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 .
Priority
This application is a continuation-in-part of application 17/202,196, which is a continuation of application 15/894,167. However, the instant claims recite features that were not described in any earlier application. Therefore, the instant claims are being examined with an effective filing date being the actual filing date of this application, i.e. 5 December 2023.
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 10-12 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.
Claims 10-12 are defined as a method, however the claims do not recite any steps involved in the process. The claims recite various structural features of the apparatus that performs the method and recite various functional results of the structure, but there is no actual step being performed. It is suggested to amend the claim to expressly recite at least one step, such as “passing a non-conductive fluid through the collection cylinder” and/or “applying an electrostatic field between the emitter probe and the collector cylinder”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Stull et al (US 2018/0207648 A1), with evidence from Kawasaki (US 5,501,783 A) for claim 11 only.
Stull et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1, 3, and 5, paragraphs ) a method of performing electrostatic filtering of a fluid, comprising placing an emitter probe (center post electrode 170) positioned concentrically within a collector cylinder (either vessel 150 or innermost electrode 168). The surfaces of the emitter probe and collector cylinder extended parallel to each along the central axis of the cylinder. A power supply applies a potential difference to the probe and cylinder to create an electrostatic field within the cylinder such that while a non-conductive fluid passes through the collection cylinder, conductive contaminants within the fluid become charged and are attracted to the collection cylinder and are eliminated from the fluid by attachment to the cylinder. Stull et al teach (see paragraph [0058]) that the collector cylinder (either vessel 1150 or innermost electrode 168) were connected to electrical ground (i.e. the negative electrode), which meant that the emitter probe (center post electrode 170) was the positive electrode.
Regarding claim 11, although Stull et al fail to teach the spacing between the electrodes, reference is made (see paragraph [0054]) to the filter apparatus of Kawasaki as being suitable for use. The disclosure of Kawasaki shows (see col. 5, line 66 to col. 6, line 39) that the spacing between adjacent electrodes, such as the center post electrode and the innermost electrode, was on the order of 12.5 mm (~0.5 inches).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull et al (US 2018/0207648 A1) in view of Kawasaki (US 5,501,783 A).
Stull et al, as noted above, fail to teach the separation distance between the emitter probe and the collector cylinder. However, as noted above, Stull et al states that the filter apparatus of Kawasaki was suitable for use. Kawasaki, also as discussed above, suggest an interelectrode spacing of about 0.5 inches.
However, Kawasaki further teach (see col. 3, lines 18-29) that smaller interelectrode gaps were preferable from an efficiency perspective, but that if the electrodes were spaced too close together, short circuits through the fluid being treated could occur.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have conducted routine experimentation to determine an optimal spacing between the collector cylinder and the emitter probe to balance the efficiency gain versus the risk of short circuit depending upon the identity of the fluid being treated according to the suggestion of Kawasaki. Stated another way, Kawasaki recognized that the spacing between the electrodes was a result effective variable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized that variable. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull et al (US 2018/0207648 A1) in view of McLaine (US 2003/0057086 A1) and Pendergrass (US 3,758,399 A).
Stull et al teach (see figs. 1-3, 5, and 6B) an electrostatic filtration apparatus (108, figs. 2 and 3) comprising:
a fluid inlet (112, fig. 2),
a fluid outlet (130, fig. 2),
a fluid pump (114, fig. 2),
an electronics assembly (“Control System” 120, fig. 2),
a high voltage electrostatic generator (not expressly recited, but inherently required to generate the 3-12 kV electric potential described at paragraphs [0044]-[0045], also briefly mentioned in paragraph [0057] “high voltage source”),
a filtration assembly (118, figs. 2, 5, and 6B) comprising:
a housing (150),
a filtration inlet (156),
a filtration outlet (130),
a collector connection (not expressly recited or shown, but inherently required to electrically connect either the housing 150 or innermost electrode 168 to ground potential as discussed in paragraph [0058]),
a collector cylinder (either housing 150 or innermost electrode 168),
an emitter connection (152), and
an emitter probe (center post electrode 170).
The fluid inlet (112) allows a fluid to flow into the filtration apparatus and the fluid outlet (130) allows a fluid to flow out of the filtration apparatus. The fluid pump (114) is capable of pumping the fluid from the fluid inlet to the fluid outlet through the electrostatic filtration apparatus including the filtration assembly. The control system of Stull et al monitored and controlled operation of the apparatus including the operation of the high voltage electrostatic generator.
Although Stull et al fail to teach an electrical power inlet, such electrical power inlet would necessarily be present, in the form of either a direct wiring connection to the electric grid or as a plug into conventional outlets connected to the electric grid. Such electrical connections are widely known and used by billions of people every day. Such electricity connection would have allowed electricity to flow to the electronics assembly and the high voltage electrostatic generator, as well as any other electrically powered components (e.g. pump 114).
The filtration assembly (118) of Stull et al filters the fluid passing through the apparatus (108). The filtration inlet (156) allows a fluid to flow into the filtration assembly (118) and the filtration outlet (130) allows a fluid to flow out of the filtration assembly (118). The collector cylinder (innermost electrode 168) is positioned entirely within the housing and was connected to ground (i.e. the positive pole of the high voltage source) via the collector connection. The emitter probe was positioned within the collector cylinder extending along the central axis of the collector cylinder in parallel with the walls of the collector cylinder at the middle of the collector cylinder. The emitter probe received a negative electrostatic charge form the high voltage source via the emitter connection (152).
Stull et al fail to teach (1) the housing being non-conductive and (2) the presence of a grounding plate.
Regarding (1), McLaine teaches (see figs. 1-2, abstract, paragraph [0029]) disclose an electrostatic fluid treatment device, wherein a collector cylinder (outer electrode 102) is surrounded by a non-conductive housing (101) that acted to support the collector cylinder. McLaine also teaches (see last sentence of paragraph [0007]) that safety was a priority for making the improvements disclosed in the document.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized a non-conductive housing as a support for the collector cylinder of Stull et al as taught by McLaine for the purpose of supporting the collector cylinder. Further, an additional advantage would have been immediately recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art for making the proposed combination, to provide an electrical insulation around the electrostatic separator to prevent electrical shock dangers to workers that could be caused by an internal electrical short circuit in the electrostatic separator.
Regarding (2), Pendegrass teaches (see fig. 1, col. 2, lines 26-30 and col. 1, lines 42-55) a manner of making an electrical connection to a cylindrical electrode in an electrostatic fluid treatment apparatus comprising a ring (19) electrically connecting the cylindrical electrode to the electrical ground. The ring (19) is an annular plate-shaped part and has the effect of providing an electrical ground, and is therefore considered a grounding plate as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the ring (19) of Pendegrass to make the electrical connection to ground for the collector cylinder (150) of Stull et al in view of the lack of specific teaching in Stull et al for how to make the electrical connection and because Pendegrass shows a known manner of making the electrical ground connection to the collector cylinder in an electrostatic filtration apparatus. See also MPEP § 2143.I.D. The result of combining the teachings of Pendegrass with Stull et al would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely to provide an electrical connection of the collector cylinder to ground.
Regarding claim 2, Stull et al teach (see paragraphs [0015], [0041], [0067]) providing sensors that monitored the pressure within the electrostatic filtration apparatus.
Regarding claim 4, Stull et al teach (see paragraphs [0016], [0041]) providing sensors that monitored the volume density of particulate contaminants of the fluid being treated.
Regarding claim 5, Stull et al teach (see paragraphs [0015], [0041]) providing sensors that monitored the temperature within the electrostatic filtration apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, Stull et al teach (see paragraph [0054]) providing membrane filters in the electrostatic filtration apparatus.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull et al (US 2018/0207648 A1) in view of McLaine (US 2003/0057086 A1) and Pendergrass (US 3,758,399 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yin et al (CN 218774432 U).
Stull et al do not teach providing an emergency stop switch that may be manually triggered to stop the operation of the electrostatic filtration apparatus.
Yin et al teach (see abstract, figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0010] and [0026] of machine translation) providing an emergency stop button on the control panel of an electrostatic filter system that filtered oil.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the known emergency stop button of Yin et al to the apparatus of Stull et al to provide the emergency stop functionality of Yin et al in the apparatus of Stull et al. See also MPEP § 2143.I.A.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull et al (US 2018/0207648 A1) in view of McLaine (US 2003/0057086 A1) and Pendergrass (US 3,758,399 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collier (US 2012/0205257 A1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have increased the treatment capacity of the filtration apparatus of Stull et al as needed to match the demands of certain projects.
However, such duplication does not explicitly teach placing several of the collector cylinders and emitter probes within a single non-conductive housing as set forth in claim 7.
In the similar field of endeavor of electrostatic separation of particles from liquid media, Collier teaches (see figs. 1 and 5, paragraphs [0030]-[0032]) providing increased treatment capacity by providing a plurality of concentric electrostatic treatment electrodes, each pair in their own reactor housing (116). In an alternative embodiment (see fig. 6 and paragraph [0041]) the plurality of concentric electrostatic treatment electrodes were provided parallel to each other within a single housing (116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the single housing with multiple sets of concentric electrostatic treatment electrodes as suggested by Collier in order to improve the electrostatic fluid treatment apparatus of Stull et al to increase the treatment capacity of the apparatus. See also MPEP 2143.I.C.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull et al (US 2018/0207648 A1) in view of McLaine (US 2003/0057086 A1) and Pendergrass (US 3,758,399 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawasaki (US 5,501,783 A).
Stull et al fail to teach the separation distance between the emitter probe and the collector cylinder. However, Stull et al states (see paragraph [0054]) that the filter apparatus of Kawasaki was suitable for use.
Kawasaki further teach (see col. 3, lines 18-29) that smaller interelectrode gaps were preferable from an efficiency perspective, but that if the electrodes were spaced too close together, short circuits through the fluid being treated could occur.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have conducted routine experimentation to determine an optimal spacing between the collector cylinder and the emitter probe to balance the efficiency gain versus the risk of short circuit depending upon the identity of the fluid being treated according to the suggestion of Kawasaki. Stated another way, Kawasaki recognized that the spacing between the electrodes was a result effective variable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized that variable. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights