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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, drawn to Claims 1-9, 11, and 12, in the reply filed on 12 March 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Examiner’s Comments
The following comments are provided to enhance the clarity of the record. They may encompass situations in which meaning is clear, but there are suggested edits to the claims which may help enhance clarity. Or interpretations of the claims which are relevant to the 35 USC § 102 or 103 rejections included below.
Claim interpretation:
Applicant claims “wherein each electrode head is a carbon fiber brush, or fascicular wires,”. The term “fascicular is not commonly used in English outside of the medical context wherein it refers a “fascicle” or “small bundle or tract especially of nerve or muscle fibers.” (https://web.archive.org/web/20251002185041/https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fascicle) There is no particular definition of this term within the specification. For the purposes of claim language interpretation the term “fascicular” is interpreted as a structure with multiple wires which are bundled together. This is more commonly referred to as a “wire electrode” or “brush electrode”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5 and 6 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 5 recites the limitation "the electrode heads located on two sides of the same first accommodating groove" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be referring to Claim three “wherein both sides of each first accommodating groove are connected with the electrode heads” but that doesn’t actually establish that there is a second set of electrode heads on each accommodating groove. It establishes that both sides of the accommodating groove are connected to the (singular) set of electrode heads.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the electrode heads located on two sides of the same first accommodating groove" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to be referring to Claim three “wherein both sides of each first accommodating groove are connected with the electrode heads” but that doesn’t actually establish that there is a second set of electrode heads on each accommodating groove. It establishes that both sides of the accommodating groove are connected to the (singular) set of electrode heads.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (CN 216080173 U) in view of Yuge et al. (US 2017/0341087 A1)
With regards to Claim 1 You teaches:
An insulating frame, part 2, which reads on applicant's claimed frame body. A power receiving groove or electrical connection slot, part 111, which reads on applicant's claimed at least one first accommodating groove arranged inside the frame body. An electrical conductor which reads on applicant's claimed electrode body arranged inside the at least one first accommodating groove and arranged along a length direction of the at least one first accommodating groove. A plurality of holes, part 31, through which a plurality of charge tips, parts 5, penetrate through the wall of the insulating frame (See You Fig. 4) and are connected to the electrical conductor within the groove. The plurality of charge tips, parts 5, are arranged along the electrode body at intervals such that a discharging area covers a whole of an interior of the frame body, part 1, arranged facing the holes in the metal plate, part 3. (See You Fig. 2) The charge tips, parts 5, are shown as needle tip style electrode heads and are arranged in a direction that is 0 degrees to a plane in which the frame body is located. The conductive body is taught by You as “a printed circuit board with a conductive coating, for connecting the high voltage, printed circuit board with a circular through hole, conductive coating connected with the charge tip through the through hole.” Among other options. The “conductive coating connected with the charge tip through the through hole” reads on applicant’s claimed connector configured to connect the plurality of electrode heads and the electrode body. You teaches “Specifically, the electric groove 111 is provided with a conductive body is encapsulated in the electric groove 111 of the insulating sealing glue layer, when the installation, the conductor is embedded in the electric groove 111, and then the electric groove 111 is sealed into the insulating sealing glue layer, the conductor is fixed in the electric groove 111, at the same time, it also has the insulation, sealing effect, avoids the electric conductor contact discharge condition of other objects, the safety is better.” Which reads on applicant's claimed electrode body and connector are both sealed in the at least one first accommodating groove. (See You pg. 3 lines 21-25, 40-56, pg. 4 lines 15-31, 48-56)
You does not explicitly teach:
The charge tips as carbon fiber brush.
Yuge teaches:
A brush shape formed by a carbon wire which reads on applicant's claimed carbon fiber brush electrode head can be used instead of a tooth or needle high voltage electrode. (See Yuge Paragraph 296)
You discloses the claimed invention except for the electrodes are needle shaped rather than carbon fiber brush. Yuge teaches that it is known to utilize carbon fiber brush ionizers in place of electrode needles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the carbon fiber brush electrodes in place of You’s needle type electrodes as taught in Yuge as equivalent materials for their use in the electrostatic precipitator art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to charge particles would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The arrangement direction of You would also apply to brush electrodes as it has an arrangement direction of being towards the holes, parts 31, of You and that would still be the clear design intent. See MPEP 2144.06
With regards to Claim 2 You further teaches:
The electrical connection slot is arranged in a serpentine manner which reads on applicant's claimed plurality of first accommodating grooves arranged at intervals and a plurality of electrode bodies located in different first accommodating groove are sequentially connected in an end to end manner. (See You Fig. 1 and 2 and Pg. 4 lines 15-24)
The serpentine manner of the electrical connection slot seen in Fig. 1 is considered to fully read on the claimed invention as each of the vertical parts of the groove reads on plurality of accommodating grooves arranged at intervals and the horizontal portions are considered to read on the sequential connections in an end to end manner.
In the alternative, You discloses the claimed invention except for the electrical connection slots of the three rows seen in Fig. 2 are integrally constructed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to separate these slots into separate parts, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V-C)
With regards to Claims 3 You further teaches:
Both sides of each U-shaped electrical connection slot, part 111, are connected with the charge tips, parts 5. (See You Fig. 1-4)
The electrodes are arranged in a regular pattern with equal space between electrodes on the same side of a same first electrical connection slot, part 111, and electrodes that are adjacent and on another electrical connection slot portion. Which reads on applicant's claimed distance between two adjacent electrode heads on a same side of a same first accommodating groove is equal to a distance between two adjacent first accommodating grooves. (See You Fig. 1)
With regards to Claims 4 You further teaches:
The charge tips, parts 5, are shown as needle tip style electrode heads and are arranged in a direction that is 0 degrees to a plane in which the frame body is located. (See You Fig. 2 and 4)
With regards to Claims 5 and 6:
You does not teach:
The accommodating grooves have two electrode heads located on two sides of the same first accommodating groove.
Yuge teaches:
An electrostatic precipitator can have a variety of types of arrangements of the electrodes within the plane of the charging portion of the precipitator. Fig. 12 b demonstrates a precipitator with electrodes on either side of a groove with an electrical connector within the groove which has a staggered arrangement of electrode head pairs. The electrode pairs are arranged at a 0 degree angle of the plane along which the frame body, part 14, is located. (See Yuge Fig. 12A-12C and Paragraphs 264-267)
Matrix and staggered formations of electrodes as equivalents. (See Fig. 15A and 15B and Paragraphs 282-289)
Multiple rows of single sided electrodes (See Fig. 42A and Paragraphs 564-569 and Fig. 48)
You discloses the claimed invention except for the electrodes are only arranged on one side of the channels. Yuge teaches that it is known to utilize one or double sided electrode rows. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the electrodes of You as taught by Yuge to include electrodes on both sides of the channels, since Yuge states at (? column line#) that such a modification would (?). See MPEP 2144
You discloses the claimed invention except that You uses electrodes that are only arranged on one side of the channels instead of on both sides as claimed by applicant. Yuge shows that double sided electrodes is an equivalent structure to single sided electrodes known in the art as taught by Yuge Fig. 12A-12C and Fig. 42A and 48. Therefore, because these two styles of electrode arrangements were art-recognized- equivalents at the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute double sided electrodes in place of single sided electrodes as taught by Yuge in the electrode arrangement of You. See MPEP 2144.06
With regards to Claims 7 You further teaches:
A high-voltage direct current is applied to the conductor and ionizes the charging tips. (See You pg. 3 lines 52-56) The high voltage power supply may be built-in or external.
With regards to Claims 8 You further teaches:
The thru channels, unnumbered See Fig. 4 surrounding the charge tip and providing a connection to the interior of the channel, which reads on applicant's claimed second accommodating grooves are configured to hold the plurality of charge tips, parts 5, which reads on applicant's claimed electrode heads are fixedly arranged on an outer side wall of the at least first accommodating groove and the plurality of holes, parts 31, one to one correspond to the plurality of electrode heads. (See You Fig. 1, 2, and 4 and pg. 3 liens 43-)
In the alternative, The electrical connection groove has a first, second, and third row which reads on applicant's claimed at least one first accommodating groove and plurality of second accommodating grooves. They are all configured to hold a plurality of electrode heads in a one to one correspondence as there are three electrode heads per row of electrical connection groove which reads on applicant's claimed one to one correspondence to the plurality of electrode heads. The second and third rows are attached to an outer side of the wall of the at least one first accommodating groove by the serpentine connecting horizontal portions. (See You Fig. 1, 2, and 4)
With regards to Claims 9 You further teaches:
The insulating frame, part 1, is composed of a plurality of crisscrossing insulating rods, part 11, within which are the at least one first accommodating grooves, parts 111. The crisscrossing insulating rods, parts 11, are detachably connected with the interior of the insulating frame, part 2, which reads on applicant's claimed interior of the frame body and each end of the at least one first accommodating groove is provided with a notch, including the notched ends and the connections to the connecting holes, parts 32, matching the frame body and when the rods, parts 11, are deposited inside of the insulating frame it does not protrude from an outer surface of the frame body. (See You pg. 4 lines 10-24 and 37-41 and Fig. 1 and 2)
With regards to Claims 11 You further teaches:
The insulating frame, part 1, which reads on applicant's claimed a first frame has an insulating frame, part 2, surrounding it which reads on applicant's claimed second frame and the first frame and second frame are complementary structure that can be spliced or separated. (See You Fig. 1 and 2 and pg. 3 lines 40-44 and pg. 4 lines 10-24)
With regards to Claims 12 You further teaches:
A metal plate, part 3, arranged on one side of the insulating frame, part 1, provided with a discharging conductor which is provided with a plurality of holes, parts 31, which reads on applicant's claimed discharging conductive holes matching the plurality of electrode heads. (See You Fig. 1-4 and Pg 3 line 46-56, Pg. 4 lines 4-6, 33-41)
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIT E ANBACHT whose telephone number is (571)272-9876. The examiner can normally be reached on M, T, R, F 11 am - 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9876.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BRIT E. ANBACHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
BRIT E. ANBACHT
Examiner
Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights