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 § 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 9 is 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.
Regarding claim 9, “wherein the droplet supply unit sprays the droplets to an upstream side” is indefinite as “an upstream side” is not defined. For the purposes of this examination, the claim is interpreted to read “wherein the droplet supply unit sprays the droplets to an upstream side of the circulation passage.”
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.
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, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. CN 110035828 A in view of Kochiyama et al. US 20200023377 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Su et al. teaches a dust collection system represented by electric dust collection device 1 (Fig. 1, pg. 5). The electric dust collection device 1 comprises the following elements of the current invention:
A circulation passage through which a gas circulates represented by mixing part 13 where in “mixing part 13 may be the one wherein comprises a pipeline of flow path” (Fig. 2, pg. 6).
A droplet supply unit that supplies droplets to the circulation passage represented by electrostatic sprayer 20 where in “electrostatic sprayer 20 can be set on the upper end of the mixing part 13, for spraying charged droplets D to the mixing part 13” (Fig. 2-3, pg. 7).
A dust collection unit that is disposed in the circulation passage on a downstream side from the electrostatic flocculation unit and collects the droplets and the fine particles represented by dust collecting part 30 where in the “micro-droplet by droplet removal pollutant air can pass through the dust collecting part 30” (Fig. 6, pg. 12).
The dust collection unit is an electric dust collector that has a discharge electrode and a ground electrode, forms an electric field between the discharge electrode and the ground electrode, and causes the droplets and the fine particles to adhere to the ground electrode represented by “dust collecting part 30 may include charging port 31 and the adsorbent 32” that comprise a plurality of charging plates 321 and a plurality of ground plates 322 wherein charging plates 321 “may be alternately arranged with the plurality of ground plates 322 to form an electric field” (Fig. 14, pgs. 19, 20). The reference further states “the charging part 31 is charged to a positive polarity of the droplet can be adsorbed to the absorbing part 32 of the ground plate 322” (pg. 13).
Su et al. fails to teach an electrostatic flocculation unit disposed downstream from a supply position of the droplets.
Kochiyama et al. teaches an electrostatic flocculation unit represented by charging port 110 wherein “the charging part 110 is composed of a discharge electrode 111 and a correspondence electrode 113” positioned such that “a hemispherical electric field is formed” between the electrodes (Fig. 1, [0007]). The charging port 110 is beneficial to help charge dust in the air to a positive plurality so it can be removed from the air [0009]. The reference is silent as to the electrostatic flocculation unit causing the fine particles and the droplets to collide with each other however the limitation is functional only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Su et al. with the teachings of Kochiyama et al. to incorporate an electrostatic flocculation unit downstream of the supply position of the droplets to help charge the dust particles in the air as well.
Regarding claim 6, Su et al. teaches the ground electrode in the dust collection unit being plate shaped represented by “the plurality of ground plates 322 [have] a plate shape” (Fig. 14, pg. 20).
Regarding claim 7, the references are silent as to the ground electrode in the dust collection unit being rod shaped. However, the shape of the ground electrode is simply a design choice and would not impact the expected result of the device. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as changes in shapes, are valid rejections in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 9, Su et al. teaches the droplet supply unit spraying the droplets top an upside stream of the circulation passage represented by electrostatic sprayer 20 where in “electrostatic sprayer 20 can be set above the mixing part 13, for spraying charged droplets towards into the mixing portion 13” (Fig. 3, pg. 8). Therefore, the reference clearly teaches the droplets being sprayed on the upside stream of the circulation passage.
Claims 3, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. CN 110035828 A in view of Kochiyama et al. US 20200023377 A1 and in further view of Tepper et al. US 20100243885 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Su et al. in view of Kochiyama et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Su et al. in view of Kochiyama et al. does not teach the electrostatic flocculation unit’s electric field having a strength lower than that of the dust collection unit.
Tepper et al. teaches the electrostatic flocculation field having a strength lower than that of the dust collection unit represented by “the electric field magnitude in the ionization region (electrostatic flocculation unit) is independent of and typically less than the electric field in the precipitation region (dust collection unit)” (Fig. 1, [0034]). This is beneficial because “the difference in the electric field magnitude in the two regions is required for optimum performance” [0037]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Su et al. in view of Kochiyama et al. with the teachings of Tepper et al. to incorporate the electric field of the electrostatic flocculation unit having a strength lower than that of the dust collection unit to optimize performance.
Regarding claim 4, Tepper et al. teaches the electrostatic flocculation unit having an applied voltage smaller than that of the dust collection unit represented by “the charged particle electrical mobility is a function of the potential gradient and the particle collection efficiency can be increased by applying a separate voltage or potential (V3) to the collector plate with respect to the voltages used in the ionization region. For example, if V1 and V2 are positive and V1 is greater (more positive) than V2, the contaminants are ionized with a positive polarity and are located initially at a positive potential with respect to V2. The charged contaminants will be mobilized by the electric field or potential gradient and will be driven toward any surface at a lower potential. Therefore, the particle collection efficiency can be increased by applying a voltage (V3) to the collector plates which is at a lower potential than that of V2” [0041]. The reference clearly teaches dust collection unit having a lower applied voltage is beneficial to increase particle collection efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Kochiyama teaches the electrostatic flocculation unit having a discharge electrode and a ground electrode represented by “the charging part 110 is composed of a discharge electrode 111 and a correspondence electrode 113” (Fig. 1, [0007]). The reference is silent as to the distance between the electrodes being greater than that of the dust collection unit. However, it is well known in the art that the electric field strength between two electrodes depend on the distance between them and the voltage applied. Increasing the electrode distance naturally decreases the electric field strength. Therefore, the references inherently teach the distance between the electrodes in the electrostatic flocculation unit being greater than that of the dust collection unit as proven by the electrostatic flocculation field having a strength lower than that of the dust collection unit (see above).
Regarding claim 8, Su et al. in view of Kochiyama et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
The references are silent as to the flow rates of the droplets or the gas, however, they would inherently have a flow rate at a certain L/min and m3/min, respectively.
Su et al. in view of Kochiyama et al. does not teach the relationship between the flow rates of 0.1(rate of droplets / rate of gas) being less than or equal to 1.0.
Tepper et al. teaches the gas can have a flow rate represented by “at a measured air flow rate of 21.6 L/min” (Fig. 14, [0062]. The reference further teaches that the wicks supplying the droplets can have a liquid flow rate of 100 m3/min represented by “for example, 1000 wick aerosol sources injecting a 90/10 water/ethanol solution into an air stream with a volumetric flow rate of 100 cfm” [0068]. Inserting these figures into the ratio renders the equation true.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. CN 110035828 A in view of Kochiyama et al. US 20200023377 A1 and in further view of Kozuka et al. US 20190010568 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Su et al. in view of Kochiyama et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Su et al. further teaches the droplet spray unit having spray ports that spray droplets orthogonal to a flow direction of gas represented by electrostatic sprayer 20 wherein electrostatic sprayer comprises of nozzle part 23 wherein “the droplet[s] ejected through the nozzle part 23 can be non-destructively flows into the mixing section 13” (Fig. 4, pg. 11).
Su et al. in view of Kochiyama et al. does not teach the spray ports being arranged in a lattice pattern.
Kozuka et al. teaches the spray ports being arranged in a lattice pattern represented by “the plurality of air nozzles 6 may be arranged in a lattice pattern” [0099]. It is well known in the art that spray nozzles arranged in a lattice pattern are beneficial to provide uniform coverage, improving efficiency and reducing waste. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Su et al. in view of Kochiyama et al. with the teachings of Kozuka et al. to incorporate the spray ports being arranged in a lattice pattern to improve efficiency and reduce waste.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. CN 110035828 A in view of Kochiyama et al. US 20200023377 A1 and in further view of Kojima et al. US 20150375237 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Su et al. in view of Kochiyama et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Su et al. in view of Kochiyama et al. does not teach the droplet supply unit including a mesh shaped rectification mechanism on a downstream side of a spraying position where the droplets are sprayed.
Kojima et al. teaches the droplet supply unit including a mesh shaped rectification mechanism on a downstream side of a spraying position where the droplets are sprayed represented by planar member 6 where in “planar member 6 of a wire mesh or the like” and “has a plurality of holes 9a through which water is sprayed downward” (Fig. 8-9, [0052, 0074]). The planar member 6 is beneficial to “allow the collection electrode 3 to be washed equally” and “prevent occurrence of discharge between the water spraying unit 9 and the electric field forming electrode 23 or the discharge electrode 2” [0079]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Su et al. in view of Kochiyama et al. with the teachings of Kojima et al. to incorporate the droplet supply unit including a mesh shaped rectification mechanism downstream of the position where the droplets are sprayed to allow the electrode to be sprayed equally and to prevent discharge between the sprayer and the electric fields.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Su et al. CN 110035828 A
Regarding claim 12, Su et al. teaches a dust collection method represented by electric dust collection device 1 (Fig. 1, pg. 5). The electric dust collection device 1 comprises the following elements of the current claim:
Supplying droplets to a circulation passage through which a gas circulates represented by mixing part 13 where in “mixing part 13 may be the one wherein comprises a pipeline of flow path” and electrostatic sprayer 20 where in “electrostatic sprayer 20 can be set on the upper end of the mixing part 13, for spraying charged droplets D to the mixing part 13” (Fig. 2-3, pg. 6-7).
Forming an electric field in the circulation passage on a downstream side from a supply position of the droplets and charging the fine particles contained in the gas and the droplets and causing the fine particles and the droplets to collide with each other represented by dust collection part 30 wherein “dust collecting part 30 can be provided downstream of the mixing portion 13, and can form an electric field” (Fig. 2, pg. 7). The electric field would inherently charge the fine particles in the gas and the droplets as they pass through the field, as well as cause the fine particles and the droplets to collide with each other as they are all traveling through the mixing portion 13 together.
Collecting the droplets and fine particles in the circulation passage on a downstream side from a position where the fine particles and the droplets are charged represented by adsorbing part 32 and ground plate 322 where in “droplet[s] can be adsorbed to the absorbing part 32 of the ground plate 322” (pg. 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights