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 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 16-17 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), Voronin et al. (GB 2,535,528 A) and Stull et al. (US 2018/0207648 A1).
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 voltage to the ionization wires and/or at least a part of the electrodes.
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Tidland et al. such that the precipitator comprises the claimed structure and applies a 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). The monitoring would have necessarily been performed over a period of time ∆t.
Stull et al. teaches an electrostatic collector for a working fluid filtration and separation system (abstract), where voltage of the collector element is monitored to determine if the voltage decreases below a threshold level that indicates inspection or cleaning (paragraphs 114 and 123). The monitoring is performed over a period of time (paragraph 118) and a computing device determines if the voltage has decreased below an upper threshold to in turn cause an alert to be displayed (paragraphs 126 and 128). The computing device is therefore construed to compare the monitored voltage to the threshold voltage V1 and display a cleaning status requirement based on the claimed conditions.
Regarding the predetermined lower threshold voltage V2, one of ordinary skill would have readily understood the lower threshold can be set to a value just above 0 V to ensure that the device is at least operational while the voltage is monitored.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed 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, to allow for customizable threshold levels, 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 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 number of particles to be captured.
Further, Holmes et al. teaches an electrostatic air cleaning can include one or more ionizing cells (paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed 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.
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 before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 across the cell, 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, Tidland et al. does not teach estimating a number of roasting operations still operable before the cleaning status requirement will be displayed, and varying the value of V1 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. The same combination is applied to claim 25 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Stull et al. teaches the system comprises a computing device that provides the status of the system with regard to different characteristics of filtration based on a threshold for each characteristic, where each threshold may be customized (paragraph 121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tidland et al. to vary the value V1 according to the estimated number of roasting operations still operable before cleaning since the prior art recognizes voltage potential decreases over the coarse of filtering operations, where threshold values for monitored characteristics can be adjusted, and therefore to provide updated alert thresholds according to operator tolerance between reduced filtering efficiency and cleaning downtime.
Regarding claim 26, Tidland et al. does not teach displaying a type of cleaning status requirement depending on a corresponding value of the pre-determined upper voltage threshold V1.
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.
Stull et al. teaches different types of alerts can be displayed based on the status of the device e.g., “green” for when there is no issue and “red” when there is (paragraphs 126 and 128).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tidland et al. such that different types of cleaning status requirements are displayed based on the pre-determined upper threshold V1 in order to similarly provide the user an indication of the device status, where different thresholds can be set based on number of operating cycles and known decreases in voltage, thereby providing the user with various levels of cleaning urgency e.g., “green” for no issue, “orange” for a first predetermined value below the threshold, and “red” for a second predetermined value below the threshold that is greater than the first predetermined value.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tidland et al. in view of Holmes et al., Voronin et al. and Stull et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ford et al. (US 2014/0168848 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination applied to claim 16 teaches the claimed features, except the period of time being greater than a predetermined threshold.
Ford et al. teaches an electrostatic precipitator (paragraph 1) where a desired characteristic of the precipitator is monitored over a predetermined time period of time, and processing alarm delay counters determine a predetermined alarm duration value has been exceeded to activate a particular alarm, thereby more efficiently delivering power (paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify the process of Tidland et al. 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, to provide more efficient operation, 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 19, the prior art combination does not teach the predetermined time threshold is less than 10 seconds.
Ford et al. teaches the time period can be 5 seconds (paragraph 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed 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, and processing alarm delay counters 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. Likewise, the process can be performed intermittently throughout the roasting process to confirm proper operation of the precipitator.
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 apply the voltage to the precipitator and wherein the monitored voltage is read from the PCB.
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 voltage application to within desired and efficient operating conditions (paragraph 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tidland et al. to use a voltage PCB for applying voltage and read the monitored voltage from said PCB since a PCB is a known component of a control system, 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., Voronin et al., and Stull 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 confirming 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 in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tidland et al. to measure the concentration of particulate matters with a sensor during roasting to confirm the cleaning requirement status since the prior art recognizes measuring particulate concentration in gas, where employing multiple means of measuring to confirm observations is known in the art, and therefore to provide an auxiliary method of determining if the precipitator requires cleaning in the case the voltage monitoring method requires attention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 5/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 16-18 and 23-26 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Stull et al. which teaches a computing device within the system compares the monitored voltage to a threshold and issues an alarm when the voltage decreases below the threshold.
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
Prosecution Insights