DETAILED ACTION
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.
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:
a mechanism that is configured to deliver spray of drops of liquid toward the smoke before entering to the CSWLI, as recited in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure described in the specification for the mechanism is:
a device comprising a tank, pipes, and a pump
If applicant does not intend to have this/these 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 it/them being interpreted 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 so as to avoid it/them being interpreted 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "pump". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagenfeld (US 20210285646 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 211514090 U).
Regarding claim 1, Wagenfeld discloses an Emission-Cleaning-System (ECS) for reducing air pollution coming via a fireplace, comprising:
a cyclone-separator-with-liquid-injectors (CSWLI) (Fig. 1; 38+34) that is associated with the chimney (para. 12);
a blower (42) that is configured to pull smoke coming via the fireplace toward the CSWLI; and
an ECS Controlling Circuitry (ECC) that is configure to control the operation of the ECS (para. 31).
Wagenfeld fails to disclose:
a chimney upstream the CSWLI, wherein the path via the chimney remains undisturbed
Zhang teaches a system for purifying waste gas, comprising:
a chimney (duct between the boiler 1 and cyclone-separator 2) upstream the cyclone-separator, wherein the path via the chimney remains undisturbed.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Wagenfeld to include a chimney upstream the CSWLI, wherein the path via the chimney remains undisturbed. The motivation to combine is so that the emissions from the fireplace can be routed to the ECS, via the chimney, and then discharged to the outside environment.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wagenfeld discloses the ECS of claim 1, except further comprising a mechanism that is configured to deliver spray of drops of liquid toward the smoke before entering to the CSWLI.
However, Zhang teaches a mechanism (81-83) that is configured to deliver spray of drops of liquid toward the smoke before entering to the cyclone-separator. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Wagenfeld to include a mechanism that is configured to deliver spray of drops of liquid toward the smoke before entering to the CSWLI. The motivation to combine is so that the gas treatment liquid saturates the flue gas, has time to react with the flue gas, and then render it harmless.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wagenfeld discloses the ECS of claim 1, wherein the chimney is a chimney of a fireplace.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wagenfeld discloses the ECS of claim 1, further comprising a drops-capture-module (Wagenfeld; vertical tube surrounded by the filter unit 36) that is located between the CSWLI (Wagenfeld; 38) and the blower (Wagenfeld; 42) and is configured to remove drops of the liquid that were remained after being processed by the CSWLI (some of the drops of liquid would leave via the tube and into the blower 42).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wagenfeld discloses the ECS of claim 1, wherein the ECC is associated with one or more sensors (Wagenfeld; para. 31).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wagenfeld discloses the ECS of claim 1, wherein the ECC is associated with one or more accessories (e.g., sensors; Wagenfeld, para. 31).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wagenfeld discloses the ECS of claim 1, wherein the ECC comprises: i. a processing unit (PU); and ii. a non-transitory computer readable storage device (Wagenfeld; para. 13).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wagenfeld discloses the ECS of claim 6, wherein at least one sensor, from the one or more sensors, is configured to sense the temperature of the smoke (Wagenfeld; para. 13).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wagenfeld discloses the ECS of claim 7, wherein at least one accessory, from the one or more accessories, is the pump (Wagenfeld discloses a control unit that controls the various components of the ECS and Zhang teaches a pump 82 that is incorporated into the combination).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wagenfeld discloses the ECS of claim 8, except wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage device is a random access memory (RAM). However, Official Notice is taken that this feature is well-known and common knowledge, and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Wagenfeld to include RAM memory since a processor needs RAM to perform calculations.
Regarding claim 12, modified Wagenfeld discloses the ECS of claim 8, except wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage device stores software code to be executed by the processing unit. However, Official Notice is taken that this feature is well-known and common knowledge, and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Wagenfeld wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage device stores software code to be executed by the processing unit, since a processor needs software code to execute the functions.
Claim(s) 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagenfeld (US 20210285646 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 211514090 U), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Luo (CN 207641274 U)
Regarding claims 2, 4, modified Wagenfeld discloses the ECS of claim 1, except a mechanism that is configured to deliver spray of drops of liquid toward the smoke before entering to the CSWLI, wherein the mechanism that is configured to deliver the spray of drops of liquid, further comprising: i. a tank that comprises the liquid; ii. a first pipe that is configured to deliver clean liquid; iii. a second pipe that is configured to drain surplus of the liquid out of the tank; iv. a pump that is configured to pull the liquid from the tank and push it via a 3rd pipe toward the smoke and generate the spray of drops of mixture of liquid and smoke as an input to the CSWLI; and v. a 4th pipe that is configured to return the liquid after being used in the CSWLI to the tank.
However, Luo a flue gas treatment device, comprising:
a mechanism that is configured to deliver spray of drops of liquid toward the smoke, wherein the mechanism that is configured to deliver the spray of drops of liquid, further comprising:
i. a tank (25) that comprises the liquid;
ii. a first pipe (26) that is configured to deliver clean liquid;
iii. a second pipe (19) that is configured to drain surplus of the liquid out of the tank;
iv. a pump (16) that is configured to pull the liquid from the tank and push it via a 3rd pipe (16) toward the smoke and generate the spray of drops of mixture of liquid and smoke; and
v. a 4th pipe (23) that is configured to return the liquid to the tank.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify the liquid injection unit (34) of Wagenfeld to further comprise a mechanism that is configured to deliver spray of drops of liquid toward the smoke before entering to the CSWLI, wherein the mechanism that is configured to deliver the spray of drops of liquid, further comprising: i. a tank that comprises the liquid; ii. a first pipe that is configured to deliver clean liquid; iii. a second pipe that is configured to drain surplus of the liquid out of the tank; iv. a pump that is configured to pull the liquid from the tank and push it via a 3rd pipe toward the smoke and generate the spray of drops of mixture of liquid and smoke as an input to the CSWLI; and v. a 4th pipe that is configured to return the liquid after being used in the CSWLI to the tank.
The motivation to combine is so that the liquid injection unit (Wagenfeld; 34) is provided a mechanism to supply the liquid to the injectors via a pump connected to a tank, and return unused liquid to the tank
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights