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 .
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.
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.
Claims 12-14 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.
As regarding claims 12-14, the word "substantially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the word "substantially" is a required by the Applicant as part of the claimed invention or not.
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.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundvik et al (US 20150143783) in view of Paramore (US 20170001135).
Regarding to claims 1-3, Sundvik et al disclose an air filter (104 in Fig. 2) for cleaning air (110) within interior building spaces, comprising a V-bank filter element (104) for removing contaminants from an airstream (110), a top member (108) and a bottom member (106) for supporting the V-bank filter element (104), a frame (112) for coupling with the top member (108) and the bottom member (106), and one or more openings disposed in the frame (112) for allowing the airstream (110) to enter the V-bank filter element (104). By making the filter element (104) into a V-bank shape, it is well-known in the art of filtration to provide more surface area than traditional filters such as panel or flat filters, reduce the overall pressure drop in a HVAC system, and extend the usable life of downstream filters. Sundvik et al also show in Figure 2 that the frame (112) is configured to orient the air filter (104) within a HVAC system such that the airstream (110) is directed through the V-bank filter element (104). Sundvik describes a replaceable filter ([0028]); however, claims 1-3 differ from the disclosure of Sundvik et al in that the filter assembly is reusable or reusable filter element.
Paramore teaches the filter assembly is reusable or reusable filter element ([0015] and [0018]). Both Sundvik and Paramore are directed to air filter assembly using a pleated filter element. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the filter frame of Sundvik et al to be a reusable frame as taught by Paramore since it is well-known in the art that reusable filter would be efficient to reduce vehicle maintenance costs and improve serviceability.
Regarding to claim 4, Sundvik et al show the frame (112 in Fig. 2) including a lip (152) and has a shape and size suitable for supporting the air filter (104) within the HVAC system.
Regarding to claims 5-7, Sundvik et al disclose the V-bank filter element (104) comprising two or more filter panels (172, 174, 176, 178 in Fig. 2) that are angled with respect to one another to form one or more V-configurations (104), wherein the two or more panels (173, 174, 176, 178) each comprises a filter medium that provides an area through which to pass the airstream (110) and entrap particulates and other contaminates flowing with the airstream (110). Eyers et al also disclose a V-bank filter element (30) for removing contaminants from an airstream, one side member (42) and the other side member (44) (upon rotating to the left would be the top member (42) and bottom member (44)) and panel filter elements (32 & 33) located within the frame, wherein the filter frame is reusable (see paragraph 0001).
Regarding to claims 8 and 10, Sundvik et al disclose the top member (108) including a seat (unlabeled) configured to receive top edges of the two or more filter panels (172, 174, 176, 178) such that the two or more filter panels are disposed in the adjacent V-configurations (104) wherein the one or more openings are configured to allow the airstream (110) to enter upstream volumes disposed between adjacent V-configurations (104).
Regarding to claims 9 and 11, Sundvik et al disclose the bottom member (106) including a seat (122) configured to receive bottom edges of the two or more filter panels (172, 174, such that the two or more filter panels are disposed in the adjacent V-configurations (104) wherein the one or more openings are configured to allow the airstream (110) to enter downstream volumes disposed between adjacent V-configurations (104).
Regarding to claims 12, Sundvik et al disclose the seats (unlabeled in Fig. 2) comprising the top member and the bottom member are configured to fixate the V-configurations such that the upstream volumes include substantially identical angles and areas.
Regarding to claim 13, Sundvik et al disclose the seats (122) comprising the top member and the bottom member are configured to fixate the V-configurations such that the downstream volumes include substantially identical angles and areas.
Regarding to claim 14, Sundvik et al show in Fig. 2 that the upstream volumes and the downstream volumes are configured to be substantially identical to one another.
Regarding to claim 15-19, Sundvik et al disclose a method of making an air filter comprising the steps of providing a filter medium comprising two or more filter panels (172, 174, 176 and 178), arranging the two or more filter panels (172, 174, 176 and 178) into a V-bank filter element (104), supporting the V-bank filter element (104) between a top member (108) and a bottom member (106) and configuring a frame (112) to couple the top member (108) and the bottom member (106), arranging the two or more filter panels (172, 174, 176, 178) into adjacent V-configurations (104), including seating (122) the two or more filter panels (172, 174, 176, 178) into the top member (108) and the bottom member (106) such that the two or more filter panels (172, 174, 176, 178) are disposed in adjacent V-configurations (104) wherein seating (122) includes fixating the V-configurations (see details of 122 in Fig. 2) such that upstream volumes and downstream volumes are established between pairs of the two or more filter panels (172, 174, 176, 178), and configuring the frame (112) to have one or more openings to allow an airstream (110) to enter the upstream volumes between adjacent V-configurations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Paramore is non-analogous art because it is directed to a washable cabin air filter for a vehicle rather than a V-bank filter, and therefore cannot properly be combined with Sundvik.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it applies an incorrect legal standard for determining whether a reference constitutes analogous art. The proper inquiry is not whether the references disclose identical filter structures, serve the same commercial application, or are installed in the same environment. Rather, a reference qualifies as analogous art if it is either (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The present application expressly states in paragraph [0002] of the Specification that the disclosed embodiments "generally relate to the field of filter devices." Thus, Applicant has defined the field of endeavor broadly as filter devices, not merely V-bank HVAC filters.
Paramore likewise is directed to an air filter device employing a pleated filter element, specifically a washable and reusable pleated air filter. Similarly, Sundvik disclose an air filter assembly employing a pleated filter element. Accordingly, both Sundvik and Paramore are directed to the same general field of endeavor - air filtration utilizing pleated filter elements - and therefore Paramore constitutes analogous art under the first prong of the analogous art analysis.
Applicant's arguments regarding the structural differences between a vehicle cabin air filter and a V-bank HVAC filter, including the presence or absence of a frame, top member, bottom member, or V-bank geometry, are not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Paramore for these limitations. Sundvik is relied upon for teaching the V-bank filter assembly, including the frame, top member, bottom member, and orientation of the pleated V-bank filter element within an HVAC system.
Paramore is relied upon solely for its teaching that a pleated air filter element may be washable and reusable, thereby reducing replacement costs and improving serviceability. This teaching is independent of the particular installation environment of the filter. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known advantage of constructing a pleated air filter as reusable is equally applicable to other pleated air filter assemblies, including the V-bank filter assembly of Sundvik, because the modification merely substitutes one known filter media characteristic (reusable/washable) for another to obtain the predictable benefit of reducing disposable filter costs, minimizing waste, and improving serviceability.
Applicant further argues that no person of ordinary skill in the art would substitute a vehicle cabin air filter for a V-bank HVAC filter. However, this mischaracterizes the proposed combination. The rejection does not propose replacing Sundvik's V-bank filter assembly with Paramore's cabin air filter. Rather, Sundvik's V-bank filter assembly is retained, while Paramore is relied upon only for its teaching that pleated air filter elements can be fabricated from washable and reusable materials. The physical configuration, mounting structure, and intended HVAC application of Sundvik remain unchanged.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments inadequately address Paramore individually rather than addressing the teachings of the references in combination. Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 is based on the combined teachings of the prior art as a whole, not on whether each reference individually discloses every claimed feature. Since Sundvik teaches the claimed V-bank filter assembly and Paramore teaches the well-known benefit of providing a washable, reusable pleated filter element, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Paramore's reusable filter media into Sundvik's filter assembly to achieve the predictable benefit of reducing replacement costs while maintaining the known advantages of Sundvik's V-bank filter structure.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights