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Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/14/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 4 before “smoke produced” delete “the” in order to place the claim in better form.
In line lines 7 and 9, before “cell” insert “at least one” for consistency with the language of line 6.
Regarding each of claims 2-9, in line 1 delete “Method” and amend to “The method”, and delete “Claim” and amend to “claim” in order to place the claims in better form.
Regarding claim 3, in line 1 delete “the length of” since the limitation is redundant.
In line 2, before “level” delete “the” and amend to “a” to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claim 4, in line 2 before “number” delete “the” and amend to “a” to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claim 5, in line 2 delete “the length of” since the limitation is redundant.
Regarding claim 7, in line 3 after “voltage” insert “V” for consistency with claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, in line 4 after “applied” delete “in” and amend to “to” to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claim 9, in line 4 before “is superior” insert “∆t” for consistency with claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-9 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 1, in line 9 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 5 line 36; page 12 line 23), 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 10 and 13, 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 6, the limitation “about few seconds” renders the claim indefinite since the range encompassed by “few” is unclear. The specification does not provide a definition, only examples as stated for “high” in claim 1. It is unclear if the term “few” is limited to only the disclosed durations.
Regarding claim 7, the term “high” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 1.
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 9, in line 2 the limitation “the two cells” lacks antecedent basis. The claim depends from claim 1, but the limitation “the at least two cells” is recited in claim 8. The rejection can be overcome by correcting the claim dependency and amending “two cells” to instead recite “at least two cells”.
In line 2, the limitation “the lower voltage threshold” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “pre-determined voltage threshold”.
In line 3, the limitation “during the same period of time of the roasting operation” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the limitation is referring to. It is unclear if the “same period” is referring to ∆t as recited in claim 1, or to the monitored voltage of each of the “two cells” being inferior to V0 during the same time period of the roasting operation.
In line 4, the limitation “an alarm for technical maintenance is displayed” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if said limitation is the same or different from “displaying a cleaning alarm” recited in claim 1, particularly since the method appears to be the same as claim 1. The specification does not provide a distinction between the two.
Claims 2-5 and 8 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 1-9 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 Ge et al. (US 2020/0001306 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 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, 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. The activation of the light is construed to be “displaying a cleaning alarm”.
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 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, if the monitored voltage becomes inferior to a pre-determined voltage threshold V0 during a period of time ∆t of the roasting operation, and if said period of time ∆t is superior to a pre-determined time threshold t0, then displaying a cleaning alarm. The terms “inferior” and “superior” are construed to mean “less than” and “greater than”, respectively.
Ge et al. teaches an air filter assembly comprising an electrostatic precipitator (paragraphs 10-11), where accumulation of particles at the electrodes can promote advance indication of when a filter is nearing end of useful life (paragraph 30). The assembly includes a processor 226 including a comparator to compare a voltage at node 228 to a reference voltage Vref, and when the comparator determines the voltage at node 228 exceeds Vref, outputs an alert 230 which can be provided to a computer (figure 2; paragraph 31). The processor converts voltage at node 228 to a value that represents conductivity across space 233 between the electrodes (paragraph 32), where the voltage corresponds to an amount of accumulation of particles at the filter which results in lower resistance across the filter and leads to lower voltage at node 228 (paragraph 34).
Holmes et al. teaches 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 as stated above.
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 a voltage threshold 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 readings, detecting reduced voltage across the ionizing circuit being indicative of a problem wit the filter, and displaying an alert for the filter when voltage deviates from a threshold voltage, therefore to provide an auxiliary means for determining the filter requires cleaning, and to provide means for directly determining an issue with the electrostatic precipitator among the other filters.
Regarding the period of time ∆t being superior to a pre-determined time threshold t0, it would have been further obvious to display the alarm after a minimum 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 2¸ the combination applied to claim 1 does not teach V0 is less than 100V. However, Ge et al. and Holmes et al. teach greater accumulation of particles at the filter results in lowered resistance across the filter that leads to lower voltage readings, and minimal or absence of voltage is an indication of an issue with the filter as stated for claim 1.
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 threshold V0 is less than 100V since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the value, and since the claimed threshold voltage would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as tolerance for the amount of accumulated particles, and therefore effectiveness loss of the filter, before an alarm is issued.
Regarding claims 3-6, Tidland et al. does not teach the predetermined time threshold depends on a level of roasting and/or type of beans roasted, a number of roasting operations since the last cleaning operation, various along the roasting operation, and is about a “few seconds”, construed to be at least three seconds.
The prior art cited for claim 1 teaches accumulation of particles on the filter over time causes a reduction of voltage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a change would occur gradually over the course of the filtering operation. Further, various degrees of roasting and coffee types are well-known in the art. One of ordinary skill would have also recognized that the roasting degree of coffee type would affect the composition of the smoke produced e.g., a darker roast would release more particulates into the smoke.
Holmes et al. further teaches the control for determining filter issues includes the number of on-cycles (paragraphs 17-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to base the time threshold on roasting degree or coffee type, a number of roasting operations implemented since the last cleaning operation, various along the roasting operation, and is about a “few seconds” since the prior art recognizes changing operation and measurement characteristics associated with electrostatic precipitators due to increased accumulation of particulates, and therefore to account for such accumulations to provide more accurate determination of when the filter requires cleaning, to also account for increased or decreased particulate concentration in the smoke, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the value, and since the claimed threshold voltage would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as tolerance for the amount of accumulated particles, and therefore effectiveness loss of the filter, before an alarm is issued.
Regarding claim 7, Tidland et al. teaches electronic measurement circuit in control panel 68 indicates which filter is clogged based on the comparison as stated for claim 1, and the combination applied to claim 1 teaches issuing an alert based on monitored voltage. The limitation “control the electrostatic precipitator” is construed to mean controlling whether or not the alert is displayed.
Tidland et al. does not teach the monitored voltage is read from the process control board.
Ge et al. further teaches controller 354 to perform various operations related to the filter (paragraph 47), and the voltage value can be output over a signal bus 232 to a computer or 230 to output the alert.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Tidland et al. to read the monitor voltage from the process control board since the process is known for signaling in electronic equipment, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 8-9, the combination applied to claim 1 does not teach the electrostatic precipitator comprises at least two cells positioned successively along the flow of the smoke, where the method of claim 1 is applied to each cell, and displaying an alarm based on the monitored voltage relative to a voltage threshold for a time period greater than a threshold time.
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.
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