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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0017503, filed on 02/10/2022.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an electrode is connected to at least any one of the top or bottom plate and frames" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “frame” in this limitation in the claim.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh Chung-rok KR 200409727 Y1, February 24, 2006 (hereinafter “Oh”) in view of Nagai et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20170341085 A1, November 30, 2017 (hereinafter “Nagai”) in further view of Sato et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20180078950 A1, March 22, 2018 (hereinafter “Sato”).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses an air-to-air heat exchange apparatus including a heat exchange element formed from a plurality of metallic heat transfer plate (110) stacked in layers and arranged in a zig-zag configuration to form airflow passages between adjacent plates (fig. 5; page 3). Oh further discloses support members (140) positioned at the corners of the stacked heat transfer plates (110) to contact and support the plate assembly and maintain the airflow passages (fig. 5; page 3). However, Oh fails to disclose electrostatic dust collection, a charge generator, electrodes connected to the heat exchange structure, or utilization of the heat exchange structure as an electrostatic collection electrode.
Nagai discloses a solvent separation apparatus including a condensation region (30B), a dust collection region (40B), and an electrically conductive electrode (92) positioned between the regions. Nagai expressly discloses that electrode (92) simultaneously functions as (1) and electrode, (2) a partition separating adjacent flow regions, and (3) a heat exchange member providing heat exchange between adjacent regions (figs. 1-3, and 6; paragraphs 0042-0045). Nagai further discloses and electrically conductive electrode (92) having high thermal conductivity (paragraph 0044); the electrode being connected to a voltage-applying apparatus (43) (paragraph 0048); grounded counter-electrode (38, 48) (paragraph 0036); generation of electric field for electrostatic collection (paragraph 0049); first and second electrode surfaces exposed to adjacent airflow regions (paragraph 0044); and projections (923, 924) functioning as both heat-transfer structures and electrode structures (paragraph 0045). Hence Nagai discloses using a heat exchange member itself as an electrostatic electrode. However, Nagai fails to disclose a plurality of conductive plates electrically connected together and supported by conductive frame structures.
Sato discloses a discharge electrode (111, 112); a counter electrode comprising a plurality of conductor plates (121) arranged side-by-side in a plate stack configuration (figs. 1-2, paragraph 0102); a DC power supply (13) applying voltage between the discharge electrode and the conductive plate assembly (paragraph 0051); conductive plate members electrically functioning together as a common counter electrode (paragraphs 0043-0045); a conductive support/frame structure (114) physically supporting the conductive plate members (figs. 20, 24A-B; paragraph 0115); and conductive plate assemblies electrically connected through frame members and common power connections (figs. 23B; paragraphs 0120, 0129).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the stacked metallic heat transfer plate assembly of Oh to function as an electrostatic collection structure as taught by Nagai, thereby enabling simultaneous heat exchange and electrostatic contaminant removal. It would have been further obvious to electrically interconnect the stacked conductive plates and supporting frame members of Oh in the manner taught by Sato, including connecting the conductive plate assembly to the voltage source and utilizing conductive support members to provide electrical continuity among the conductive plates.
The motivation for combining Oh, Nagai, and Sato would have been to improve contaminant removal efficiency while maintaining heat exchange performance, reduce component count by utilizing existing conductive heat transfer structures as electrostatic collection electrode, and provide a reliable electrical connection among multiple conductive plate members through conductive supporting structures, all of which represent predictable uses of known prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights