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 .
Examiner’s Comments
This is a second Non-Final neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims,
nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the
period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). This Non-Final
replaces all previous Non-finals.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected because the subsequently recited “filter material” should be “the filter material.”
Claim 3 is objected because “inert” is an adjective, and the limitation of “is an inert” is grammatically not correct.
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.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–5, 7–8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Walther et al., (“Walther”)1 in view of Zhang et al., CN 109248508 A (“Zhang”)2 and in further view of Kleinhans et al., US 2023/0142672 A1 (“Kleinhans”).
Regarding claim 1:
Walther discloses that a method for cleaning a filter in a filter device (Walther’s filtering unit 5, Walther Figure, [0007]) having a filter housing (Walther’s housing 2, Walther Figure, [0007]) and the filter located therein (see Walther Figure), the filter device having a filtered material collecting chamber (Walther’s dust collection container 14, Walther Figure, [0007]) for receiving filtered material which accumulates in the course of cleaning the filter, the method comprising the steps of:
in the course of a removal of the filtered material collecting chamber from the filter device, carrying out a targeted exchange of a chamber atmosphere for a surrounding atmosphere (Walther discloses its collecting container 14 is detachable, Walther [0007] and Walther further discloses that during a process of removing the collecting container 14, the lid is closed, and the connection 18 can always remain open during the disposal process, Walther Figure [0009], it is therefore understood that in the course of a removal of the filtered material collecting chamber from the filter device, a target exchange of a chamber atmosphere for a surrounding atmosphere would be carried out because the connection 18 remains open).
Walther does not disclose a step of filling the filtered material collecting chamber with a fire prevention agent before a first receipt of filtered material, for which purpose the filtered material collecting chamber is filled with a solid material over part of the volume of the filtered material collecting chamber.
However, in the analogous art of 3D printer debris filtration, Zhang discloses that a method (entire document of Zhang) for cleaning a filter (Zhang’s filter material 14, Zhang Fig. 1, [0012]) in a filter device (Zhang’s filter 2, Zhang Fig. 1, [0011]). Zhang discloses a step of filling the filtered material collecting chamber (10 of Zhang) with a fire prevention agent (B) (Zhang’s inert agent 16, Zhang Fig. 1, [0014]) before a first receipt of filtered material (Zhang’s inert agent 16 is in the chamber 10 before depositing of filtered material, Zhang Fig. 1, [0014] and [0054]),
for which purpose the filtered material collecting chamber (10 of Zhang) is filled with a solid material (Zhang’s inert agent 16 is calcium carbonate powder, which is solid, Zhang Fig. 1, [0041]) over part of the volume of the filtered material collecting chamber (as shown in Zhang Fig. 1, inert agent 16 fills part of the volume).
Zhang discloses its inert agent 16 is used for reducing the chemical activity of the dust, thereby reducing the risk of the dust burning or exploding in the ash barrel 10, Zhang [0041]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Zhang’s inert agent 16 in Walther’s dust collection container 14 for the benefits of reducing the risk of dust burning or exploding.
Modified Walther does not disclose the step of that: in connection with an inflow of atmospheric air, carrying out a mixing movement of the filtered material collecting chamber for mixing the filtered material with the solid material.
In the analogous art of reducing filtering material fire risk, Kleinhans discloses after filter residues is introduced into a filtered material collection chamber (Kleinhans’s reaction chamber 4, Kleinhans Fig. 4, [0178]), a controlled oxidation (passivation) is carried out in a controlled gas atmosphere by introducing an oxidant in to the chamber, and the oxidant can be supplied in the form of air, Kleinhans [0179]. Kleinhans also discloses that the passivation process can take place while detached from the filter device 1 so that the passivation reaction does not need to take place in the flanged-on state, but can take place at another location. Additionally, Kleinhans discloses that the oxidation gas is supplied via the inlet 6 at high pressure and high flow velocity in order to whirl up the condensate particles collecting at the bottom of the reaction chamber and thereby cause a better mixing of oxidants and particles, Kleinhans [0180]. Kleinhans discloses its invention provides an improved method for preventing dust explosions, Kleinhans [0008]. It would therefore have been obvious to include Kleinhans’s method of passivation after modified Walther’s collection container 14 has been removed for cleaning to include an additional layer of fire prevention measure. With such modification, modified Walther discloses that in connection with an inflow of atmospheric air (similar to a step disclosed by Kleinhans, where air is supplied as an oxidant to modified Kleinhanss collection container 14, carrying out a mixing movement of the filtered material collecting chamber for mixing the filtered material with the solid material (Kleinhans’s high pressure and high velocity air supply would carry out the mixing of the filtered material and the solid material).
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Walther discloses that the method according to claim 1, wherein the filtered material collecting chamber is filled with a gas for fire prevention (Walther discloses its collection container 14 is filled with inert gas, Walther Figure [0005]).
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Walther discloses that the method according to claim 2, wherein the gas for fire prevention is an inert (Walther discloses as inert gas, Walther Figure [0005]).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Walther discloses that the method according to claim 1, wherein the solid material is granular (Zhang discloses the solid material is calcium carbonate powder, Zhang [0041], which is granular; Additionally, Kleinhans discloses inserting substances includes granules, Kleinhans [0154]).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Walther does not disclose that the method according to claim 1, wherein the solid material is glass-like.
In the analogous art of passivation of filter residues, Kleinhans lists inerting substances can be lime or glass powder or expanded glass granules, Kleinhans [0154]. Kleinhans discloses those inerting substances are not in gaseous form at the maximum temperature occurring during a cleaning process, Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Walther’s solid material to be a glass powder because Kleinhans discloses glass powder is not in gaseous form at the maximum temperature occurring during a cleaning process, which could significantly reduce the proportion of inerting substances.
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Walther discloses that the method according to claim 2, wherein the filtered material collecting chamber is removed from the filter device after a predetermined filling level of the filtered material in the filter material collecting chamber is reached and the protective gas is exchanged for atmospheric gas (because Walther discloses the connection 18 can always remain open during the disposal process, which would necessarily cause Walther’s inert gas originally in the chamber to exchange with atmospheric gas during the passivation process disclosed by Kleinhans, Walther [0009]).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Walther does not disclose that the method according to claim 7, wherein the exchange for atmosphere gas, with regard to a volume of the filtered material collecting chamber receiving the filtered material of 10,000 to 25,000 cm3 or more, is carried out over a period of time ranging from 2 hours up to 12 hours or more.
However, Kleinhans discloses a gas mixture supplied via inlet 16 with a volume flow rate that is greater than or equal to 0.5 L/min, which is the equivalent to 500 cm3/min, Kleinhans [0232]. Kleinhans also discloses that the flow rate to be set depends on factors such as oxygen concentration and temperature, Kleinhans [0191]. Kleinhans also discloses that by controlling those parameters, one can realize a control oxidation to avoid unpredicted temperature rise, Id. The amount of time needed to carried out the exchange is therefore a result effective variable that could be well controlled by changing parameters such as oxidation concentration and temperature, and it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use routine optimization to figure out what is the best time span to carry out the exchange. MPEP 2144.05(II).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed time range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Walther does not disclose that the method according to claim 1, wherein the filtered material collecting chamber removed from the filter device is connected to a transport container, and wherein the filtered material is transferred directly into a space of the transport container which, in any case, is shut off from the atmosphere.
However, Kleinhans discloses that its filtered material collecting chamber (4 of Kleinhans) is connected to a transport container (Kleinhans’s collection container 11, Kleinhans Fig. 1, [0177]), and wherein the filtered material is transferred directly into a space of the transport container which, in any case, is shut off from the atmosphere (Kleinhans discloses its collecting container 11 is in gas-tight manner with respect to environment, Kleinhans Fig. 1, [0177]). Kleinhans discloses its system provides an improved method for preventing dust explosions, in particular in connection with additive manufacturing devices, Kleinhans [0008]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Kleinhans’s design for the benefits disclosed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Walther’s original document and machine translation is the 10-page FOR dated Dec. 11, 2023. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the figure.
2 Zhang is the 24-page FOR dated Dec. 11, 2023. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text.
Prosecution Insights