0025]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 3958962 A) and Vandenbelt (US 20150013541 A1) taken Ni (US 20100175469 A1).
For claim 5, the prior art of Hayashi and Vandenbelt are relied upon as indicated above; whereas, Vandenbelt discloses the conductive polymer material. However, the prior art references do not explicitly teach that said conductive polymer material has a resistivity of 101-1012 Ω/sq. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the resistivity of 101-1012 Ω/sq is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art to provide optimal collection efficacy, as is known in the art. MPEP §2144.05. Nevertheless, the explanatory, or teaching, reference to Ni discloses that “suitable electrically conductive polymers are known and available commercially,... In general, electrically conductive polymers can be classified as polymers with surface resistivities from 101 to 107 ohms/square, which can be achieved by adding electrically conductive additives to the polymers, such as for example, so-called "conductive carbon additives" and carbon or stainless steel. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the current invention to optimize the resistivity range as claimed in order to provide optimal collection efficacy with a reasonable expectation of success, particularly since Ni discloses in general, electrically conductive polymers can be classified as polymers with surface resistivities from 101 to 107 Ω/sq.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JPH11204234 A: ESP with a plurality of high-voltage electrode plates and plurality of ground electrode plates alternately arranged in parallel; the plurality of ground electrode flat plates integrally formed by molding of a conductive resin fixed to mounting plate formed of non-conductive resin.
US 20200139381 A1: electrode plates interlaced, distributed made from conductive plastic material by injection molding, and a metal conductor embedded inside a first connecting rib by in-mold injection molding to form a precipitation electrode plate module; a non-precipitation electrode plate module formed by the similar structure.
US 20050199408 A1: electrode be formed as one unitary body by conventional methods, i.e., machining or casting; an electrode having a unity construction provides better arcing movement; theory that if electrode were made of separate sections that were affixed together, interstitial spaces between the sections may reduce arcing electron stream formation.
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 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 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 August 25, 2025
/Jennifer Dieterle/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776