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
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 12 and 13, the word “cycles” (with respect to the injection cycle) is indefinite because it is unclear what this refers to. It is suggested that “cycles” be changed to “intervals between injections,” and “injection cycle” be changed to “interval between injections” as described in the specification.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5 and 7-11, these claims are drawn only to process limitations and it is unclear whether or not they are intended to structurally limit the claimed system. If these are intended to limit the structure, this should be clarified by using “configured to” or “adapted to” language.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “processed.” The specification gives examples but also uses the phrase “such as” which makes the claim indefinite because the specification must be used here to define processed since it can mean anything.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it depends from claim 2 but recites “a temperature sensor,” “a main body,” a humidity sensor,” “and a pulsing control portion,” however all of these are recited in claim 1 so it is unclear of they are referring to those or if they are additional limitations. It is assumed they are the same, so each “a” should be changed to “the.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the lower filter bag" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, claim 12 should be amended to depend from claim 4 instead of claim 2, which is assumed for examination. If this is done, “a first control valve” and “a second control valve” should also be amended to change “a” to “the.”
Claims 4, 6, 14 and 15 are rejected for depending from an indefinite parent claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 contains multiple sentences and must be reworded as a single sentence with one period at the end. In line 5 of claim 13, it appears that “above” should be changed to “below.” This change is not required if the examiner is in error. In line 3 of claim 15, it appears that “dust” should be inserted after “discharging.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boatwright (US 2014/0174476 A1).
Boatwright ‘476 teaches a filter system comprising a filter housing (90), rows of filter bags (108) inside the housing, a pulsing unit (110) that shoots bursts of air into the bags for cleaning, sensors (129) in the housing that can measure any combination of pressure, temperature and humidity, and a controller (133) that can adjust the speed that the pulsing unit moves over the bags (cycle interval), or the duration of cleaning based on the sensors (see figures, abstract, paragraphs 12, 15, 38, 39, 49-51).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boatwright ‘476.
Boatwright ‘476 discloses all of the limitations of the claims except that the cycle interval or duration increased or decreased based on the sensed temperature or humidity reaching set thresholds, but discloses that “the filter bags may need to be cleaned more frequently during certain humidity or temperature conditions” relating to the sensed conditions and pulse unit control. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that higher humidity or lower temperatures are the conditions being referred to, which would cause increased caking of the filter because warm or dry conditions would allow captured dust to more easily fall off the of the filter into the collection area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The allowability of claims 12 to 15 assumes that claim 12 depends from claim 4 (see paragraph 8 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose filter bag and filter cleaning arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm.
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.
/FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
fl
Prosecution Insights