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
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burmester et al. (WO2021/028691) in view of Gensch et al. (WO2021/165072) and Rosencrants (US1789692).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 10-11, Burmester teaches a method of spraying a dry powder into a filter medium (abstract) with inlet and outlet faces using a spray nozzle located up to 80cm from the inlet face of the medium wherein the method comprises wherein the medium is held by a holder in communication with a chamber on the inlet side and a vacuum source on the outlet side and flowing gas through the medium wherein the vacuum would necessarily cause a pressure gradient across the filter medium wherein powder is sprayed into a gas flow flowing from the chamber to the vacuum source. Burmester fails to teach the use of a ring blade fan to blow powder on the surface of the medium into the medium. However, Gensch acknowledges that during the process of coating filters with dry powder, a known problem is that powder can build on the surface of the filter and create deposits that cause back pressure issues (pg. 2,lines 8-14). Gensch teaches that this can be resolved through the use of an ultrasonic device (abstract) in conjunction with the provision of an air stream (claim 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the ultrasonic/air stream treatment of Gensch in the invention of Burmester in order to prevent or reduce the accumulation of powder on the surface of filters so as to prevent issues such as backflow pressure. The teachings of Burmester in view of Gensch are as shown above. Burmester in view of Gensch fails to teach wherein the air stream is provided by a ring air blade. However, Rosencrants teaches that it is known to provide streams of air capable of moving pulverized material using a ring blade fan (claim 7)(Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ring blade fan of Rosencrants for the air stream provision means of Burmester in view of Gensch as simple substitution of one known air stream provision means capable of moving particulate-type material for another wherein the results of said substitution would have been predictable based upon the collective teachings of Burmeister, Gensch and Rosencrants. Further it is noted that the ring blade of Rosencrants is fed by a gas inlet (any of 6, 5, 13 or 12 in Fig. 1) and functions as presented in Rosencrants to direct air and powder at a downward angle and if included in the invention of Burmester in view of Gensch would continue to direct air at a downward angle.
Regarding claims 2-3, the teachings of Burmester in view of Gensch and Rosencrants are as shown above. Burmester in view of Gensch and Rosencrants is silent as to when the ultrasonic treatment is applied relative to the dispensing of powder although reasonably some accumulated powder should be present for the process to be of value. It is noted however, that accumulated powder would be present both during the powder deposition stages and after they were completed. As such, given a limited number of possibilities (i.e., performing the ultrasonic treatment during or after the powder deposition process) it would have been “obvious to try” for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attempt either process wherein either solution would seemingly provide predictable results and be expected to provide the benefit desired.
Regarding claim 5, the fan blades of Rosencrants would emit a substantially 360 degree flow of air that is guided by the housing of the device to flow in a linear manner as would be done in Burmester as relates to a flow of air through the filter medium.
Regarding claims 6-7, one positioning the air stream provision means of Gensch would reasonably provide such means in the same vicinity and distance of the as the ultrasound means which reads upon the claimed range (see description of the sonotrode emitting surface center point). Further the Courts have long held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 8, the pressures taught as suitable by Gensch read upon the claimed range of pressure and would reasonably be implicit of pressure limits in general (see description of sound pressure levels of the ultrasound devices of Gensch).
Regarding claims 9, the teachings of Burmester in view of Gensch and Rosencrants are as shown above. Burmester in view of Gensch and Rosencrants is silent as to the flow rate of air employed. However, Gensch specifically teaches that a optimization of flow velocity of powder is required in order to obtain optimized powder deposition (see description of flow velocities in Gensch) levels, wherein those of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize flow velocity as direct controller of flow rate. Therefore, in the absence of criticality of the specific flow rate ranges of the current claims it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the flow velocity (and therefore the flow rate) of Burmester in view of Gensch and Rosencrants in order to optimize the amount of powder deposited in the process of Burmester in view of Gensch and Rosencrants. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Response to Arguments
The applicant primarily argues that in the invention of Rosencrants into cannot be properly said that the “air channel/ conduit 12 are capable of supplying gas to blades/vanes 18”. This seems to be entirely inaccurate. The invention of Rosencrants comprises a “main air duct” 6 connected to a feed tube 5 supplied with a valve 9 “to control the supply of air” wherein a portion of the air is direction by a pipe connection 13 to an air channel or conduit 12 which provides air to the ring blade. It is further noted that in claim 1 is stated that the cylindrical chamber 11 has an “air inlet” and an “air outlet”. As such, the device of Rosencrants is certainly supplied by air though and inlet and in leaves through an outlet. Further it is noted that the device of Rosencrants is stated as being a Venturi-type apparatus (claim 4) wherein it is recognized that the implies that the movement of air through the device through the channels aids in pulling the pulverized fuel (and presumably dust) through the apparatus, wherein the vanes provided absolutely function to guide air and pulverized fuel out of the outlet of the device, said air being previously presented to the ring blade via the air inlet. Further it is clear that air is directed by the vanes of Rosencrants around the ring blade apparatus to a lower pressure point near the exit of the ring blade mechanism down the feed chute 7. As such, the vanes of Rosencrants absolutely do guide air around the device of Rosencrants.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights