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 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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka, JP 2002-98794 A1 in view of Staffin et al., US 4,161,389.
Regarding claim 1, Yamanaka teaches a device (see Fig. 1), which reads on the claimed “apparatus for removing dust emitted from a melting furnace.” Note that the preamble limitation describing the apparatus is “for removing dust emitted from a melting furnace” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II.
The apparatus comprises an “exhaust unit” that is capable of discharging dust and moisture from a melting space of the melting furnace to an outside (as explained below). Note that the “melting space of the melting furnace” is not a positively recited structural element of the claimed “apparatus.” The “exhaust unit” comprises:
An air outlet 36, which reads on the “exhaust port”;
A “first pipe connected to the exhaust port in a first direction,” which is the vertical pipe that connects air outlet 36 to the housing of filter 37, as seen in Fig. 1;
A “second pipe coupled to and oriented in a different direction from the first pipe,” which is the horizontal pipe on the downstream side of the housing of filter 37, as seen in Fig. 1;
The housing of filter 37 reads on the “connection unit connecting the first pipe and the second pipe,” as seen in Fig. 1.
The filter 37 reads on the “filter that is located inside the connection unit of the exhaust unit.” See Yamanaka Fig. 1, p. 4. The filter 37 is arranged so that the upstream side (the claimed “first side”) is facing the air outlet 36 and is vertically aligned with the air outlet 36. Id.
The filter 37 is oriented with respect to the “first pipe” and the air outlet 36 such that accumulated dust desorbed from the filter 37 is capable of falling through the “first pipe” and the air outlet 36 because the “first pipe and air outlet 36 are vertically below the filter 37, as seen in Fig. 1. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image1.png
1012
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The device of Yamanaka differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to a dust removal unit including a driving unit configured to apply physical force to the filter 37 to desorb accumulated dust.
But Staffin teaches a filtration system comprising a cleaning system that cleans a filter when the pressure drop of the gas transiting the filter reaches a port where it become excessive and starts to throttle the gas flow through the filter to an intolerable level. See Staffin col. 3, ll. 23–36. The cleaning system uses a reverse flow of gas through the filter to clean the filter. Id.
It would have been obvious to use the filter cleaning system of Staffin to clean the filter 37 of Yamanaka to clean the filter 37 to prevent the pressure drop from impeding the performance of the filter 37. With this modification, the cleaning system of Staffin reads on the “dust removal unit” and the source of reverse flow of gas reads on the “driving unit configured to apply physical force o the filter to desorb accumulated dust.”
Regarding claim 5, Yamanaka as modified teaches that the dust removal unit comprises a “driving control unit” configured for controlling operations of the driving unit based on a measured value of a pressure gauge, as claimed, which is mechanism of Staffin that provides the reverse flow of gas when the pressure drop across the filter 37 exceeds a threshold. See Staffin col. 3, ll. 16–36. The driving control unit is configured for controlling operations of the driving unit to operate only when a pressure difference between the first and second pipe is above a certain level, as claimed, because the reverse flow of gas is supplied only when the pressure drop across the filter 37 reaches a point where it becomes excessive. Id.
Regarding claim 6, Yamanaka as modified teaches that the driving unit is capable of moving a portion of the filter 37 up and down because the driving unit supplies a reverse flow of gas that could cause the filter to move down and then back up. See Staffin col. 3, ll. 16–36; MPEP 2114, subsection IV (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka, JP 2002-98794 A in view of Staffin et al., US 4,161,389 and in further view of Pittman, US 5,064,454.
Regarding claim 3, Yamanaka teaches a “stopper configured to prevent” the filter 37 from separation and coupled to an inner wall of the housing of the filter 37, which is the mechanism that attaches the filter 37 to the inner wall of the housing of the filter 37, as seen in Fig. 1.
Also, the “first direction” comprises a vertical direction and the “second pipe” extends in a horizontal direction, as claimed, because the “first pipe” extends vertically while the “second pipe” extends horizontally, as seen in the annotated figure above.
Yamanaka as modified differs from claim 3 because it is silent as to a pressure gauge configured to measure each internal pressure of the first and second pipes.
But, as noted, the filter cleaning system of Staffin measures the pressure drop across the filter to determine when it requires cleaning. With this in mind, Pittman teaches a filtration system comprising pressure gauges upstream and downstream of a filter unit to measure the pressure drop across the filter unit to determine when the pressure drop indicates that the filter unit requires cleaning. See Pittman col. 5, ll. 10–16. It would have been obvious for the device of Yamanaka modified by Staffin to include a pressure gauge configured to measure each internal pressure of the first and second pipes because using a pressure gauge upstream and downstream of a filter is a conventional technique of measuring pressure drop across a filter.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka, JP 2002-98794 A in view of Staffin et al., US 4,161,389 and in further view of d’Augereau, US 4,904,288.
Regarding claim 4, Yamanaka as modified teaches that the filter 37 is shaped like a plate and diagonally located in the connection unit such that a second side fo the filter faces the second pipe, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1.
Yamanaka differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to the material used to make the filter 37. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the filter 37 being a mesh or perforated filter.
But d’Augereau teaches a filter element for removing dust or other solid particles from air where the filter is a mesh filter because it comprises at least one layer of fabric woven in an egg-crate pattern. See d’Augereau abstract. The filter material is beneficial because it is reusable. Id.
It would have been obvious to use the filter material of d’Augereau as the material to make the filter 37 of Yamanaka to provide a reusable filter material.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka, JP 2002-98794 A in view of Staffin et al., US 4,161,389 and in further view of Elliott, US 9,023,135 B1.
Regarding claim 7, Yamanaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as explained above.
Yamanaka as modified differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to the driving unit comprising a propeller that applies air flow to the filter 37. But Staffin teaches that the cleaning mechanism can be a source of compressed gas. Also, Elliott teaches a filter cleaning mechanism that uses a blower (i.e., a device with a propeller) to apply a source of high pressure to a filter for cleaning. See Elliott col. 2, ll. 52–53. It would have been obvious to use the blower of Elliott as the filter cleaning mechanism of Yamanaka as modified because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predicable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka, JP 2002-98794 A in view of Staffin et al., US 4,161,389 and in further view of Synder et al., US 2008/0202077 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Yamanaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as explained above.
Yamanaka as modified differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the driving unit comprising a hammer configured to apply physical impact to the filter 37.
But Snyder teaches a filter cleaning mechanism for removing particulate matter from filter screens comprising a hammer that applies striking force to the screens. See Snyder [0022]–[0024]. It would have been obvious to use the hammer of Snyder as the filter cleaning mechanism of Yamanaka as modified (i.e., the hammer instead of a reverse flow of gas) because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predicable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka, JP 2002-98794 A in view of Staffin et al., US 4,161,389 and in further view of Blaik, US 975,391.
Regarding claim 9, Yamanaka as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as explained above.
Yamanaka as modified differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to the driving unit comprising a sliding member configured to slide along a surface being in contact with the filter 37.
But Blaik teaches a filter cleaning mechanism comprising brushes that are adapted to slide along the surface of filter screens for cleaning. See Blaik Figs. 3, 4, p. 1, ll. 41–52. It would have been obvious to use the brushes of Blaik as the filter cleaning mechanism of Yamanaka as modified (i.e., the brushes instead of a reverse flow of gas) because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predicable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-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, 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 An original, untranslated copy of Yamanaka is in the record as the 7-page Foreign Reference dated July 8, 2024. A translation is provided with this communication. The rejection cites to the original copy for drawings and the translation for text.
