DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10-19, the phrase “electrostatic cells” does not explicitly define any structural limitations in the claims. Therefore, there is no clear distinction between cells defining a corona region, a module, a physical compartment or a field zone. The Examiner will consider at least a functional cell including any of the above listed.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 10 and 11, the phrase “particle collection portion” is indefinite because the phrase has no structural limitations and is defined solely but is function. Therefore, any surface or area that collects the particles may qualify. It is unclear what structural features of the particle collection portion distinguish from the shell or body.
Regarding claims 1, the phrase “net voltage output from the voltage source of the first cell is lower than the second net voltage output by the voltage source of the second cell” is indefinite. The claim fails to specify what the recited “net voltage output” is measured relative to, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unclear. It is not apparent whether the “net voltage output” refers to a voltage between the electrode and the concave electrode shell, between the electrode and the ground, a peak voltage, an RMS voltage, an average voltage or a pulsed voltage.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “the unipolar pre-charger” lacks antecedent basis since it is dependent on claim 1 that does not have the initial recitation. It is taken that claim 5 should be dependent on claim 4 where the unipolar pre-charger is introduced.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the heat exchanger” lacks antecedent basis since it is dependent on claim 5 that does not have the initial recitation. It is taken that claim 7 should be dependent on claim 5 where the heat exchanger is introduced.
The remaining claims 9 and 20 are rejected by their dependencies to claims 1 and 11 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abdelkrim et al. US Patent 8,007,566.
Regarding claim 11, Abdelkrim teaches an electrostatic precipitator comprising:
a) A precipitator body (Figure 2) comprising an inlet upstream of the outlet (inlet is on the left and output is on the right);
b) A first set of electrostatic cells 30 (the first two at the top row near the inlet and the first two at the bottom row) and a second set of electrodes 30 (the last two at the top row near the outlet and the last two at the bottom row) where at least two electrode sets extend across the body (column 4 lines 31-35), a concave electrode shell (corona 32 defines the shell-like electrostatic region around the electrode, column 3 line 30) adjacent to each electrode, a particle collection portion (collecting plate 12, column 3 line 7), and a voltage source (power supply 40) the supplies a negative voltage between the electrode and the concave shell inherently since the voltage source energizes the electrodes and applies a voltage between the electrode and the shell (as required to establish a corona discharge region);
c) A first flow path that travels (top row, defined by the arrows of particle 34 in Figure 2) through the inlet, the first row of electrostatic cells, and the outlet;
d) A second flow path that travels (bottom row, defined by the arrows of particle 34 in Figure 2) through the inlet, the second row of electrostatic cells at the bottom, and the outlet; and
e) The first set of electrostatic cells is parallel to the second set of electrostatic cells.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abdelkrim et al. US Patent 8,007,566.
Regarding claim 1, Abdelkrim teaches an electrostatic precipitator comprising:
a) A precipitator body (Figure 2) comprising an inlet upstream of the outlet (inlet is on the left and output is on the right);
b) A plurality of electrostatic cells 30 where at least two electrodes extend across the body (column 4 lines 31-35), a concave electrode shell (corona 32 defines the shell-like electrostatic region around the electrode, column 3 line 30) adjacent to each electrode, a particle collection portion (collecting plate 12, column 3 line 7), and a voltage source (power supply 40) the supplies a voltage between the electrode and the concave shell inherently since the voltage source energizes the electrodes and applies a voltage between the electrode and the shell (as required to establish a corona discharge region);
c) A flow path that travels (defined by the arrows of particle 34 in Figure 2) through the inlet, the plurality of electrostatic cells, and the outlet; wherein
d) A first electrode cell is upstream the second electrode cell (the cells are arranged linearly along the flow path, so the first precedes the second in the flow path); and
e) Multiple resistors that allow individual voltage to be applied to individual electrodes to be tailored to account for gradient conditions such as dust burden (column 7 lines 14-24 and lines 43-45).
While Abdelkrim does not explicitly state that the first electrode receives a voltage less than the second electrode, the concept is implicit from column 7 lines 14-24 and lines 43-45. This passage inherently teaches that each individual electrode can receive a different voltage to account for natural particle concentration gradient along the length of the ESP body. The first electrode is closest to the inlet where there is a greater concentration of particles in the flow stream than the second electrode which is placed downstream. Since the first electrode is among the higher gradient of particles, it may require a smaller voltage to collect the particles than the second electrode that is placed downstream where the particles are less present in the stream (where a stronger charge is needed to gather them). By reasonable interpretation, having a small voltage on the first electrode than the second electrode, the amount of dust collected can be more evenly distributed among the electrodes along the flow path and thus provide an efficient means for purifying the air while reducing wear on the electrodes.
Regarding claim 2, Abdelkrim discloses a third cell downstream from the second cell in Figure 2. As stated above, any downstream electrode may receive a higher voltage than the electrodes upstream because that downstream electrode is placed at a lower gradient of particles and would need a higher voltage to gather them compared to the first electrode.
Regarding claim 3, Abdelkrim teaches passageways in Figure 2 indicated by dotted lines. Abdelkrim implicitly teaches that the flow paths comprise a first cross section passage way at the top and a second cross section passageway at the bottom. The flow path may start at the inlet and can travel between the first and second electrode, a first cross section passageway, the second cross section passageway and to the outlet (also see Figure 1,column 3 lines 5-17).
Regarding claim 12, while Abdelkrim does not explicitly state that the first set of electrodes receives a voltage less than the second set of electrodes, the concept is implicit from column 7 lines 14-24 and lines 43-45. This passage inherently teaches that each individual electrode can receive a different voltage to account for natural particle concentration gradient along the length of the ESP body. The first electrode is closest to the inlet where there is a greater concentration of particles in the flow stream than the second electrode which is placed downstream. Since the first electrode set is among the higher gradient of particles, it may require a smaller voltage to collect the particles than the second electrode that is placed downstream where the particles are less present in the stream (where a stronger charge is needed to gather them). By reasonable interpretation, having a small voltage on the first electrode than the second electrode, the amount of dust collected can be more evenly distributed among the electrodes along the flow path and thus provide an efficient means for purifying the air while reducing wear on the electrodes.
Regarding claim 13, Abdelkrim does not explicitly disclose a third cell downstream from the second cell in Figure 2. However, this is considered a repetition of parts and would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. As stated above, any downstream electrode may receive a higher voltage than the electrodes upstream because that downstream electrode is placed at a lower gradient of particles and would need a higher voltage to gather them compared to the first electrode.
Regarding claim 14, Abdelkrim teaches passageways in Figure 2 indicated by dotted lines. Abdelkrim implicitly teaches that the flow paths comprise a first cross section passage way at the top and a second cross section passageway at the bottom. The flow path may start at the inlet and can travel between the first and second electrode, a first cross section passageway, the second cross section passageway and to the outlet (also see Figure 1,column 3 lines 5-17).
Claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelkrim et al. US Patent 8,007,566 in view of Liao et al. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 18: 1141-1147, 2018 (provided by the Applicant).
Regarding claim 4, Abdelkrim does not explicitly teach a unipolar precharger in the precipitator body upstream the cells, where the precharger has precharger electrodes across the body.
However, Liao teaches in Figure 1 an ESP body with an enhanced precharger within the body with electrodes across the body. Placing the precharger upstream the electrode cells increase ion concentration and enhances particle charging before they reach the electrodes. This solves a known problem in ESPs where conventional systems have low charging efficiency for submicron particles especially downstream (see 1145 and Figure 7 comparing with it on or off).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Abdelkrim with the upstream precharger in Liao because the modification would provide a better collection efficiency especially for submicron particles.
Regarding claim 5, Abdelkrim teach that the feed going to the ESP is a flue gas boiler stream that has a high enough temperature to dry the stream (Abdelkrim, column 1 lines 10-15). Thus, it is implicitly taught by Abdelkrim that the system comprises a heater or heating means. In Liao, the precharger operates at high temperatures from the flue gas feed thus heating the precharger is inherent.
Regarding claim 15, Abdelkrim does not explicitly teach a unipolar precharger in the precipitator body upstream the cells, where the precharger has precharger electrodes across the body.
However, Liao teaches in Figure 1 an ESP body with an enhanced precharger within the body with electrodes across the body. Placing the precharger upstream the electrode cells increase ion concentration and enhances particle charging before they reach the electrodes. This solves a known problem in ESPs where conventional systems have low charging efficiency for submicron particles especially downstream (see 1145 and Figure 7 comparing with it on or off).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Abdelkrim with the upstream precharger in Liao because the modification would provide a better collection efficiency especially for submicron particles.
Regarding claim 16, Abdelkrim teach that the feed going to the ESP is a flue gas boiler stream that has a high enough temperature to dry the stream (Abdelkrim, column 1 lines 10-15). Thus, it is implicitly taught by Abdelkrim that the system comprises a heater or heating means. In Liao, the precharger operates at high temperatures from the flue gas feed thus heating the precharger is inherent.
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelkrim et al. US Patent 8,007,566 in view of Karlsson et al. US 8,465,568.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 17, and 18, Abdelkrim does not teach a downstream heat exchanger with plates and a fluid collecting reservoir for collecting condensed liquid.
However, Karlsson teaches a heat exchanger transfer surface 40 (Figure 1) that comprises a series of plates and collection means for the water produced (column 6 lines 37-57). Though the exchanger is upstream the ESP, relocating the heat exchanger downstream would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art in order to reduce particle deposition and improve heat transfer efficiency.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelkrim et al. US Patent 8,007,566 in view of Isahaya US Patent 4,185,971.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Abdelkrim does not explicitly teach a scraper to scrape across the shell or particle collection portion. However, Isahaya teaches an electrostatic precipitation system that includes a physical scraper across the precipitation electrodes to entirely remove dust from the electrodes and system (abstract, column 1 lines 5-12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to use known components such as scraper in the ESP of Abdelkrim in order to entirely remove dust particles from the electrodes or collection portion.
Claims 9, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelkrim et al. US Patent 8,007,566 in view of Liao et al. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 18: 1141-1147, 2018 (provided by the Applicant) and in further view of Altman et al. US 6,302,945.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Abdelkrim does not explicitly teach the first electrode is less than 50 KV DC and the second electrode is greater than 50 KV DC.
However, Liao teaches a lower than 50 kV range in their electrodes (10-20) and Abdelkrim implicitly teaches that downstream electrodes may be higher than the first electrodes.
Liao does not teach higher than 20 kV, however Altman teaches a conventional range is between 35 kV and 65 kV across the ESP.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the first electrode less than 50 KV DC and the second electrode or downstream electrodes higher than 50 KV DC as these are known conventional values in the art. It would further be obvious to optimize the voltage values by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 10, in light of the aforementioned references teaching the ESP configuration and operational voltages, it would be reasonable to one having ordinary skill in the art to expect that the larger particles are collected at the first cell and the smaller particles collected at the second cell. This is because the aforementioned references address capturing submicron particles downstream the ESP by utilizing a precharger and variable voltage values to the upstream and downstream electrodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772