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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 13-20 are currently pending
Claims 1-12 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 15-20 are currently amended
Claims 13-20 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 09/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II claims 13-20 in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be on a separate page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 states “different than at least the second voltage;” and instead should state “different than the second voltage;” for further clarity since at least would mean more than one voltage. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2-3 state “different than at least the third voltage,” and instead should state “different than the third voltage,” for further clarity since at least would mean more than one voltage. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “comprises,” and instead should include a colon instead of a comma to further recite “comprises:” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 3 states “at least a portion of liquid particles” and instead should state “the at least the portion of the liquid particles” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “comprises,” and instead should include a colon instead of a comma to further recite “comprises:” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8 states “that the combination of the collection of liquid particles and the remaining ionized vapor” and instead should state “that a combination of the collection of the liquid particles and a remaining ionized vapor” for further clarity. 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 16, 17 and 19 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the electrical charge” on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second modified humidity level.” on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. FURTHERMORE, claim 17 recites the limitation “a third modified vapor product” on line 4. It is unclear whether Applicant is trying to refer to the same ‘a third modified vapor product’ as recited on line 14 of claim 13, or a different third modified vapor product?
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a second duct” on line 4. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is trying to refer to the same ‘a second duct’ as recited on line 4 of claim 13, or a different second duct?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paz et al. (U.S. 2014/0288454 A1) (hereinafter “Paz”).
Regarding Claim 13:
Paz teaches a method (see FIGS. 1-4) (see paragraphs 2, 6, 40-42 and 45-48) comprising:
passing a vapor product (air) through a first duct electrically charged with a first voltage to ionize the vapor product (see FIG. 4, air flows in via arrow 81 into collector system 10 through flow meter 80 structure (no reference character provided) (see FIG. 4, a high voltage power supply 28 capable of supplying a charge throughout entire system 10) (see paragraph 44);
passing the ionized vapor product through a second duct positioned downstream of and in fluid communication with the first duct to form a first modified vapor product (see FIG. 4, inlet end 21 of collector system 10 via arrow 82) (see paragraphs 40-44), the second duct being electrically charged with a second voltage that is different than the first voltage (see FIG. 4, a high voltage power supply 28 capable of supplying a charge throughout entire system 10) (see paragraph 44);
passing the first modified vapor product into a chamber (see FIG. 4, a pre-collection filter conduit or chamber 20) (see paragraphs 40 and 42-44), the chamber having at least one cooling plate and at least one first mesh plate positioned downstream of the at least one cooling plate (see FIG. 4, an electric wire 24) (see paragraph 44) (see paragraph 51 further discussing a dryer and/or a heater) (see paragraph 66 further discussing a cooling fluid 134 in FIG. 10), the at least one first mesh plate being electrically charged with a third voltage that is different than at least the second voltage (see FIG. 4, a high voltage power supply 28 capable of supplying a charge throughout entire system 10) (see paragraph 44);
cooling, by the at least one cooling plate, the first modified vapor product to form a second modified vapor product (see paragraph 51 further discussing a dryer and/or a heater) (see paragraph 66 further discussing a cooling fluid 134 in FIG. 10); and
removing, by the at least one first mesh plate (see FIG. 4, an electric wire 24) (see paragraph 44), at least a portion of liquid particles present within the second modified vapor product or a third modified vapor product to form a fourth modified vapor product (see FIG. 4, an electric wire 24) (see paragraph 44).
Although Paz teaches multiple wires, electrodes with a positive and negative terminal, and a high voltage power supply all connected and controlled via a microprocessor (see FIG. 4, a microprocessor 98) (see paragraph 48), one may broadly interpret that Paz does not explicitly teach electrically charging specific structural components with a different voltage amount, as recited in independent claim 13. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the system of Paz to have the controller capable of adjusting and supplying a different voltage, via the high voltage power supply 28, to various ducts and fluid/vapor streams, for optimization purposes (see FIG. 4, a microprocessor 48) (see FIG. 4, a high voltage power supply 28 capable of supplying a charge throughout entire system 10) (see paragraphs 44 and 48).
Regarding Claim 14:
Paz teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the vapor product has a first humidity level, the first modified vapor product has a first modified humidity level that is greater than the first humidity level, the second modified vapor product has a second modified humidity level that is less than the first humidity level, and the fourth modified vapor product has a third humidity level that is less than the second modified humidity level (see paragraph 51 further discussing humidity levels) (see FIG. 4, a microprocessor 98) (see paragraph 48).
Although Paz discusses humidity of the vapor/fluid streams, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the system of Paz to have the controller capable of adjusting a humidity level for optimization purposes (see FIG. 4, a microprocessor 48) (see FIG. 4, a high voltage power supply 28 capable of supplying a charge throughout entire system 10) (see paragraphs 44 and 48) (see paragraph 51 further discussing humidity levels).
Regarding Claim 15:
Paz teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the chamber includes a separator positioned between an inlet of the chamber and the at least one cooling plate (see FIG. 4, a filter 100) (see paragraph 44), and the method further comprises, prior to the removing step, separating, by the separator, at least a portion of liquid particles present within the first modified vapor product (see FIG. 4, a filter 100) (see paragraph 44).
Regarding Claim 16:
Paz teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising a point electrode electrically charged with a fourth voltage that is different than at least the third voltage (see FIG. 4, a high voltage ionizer assembly 34) (see FIG. 4, a high voltage power supply 28 capable of supplying a charge throughout entire system 10) (see paragraph 44), and the method further comprises:
ionizing, by the point electrode, the second modified vapor product that passes across or proximate to the point electrode to modify the electrical charge of the second modified vapor product (see FIG. 4, a high voltage ionizer assembly 34) (see FIG. 4, a high voltage power supply 28 capable of supplying a charge throughout entire system 10) (see paragraph 44).
Regarding Claim 17:
Paz teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the chamber includes at least one second mesh plate (see FIG. 4, an optional grounded mesh 102) (see paragraph 44), and the method further comprises:
removing, by the at least one second mesh plate, at least a portion of liquid particles present within the second modified vapor product to form a third modified vapor product having a third modified humidity level that is less than at least the second modified humidity level (see FIG. 4, an optional grounded mesh 102) (see paragraph 44) (see paragraph 51 further discussing humidity levels) (see FIG. 4, a microprocessor 98) (see paragraph 48).
Regarding Claim 18:
Paz teaches the method of claim 13, wherein a reducer is positioned between the first duct and the second duct (see FIG. 4, numerous valves 90, 92 and a flow meter 80) (see paragraphs 45-48), and wherein the method further comprises:
increasing, by the reducer, a flow rate of the ionized vapor product as it passes therethrough and towards the second duct (see FIG. 4, numerous valves 90, 92 and a flow meter 80) (see paragraphs 45-48).
Regarding Claim 19:
Paz teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the second duct comprises a spiral electrode disposed within the second duct, the spiral electrode being electrically charged with the second voltage (see FIG. 4, a high voltage power supply 28 capable of supplying a charge throughout entire system 10) (see paragraph 44), and wherein passing the ionized vapor product through a second duct comprises:
passing the ionized vapor product across the spiral electrode to allow at least a portion of liquid particles present within the ionized vapor product to collect on the spiral electrode, wherein the collection of the liquid particles selectively separates from the spiral electrode such that the combination of the collection of liquid particles and the remaining ionized vapor product form the first modified vapor product (see FIG. 4, a high voltage power supply 28 capable of supplying a charge throughout entire system 10) (see paragraph 44).
Regarding Claim 20:
Paz teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising:
collecting the liquid particles selectively separated from at least the first modified vapor product and the second modified vapor product and transferring the collected liquid particles to a reservoir (see FIG. 4, a collection conduit 30 and/or an extraction assembly 50) (see paragraphs 40-41).
Other References Considered
Suzuki (U.S. 4,472,278) (hereinafter “Suzuki”) teaches a separating device for an insulating gas-liquid two phase fluid.
Jaffrey (U.S. 2022/0001392 A1) (hereinafter “Jaffrey”) teaches a condensing vapor system and method.
Tanaka et al. (U.S. 2010/0313761 A1) (hereinafter “Tanaka”) teaches a dust collector system and method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773