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 Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, the term “odour” should read “odor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a “use” claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See MPEP § 2173.05(q).
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.
Claim(s) 1-23 is/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.
As to claims 1-2, 6, 11-12, 15, 21-23 the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-7 are rejected for depending on claim 1, claims
As to claims 1, 7, 13 18 and 21-23, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-6 are rejected for depending on claim 1. Claims 8-23 are rejected for depending on claim 7.
As to claim 13, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claims 21-23, the “use” claim merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP § 2173.05(q).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 12-13, 17-18, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuo Matsuura of JP 2010064001 A (hereinafter, Matsuura) in view of Senichi Masuda of US 3444668 A (hereinafter, Masuda), relying on American Meteorological Society, 2020: Mist. Glossary of Meteorology, URL: https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Mist, accessed August 6, 2026 (hereinafter, AMS) as an evidentiary support.
As to claim 1, Matsuura teaches to a method for purifying polluted air, such as polluted stable air,
wherein the polluted air contains pollutants, such as ammonia, dust, micro-organisms, viruses and odour of volatile organic components (Matsuura, paragraph [0001], teaches to a deodorizing device that recovers and deodorizes odor components contained in odorous gases; Matsuura, paragraph [0007], teaches that odor components such as ammonia are efficiently absorbed by acidic water mist),
wherein the method comprises the successive steps of:
a) introducing the polluted air to be purified into an air treatment device (Matsuura, paragraph [0027], Fig. 1, teaches that the transfer device 3 uses the odor gas as a transport gas to transfer the mist to the electrostatic recovery device 4 in the deodorizing device; the deodorizing apparatus reads as the air treatment device);
b) electrostatically treating the polluted air to be purified introduced in step a) by electrostatic charging of the pollutants contained in the polluted air (Matsuura, paragraph [0007], Fig. 1, teaches that the mist is efficiently attracted to the electrodes by the action of static electricity and is efficiently collected, wherein the electrostatic recovery devices, which collect mist using the action of static electricity, efficiently deodorize by oxidizing the odor components contained in the odorous gas with the ozone they generate);
c) capturing the electrostatically charged pollutants in the air treatment device (Matsuura, paragraph [0007], teaches that the mist is efficiently attracted to the electrodes by the action of static electricity and is efficiently collected; Matsuura’s collection is read as capturing in the electrostatic recovery device 4; Matsuura, paragraph [0030], teaches to the collected mist); and
d) discharging purified air from the air treatment device (Matsuura, Fig. 1, teaches to the transfer device 3 for discharging the air after separating the odor gas therein upon the electrostatic treatment in the electrostatic recovery device 4), characterized in that the method further comprises the step of: before step b), pre-treating the polluted air to be purified introduced in step a) so that it has a relative humidity of preferably at least 90% (Matsuura, paragraph [0027], Fig. 1, teaches that the transfer device 3 uses the odor gas as a transport gas to transfer the mist to the electrostatic recovery device 4; relying on AMS as an evidentiary support, the term “mist” corresponds to having relative humidity of 95% or more but is generally lower than 100%).
Matsuura does not explicitly teach in that in step b), the electrostatic treatment of the polluted air to be purified comprises the successive steps of b1) applying a dry electrostatic treatment, followed by b2) applying a wet electrostatic treatment.
In an analogous art, Masuda teaches to in that in step b), the electrostatic treatment of the polluted air to be purified comprises the successive steps of b1) applying a dry electrostatic treatment (Masuda, col. 3, ln. 7-9, Fig. 1, teaches to applying dry electrostatic treatments with dry system dust-precipitating chambers 2 and 3), followed by b2) applying a wet electrostatic treatment. (Masuda, col. 3, ln. 7-9, Fig. 1, teaches to applying a wet electrostatic treatment with a wet system dust-precipitating chamber 4).
Both Matsuura and Masuda relate to electrostatic precipitation (Masuda, title). Matsuura does not explicitly teach successive steps of applying a dry electrostatic treatment and a wet electrostatic treatment. Matsuura does teach to applying an electrostatic treatment for treating the polluted air for purification. Masuda teaches to the successive steps of applying a dry electrostatic treatment and a wet electrostatic treatment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrostatic recovery of Matsuura with the successive electrostatic treatments of Masuda for providing a high efficiency apparatus suitable for electrical precipitation of dust in a dust-containing gas with ease for disposing of water slurry.
As to claim 2, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the polluted air to be purified introduced in step a) is pre-treated so that it has a relative humidity of between 92% and 99%, preferably between 95 and 98%, before electrostatically treating the pre-treated polluted air in step b) (Matsuura, paragraph [0027], Fig. 1, teaches that the transfer device 3 uses the odor gas as a transport gas to transfer the mist to the electrostatic recovery device 4; relying on AMS as an evidentiary support, the term “mist” corresponds to having relative humidity of 95% or more but is generally lower than 100%).
As to claim 3, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein, in step c), the capturing of the electrostatically charged pollutants comprises the step of electrostatically attracting and/or condensing the electrostatically charged pollutants (Matsuura, paragraph [0007], teaches that the mist is efficiently attracted to the electrodes by the action of static electricity and is efficiently collected; Matsuura’s collection is read as capturing in the electrostatic recovery device 4; Matsuura, paragraph [0030], teaches to the collected mist).
As to claim 7, Matsuura teaches to an air treatment device for purifying polluted air, such as polluted stable air, wherein the polluted air contains pollutants, such as ammonia, dust, micro-organisms, viruses and of volatile organic components (Matsuura, paragraph [0001], teaches to a deodorizing device that recovers and deodorizes odor components contained in odorous gases; Matsuura, paragraph [0007], teaches that odor components such as ammonia are efficiently absorbed by acidic water mist), wherein the air treatment device comprises at least one inlet (Matsuura, Fig. 1, teaches to the transfer device 3, which necessarily has at least one inlet because Matsuura, paragraph [0027], Fig. 1, teaches that the transfer device 3 uses the odor gas as a transport gas to transfer the mist to the electrostatic recovery device 4) for introducing polluted air to be purified (the term “for introducing polluted air to be purified” is an intended use; nonetheless, the at least one inlet of the transfer device 3 is capable of introducing polluted air to be purified) and at least one outlet (Matsuura, Fig. 1, teaches to the electrostatic recovery device 4, which necessarily has at least one outlet) for discharging purified air purified in the air treatment device (the term “for discharging purified air purified in the air treatment device” is an intended use; nonetheless, the at least one outlet of the electrostatic recovery device 4 is capable of discharging purified air purified in the deodorizing device; the deodorizing device reads as the air treatment device), the air treatment device further comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
833
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Matsuura
a treatment unit configured to electrostatically treat polluted air to be purified (Matsuura, paragraph [0007], Fig. 1, teaches that the mist is efficiently attracted to the electrodes by the action of static electricity and is efficiently collected, wherein the electrostatic recovery devices, which collect mist using the action of static electricity, efficiently deodorize by oxidizing the odor components contained in the odorous gas with the ozone they generate; the electrostatic recovery device 4 reads as the treatment unit).
Matsuura does not explicitly teach a capturing unit positioned downstream relative to the treatment unit configured to capture electrostatically charged pollutants in the air treatment device from the polluted air passed through the treatment unit.
In an analogous art, Masuda teaches to a capturing unit positioned downstream relative to the treatment unit configured to capture electrostatically charged pollutants in the air treatment device from the polluted air passed through the treatment unit (Masuda, col. 3, ln. 32, Fig. 1, teaches that the hopper 16 is connected to a tank 18, for storing the water slurry by a pipe 17).
Both Matsuura and Masuda relate to electrostatic precipitation (Masuda, title). Matsuura does not explicitly teach a capturing unit positioned downstream relative to the treatment unit. Matsuura does teach to applying an electrostatic treatment for treating the polluted air for purification. Masuda teaches to the successive steps of applying a dry electrostatic treatment and a wet electrostatic treatment, wherein a capturing unit positioned downstream relative to the treatment units.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrostatic recovery of Matsuura with the successive electrostatic treatments of Masuda for providing a high efficiency apparatus suitable for electrical precipitation of dust in a dust-containing gas with ease for disposing of water slurry.
Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches characterized in that the air treatment device further comprises a pre-treatment unit positioned upstream relative to the treatment until configured to increase and/or maintain the relative humidity of the polluted air to be purified to at least 90% (Matsuura, paragraph [0027], Fig. 1, teaches that the transfer device 3 uses the odor gas as a transport gas to transfer the mist to the electrostatic recovery device 4; relying on AMS as an evidentiary support, the term “mist” corresponds to having relative humidity of 95% or more but is generally lower than 100%) and in that the treatment unit is configured to successively apply a dry electrostatic treatment and a wet electrostatic treatment (Masuda, col. 3, ln. 7-9, Fig. 1, teaches to applying dry electrostatic treatments with dry system dust-precipitating chambers 2 and 3; Masuda, col. 3, ln. 7-9, Fig. 1, teaches to applying a wet electrostatic treatment with a wet system dust-precipitating chamber 4).
As to claim 12, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to the device of claim 7, wherein the pre-treatment unit is configured to increase and/or maintain the relative humidity of the polluted air to be purified between 92% and 99%, preferably between 95% and 98% (Matsuura, paragraph [0027], Fig. 1, teaches that the transfer device 3 uses the odor gas as a transport gas to transfer the mist to the electrostatic recovery device 4; relying on AMS as an evidentiary support, the term “mist” corresponds to having relative humidity of 95% or more but is generally lower than 100%).
As to claim 13, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to the device of claim 7, wherein the capturing unit comprises a capturing device (Masuda, col. 3, ln. 30, Fig. 1, teaches that the wet system dust-precipitating chamber 4 is provided with a hopper 16 for receiving the water slurry produced in said chamber), such as a condenser, and wherein the capturing unit, optionally, further comprises a discharge conduit (Masuda, col. 3, ln.30, Fig. 1, teaches that the hopper 16 is connected to a tank 18, for storing the water slurry, by a pipe 17) for discharging condensed fluid comprising the captured pollutants (the term “for discharging condensed fluid comprising the captured pollutants” is an intended use; nonetheless, the pipe 17 of Masuda is capable of discharging condensed fluid comprising the captured pollutants).
As to claim 17, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to the device of claim 7, wherein the air treatment device further comprises an electron and/or ion capturing unit positioned upstream relative to the treatment unit configured to capture electrons and/or ions (for instance, Masuda, Fig. 1, teaches to a dust-collecting electrode 8 in a first dry system dust-precipitating chamber 2 which is positioned upstream relative to the treatment unit, or a second dry system dust-precipitating chamber 3 configured to capture electrons and/or ions), which electrons and/or ions move from the treatment unit towards the inlet of the air treatment device (without the dust-collecting electrode 8 next to the discharge electrode 9 of Masuda, free ions and space charges migrate backward toward the air inlet via ionic wind or electric field gradients, resulting in uncontrolled ion drift and in reduced charging efficiency).
As to claim 18, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to a building, such as a stable, hospital, school building, office building or greenhouse, characterized in that the building is provided with the air treatment device according to claim 7 (Matsuura, paragraph [0002], teaches to waste disposal facilities comprising hospitals and livestock barns, in which air purifiers and/or deodorizing device may be utilized for air purification; hospitals read as a building).
As to claim 21, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to a use of the device of claim 7 for removing pollutants, preferably ammonia, dust, microorganisms, such as bacteria, endotoxins and viruses, from a building used in the intensive livestock farming (Matsuura, paragraph [0002], teaches to waste disposal facilities comprising hospitals and livestock barns, in which air purifiers and/or deodorizing device may be utilized for air purification; hospitals read as a building; Matsuura, paragraph [0001], teaches to a deodorizing device that recovers and deodorizes odor components contained in odorous gases; Matsuura, paragraph [0007], teaches that odor components such as ammonia are efficiently absorbed by acidic water mist).
Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Please refer to MPEP §2173.05(q).
As to claim 22, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to the use of the device of claim 7 for removing pollutants, preferably ammonia, dust, microorganisms, such as bacteria, endotoxins and viruses, from a building used in the intensive livestock farming, in the food industry and/or from a building with large amounts of people, such as a hospital, school building, office building and covered public areas (Matsuura, paragraph [0002], teaches to waste disposal facilities comprising hospitals and livestock barns, in which air purifiers and/or deodorizing device may be utilized for air purification; hospitals read as a building; Matsuura, paragraph [0001], teaches to a deodorizing device that recovers and deodorizes odor components contained in odorous gases; Matsuura, paragraph [0007], teaches that odor components such as ammonia are efficiently absorbed by acidic water mist).
Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Please refer to MPEP §2173.05(q).
As to claim 23, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to a use of the device of claim 7 for removing pollutants, preferably microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungal spores and viruses, from a building used in the greenhouse horticulture (Matsuura, paragraph [0002], teaches to waste disposal facilities comprising hospitals and livestock barns, in which air purifiers and/or deodorizing device may be utilized for air purification; hospitals read as a building; Matsuura, paragraph [0001], teaches to a deodorizing device that recovers and deodorizes odor components contained in odorous gases; Matsuura, paragraph [0007], teaches that odor components such as ammonia are efficiently absorbed by acidic water mist).
Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Please refer to MPEP §2173.05(q).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuo Matsuura of JP 2010064001 A (hereinafter, Matsuura) in view of Senichi Masuda of US 3444668 A (hereinafter, Masuda), relying on American Meteorological Society, 2020: Mist. Glossary of Meteorology, URL: https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Mist, accessed August 6, 2026 (hereinafter, AMS) as an evidentiary support, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Liwei Huang of CN 111001276 A (hereinafter, Huang) and Zheng Jie Zhang of CN 111514723 A (hereinafter Zhang).
As to claim 4, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein step b1) comprises the steps of:
providing an electrostatic device coupled to an air supply and an electrical voltage power supply (Matsuura, paragraph [0030], teaches to the electrostatic recovery device 4 coupled to the transfer device 3 and connected to a DC power supply of 5 kV to 20 kV; the transfer device 3 necessarily has some air and therefore reads as being necessarily coupled to an air supply, as Matsuura, paragraph [0028], teaches that the device can use air or an inert gas as the conveying gas).
Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach simultaneously supplying an electrical voltage of between 85 kV and 100 kV and air with a relative humidity of less than 10% into the electrostatic device in order to produce an electrostatic plasma; and supplying the electrostatic plasma to the polluted air introduced into the air treatment device.
In an analogous art, Huang teaches to simultaneously supplying an electrical voltage of between 85 kV and 100 kV (Huang, paragraph [0022], teaches that the electrodes are generally powered by DC or high-frequency pulses, with a voltage preferably 10kV to 150kV, wherein the discharge electrodes are connected to a high-voltage power supply); and
and supplying the electrostatic plasma to the polluted air introduced into the air treatment device (Huang, paragraph [0022], teaches to the residence time of the harmful gas in the discharge plasma region; Huang, paragraph [0023], teaches to a corona discharge dust removal for supplying the electrostatic plasma).
Both Matsuura in view of Masuda and Huang relate to an electrostatic precipitator (Huang, paragraph [0022]). Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach the recited electrical voltage used for the electrostatic treatment. Matsuura in view of Masuda does teach a range of electrical voltage used for the electrostatic treatment. Huang teaches to the recited electrical voltage used for the electrostatic treatment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical voltage of Matsuura in view of Masuda with the recited electrical voltage of Huang for supplying the electrostatic plasma for removing harmful substances from airflow, and particularly to the simultaneous removal of gaseous pollutants and particulate pollutants from airflow.
Matsuura in view of Masuda and Huang does not explicitly teach and air with a relative humidity of less than 10% into the electrostatic device in order to produce an electrostatic plasma.
In an analogous art, Zhang teaches to and air with a relative humidity of less than 10% into the electrostatic device (Zhang, paragraph [0048], teaches that the electrostatic precipitator is equipped with a water outlet 13, such that the gas is dehumidified by the electrostatic precipitator, and the humidity is controlled to be close to 4%, forming dehumidified gas) in order to produce an electrostatic plasma (Zhang, paragraph [0017], teaches that the dehumidified gas is introduced into the low-temperature plasma reactor).
Both Matsuura in view of Masuda and Huang and Zhang relate to an electrostatic precipitator (Zhang, paragraph [0016]). Matsuura in view of Masuda and Huang does not explicitly teach the relative humidity of less than 10% in order to producing an electrostatic plasma. Matsuura in view of Masuda and does teach to producing an electrostatic plasma. Zhang teaches to dehumidifying gas for a subsequent plasma treatment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrostatic precipitator of Matsuura in view of Masuda and Huang with the dehumidified gas of Zhang for reaching the strict plasma operating conditions, thereby resulting in a more stable operation in the waste gas treatment.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuo Matsuura of JP 2010064001 A (hereinafter, Matsuura) in view of Senichi Masuda of US 3444668 A (hereinafter, Masuda), relying on American Meteorological Society, 2020: Mist. Glossary of Meteorology, URL: https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Mist, accessed August 6, 2026 (hereinafter, AMS) as an evidentiary support, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Liwei Huang of CN 111001276 A (hereinafter, Huang).
As to claim 5, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein step b2) comprises the steps of:
providing an electrostatic device coupled to a fluid supply, air supply and an electrical voltage power supply (Matsuura, paragraph [0030], teaches to the electrostatic recovery device 4 coupled to the transfer device 3 and connected to a DC power supply of 5 kV to 20 kV; the transfer device 3 necessarily has some air and therefore reads as being necessarily coupled to an air supply, as Matsuura, paragraph [0028], teaches that the device can use air or an inert gas as the conveying gas; the transfer device 3 may also be read as a fluid supply, as Matsuura, paragraph [0006], teaches that the transfer device 3 comprises the transport gas containing the mist with the odor gas); and
simultaneously supplying a fluid and air into the electrostatic device in order to produce an electrostatically charged fluid (Matsuura, paragraph [0004], teaches to bringing a gas into contact with the atomized mist in the electrostatic recovery device 4); and
supplying the electrostatically charged fluid to the polluted air introduced into the air treatment device (Matsuura, paragraph [0004], teaches to bringing a gas into contact with the atomized mist).
Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach simultaneously supplying an electrical voltage of between 50 kV and 60 kV.
In an analogous art, Huang teaches to simultaneously supplying an electrical voltage of between 50 kV and 60 kV (Huang, paragraph [0022], teaches that the electrodes are generally powered by DC or high-frequency pulses, with a voltage preferably 10kV to 150kV, wherein the discharge electrodes are connected to a high-voltage power supply).
Both Matsuura in view of Masuda and Huang relate to an electrostatic precipitator (Huang, paragraph [0022]). Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach the recited electrical voltage used for the electrostatic treatment. Matsuura in view of Masuda does teach a range of electrical voltage used for the electrostatic treatment. Huang teaches to the recited electrical voltage used for the electrostatic treatment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical voltage of Matsuura in view of Masuda with the recited electrical voltage of Huang for supplying the electrostatic treatment for removing harmful substances from airflow, and particularly to the simultaneous removal of gaseous pollutants and particulate pollutants from airflow.
Claim(s) 6 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuo Matsuura of JP 2010064001 A (hereinafter, Matsuura) in view of Senichi Masuda of US 3444668 A (hereinafter, Masuda), relying on American Meteorological Society, 2020: Mist. Glossary of Meteorology, URL: https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Mist, accessed August 6, 2026 (hereinafter, AMS) as an evidentiary support, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Praful Ramachandra Naik of US 2021/0039112 A1 (hereinafter, Naik)
As to claim 6, Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach wherein, in step a), the polluted air to be purified is introduced into the air treatment device with a flow rate of 6,000 to 18,000 m3/hour, preferably with a flow rate of 10,000 to 14,000 m3/hour, more preferably with a flow rate of about 12,000 m3/hour.
In an analogous art, Naik teaches to teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein, in step a), the polluted air to be purified is introduced into the air treatment device with a flow rate of 6,000 to 18,000 m3/hour, preferably with a flow rate of 10,000 to 14,000 m3/hour, more preferably with a flow rate of about 12,000 m3/hour (Naik, paragraph [0001], teaches that an air handling rate of 12000 m3/hour is a typical capacity for a system, wherein Naik teaches to air purification systems).
Both Matsuura in view of Masuda and Naik relate to air purification systems (Naik, paragraph [0001]) that use a corona discharge for treating the air (Naik, paragraph [0019]). Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach the specified flow rate. Matsuura in view of Masuda does teach an flow rate of 189,000 m3/hour. Naik teaches to 12,000 m3/hour.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air handling rate of Matsuura in view of Masuda with the air handling rate of Naik for making the air treatment operable in air purification systems.
As to claim 14, Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach wherein the air treatment device further comprises a fan, which fan is positioned at the inlet of the air treatment device.
In analogous art, Naik teaches to the device of claim 7, wherein the air treatment device further comprises a fan, which fan is positioned at the inlet of the air treatment device (Naik, paragraph [0001], teaches that an air handling rate of 12000 m3/hour is a typical capacity for a system, wherein Naik teaches to air purification systems that comprise a blower 14; Naik, paragraph [0005], teaches that a fan, a blower, a turbine and similar devices are referred to as blower in Naik).
Both Matsuura in view of Masuda and Naik relate to air purification systems (Naik, paragraph [0001]) that use a corona discharge for treating the air (Naik, paragraph [0019]). Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach the fan with the specified flow rate. Matsuura in view of Masuda does teach a flow rate of 189,000 m3/hour. Naik teaches to a blower with a air handling rate of12,000 m3/hour.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air handling rate of Matsuura in view of Masuda with the fan and the air handling rate of Naik for making the air treatment operable in air purification systems.
As to claim 15, Matsuura in view of Masuda and Naik teaches to the device of claim 14, wherein the fan is configured to introduce polluted air to be purified into the air treatment device with a flow rate of 6,000 to 18,000 m3/hour, preferably with a flow rate of 10,000 to 14,000 m3/hour, more preferably with a flow rate of about 12,000 m3/hour (Naik, paragraph [0001], teaches that an air handling rate of 12000 m3/hour is a typical capacity for a system, wherein Naik teaches to air purification systems that comprise a blower 14; Naik, paragraph [0005], teaches that a fan, a blower, a turbine and similar devices are referred to as blower in Naik).
Claim(s) 8-10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuo Matsuura of JP 2010064001 A (hereinafter, Matsuura) in view of Senichi Masuda of US 3444668 A (hereinafter, Masuda), relying on American Meteorological Society, 2020: Mist. Glossary of Meteorology, URL: https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Mist, accessed August 6, 2026 (hereinafter, AMS) as an evidentiary support, as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Liwei Huang of CN111001276A (hereinafter, Huang).
As to claim 8, Matsuura in view of Masuda teaches to the device of claim 7, wherein the treatment unit comprises:
a first electrostatic device coupled to an air supply and an electrical voltage power supply (Masuda, Fig. 1, teaches to a first dry system dust-precipitating chamber 2 coupled to an inlet 5 for the dust-containing gas; Matsuura, Fig. 1, teaches to a DC power source 42 as an electrical voltage power supply); and
a second electrostatic device coupled to a fluid supply, an air supply and an electrical voltage power supply (Masuda, Fig. 1, teaches to a wet system dust-precipitating chamber 4 coupled to an inlet 5 for the dust-containing gas and a plurality of nozzles 10 for spraying water; Matsuura, Fig. 1, teaches to a DC power source 42 as an electrical voltage power supply) and located downstream relative to the first electrostatic device (Masuda, Fig. 1, teaches that the wet system dust-precipitating chamber 4 is located downstream relative to first dry system dust-precipitating chamber 2), wherein the second electrostatic device is configured to produce an electrostatically charged fluid (Masuda, Fig. 1, teaches that the wet system dust-precipitating chamber 4 produces an electrostatically charged fluid, as the wet system dust-precipitating chamber is provided with a dust-collecting electrode 8 as an anode, a discharge electrode 9 as a cathode and a plurality of nozzles 10 for spraying water).
Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach wherein the first electrostatic device is configured to produce an electrostatic plasma.
In an analogous art, Huang teaches to wherein the first electrostatic device is configured to produce an electrostatic plasma (Huang, paragraph [0022], teaches to the residence time of the harmful gas in the discharge plasma region; Huang, paragraph [0023], teaches to a corona discharge dust removal for supplying the electrostatic plasma).
Both Matsuura in view of Masuda and Huang relate to an electrostatic precipitator (Huang, paragraph [0022]). Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach the electrostatic plasma and the associated electrical voltage used for the electrostatic treatment. Matsuura in view of Masuda does teach a range of electrical voltage used for the electrostatic treatment. Huang teaches to the electrostatic plasma and the associated electrical voltage used for the electrostatic treatment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrical voltage of Matsuura in view of Masuda with the recited electrical voltage of Huang for supplying the electrostatic plasma for removing harmful substances from airflow, and particularly to the simultaneous removal of gaseous pollutants and particulate pollutants from airflow.
As to claim 9, Matsuura in view of Masuda and Huang teaches to the device of claim 8, wherein the first electrostatic device is located at a distance from the air treatment device such that the electrostatic plasma can be produced in the first electrostatic device before supplying the electrostatic plasma to the treatment device (Masuda, Fig. 1, teaches that a first dry system dust-precipitating chamber 2 is located at a distance from the inlet 5 of the apparatus such that the electrostatic plasma can be produced in the first electrostatic device before supplying the electrostatic plasma to the treatment device).
As to claim 10, Matsuura in view of Masuda and Huang teaches to the device of claim 8, wherein the second electrostatic device is located at a distance from the air treatment device such that the electrostatically charged fluid can be produced in the second electrostatic device before supplying the electrostatically charged fluid to the treatment device (Masuda, Fig. 1, teaches that a wet system dust-precipitating chamber 4 is located at a distance from the inlet 5 of the apparatus electrostatically charged fluid can be produced in the second electrostatic device before supplying the electrostatically charged fluid to the treatment device).
As to claim 16, Matsuura in view of Masuda and Huang teaches to the device of claim 8, wherein:
the first electrostatic device is configured to treat polluted air to be purified at an electrical voltage of between 85 kV and 100 kV (Huang, paragraph [0022], teaches that the electrodes are generally powered by DC or high-frequency pulses, with a voltage preferably 10kV to 150kV, wherein the discharge electrodes are connected to a high-voltage power supply); and/or
the second electrostatic device is configured to treat polluted air to be purified at an electrical voltage of between 50 kV and 60 kV (Huang, paragraph [0022], teaches that the electrodes are generally powered by DC or high-frequency pulses, with a voltage preferably 10kV to 150kV, wherein the discharge electrodes are connected to a high-voltage power supply).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuo Matsuura of JP 2010064001 A (hereinafter, Matsuura) in view of Senichi Masuda of US 3444668 A (hereinafter, Masuda), relying on American Meteorological Society, 2020: Mist. Glossary of Meteorology, URL: https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Mist, accessed August 6, 2026 (hereinafter, AMS) as an evidentiary support, as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Bernd Morun of US 2020/0368680 A1 (hereinafter, Morun).
As to claim 11, Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach wherein the pre-treatment unit is configured to feed 50 kg/hour to 70 kg/hour, preferably about 60 kg/hour, water spray to the polluted air to be purified.
In an analogous art, Morun teaches to the device of claim 7, wherein the pre-treatment unit is configured to feed 50 kg/hour to 70 kg/hour, preferably about 60 kg/hour, water spray to the polluted air to be purified (Morun, paragraph [0093], teaches that the water vapor is supplied in an amount in the range of from 5 to 250 kg/h).
Both Matsuura in view of Masuda and Morun relate to treating the exhaust gases (Morun, paragraph [0009]). Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach the recited water spray feed rate. Matsuura in view of Masuda does teach to using 1 to 5 tons of water per hour for water spray (Masuda, col. 2, ln. 38). Morun teaches to the recited water spray feed rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water feeding rate of Matsuura in view of Masuda with the water feeding rate of Morun for optimizing for a relative humidity for ensuring contact between the water vapor in accordance to the flow rate of the exhaust gas so that a hydrate shell can form around the exhaust gas treatment reagent, resulting in increased efficiency in the exhaust gas treatment.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuo Matsuura of JP 2010064001 A (hereinafter, Matsuura) in view of Senichi Masuda of US 3444668 A (hereinafter, Masuda), relying on American Meteorological Society, 2020: Mist. Glossary of Meteorology, URL: https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Mist, accessed August 6, 2026 (hereinafter, AMS) as an evidentiary support, as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Matthew Stanley Johnson of US 2011/0171090 A1 (hereinafter, Johnson).
As to claim 19, Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach wherein the air treatment device is positioned such that the at least one inlet and the at least one outlet of the air treatment device debouche into the building.
In an analogous art, Johnson teaches to teaches to the building of claim 18, wherein the air treatment device is positioned such that the at least one inlet and the at least one outlet of the air treatment device debouche into the building (Johnson, paragraphs [0032] and [0090], Fig. 1, teaches that the chamber air inlet/outlet is adapted to fit an existing HVAC air circulation system of, for example, a building; in this instance, inlet 2 and outlet 3 debouche into the building for air circulation).
Both Matsuura in view of Masuda and Johnson relate to air cleaning system (Johnson, paragraph [0090]). Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach that the at least one inlet and the at least one outlet debouching into the building. Matsuura in view of Masuda does teach to air purification in buildings, such as hospitals and livestock barns. Johnson teaches to the chamber air inlet/outlet adapted to fit an existing HVAC air circulation system of a building.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inlet and outlet of Matsuura in view of Masuda with the inlet and outlet of Johnson for fitting to an existing HVAC air circulation system of a building such that the inlet and outlet debouche into the building, thereby resulting in increased effectiveness of air purification when the air treatment device is used with the building environment.
As to claim 20, Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach wherein the air treatment device is positioned such that at least one inlet of the air treatment device debouches into the building and the at least one outlet of the air treatment device debouches outside the building.
In an analogous art, Johnson teaches to the building of claim 18, wherein the air treatment device is positioned such that at least one inlet of the air treatment device debouches into the building and the at least one outlet of the air treatment device debouches outside the building (Johnson, paragraphs [0030] and [0090], Fig. 1, teaches that, to assure that all contaminated air enters and passes through the air cleaning system, the chamber air inlet and outlet may be adapted to fit the existing ducts using methods known in the art so that no air is allowed to bypass the system).
Both Matsuura in view of Masuda and Johnson relate to air cleaning system (Johnson, paragraph [0090]). Matsuura in view of Masuda does not explicitly teach that the at least one inlet and the at least one outlet debouching into and out of the building. Matsuura in view of Masuda does teach to air purification in buildings, such as hospitals and livestock barns. Johnson teaches to the chamber air inlet/outlet adapted to fit an existing ducts of a building.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inlet and outlet of Matsuura in view of Masuda with the inlet and outlet of Johnson for fitting to an existing ducts of a building such that the inlet and outlet debouche into and out of the building, thereby resulting in increased effectiveness of air purification when the air treatment device is used with the building environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights