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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected because “the plurality of electrode films” and “said electrode films” “the electrode films” are interchangeably used, please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion. “said slots” and “series of slots” are objected due to inconsistency.
Applicant’s dependent claims have the same inconsistency issue, please make sure all terms are consistently used before resubmitting.
Claim 10 is objected because there is a typo in the term “forma”.
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.
Claims 1–22 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.
Claim 1 is rejected because the limitation of “the direction of airflow” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2–22 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected because the limitation of “the spacing” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is rejected because it is unclear if the limitation after “optionally” is meant to further limit.
Claims 11–12 are objected because it is unclear what is “other such like components or structural elements” and “other like materials”.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it depends on claim 11. Claim 13 is also indefinite because it is unclear what the term “each slot” refers to, since claim 13 ultimately depends on claim 1, and claim 1 recites a different “slot” structure.
Claim 20 is rejected because the term “the end of the filter” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 16 and 22 are rejected because of the term “preferably”. It is unclear if the limitation after “preferably” meant to further limit.
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.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 6, 8–15, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jeon et al., CN 106944260 A (“Jeon”)1 in view of Loreth et al., US 6,117,216 A (“Loreth”).
Regarding claim 1:
Jeon discloses that a filter for an electrostatic precipitator (Jeon’s dust collecting device 1, Jeon Fig. 1, [0096]), said filter comprising:
a plurality of spaced-apart, electrode films (Jeon’s collecting part 540, comprising conductive layers 551a, which reads on the claimed “electrode films”, Jeon Fig. 4) having electrical conductivity (Jeon’s conductive layer 551a, have electrical conductivity, Jeon Fig. 6, [0118]), arranged to be alternately powered at high and low electrical potentials (Jeon discloses its electrode films 551a, 551b include first film of high potential 541 and low potential film 542, Jeon Figs. 6–7, [0120]),
each of said electrode films having a leading edge, a trailing edge (as shown in Jeon Figs. 6–7, leading and trailing edges are in the Z direction) and two opposing side edges (proximate label 555 and 545 in Figs. 6ף of Jeon) therebetween that extend in the direction of airflow (air flow direction is shown in Fig. 1, which is in line with Z direction, Jeon Fig. 1); and
first and second pluralities of spaced-apart, rigid isolation members (Jeon’s space holding portion 560, Jeon Fig. 12, [0187]),
wherein each isolation member is bonded, via a substantially continuous surface thereof (Jeon’s first and second horizontal rod 567a-1 and 567a-2 contacts first film 541 and second film 542, Jeon Fig. 25, Jeon Fig. 25, [0302]–[0303]), to at least some of said leading or trailing edges (as shown in Fig. 25 of Jeon), thereby fixing the electrode films in the required spaced-apart arrangement thereof (as shown in Fig. 25 of Jeon),
wherein a series of slots is provided in each of the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of electrode films (as best shown in Jeon’s Figs. 6–7), each slot defining a recessed edge portion (as best shown in Jeon’s Figs. 6–7), and
wherein the first and second pluralities of isolation members are bonded to said recessed edge portions of, and at least partially accommodated by, said slots (as best shown in Figs. 22 and 25).
Jeon does not explicitly disclose the space holding portion 560 are bonded to each of the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of electrode films respectively.
In the analogous art of electrode plate dust collectors, Loreth discloses a plurality of parallel arranged electrode elements arranged alternatively and connected to different terminals of high voltages, Loreth Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 41–54. Loreth discloses that there is nothing against in providing the spacer structure, and that its spacer D could be provided between the electrodes with the aid of special case compounds, such as glue or the like, Loreth Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 61–65. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Jeon’s space holding portion 560 to be bonded to each of the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of electrode films respectively via glue to ensure a strengthen connection. Additionally, Loreth discloses glue is suitable for bonding a spacer to the electrode. And the published disclosure discloses that adhesive is a suitable bonding means, Loreth [0081].
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Jeon discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the all-electrode films are metallic, all electrode films are non-metal, or some electrode films are metallic and some are non-metal (Jeon discloses its part 551a, 551b is formed from carbon material, which is non-metal, Jeon [0193]).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Jeon discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 1, wherein each electrode film has a thickness of equal to or less than 0.5 mm (Jeon discloses its electrode film 551a. 551b has a thickness of 10–100 microns, falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9:
While modified Jeon does not explicitly disclose that the filter as claimed in claim 1, wherein each electrode film (551a or 551b of Jeon) may have a depth (the dimension in the direction of airflow, which is Jeon’s width direction) of equal to or less than 50 mm, Jeon discloses its electrode film could be strip shaped as shown in Fig. 6, and such strip could have a length of 200 to 250 mm, and since Jeon’s strip in Fig. 6 has a large length/width ration, i.e., the width shown in Jeon’s Fig. 6 is less than a quarter of the length, and it is therefore understood that Jeon’s strip of Fig. 6 has a width of less than 200/4=50 mm, and therefore falls within the claimed range.
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed depth range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Jeon discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 6, wherein:
(a) one or more of the non-metal electrode films is made from a polymeric material having electrically conductive particles therein and/or thereon (Jeon discloses a conductive paste, Jeon[0036], Jeon also discloses the conductive paste is prepared by mixing conductive powder such as carbon black powder with macromolecule resin, such as a polymer, Jeon [0278]–[0282]); and/or
(b) one or more of the non-metal electrode films is made from a polymeric material provided with a coating, ink or paint on at least a portion of one or both of its faces, optionally wherein:
(i) the coating, ink or paint is electrically conductive or semi-conductive, and/or
(ii) the coating, ink or paint is recessed from each of the leading and trailing edges of the one or more non-metal electrode films so as to form gaps between each of said edges and the coating, ink or paint.
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Jeon discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 1, wherein some or all the isolation members of one or both of the first and second pluralities thereof are: (i) rods, bars, batons, sticks, or other such like components or structural elements (Jeon’s space holding portion 560 has a rod structure 568, Jeon Fig. 27, [0292]) or (ii) lines of rigid adhesive, resin or other like material.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Jeon discloses that The filter as claimed in claim 11, wherein some or all the isolation members of one or both of the first and second pluralities thereof are rods, bars, batons, sticks, or other such like components or structural elements (Jeon’s space holding portion 560 has a rod structure 568, Jeon Fig. 27, [0292]), and the isolation members of one or both of the first and second pluralities thereof may be held in a spaced-apart, parallel relationship by upper and/or lower isolation frame members (by Jeon’s end support part 567a, Fig. 27, [0301]), thereby forming a leading edge isolation frame and/or a trailing edge isolation frame (as shown in Jeon Fig. 27 and Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Jeon discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 12, wherein a series of edge slots is provided in the upper and/or lower isolation frame members (Jeon’s Fig. 28 shows its upper/lower isolation frame members 567a comprising a plurality of edge slots that accommodates Jeon’s isolation frame member 568, Jeon Fig. 28, [0292]), each slot defining a recessed frame portion (as shown in Jeon Fig. 28, each edge slot is recessed), and wherein the isolation members are positioned between said slots (see Jeon Fig. 28).
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Jeon discloses that The filter as claimed in claim 1, wherein first and second pairs of rigid support plates (Jeon’s first and second end support part 567b-1 and 567b-2, Jeon Fig. 28, [0302] and [0303]) are provided adjacent the first and last electrode films in the plurality thereof, each plate in the first pair of plates being outermost (as shown in Jeon Fig. 28), and wherein alternate isolation members in each of the first and second pluralities thereof are bonded (a) to the first pair of rigid support plates and (b) to the second pair of rigid support plates respectively (as clearly shown in Jeon Fig. 25).
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Jeon discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 14, wherein an electrode film (541 of Jeon) is provided on the innermost surface of each plate (Jeon’s 567b-1 or 567b-2, Jeon Fig. 25, [0302) in the second pair of rigid plates.
Regarding claim 18:
Modified Jeon discloses the filter as claimed in claim 1, having first and second ends which extend parallel to the plurality of electrode films, wherein a shield is provided at one of said ends of the filter, said shield extending across end portions of the isolation members of the first plurality thereof on the upstream face of the filter (see annotated Fig. 25 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
789
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21:
Modified Jeon discloses that an electrostatic precipitator (Jeon’s dust collecting device as shown in Figs. 1 and 8) comprising a filter as claimed in claim 1.
Claims 2–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jeon in view of Loreth as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jari et al., US 2020/0246808 A1 (“Jari”).
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Jeon does not disclose that the filter as claimed in claim 1, wherein a series of notches is provided in each of the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of electrode films, and wherein the first and second pluralities of isolation members are bonded to said edges between said notches.
In the analogous art of electrostatic filters, Jari discloses a series of notches (Jari’s openings 24, Jari Fig. 2a, [0028]) is provided in each of the leading and trailing edges of the plurality of electrode films (Jari’s plates 22, 23, Jari Fig. 2, [0028]), and wherein the first and second pluralities of isolation members (Jari’s racks 21, 27, Jari Fig. 2, [0028]) are bonded to said edges between said notches (as shown in Jari Fig. 2). Jari discloses that due to such opening, it is less likely that unintentional coupling happens between the overlapping plates being in different potential even if the moisture accumulates or plates get dircty, Jari [0024]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Jari’s opening in Jeon for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Jeon discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 2, wherein: (i) the notches in the leading edge are offset from the notches in the trailing edge, or (ii) the notches in the leading edge are directly opposite to the notches in the trailing edge (as shown in Jari Fig. 2, because Jari’s openings are aligned with Jari’s rigid isolation member 21, and 27, and isolation members of Jari are directly opposite to each other in the leading and trailing edge).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Jeon discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 3, wherein the notches in the leading edge are directly opposite to the notches in the trailing edge (this limitation is addressed in claim 3) and adjacent electrode films are offset from each other such that the notches in every other electrode film are aligned with one another along each of the leading and trailing edges (as shown in Jari Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Jeon discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 2, wherein each slot in the series of slots is provided adjacent to at least one notch in the series of notches (similar to that shown in Jari Fig. 2, where Jari’s openings are adjacent to Jari’s connection structure 25 that connects Jari’s plate 22, 23 and racks 21, 27, which indicating the position of notch in modified Jeon, Jari Fig. 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jeon in view of Loreth as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Marra et al., US 6,251,171 B1 (“Marra”).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Jeon does not disclose that the filter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the spacing between adjacent electrode films is equal to or less than 2 mm.
In the analogous art of electrode plate dust filters, Marra discloses a plurality of parallel spaced electrode plates 38 and 40 alternatively arranged, Marra Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 24–36. Additionally, Marra discloses the spacing between adjacent plates may be approximately 2 mm, Marra Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 34–36. Marra discloses its filters has an improved dust filtering efficiency, Marra Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 54–59. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Jeon’s spacing between adjacent electrode films to be approximately 2 mm as disclosed by Marra for an improved efficiency. Such range overlaps with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16–17, 19–20 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Jeon does not disclose that the filter as claimed in claim 14 wherein tie isolation members are provided, preferably at intervals across the first and second pluralities of isolation members, each bonded to both the first and second pairs of rigid support plates.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Jeon for the claimed ‘tie isolation members” because none of the prior art teaches or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Claim 17 would be allowable because it depends on claim 16.
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Jeon does not disclose that the filter as claimed in claim 18, wherein the shield extends from said end portions of the isolation members of the first plurality thereof on the upstream face of the filter to corresponding end portions of the isolation members of the second plurality thereof on the downstream face of the filter.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Jeon for such limitation because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Claim 20 would be allowable because it depends on claim 19.
Regarding claim 22:
Modified Jeon does not disclose that the filter as claimed in claim 15 wherein tie isolation members are provided, preferably at intervals across the first and second pluralities of isolation members, each bonded to both the first and second pairs of rigid support plates.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Jeon for the claimed ‘tie isolation members” because none of the prior art teaches or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 15 of prior U.S. Patent No. US 12,083,538 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 Michener can be reached on (571) 270-7872424. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Jeon’s original document and machine translation is the 103-page FOR dated Jul. 31, 2024. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the figure.
Prosecution Insights