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 1 is objected because the subsequently recited “filter material” should be “the filter material.”
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 7–8 are objected for the same reason as claim 1, because of the limitation “filter material.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1–5, 7–10 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 1 is indefinite because the term “the surrounding atmosphere” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2–5, 7–8 and 10 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 7 is indefinite because the limitation of “the protective gas” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it depends on claim 7. Claim 8 is also indefinite because there is two exchanges, one recited in claim 7 and the other recited in claim 1, it is unclear which one is the claimed “the exchange.”
claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear which is the claimed “the atmosphere.”
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 Zhang et al., CN 109248508 A (“Zhang”)1 in view of Kleinhans et al., US 2023/0142672 A1 (“Kleinhans”).
Regarding claim 1:
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]) having a filter housing (Zhang’s air purifying box 6, dust air box 7, hooper 8, valve 9 and cylinder 10, Zhang Fig. 1, [0012]) and the filter located therein (Zhang’s filter material 14 is inside Zhang’s dust air box 7, Zhang Fig. 1, [0012]),
the filter device (2 of Zhang) having a filtered material collecting chamber (Zhang’s ash bucket 10, Zhang Fig. 1, [0012]) for receiving filtered material which accumulates in the course of cleaning the filter,
the method comprising the steps 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),
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 (Zhang discloses that when the pulse dust cleaner 11 performs pulse backflush cleaning according to the set program, the dust fall from dust box 7 into ash hopper 8 and enters ash bucket 10 through the unloading valve 9, where the dust is mixed with the inert agent 16 in the ash bucket 10, Zhang Fig. 1, [0054]; Zhang also discloses that its ash bucket 10 is connected to the filter airtightly with an unloading valve 9, it is therefore understood that pulse back cleaning would necessarily cause inert gas to enter air bucket 10 because Zhang’s air bucket is connected to the hooper 8 and 7, Zhang Fig. 1, [0054]).
Zhang does not disclose 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 the surrounding atmosphere.
In the analogous art of 3D printer filter residues processing, 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 supply gas such as oxygen/nitrogen mixture, Kleinhans [0178]. 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. 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 in Zhang for the benefits disclosed. The modification proposed would introduce supply gas oxygen/nitrogen mixture (read on the claimed “surrounding atmosphere” with what is initially in Zhang’s chamber (the claimed “chamber atomohspere”).
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose that the method according to claim 1, wherein the filtered material collecting chamber (10 of Zhang) is filled with a gas for fire prevention.
However, Zhang discloses that during when the 3D printer filter device is working normally, the filter device (2 of Zhang) is in the inert gas state, and the inert gas circulates within the metal 3D printer filter device, Zhang Fig. 1, [0049] and [0020]. Since Zhang’s ash bucket 10 is part of Zhang’s filter 2, Zhang’s ash bucket 10 is therefore in the inert gas state and inert gas circulates within the ash bucket for fire prevention. Zhang’s inert gas is the claimed “gas for fire prevention”.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose that the method according to claim 1, wherein the filtered material collecting chamber (10 of Zhang) is filled with a protective gas for fire prevention.
However, Zhang discloses that during when the 3D printer filter device is working normally, the filter device (2 of Zhang) is in the inert gas state, and the inert gas circulates within the metal 3D printer filter device, Zhang Fig. 1, [0049] and [0020]. Since Zhang’s ash bucket 10 is part of Zhang’s filter 2, Zhang’s ash bucket 10 is therefore in the inert gas state and inert gas circulates within the ash bucket for fire prevention. Zhang’s inert gas is the claimed “protective gas for fire prevention”.
Regarding claim 4:
Zhang 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:
Zhang 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 Zhang’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 Zhang does not explicitly disclose that the method according to claim 1, 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.
However, Kleinhans discloses using of a portiong unit for limiting the amount of filter residues supplied to the reaction unit to a predefined value, Kleinhans [0026]. Kleinhans discloses portioning unit facilitates controlled oxidation of condensate particles, since the limited amount of condensate particles produced in each case ensures that the heat generated during oxidation and thus uncontrolled heating of the reaction chamber or uncontrolled reaction of the metal condensates are prevented/limited, Kleinhans [0026]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Zhang’s 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 to ensure that the heat generated during oxidation and thus uncontrolled heating of the reaction chamber or uncontrolled reaction of the metal condensates are prevented/limited. The protective gas exchange for atmospheric gas could then be performed to realize filter residue passivation.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Zhang does not disclose that the method according to claim 7, wherein the exchange, with regard to a volume of the filtered material collecting chamber (24) receiving a filtered material (32) 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).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Zhang does not disclose that the method according to claim 1,wherein the filtered material collecting chamber (10 of Zhang) 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 and passivation device 100 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 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.