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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on January 11, 2024, is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 line 2 “coupled to a motor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “component” and “separation assembly” in claim 1.
Because the claim limitation(s) is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the limitation(s) is/are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have the limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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 recites the limitation "the cleaning device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "a cleaning device" was not previously recited. Instead, the limitation "an ancillary component cleaning device" is recited in line 1, and it is unclear whether the limitation "the cleaning device" in line 2 is the same as or distinct from the limitation "an ancillary component cleaning device" in line 1.
Furthermore, the limitation "an ancillary component cleaning device" is not defined in the specification. The specification (see cited reference character for the drawings) at paragraph 41 discloses the following [emphasis added]:
“Ancillary components such as the mechanical coupling [60], insulating element [0047] and barrier [barrier/separator/guard 66] are examples of components within an ESP on which particulate matter may collect and negatively impact upon operation of the ESP, but which may not be cleared as part of standard operation of the ESP,” Also see pars [0039]-[0040], [0042], and [0045]-[0047].
For examination on the merits, the limitation "the cleaning device" is interpreted broadly a cleaning device configured to clean components other than the primary discharge and collection electrodes. Under BRI, an ancillary component is also interpreted broadly to mean any ESP component that is not a primary electrode. Claim 1 recites the phrase "moveably supportable" in line 3. The word supportable merely means a capability of the cleaning assembly to be supported rather than interpreting a structural element of the cleaning assembly, and therefore, is not a structural requirement. The phrase is a conditional functional limitation and is imprecise—indefinite. Claim 1 recites the phrase "being configurable" in line 5. The word configurable merely means a capability of the scraper to be configured rather than any structural limitation of the scraper, and therefore, is not a structural requirement. Additionally, the limitation "the assembly" in lines 3-4 has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim. The limitation "an assembly" was not previously recited. The phrase "being configurable to abut…discharge and collection electrodes" in lines 5-10 is a conditional function, and therefore, the scraper is merely any structure—any shape, material, or size—capable of scraping (i.e., contacting and displacing matter) a surface qualifies. The phrase "the movement of the cleaning assembly…movement of the scraper with respect to the ancillary component and wherein the ancillary component" in lines 7-8 is a cause-and-effect phrase, i.e. functional limitation, that is satisfied related to when movement between the scraper and the ancillary component happens under BRI. The claim language is not limited by any specific type of motion, i.e. linear, oscillatory, rotational, etc. The indefiniteness and claim interpretation presented above is considered for examination on the merits.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the discharge and collection electrodes" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitations were not previously recited.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the cleaning device is couple[d] to a motor configured to move the cleaning assembly relative to the ancillary component" in lines 2-3. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 that recites the limitation "the cleaning assembly moveably supportable within the wet electrostatic precipitator" in lines 3-4. The question raised: Is the motor specifically coupled to the "the cleaning assembly" or generally coupled to "the cleaning device"?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the electrostatic precipitation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "an electrostatic precipitator" was not previously recited. NOTE: "a wet electrostatic precipitator" is an electrostatic precipitator; however, the converse is not necessarily true.
Since claim 1 is indefinite, dependent claims 2-6 and 9-10 are also indefinite.
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.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200353480 A1, US 20200368757 A1, and US 20200360936 A1 (hereafter Lee ’480, Lee ’757 and Lee ‘936, respectively) in view of Choi (KR20020010048A).
Regarding claim 1 as interpreted above, each embodiment taught in prior art to Lee ’480, Lee ’757 and Lee ’936 discloses a wet electrostatic precipitator (Lee ’480: electrostatic precipitator apparatus 1000, 2000, 3000, 6000; [0071]-[0083], [0137]-[0139], [0146], [0148], [0167]-[168]; Figs 1-2, 16, 17, 21-23. Lee ’936: electrostatic precipitator apparatus 100, 2000, 3000, 6000; [0064]-[0066]; Figs 3-4. Lee ’757: Abstract, electrostatic precipitator apparatus 1000; [0056]; Figs. 1-2) comprising an ancillary component cleaning device, the cleaning device comprising: a cleaning assembly moveably supportable within the wet electrostatic precipitator (Lee ’480: Figs. 1-3; Lee ’757: Figs. 16-17; Lee ‘936: Figs. 3-4); the assembly comprising a scraper (Lee ’480: scraper 2450, 3450; [0122], [0128], [0134], [0139], [0143], [0146]-[0150], [0155]-[0157]; Figs 2, 3, 16, 24. Lee ’757: scraper 2450, 3450; [0122], [0128], [0134], [0139], [0143], [0146]-[0149], [0155]-[0157]; Figs 16, 17, 19. Lee ‘936: scraper 2450; Figs 3-4, 19; [0136], [0140], [0143]-[0147]); the scraper being configurable to abut an ancillary component of the wet electrostatic precipitator (Lee ’480: [0083], [0144], [0179], [0188]; Figs 1-3, 21, 24;; Lee ’757: [0122], [0128], [0134], [0139], [0143], [0146]-[0149], [0155]-[0157]; Figs 16, 17, 19; Lee ‘936: Figs 3-4, 19; [0065], [0072], [0136], [0144]-[0147]), such that movement of the cleaning assembly within the wet electrostatic precipitator causes movement of the scraper with respect to the ancillary component.
Nonetheless, the previously cited ancillary components of each prior art reference to Lee ’480, Lee ’757, and Lee ‘936 appear to teach explicitly “wherein the ancillary component comprises a component of a separation assembly provided in the wet electrostatic precipitator to maintain electrical isolation between the discharge and collection electrodes.” However, each of the prior art to Lee ’480, Lee ’757, and Lee ‘936 also comprises “a component of a separation assembly provided in the wet electrostatic precipitator to maintain electrical isolation between the discharge and collection electrodes” that are insulating connection members 40 (see Figs. 2 & 7, Figs. 3, 11-12, and Figs. 3, 8, 11-12, in each prior art reference respectively). Additionally, Choi is analogous art that does disclose an insulator cleaning device for an electric precipitator. The insulator cleaning device of Choi comprises: a cleaning plate which places the asbestos brush with outer circumference size as equal as inner circumference size of the insulator 154; a check valve which includes a valve body in a penetration hole of the cleaning plate and an operation plate in the lower side of the valve body through the medium of a pin and a torsion spring to receive elastic recovery power; a slide bar which is fixed on the cleaning plate to penetrate into the cover of the insulator; and a cylinder 60 connected to the slide bar through the insulator 54 to raise or lower the slide bar (pp. 4-5; Figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the cleaning device of Choi in the apparatus of any one of Lee ’480, Lee ’757, and Lee ‘936 to maintain efficacy of the WESP by cleaning the insulators.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Choi further discloses wherein movement of the cleaning assembly within the electrostatic precipitator causes movement of the scraper along a surface or edge of the ancillary component (pp. 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Choi further discloses wherein the scraper comprises a narrow elongate element (pin 46 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Choi further discloses the scraper comprises a wire (spring 48 in Fig. 4).
Claim 5 recites the phrase "electrically earthable" in line 2. The phrase merely means the scraper is capable of being electrically connection to earth, or ground. Nonetheless, relying the prior art as indicated above, Choi further discloses a ground connection (p. 2; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “wherein contact between the scraper and ancillary component causes electrical earthing of the scraper” is interpreted as an intended use/result. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Nonetheless, Choi discloses a ground connection for the structural elements of the device (p. 2, Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Choi further discloses wherein the cleaning device is couple[d] to a motor configured to move the cleaning assembly relative to the ancillary component (pp. 8-9).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and also discloses the cleaning device is arranged within the electrostatic precipitator. The phrase “is carried by a flow of cleaning fluid to move the cleaning assembly relative to the ancillary component” is interpreted as an intended result/use. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. The prior art to Lee ’480, Lee ’757, and Lee ‘936 further disclose WESP; therefore, each inherently further teaches wherein the cleaning fluid comprises a flow of water configured to clean at least one collection electrode surface of the electrostatic precipitator device.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Choi further teaches wherein the cleaning fluid comprises a continuous or pulsed flow of gas configured to clean at least one collection electrode surface in the electrostatic precipitator device (p. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. However, Applicant should consider the references below in response to this Office Action:
US 5421863 A: discloses ESP with self-cleaning of electrical insulators resulting from build-up of contaminant material under normal operation of the ESP; Figs. 1-2. Establishes structures of ancillary components used in the art.
US 1994259 A: preventing the collection of dust or other harmful deposits thereon electrical insulator (Figs. 1-3).
US 20150001158 A1: a process that removes contaminants on the surface of conductivity meters that comprises providing a cleaning device having attached thereto a cleaning tool configured for movement by a waste water flow to remove the contaminants (Fig. 3; [0026]).
US 20180169715: the cleaning roller 30 is rotated by the drive device to cause the transfer plate 100 to be infiltrated with the cleaning liquid, and to cause a relative movement between the friction cleaning device 40 and the cleaning roller 30, so that the friction cleaning device 40 rubs the transfer plate 100 to clean the transfer plate 100.
US 2307603 A: An ionizing zone A and a precipitating zone B are arranged successively in the direction of the gas-flow in the gas-cleaning section of the precipitator; an ionizing means in the form of a plurality of spaced tubular non-discharging field-establishing ground electrodes 14 comprise insulated ionizing wires 16 disposed between; one or more ionizing wires are preferably supported by a skeleton frame 1 8 attached to one or more insulators secured to a ground electrode 14; as many ground electrodes and ionizing wires are utilized as the size of the precipitator-unit requires; ground electrodes may be fastened to the housing means in any suitable manner.
US 2631687 A: col. 4, ll. 39-64.
US 2712362 A: combined scraper and rapper for ESP.
US 3608275 A: means for removing the collected dust; col. 2, ll. 1-55; col. 3; Figs. 3-9.
US 3891414 A: Figs. 1-3; col. 3, ll. 35-68.
US 5429669 A: ESP equipped with a plurality of scrapers.
US 6957471 B2: wind driven cleaning ring apparatus for removing dirt on electrical insulators comprising spaced apart circular brushes and/or scraper members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (EST).
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 at (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 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
March 31, 2026
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights