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
Claim 28 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/12/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, in line 4 delete “the” before “smoke produced” to place the claim in better form.
In lines 7-8, before “cell” insert “at least one” for consistency with the language of line 6.
In line 15, before “pre-determined” delete “one” and insert “a” to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claims 17-27, in line 1 delete “Method” and amend to “The method”, and delete “Claim” and amend to “claim”.
Regarding claim 20, in line 2 delete “less than” and insert “inferior to”, and in line 3 delete “greater than” and insert “superior to” for consistency with the language of claim 16.
Regarding claim 23, in line 3 delete “at least on” and insert “to at least”.
Regarding claim 24, in line 2 delete “the” before “number” and insert “a”.
In line 4, delete “the” before “increasing number” and insert “an”.
Regarding claim 25, in line 1 insert “further” before “comprises.
In line 2, delete “the” before “number” and insert “a”.
Regarding claim 27, in line 1 insert “further” before “comprises.
In line 3, insert “further” before “comprises.
In line 4, delete “a” before roasting and insert “the”.
In line 4, after “operation,” insert “and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 25 “a meter configured to estimate the number of roasting operations still operable before the cleaning operation of the electrostatic precipitator is required”. In this case, the term “meter” is construed to be the generic placeholder.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 16-27 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 claim 16, in line 8 the term “high” is relative and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While examples are provided in the specification (page 14 line 20), there is no definition for which values are encompassed by the term “high”. Therefore, the boundary of the limitation “high voltage” cannot be determined.
In lines 9 and 12, the antecedent basis of “the electrodes” is ambiguous. It is unclear if the limitation is referring to only the collecting electrodes, only the repelling electrodes, or both.
Regarding claim 18, in line 3 the limitation “said at least one pre-determined upper voltage threshold” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 16 recites “a pre-determined voltage threshold”.
Regarding claim 20, in line 2 the limitation “said at least one pre-determined upper voltage threshold” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 22, in line 2 the term “high” renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons stated for claim 16.
In line 2, the limitation “control board configured to control the electrostatic precipitator” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what feature(s) of the precipitator is/are “controlled”.
Regarding claim 24, in line 3 the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite since a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation “value of the pre-determined upper voltage threshold V1 varies according to a number of roasting operations implemented since the last cleaning operation of the electrostatic precipitator”, and the claim also recites “value decreases with the increasing number of roasting operations” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Regarding claim 25, in line 2 the limitation “the cleaning operation of the electrostatic precipitator is required” renders the claim indefinite since the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Claim 16 recites “displaying a cleaning status requirement”, but does not otherwise recite an actual cleaning operation.
The limitation “a meter configured to estimate the number of roasting operations still operable before the cleaning operation of the electrostatic precipitator is required” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Page 9 lines 17-27 recites “a meter” without providing any detail regarding the features above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 26, in line 3 the limitation “is able to be displayed” renders the claim indefinite since the language is ambiguous as to whether or not the “corresponding type of cleaning status requirement” is actually “displayed”. The rejection can be overcome by deleting “able to be”.
Regarding claim 27, in line 5 the limitation “comparing the cleaning requirement status with said measured concentration” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear from the recited language exactly what is being “compared”. The specification discloses the measured concentration is used to confirm the cleaning requirement status is correct (page 10 lines 10-11). If this is the case, the claim should be amended accordingly to clarify the language.
Claims 17, 19, 21 and 23 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 16-18 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tidland et al. (US 5,958,494) in view of Holmes et al. (US 2008/0134896 A1), Deanne et al. (US 2015/0343456 A1), and Voronin et al. (GB 2,535,528 A).
Regarding claim 16, Tidland et al. teaches a method to roast coffee beans in a roasting system (abstract), the system comprising a roasting apparatus having a roasting chamber 36 and exhaust section 16, and a smoke treating unit comprising electronic filter 18 configured to treat the smoke produced by the roasting apparatus (column 3 lines 44-46; column 4 lines 22-26; column 5 lines 41-42). The electronic filter includes a high-efficiency electronic filter 76, which is construed to be a type of electrostatic precipitator (column 2 lines 33-36; column 4 lines 34-46). The filter is placed between two pressure sensors 70, where measured pressure differentials are compared by a circuit in control panel 68 to determine if the filter is clogged. When the differential is above a threshold value, one of the lights 69 in control panel 68 turns on, identifying the filter is clogged (column 4 lines 47-57). The activation of the light is construed to be “displaying a cleaning status requirement”.
Tidland et al. does not teach the electrostatic precipitator comprising at least one cell comprising ionization wires, collecting electrodes and repelling electrodes, and the cell being supplied with an electrical power in order to apply a high voltage to the ionization wires and/or at least a part of the electrodes. In view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation “high voltage” is interpreted to be at least 1 kV.
Holmes et al. teaches an electrostatic air cleaner comprising one or more ionizing cell panels (repelling electrodes) having at least one ionizing wire and one or more collector cell panels (collecting electrodes) in connection with a voltage source, the cleaner further comprising a light source that turns on when the controller detects a significant amount of dust has accumulated in the cleaner (paragraph 4). Specifically, the controller detects the minimal voltage or absence of a voltage potential across the ionizing circuit that is indicative of a problem with the air cleaner, and alerts a user of the problem (paragraph 21).
Deanne et al. teaches an electrostatic precipitator (abstract) to remove final particles such as smoke from a gas (paragraph 36), the precipitator comprising ionizing wires and electrodes (paragraph 81), where the voltage applied across the wire mesh electrodes is set to attract the charged air particles comprising pollutant materials and pathogens e.g., 1-10 kV (paragraph 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Tidland et al. such that the precipitator comprises the claimed structure and applies a “high voltage” since the prior art recognizes such structures for the same type of smoke filtering device, and therefore to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, since the claimed voltage is recognized to facilitate removal of pollutant materials and pathogens, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the features, and since the claimed voltage would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as type and concentration of the substances to be removed.
Tidland et al. does not teach monitoring the voltage V at the ionization wires and/or at the electrodes along the time of the roasting operation, comparing the monitored voltage to a pre-determined upper voltage threshold V1 and to a pre-determined lower voltage threshold V2, and if during a period of time ∆t of the roasting operation, the monitored voltage is inferior to V1 while being superior to V2, then displaying a cleaning status requirement. The terms “inferior” and “superior” are construed to mean “less than” and “greater than”, respectively.
Voronin et al. teaches an electrostatic precipitator for treating a gas stream (abstract) comprising applying a high voltage to an inner electrode such that particulates contained in the gas are drawn toward an outer electrode (page 3 lines 4-9). As deposits build on the electrode, the voltage potential between the inner and outer electrodes decreases leading to impaired efficiency, where the voltage is monitored and a cleaning is triggered in response to a drop in electrostatic potential, thereby enhancing efficiency by minimizing downtime during cleaning operations (page 10 line 21 to page 11 line 6).
Holmes et al. teaches the controller detects a minimal voltage or absence of a voltage potential across the ionizing circuit that is indicative of a problem with the air cleaner and issuing an alert as stated above.
Detection of minimal or no voltage and a drop in monitored voltage would have necessarily required the voltage to be less than a predetermined upper threshold voltage. Further, the process of monitoring and detecting would have necessarily occurred over a period of time, where it would have been obvious to monitor the voltage over a period of time of the roasting operation to ensure the roasting process has reached a stage in which smoke is actually produced before determining if there is an issue.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Tidland et al. to monitor the voltage and display the alarm when the monitored voltage becomes less than V1 while greater than V2 since the reference already suggests monitoring the filter for clogging, since the prior art recognizes accumulation of particles at the filter results in lowered voltage potential, detecting reduced voltage across the ionizing circuit being indicative of a problem with the filter, and displaying an alert for the filter when voltage drops below a threshold voltage, therefore to provide an auxiliary means for determining if the filter requires cleaning, to provide means for directly determining an issue with the electrostatic precipitator among the other filters, and to increase efficiency by optimizing cleaning downtime.
Regarding claim 17, the combination applied to claim 16 does not teach the ratio V1/V2 is greater than 10.
However, the prior art recognizes a relationship between reduced voltage and filtering efficiency, as well as monitoring for low or reduced voltage to determine when cleaning is needed as stated for claim 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Tidland et al. such that the ratio of V1/V2 is greater than 10 since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as desired tolerance between reduced filtering efficiency and cleaning downtime.
Regarding claim 18, the combination applied to claim 16 teaches the claimed features, except the period of time being greater than a predetermined threshold.
However, it would have been further obvious to display the alarm after a predetermined amount of roasting time has passed in order to prevent false positives associated with fluctuations in measured voltage, and/or to ensure the roasting process has reached a stage in which smoke is actually produced before determining if there is an issue.
Regarding claim 23, the combination applied to claim 16 does not teach the electrostatic precipitator comprises at least two cells positioned successively along the flow of the smoke, where the method of claim 16 is applied to at least the first cell.
However, there does not appear to be any criticality associated with the number of precipitators. One of ordinary skill would have understood that a plurality of successive precipitators can be used in order to maximize the amount of particles to be captured.
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Tidland et al. to use at least two cells in order to similarly maximize capture of particles and to obtain a desired degree of filtering.
Regarding claim 24, Tidland et al. does not teach V1 varies according to a number of roasting operations since the last cleaning operation. In view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation following “preferably” is interpreted to be optional.
The prior art cited for claim 16 teaches accumulation of particles on the filter over time causes a reduction of voltage potential and leads to impaired efficiency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a change would occur gradually over the course of multiple filtering operations.
Holmes et al. further teaches a microprocessor comprising a memory for tracking and storing the number of on-cycles or operations of the precipitator. Based on a predetermined number of cycles that has been determined to represent a reduced efficiency as a result of particle accumulation, the controller predicts a cleaning requirement and alerts the user (paragraph 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Tidland et al. such that V1 varies according to a number of roasting operations since the last cleaning operation since the prior art recognizes that particle accumulation over multiple operations results in impaired efficiency, and further recognizes that accumulation is directly correlated to reduction of voltage potential, and therefore to adjust the threshold V1 as a function of particle accumulation based on tolerance for operating efficiency relative to cleaning downtime.
Regarding claim 25, in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation “a meter configured to...” is interpreted to be any structure or device capable of determining the “number of roasting operations still operable…cleaning…is required”.
Tidland et al. does not teach a meter to estimate the number as claimed, where the value of V1 varies according to the estimated number.
Holmes et al. teaches a counter device that predicts a need for cleaning based on the number of cycles or operations as stated for claim 24, construed to be “a meter” configured to estimate the number of….”.
The combination applied to claim 24 renders obvious adjusting V1 based on the number of cycles or operations. The same combination is applied to claim 25 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 26, Tidland et al. teaches one of multiple lights 69 in control panel 68 will be turned on, identifying which filter is clogged as stated for claim 16. The light associated with the precipitator is construed to be a “corresponding type of cleaning status requiprement. The combination applied to claim 16 renders obvious displaying the cleaning status based on the value of V1, and the combination applied to claim 24 varying V1 based on the number of cleaning operations.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Tidland et al. such that the leaning status type depends on V1 for the same reasons stated for claims 16 and 24, and to notify the user of which filter requires cleaning.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tidland et al. in view of Holmes et al., Deanne et al., and Voronin et al. as applied to claims 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Ford et al. (US 2014/0168848 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art combination does not teach the predetermined time threshold is less than 10 seconds.
Ford et al. teaches an electrostatic precipitator (paragraph 1), where a desired characteristic of the precipitator is monitored over a predetermined time period of e.g., 5 seconds (paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Tidland et al. such that the predetermined time threshold is less than 10 seconds since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as those stated for claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, the combination applied to claim 16 does not teach displaying the cleaning requirement if the monitored voltage satisfies the claimed requirements during more than one period of time of the roasting operation.
Ford et al. teaches monitoring over predetermined alarm duration values as stated for claim 19 above.
The same combination is applied to claim 20 and would have been obvious for the same reasons, where it would have been further obvious to monitor for multiple periods of time in order to provide multiple corresponding measurements for confirmation and minimizing false-positives.
Regarding claim 21, the combination applied to claim 16 does not teach the steps of monitoring and comparing are implemented during a part of the time of the roasting operation only.
Ford et al. teaches monitoring a characteristic of the precipitator over a predetermined time e.g., 5 seconds, as stated for claim 18. The same combination is applied to claim 21 and would have been obvious for the same reasons. Therefore, the monitoring and comparing would necessarily been implemented during only a part of the roasting operation.
Regarding claim 22, the combination applied to claim 16 does not teach the smoke treating unit comprises a high voltage process control board (PCB) configured to control the precipitator and wherein the monitored voltage is read from the PCB. The limitation “control the electrostatic precipitator” is construed to mean any form of controlling, whether or not the alert is displayed.
Ford et al. further teaches a control system, necessarily including a PCB as is known in the art, where the control system monitors the voltage applied to the precipitator in order to control the high voltage output to within desired and efficient operating conditions (paragraph 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify Tidland et al. to use a “high voltage” PCB and read the monitored voltage from said PCB since a PCB is a known component of a control system, since electrostatic precipitators are recognized to operate at “high” voltages as stated for claim 16, and therefore to ensure the PCB is appropriately rated for the operating voltage such that electrical damage is prevented, for operator safety, and in order to ensure efficient operating conditions.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tidland et al. in view of Holmes et al., Deanne et al., and Voronin et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mou et al. (US 2020/0156084 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Tidland et al. does not teach a sensor configured to measure particulate matters of the smoke and comparing the cleaning requirement status with said measured concentration.
Mou et al. teaches a gas purifying device comprising a detector for particulate matter (abstract; paragraph 2), the detector configured to measure the concentration of the particles in the gas (paragraph 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify Tidland et al. to measure the concentration of particulate matters with a sensor during roasting and compare the status with the concentration as claimed in order to monitor the respective data and determine whether the precipitator is functioning properly or requires cleaning, and to prevent false-positive alerts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792