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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 9th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 17th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 1 and 3-17 remain pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“power applying means configured to apply a bipolar alternating current” in claim 1 (Paragraph 0013).
“the apparatus is configured to perform an electrically charging step of electrically charging the dielectric powders” in claim 3 (Paragraph 0011-Paragraph 0012).
“apparatus is configured to control each of a magnitude of the voltage and a frequency of the alternating current (AC)” in claim 7 (Paragraph 0059).
“a power applying means configured to apply a bipolar alternating current” in claim 10 (Paragraph 0013).
“the apparatus is configured to perform an electrically charging step of electrically charging the dielectric powders” in claim 12 (Paragraph 0011-Paragraph 0012).
“apparatus is configured to control each of a magnitude of the voltage and a frequency of the alternating current (AC)” in claim 16 (Paragraph 0059).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benecke et al. (US 5454472) in view of Seiji (JP H0724361) and further in view of Whitlock (US 4874507). English transitions of Seiji (JP H0724361) have been provided herein.
Regarding claim 1, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) teaches an apparatus for sorting dielectric powders (Col. 1 lines 11-15), the apparatus comprising:
a vertically standing chamber (Fig. 1 see vertically standing #10);
a lower electrode (Fig. 1 #5) received in an inner space of the chamber (Fig. 1 #5 in inner space of #10);
an upper electrode (Fig. 1 #6) received in the inner space of the chamber (Fig. 1 #6 in inner space of #10) and spaced apart from the lower electrode (Fig. 1 #6 spaced apart from #5) and disposed at an upper end of the inner space of the chamber (Fig. 1 #6 at upper end of inner space of #10);
a first separation layer (Fig. 1 #3) positioned between the upper electrode and the lower electrode received in the inner space of the chamber (Fig. 1 #3 between #6 and #5 in inner space of #10), wherein the first separation layer only partially overlaps each of the upper electrode and the lower electrode vertically (Fig. 1 #3 partially overlaps #6 and #5 vertically); and
a power applying means (Col. 3 lines 9-11) configured to apply a bipolar alternating current (+V and -V) to the lower electrode and the upper electrode so that an electric field of the alternating current is generated between the lower electrode and the upper electrode (Col. 2 lines 15-26, Col. 3 lines 50-64), wherein the apparatus is further configured to control a frequency of the alternating current (Col. 3 lines 62-64) to secure sufficient travel of the dielectric powders for height-based sorting (Fig. 1 #2 separated by traveling to height lower than #1, Col. 5 lines 55-61),
wherein the dielectric powders (Fig. 1 #2) are positioned between the lower electrode and the first separation layer (Fig. 1 #2 positioned between #5 and #3), and
wherein the dielectric powders are charged dielectric powders (Col. 5 lines 55-58).
Benecke et al. (US 5454472) lacks teaching wherein the apparatus is further configured to control a frequency of the alternating current to secure sufficient upward travel of the dielectric powders for height-based sorting.
Whitlock (US 4874507) teaches an apparatus for sorting dielectric powders (Col. 2 lines 42-53), wherein the apparatus is further configured to control a frequency of the alternating current (Col. 10 line 64-Col. 11 line 6, Col. 13 lines 1-12) to secure sufficient upward travel of the dielectric powders for height-based sorting (Col. 7 lines 55-65).
Whitlock (US 4874507) explains that the arrangement removes the possibility that gravity will transport the particulate material under treatment between the electrodes and through the holes in the intermediate sheet (Col. 6 lines 15-24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benecke et al. (US 5454472) to include wherein the apparatus is further configured to control a frequency of the alternating current to secure sufficient upward travel of the dielectric powders for height-based sorting as taught by Whitlock (US 4874507) in order to prevent gravity from interfering with the sorting of powders.
Benecke et al. (US 5454472) lacks teaching a chamber filled with air.
Seiji (JP H0724361) teaches an apparatus for sorting dielectric powders (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-6), the apparatus comprising:
a chamber filled with air (Paragraph 0007 lines 9-12).
Seiji (JP H0724361) explains that in an oxygen rich atmosphere, ozone is generated in the low-temperature plasma region, making it possible to sterilize powder with ozone (Paragraph 0008 lines 6-7), which eliminates the need to wash the powders with water, therefore eliminating large equipment which uses large amounts of water which must be treated (Paragraph 0003 lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benecke et al. (US 5454472) to include a chamber filled with air as taught by Seiji (JP H0724361) in order to sterilize the powder with ozone, and eliminate the use of large amounts of liquid which must be treated after use.
Regarding claim 3, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) lacks teaching the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is configured to perform an electrically charging step of electrically charging the dielectric powders before the generation of the electric field of the alternating current.
Whitlock (US 4874507) teaches an apparatus for sorting dielectric powders (Col. 2 lines 42-53), wherein the apparatus is configured to perform an electrically charging step (Col. 2 lines 46-53) of electrically charging the dielectric powders before the generation of the electric field of the alternating current (Col. 2 lines 46-53, Col. 10 lines 64-Col. 11 line 6).
Whitlock (US 4874507) explains that a mixture of particles may be electrically charged such that different particles may be separated more efficiently (Col. 2 lines 46-53), and further explains that the sign of charge that a particle develops depends on its composition and the composition of the neighboring particles that it contacts (Col. 4 lines 65-68).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benecke et al. (US 5454472) to include wherein the apparatus is configured to perform an electrically charging step of electrically charging the dielectric powders before the generation of the electric field of the alternating current as taught by Whitlock (US 4874507) in order to separate particles more efficiently.
Regarding claim 4, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) lacks teaching the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 3, wherein the electrically charging step includes application of an electric field, irradiation of UV, or generation of plasma for inducing dielectrophoresis of the dielectric powders.
Whitlock (US 4874507) teaches an apparatus for sorting dielectric powders (Col. 2 lines 42-53), wherein the electrically charging step (Col. 2 lines 46-53) includes application of an electric field (Col. 6 lines 36-43), irradiation of UV, or generation of plasma for inducing dielectrophoresis of the dielectric powders (Col. 4 lines 34-44).
Whitlock (US 4874507) explains that a mixture of particles may be electrically charged such that different particles may be separated more efficiently (Col. 2 lines 46-53), and further explains that the sign of charge that a particle develops depends on its composition and the composition of the neighboring particles that it contacts (Col. 4 lines 65-68).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benecke et al. (US 5454472) to include wherein the electrically charging step includes application of an electric field, irradiation of UV, or generation of plasma for inducing dielectrophoresis of the dielectric powders as taught by Whitlock (US 4874507) in order to separate particles more efficiently.
Regarding claim 6, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) teaches the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 1, wherein the dielectric powders are sorted based on a sorting criterion including a diameter, a weight, a density, a permittivity (Col. 5 lines 55-58), or a surface area of a powder particle.
Regarding claim 7, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) teaches the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 6, wherein the apparatus is configured to control each of a magnitude of the voltage (Col. 5 lines 49-52) and a frequency of the alternating current (AC) (Col. 6 lines 51-53), based on the sorting criterion (Col. 6 lines 35-38, 51-53).
Regarding claim 8, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) teaches the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 1, wherein the apparatus further comprises a second separation layer (Fig. 1 #4) received in the inner space of the chamber (Fig. 1 #4 in inner space of #10) and positioned between the upper electrode and the lower electrode (Fig. 1 #4 positioned between #6 and #5),
wherein the second separation layer only partially overlaps each of the upper electrode and the lower electrode (Fig. 1 #4 partially overlaps #6 and #5),
wherein a vertical level of the second separation layer is different from a vertical level of the first separation layer (Fig. 1 vertical level of #4 is different than vertical level of #3).
Regarding claim 9, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) teaches the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 9, wherein the apparatus further comprises a dielectric substrate (Fig. 1 #11) stacked on an upper surface of the lower electrode (Fig. 1 #11 stacked on upper surface of #5).
Claims 10-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benecke et al. (US 5454472) in view of Seiji (JP H0724361) and further in view of Yoshiyama et al. (US 2004/0035758).
Regarding claim 10, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) teaches an apparatus for sorting dielectric powders (Col. 1 lines 11-15), the apparatus comprising:
a vertically standing chamber (Fig. 1 see vertically standing #10);
a lower electrode (Fig. 1 #5) received in an inner space of the chamber (Fig. 1 #5 in inner space of #10);
an upper electrode (Fig. 1 #6) received in the inner space of the chamber (Fig. 1 #6 in inner space of #10), wherein the upper electrode is positioned between an upper end of a main body of the chamber and the lower electrode (Fig. 1 #6 positioned between upper end of #10 and #5); and
a power applying means (Col. 3 lines 9-11) configured to apply a bipolar alternating current (+V and -V) to the lower electrode and the upper electrode so that an alternating electric field with periodically reversed directions is generated between the lower electrode and the upper electrode (Col. 2 lines 15-26, Col. 3 lines 50-64), wherein the apparatus is further configured to control a frequency of the alternating current to secure sufficient vertical oscillation of the dielectric powders for achieving height-based separation (Fig. 1 #2 separated by traveling to height lower than #1, Col. 5 lines 55-61),
wherein the dielectric powders (Fig. 1 #2) are positioned between the lower electrode and the upper electrode (Fig. 1 #2 positioned between #5 and #6).
Benecke et al. (US 5454472) lacks teaching a chamber filled with air.
Seiji (JP H0724361) teaches an apparatus for sorting dielectric powders (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-6), the apparatus comprising:
a chamber filled with air (Paragraph 0007 lines 9-12).
Seiji (JP H0724361) explains that in an oxygen rich atmosphere, ozone is generated in the low-temperature plasma region, making it possible to sterilize powder with ozone (Paragraph 0008 lines 6-7), which eliminates the need to wash the powders with water, therefore eliminating large equipment which uses large amounts of water which must be treated (Paragraph 0003 lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benecke et al. (US 5454472) to include a chamber filled with air as taught by Seiji (JP H0724361) in order to sterilize the powder with ozone, and eliminate the use of large amounts of liquid which must be treated after use.
Benecke et al. (US 5454472) lacks teaching wherein the upper electrode is positioned between an upper end of a main body of the chamber and the lower electrode so as to divide the inner space of the chamber into upper and lower portions, wherein the upper electrode only partially overlaps the lower electrode vertically.
Yoshiyama et al. (US 2004/0035758) teaches an apparatus for sorting dielectric powders (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-12), wherein the upper electrode (Fig. 3 #22) is positioned between an upper end of a main body of the chamber and the lower electrode (Fig. 3 #22 positioned between upper end of chamber in which #22 is located and #26) so as to divide the inner space of the chamber into upper and lower portions (Fig. 3 portion of chamber above #22 and portion below #22), wherein the upper electrode only partially overlaps the lower electrode vertically (Fig. 3 #22 only partially overlaps #26 vertically).
Yoshiyama et al. (US 2004/0035758) explains that the particles are adapted to pass through the openings of a mesh electrode, thereby allowing the particles to be separated above the electrode which reduces the time required for separation and improves the separating capability (Paragraph 0055 lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benecke et al. (US 5454472) to include wherein the upper electrode is positioned between an upper end of a main body of the chamber and the lower electrode so as to divide the inner space of the chamber into upper and lower portions, wherein the upper electrode only partially overlaps the lower electrode vertically as taught by Yoshiyama et al. (US 2004/0035758) in order to allow the particles to be separated above the electrode, therefore reducing the time required for separation and improving the separating capability of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 11, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) teaches the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 10, wherein the dielectric powders are charged dielectric powders (Col. 5 lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 15, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) teaches the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 10, wherein the dielectric powders are sorted based on a sorting criterion including a diameter, a weight, a density, a permittivity (Col. 5 lines 55-58), or a surface area of a powder particle.
Regarding claim 16, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) teaches the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 15, wherein the apparatus is configured to control each of a magnitude of the voltage (Col. 5 lines 49-52) and a frequency (Col. 6 lines 51-53) of the alternating current (AC), based on the sorting criterion (Col. 6 lines 35-38, 51-53).
Regarding claim 17, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) lacks teaching the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 10, wherein the apparatus further comprises a dielectric substrate spaced apart from the upper electrode and disposed on top of the upper electrode, wherein the dielectric substrate is disposed at an upper end of the inner space of the chamber.
Yoshiyama et al. (US 2004/0035758) teaches an apparatus for sorting dielectric powders (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-12), wherein the apparatus further comprises a dielectric substrate (Fig. 9 #52) spaced apart from the upper electrode (Figs. 9-10 top surface #52 spaced apart from #36) and disposed on top of the upper electrode (Figs. 9-10 #52 disposed on top of #36), wherein the dielectric substrate is disposed at an upper end of the inner space of the chamber (Fig. 9 #52 disposed at an upper end of inner space of #10).
Yoshiyama et al. (US 2004/0035758) explains that the particles are adapted to pass through the openings of a mesh electrode, thereby allowing the particles to be separated above the electrode which reduces the time required for separation and improves the separating capability (Paragraph 0055 lines 1-9). Yoshiyama et al. (US 2004/0035758) additionally explains that the particles may be recovered in an upper portion of the space above the separation zone (Paragraph 0069 lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benecke et al. (US 5454472) to include wherein the apparatus further comprises a dielectric substrate spaced apart from the upper electrode and disposed on top of the upper electrode, wherein the dielectric substrate is disposed at an upper end of the inner space of the chamber as taught by Yoshiyama et al. (US 2004/0035758) in order to allow the particles to be separated above the separation zone of the electrode, therefore reducing the time required for separation and improving the separating capability of the apparatus.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benecke et al. (US 5454472) in view of Seiji (JP H0724361), Yoshiyama et al. (US 2004/0035758) and further in view of Whitlock (US 4874507).
Regarding claim 12, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) lacks teaching the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 10, wherein the apparatus is configured to perform an electrically charging step of electrically charging the dielectric powders before the generation of the electric field of the alternating current.
Whitlock (US 4874507) teaches an apparatus for sorting dielectric powders (Col. 2 lines 42-53), wherein the apparatus is configured to perform an electrically charging step (Col. 2 lines 46-53) of electrically charging the dielectric powders before the generation of the electric field of the alternating current (Col. 2 lines 46-53, Col. 10 lines 64-Col. 11 line 6).
Whitlock (US 4874507) explains that a mixture of particles may be electrically charged such that different particles may be separated more efficiently (Col. 2 lines 46-53), and further explains that the sign of charge that a particle develops depends on its composition and the composition of the neighboring particles that it contacts (Col. 4 lines 65-68).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benecke et al. (US 5454472) to include wherein the apparatus is configured to perform an electrically charging step of electrically charging the dielectric powders before the generation of the electric field of the alternating current as taught by Whitlock (US 4874507) in order to separate particles more efficiently.
Regarding claim 13, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) lacks teaching the apparatus for sorting the dielectric powders of claim 12, wherein the electrically charging step includes application of an electric field, irradiation of UV, or generation of plasma for inducing dielectrophoresis of the dielectric powders.
Whitlock (US 4874507) teaches an apparatus for sorting dielectric powders (Col. 2 lines 42-53), wherein the electrically charging step (Col. 2 lines 46-53) includes application of an electric field (Col. 6 lines 36-43), irradiation of UV, or generation of plasma for inducing dielectrophoresis of the dielectric powders (Col. 4 lines 34-44).
Whitlock (US 4874507) explains that a mixture of particles may be electrically charged such that different particles may be separated more efficiently (Col. 2 lines 46-53), and further explains that the sign of charge that a particle develops depends on its composition and the composition of the neighboring particles that it contacts (Col. 4 lines 65-68).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benecke et al. (US 5454472) to include wherein the electrically charging step includes application of an electric field, irradiation of UV, or generation of plasma for inducing dielectrophoresis of the dielectric powders as taught by Whitlock (US 4874507) in order to separate particles more efficiently.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 recites “wherein the electrically charging step includes filling the chamber with a first gas and then applying a voltage so that plasma is generated in a dielectric powder layer, and then filling the chamber with a second gas, wherein the first gas has a discharge starting voltage lower than a discharge starting voltage of the second gas”, wherein this limitation, in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 3 was not seen in the searched prior art.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the electrically charging step includes filling the chamber with a first gas and then applying a voltage so that plasma is generated in a dielectric powder layer, and then filling the chamber with a second gas, wherein the first gas has a discharge starting voltage lower than a discharge starting voltage of the second gas”, wherein this limitation, in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 10 and 12 was not seen in the searched prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicants argument that none of the references, alone or in combination teach or suggest at least a bipolar alternating current wherein the apparatus is further configured to control a frequency of the alternating current to secure sufficient vertical movement of the dielectric powders for achieving height-based separation or sorting, the Examiner would like to clarify the following.
Benecke et al. (US 5454472) explains that apparatus provides a ‘guiding field’ which continuously forces the particles to move on a guide path by applying high-frequency alternating fields (Col. 1 lines 63-65), and provides an ‘additional field’ which forces a particle movement out of the guide path to be separated from the mixture (Col. 1 lines 66-Col. 2 line 4, Col. 2 lines 18-21). Benecke et al. (US 5454472) explains that the ‘additional field’ may be an inhomogeneous alternating field (Col. 2 lines 24-26), wherein inhomogeneous alternating electric fields are generated by means of two electrodes arranged in parallel relationship (Col. 3 lines 50-59). Finally, Benecke et al. (US 5454472) states that certain species of particles fed out (separated) from the mixture is selected via the frequency or intensity of the high-frequency alternating voltage applied between the plates (Col. 3 lines 62-64), and explains that the separation depends on whether a certain species of particle can or cannot leave its orbit (travel vertically above or below electrodes #3, 4), and the threshold which determines the separation may be flexibly selected on account of the relationship between the dielectric guiding forces and the deflecting components, which is easy to influence (Col. 5 lines 7-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/Examiner, Art Unit 3653