DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because minor informalities including hand-drawn lines, hand-written numericals, and certain features that have been manually crossed out or obscured by ink markings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “the downstream air panels extending from a concave face to a convex face, the concave face facing the air outlet end and the convex face facing the air intake end.” This appears to conflict with the figures and the last sentence in paragraph [0021] of the instant specification stating “The downstream air panels 46b may be installed such that the convex face 48 faces the air outlet end 16.”
Similarly, in claim 1 the recitation “the upstream air panels extending from a concave face to a convex face, the concave face facing the air intake end and the convex face facing the air outlet end.” This also appears to conflict with the figures and paragra [0021] of the instant specification that reads “The upstream air panels 46a may be installed such that the convex face 48 faces the air intake end 14.”
Based on the specification [0021] and Figures 1 and 2, the Examiner assumes the claim is meant to read as:
the upstream air panels extending from a convex face to a concave face, the convex face facing the air intake end and the concave face facing the air outlet end; and
a plurality of downstream air panels disposed within the water separation zone, the downstream air panels extending from a concave face to a convex face, the concave face facing the air intake end and the convex face facing the air outlet end.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maisey US Patent 10,760,797 in view of Neuschwander et al. US Patent 6,648,939.
Regarding claim 1, Maisey teaches a filtration system for purifying and conditioning intake air comprising (Figure 2A):
a) A housing (Figure 2A) comprising and air intake on the left side and an air outlet on the right side (column 9 lines 10-15);
b) An enclosed chamber within the housing that comprises a misting zone (considered as the area with the nozzles 403) and a water separation zone (considered as the zone with eliminator 402 (column 9 lines 24-26);
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
316
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Water spearation zone)][AltContent: textbox (misting zone)]
c) A fluid conduit (spray washer 401) disposed within the misting zone of the chamber (column 9 lines 15-16);
d) Nozzles 403 provided along the fluid conduit 401 (column 9 lines 19-20 and column 10 lines 10-15).
Maisey does not explicitly teach the upstream air panels extending from a convex face to a concave face, the convex face facing the air intake end and the concave face facing the air outlet end; and a plurality of downstream air panels disposed within the water separation zone, the downstream air panels extending from a concave face to a convex face, the concave face facing the air intake end and the convex face facing the air outlet end.
However, Neuschwander teaches an inertial separator 10 for removing debris-laden droplets from a gas stream. In housing 18 are first and second separation lamellae 13. The first group of separation lamellae has its convex side facing the intake 11 (hereinafter “convex lamellae”) and the second group of separation lamellae has its concave side facing the intake (hereinafter “concave lamellae”)(Figure 1, Figure 8, and column 5 lines 55-65). These lamellae are shaped to direct and guide incoming airflow and ‘bundle’ streams which allow impurities in the air to be efficiently propelled and gathered (column 2 lines 53-60 and Figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the eliminator in Maisey with the concave lamellae (where the concave side faces the intake) because the curvature of the lamellae provides maximum surface area allowing for efficient collecting of debris-laden mist (column 2 lines 61-67). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide concave lamellae in the water separation zone of Maisey to increase the collection efficiency of the debris-entrained mist.
Although Neuschwander teaches both the convex and concave lamellae in the water separation zone, Neuschwander teaches the convex lamellae placed upstream (convex side facing the intake) direct and guide the airflow towards the concave lamellae downstream (concave side facing the intake) where entrained droplets impinge, collect, and separate from the airflow (column 2 lines 61-63). Figures 6-7 shows a schematic diagram of the flow stream of the intake air through the separation lamellae indicating the convex lamellae guide the air to the concave lamellae.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to position the convex lamellae upstream in the misting zone of Maisey and the concave lamellae downstream within the water separation zone. Such an arrangement would predictably guide the debris-laden mist produced in the misting zone toward the concave collecting surfaces, thereby increasing impingement, coalescence, and removal of entrained liquid droplets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights