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 .
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.
Claims 11–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He, CN 207641181 U1 in view of Neumann, US 2,966,959 and in further view of Gunnefur, US 2018/0304184 A1.
Regarding claim 11, He teaches a filter core 1, which reads on the claimed “composite filter.” See He Fig. 2, p. 2.
The structure of the filter core 1 reads on the “filter unit including a filter member for filtering air.” See He Figs. 1–4, ps. 2–3. The filter core 1 comprises four filter elements 32 arranged in parallel, around the center of the core 1. Id. Side surfaces of each filter element 3 are connected to each other so that the filter elements so that the filter elements 3 are rotatable with respect to each other between the configuration seen in Fig. 4 and the configuration seen in Fig. 2. Id.
It is noted that He is silent as to the filter core 1 comprising a “plurality of filtering parts” and “at least one filter module arranged in parallel with at least one of the plurality of filtering parts.” But Neuman teaches that it is beneficial to arrange a coarse filter 15 upstream of a fine filter 14 to improve separation performance, with the coarse filter removing large particles with the fine filter removing fine particles. See Neumann Fig. 7, col. 5, ll. 60–70. Neuman also teaches that the coarse filter 15 and the fine filter 14 are panel filters (similar to the filter elements 3 of He) of roughly the same size and shape. Id. It would have been obvious to configure the filter elements 3 of He such that they each include a coarse filter element upstream of a fine filter element, with each filter element being a panel filter of the same general configuration of each filter element 3 to improve separation performance.
With this modification, the coarse filter elements read on the “plurality of filtering parts.” The side surfaces of the coarse filters are connected to each other so that the coarse filters are rotatable with respect to each other, in the same way that the side surfaces of the filter elements 3 of He are connected to each other to be rotatable with respect to each other between the configurations of Figs. 2 and 4. See He Figs. 1–4, ps. 2–3.
Also, each fine filter element reads on a “filter module.” The fine filter elements are arranged in parallel with the coarse filter elements, as claimed, because each pair of coarse/fine filter elements are arranged side-by-side as seen in the annotated figure below. Each fine filter element includes a filter material (analogous to the filter screen 4 of He), which reads on the “air purification member for filtering the air.”
The filter core 1 of He further comprises connecting sheets 2 supporting adjacent filter elements 3 so that the adjacent filter elements 3 are rotatable with respect to each other. See He Figs. 1, 2, p. 2. One of the connecting sheets 2 reads on the “bracket.” The connecting sheets 2 allow the filter core 1 to collapse to the configuration seen in Fig. 4 and expand to the configuration seen in Fig. 2. Therefore, when He is modified such that each filter element 3 comprises a coarse filter element upstream of a fine filter element, it would have been obvious for each connecting sheet to connect adjacent pairs of coarse/fine filter elements so that the filter core 1 can collapse and expand.
PNG
media_image1.png
1108
2278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The connecting sheet 2 comprises a “folded portion,” down the middle that is selectively folded according to a relative motion of the filter elements disposed adjacent to each other, as claimed, because the connecting sheet 2 can act like a hinge. See He p. 2.
The connecting sheet 2 also comprises a “plurality of attachment portions respectively connected to the folded portion with the folded portion interposed therebetween,” which are the portions of the connecting sheet 2 that connect to each filter element. See He Fig. 2, ps. 2–3. The “plurality of attachment portions” are respectively attached to the side surfaces of the filter elements disposed adjacent to each other, as seen in Fig. 2.
The “folded portion” and the “attachment portions” are provided integrally with each other, because they are part of the connecting sheet 2, as seen in Fig. 1. The “folded portion” and the “attachment portions” are formed of a flexible material because the connecting sheet 2 can be folded. See He p. 2.
Each of the “attachment portions” extends to a side surface of each fine filter element (the “at least one filter module”) adjacent thereto to seal a gap between the coarse filter element (the “filtering part”) and the fine filter element because each connecting sheet 2 is made of a hard paper shell material adhered to each filter element, and therefore will provide at least some sealing function in the gap between the coarse and fine filter elements. See He ps. 2–3.
Also, each filter element 3 of He is a panel-type filter comprises a generally rectangular frame (numeral 3) surrounding the upper side, lower side, and left/right hands sides of a filter screen 4. See He Fig. 1, p. 2. Therefore, the coarse and fine filter elements of He are interpreted as having a generally rectangular frame surrounding a filter frame because it would have been obvious for the coarse and fine filter elements to have the same general configuration as the filter element 3 of He, as explained above.
With this modification, the frame of each fine filter element (the “at least one filter module”) reads on the “module frame supporting an upper or lower side” of the filter material of each fine filter element (the “air purification member”).
Also, the frame of each coarse filter element (the coarse filters are the “filtering parts”) reads on the “support that supports an upper or lower side of the filtering parts.”
The frames of the fine filter elements and the frames of the coarse filter elements are adjacent to each other, as claimed, because the fine and coarse filter elements are adjacent to each other, as seen in the annotated figure above.
He as modified differs from claim 11 because it is silent as to the filter unit 1 (the “composite filter”) including a plurality of “connection members” attached to an upper and lower side of the frames of the coarse and fine filter elements (the “support” and “module frame,” respectively), with the connection member sealing a gap between the frames of the coarse and fine filter elements, and with the plurality of connection members being rotatable with respect to each other.
But Gunnefur teaches a foldable air filter unit 10 comprising a filter body 200 made of four rectangular side walls 600 of filter media, where a first frame 300 is attached to the top of the filter body 200 and a second frame 400 is attached on the bottom of the filter body 200. See Gunnefur Fig. 4, [0048]. The frame members 300, 400 are “rotatable with respect to each other,” as claimed, because the frame members 300, 400 are turnably connected to each other in the inner corners of adjacent frame members to be turnable around axes extending parallel to axis A. Id. at Fig. 4, [0049]. The frame members 300, 400 are beneficial because they provide the desired structural strength to the air filter unit 10. Id. at [0034].
PNG
media_image2.png
806
931
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide the first frame 300 on the top of the filter elements in modified He and the second frame 400 on the bottom of the filter elements in modified He to improve the structural strength of the filter core 1.
With this modification, the frames 300, 400 read on the “plurality of connection members attached to an upper side and a lower side” of the outer frames of the filter elements in modified He (the “support and the module frame disposed adjacent to each other”). The frames 300, 400 would be expected to at least partially seal a gap between the outer frames of the filter elements in modified He, because the frames 300, 400 each comprise a piece of solid material extending across the top and bottom of the filter elements. The frames 300, 400 are rotatable with respect tot each other, as claimed, because the frame members 300, 400 are turnably connected to each other in the inner corners of adjacent frame members to be turnable around axes extending parallel to axis A. See Gunnefur Fig. 4, [0049].
Regarding claim 12, He as modified teaches that the filter core 1 comprises four coarse filter elements (the “plurality of filter parts”), as seen in the annotated figure above. This reads on “the plurality of filtering parts includes three or more filtering parts.”
When each of the coarse filter elements is rotated on the hinge of the connecting sheet 2 to an angle less than a straight angle, the plurality of coarse filter elements would be arranged along a loop-like path, as seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 13, He in view of Neuman teaches that the number of coarse filter elements would be four, as seen in the annotated figure above. This reads on “a number of the plurality of filtering parts is an even number.”
Regarding claim 14, He as modified teaches that the coarse filter elements (the “plurality of filtering parts”) are rotatable with respect to each other, because the coarse filter elements can rotate via the hinge formed by connecting sheet 2. See He p. 2. Also, the rotation can cause at least at least coarse filter elements adjacent to each other are arranged in parallel because the annotated Fig. 2 in the rejection of claim 1 above shows coarse filter elements across from one another being parallel. Note that the coarse filter elements across from one another are “adjacent to each other,” as claimed, because they are relatively close to one another.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He, CN 207641181 U in view of Neumann, US 2,966,959 and in view of Gunnefur, US 2018/0304184 A1 and in further view of Topolenski et al., US 2017/0312672 A1.
Regarding claim 15, He as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11, as explained above.
He as modified differs from claim 15 because it is silent as to protrusions being formed on at least one side of the filter material of any of the fine filter elements (the filter material is the “air purification member”).
But Topolenski teaches that it is beneficial to corrugate a filter medium to improve its surface area. See Topolenski [0006]. It would have been obvious to corrugate the filter material of each fine filter element to improve its surface area. With this modification, the corrugations would comprise alternating ridges and grooves on the upstream and downstream sides of the filter material. Id. Therefore, the corrugations would read on the “protrusions…formed on one side surface of the air purification member.”
Regarding claim 18, He as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11, as explained above.
He as modified differs from claim 18 because it is silent as to the filter material of the fine filter element (the “at least one filter module”) comprising a corrugated filter.
But Topolenski teaches that it is beneficial to corrugate a filter medium to improve its surface area. See Topolenski [0006]. It would have been obvious to corrugate the filter material of the fine filter element to improve its surface area.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He, CN 207641181 U in view of Neumann, US 2,966,959 in view of Gunnefur, US 2018/0304184 A1 and in further view of Bae et al., US 2018/0221805 A1.
Regarding claim 19, He as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11, as explained above.
He as modified differs from claim 19 because it is silent as to the filter core 1 being used in an air purifier comprising a blower providing blowing force to allow outside air to pass through the filter core 1, as claimed.
But the filter core 1 is a hollow, generally cube-shaped air filter. With this in mind, Bae teaches an air purifier that utilizes a hollow, generally cube-shaped filter unit 130 with the air purifier comprising a blowing unit 120 for providing blowing force to allow air to pass through the filter unit 130. See Bae Fig. 1, [0049].
It would have been obvious for the filter core 1 of He to be used in the air purifier of Bae to provide a mechanism for moving air through the filter core 1 for filtration.
PNG
media_image3.png
681
694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 is allowable over He in view of Neumann, Gunnefur, and Topolenski because the prior art combination fails to teach that one of the connecting sheets 2 of He (the “bracket”) has a concave portion corresponding to at least a portion of the corrugations (the “protrusions”) with the connecting sheet 2 including an adhesive surface attached to the side surface of one of the fine filter elements (“the air purification member”). Instead, Fig. 1 of He illustrates the connecting sheet 2 being a flat piece of material with no concave portion corresponding to corrugations.
Election/Restriction
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 11–16, 18 and 19, drawn to a composite filter.
Group II, claim 21, drawn to a composite filter.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups share a technical feature, it is not a special technical feature because it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Specifically, Groups I and II share the technical feature of:
A composite filter comprising: a filter unit including a filter member for filtering air, the filter member having a plurality of filtering parts with side surfaces connected to each other so that the filtering parts are rotatable with respect to each other; at least one filter module arranged in parallel with at least one of the plurality of filtering parts and including an air purification member for filtering the air; and a bracket supporting the filtering parts disposed adjacent to each other among the plurality of filtering parts and the filter module together SO that the filtering parts disposed adjacent to each other are rotatable with respect to each other, wherein
the bracket includes:
a folded portion that is selectively folded according to a relative rotation of the filtering parts disposed adjacent to each other; and
a plurality of attachment portions respectively connected to the folded portion with the folded portion interposed therebetween, and respectively attached to the side surfaces of the filtering parts disposed adjacent to each other, the folded portion and the attachment portions are provided integrally with each other and are formed of a flexible material, and
each of the attachment portions extends to the a side surface of the filter module adjacent thereto to seal a gap between the filtering part and the filter module,
the at least one filter module further includes a module frame supporting an upper or lower side of the air purification member.
This feature is not a special technical feature because it is obvious over He, CN 207641181 U in view of Neumann, US 2,966,959. Specifically, He teaches a filter core 1, which reads on the claimed “composite filter.” See He Fig. 2, p. 2.
The structure of the filter core 1 reads on the “filter unit including a filter member for filtering air.” See He Figs. 1–4, ps. 2–3. The filter core 1 comprises four filter elements 33 arranged in parallel, around the center of the core 1. Id. Side surfaces of each filter element 3 are connected to each other so that the filter elements so that the filter elements 3 are rotatable with respect to each other between the configuration seen in Fig. 4 and the configuration seen in Fig. 2. Id.
It is noted that He is silent as to the filter core 1 comprising a “plurality of filtering parts” and “at least one filter module arranged in parallel with at least one of the plurality of filtering parts.” But Neuman teaches that it is beneficial to arrange a coarse filter 15 upstream of a fine filter 14 to improve separation performance, with the coarse filter removing large particles with the fine filter removing fine particles. See Neumann Fig. 7, col. 5, ll. 60–70. Neuman also teaches that the coarse filter 15 and the fine filter 14 are panel filters (similar to the filter elements 3 of He) of roughly the same size and shape. Id. It would have been obvious to configure the filter elements 3 of He such that they each include a coarse filter element upstream of a fine filter element, with each filter element being a panel filter of the same general configuration of each filter element 3 to improve separation performance.
With this modification, the coarse filter elements read on the “plurality of filtering parts.” The side surfaces of the coarse filters are connected to each other so that the coarse filters are rotatable with respect to each other, in the same way that the side surfaces of the filter elements 3 of He are connected to each other to be rotatable with respect to each other between the configurations of Figs. 2 and 4. See He Figs. 1–4, ps. 2–3.
Also, each fine filter element reads on a “filter module.” The fine filter elements are arranged in parallel with the coarse filter elements, as claimed, because each pair of coarse/fine filter elements are arranged side-by-side as seen in the annotated figure below. Each fine filter element includes a filter material (analogous to the filter screen 4 of He), which reads on the “air purification member for filtering the air.”
The filter core 1 of He further comprises connecting sheets 2 supporting adjacent filter elements 3 so that the adjacent filter elements 3 are rotatable with respect to each other. See He Figs. 1, 2, p. 2. One of the connecting sheets 2 reads on the “bracket.” The connecting sheets 2 allow the filter core 1 to collapse to the configuration seen in Fig. 4 and expand to the configuration seen in Fig. 2. Therefore, when He is modified such that each filter element 3 comprises a coarse filter element upstream of a fine filter element, it would have been obvious for each connecting sheet to connect adjacent pairs of coarse/fine filter elements so that the filter core 1 can collapse and expand.
PNG
media_image1.png
1108
2278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The connecting sheet 2 comprises a “folded portion,” down the middle that is selectively folded according to a relative motion of the filter elements disposed adjacent to each other, as claimed, because the connecting sheet 2 can act like a hinge. See He p. 2.
The connecting sheet 2 also comprises a “plurality of attachment portions respectively connected to the folded portion with the folded portion interposed therebetween,” which are the portions of the connecting sheet 2 that connect to each filter element. See He Fig. 2, ps. 2–3. The “plurality of attachment portions” are respectively attached to the side surfaces of the filter elements disposed adjacent to each other, as seen in Fig. 2.
The “folded portion” and the “attachment portions” are provided integrally with each other, because they are part of the connecting sheet 2, as seen in Fig. 1. The “folded portion” and the “attachment portions” are formed of a flexible material because the connecting sheet 2 can be folded. See He p. 2.
Each of the “attachment portions” extends to a side surface of each fine filter element (the “at least one filter module”) adjacent thereto to seal a gap between the coarse filter element (the “filtering part”) and the fine filter element because each connecting sheet 2 is made of a hard paper shell material adhered to each filter element, and therefore will provide at least some sealing function in the gap between the coarse and fine filter elements. See He ps. 2–3.
Also, each filter element 3 of He is a panel-type filter comprises a generally rectangular frame (numeral 3) surrounding the upper side, lower side, and left/right hands sides of a filter screen 4. See He Fig. 1, p. 2. Therefore, the coarse and fine filter elements of He are interpreted as having a generally rectangular frame surrounding a filter frame because it would have been obvious for the coarse and fine filter elements to have the same general configuration as the filter element 3 of He, as explained above.
With this modification, the frame of each fine filter element (the “at least one filter module”) reads on the “module frame supporting an upper or lower side” of the filter material of each fine filter element (the “air purification member”).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 18 in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He, CN 207641181 U in view of Neumann, US 2,966,959 and in further view of Bae et al., US 2018/0221805 A1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Gunnefur, US 2018/0304184 A1.
New Claim 21
New claim 21 includes many of, but not all, the features of dependent claim 16 from the claim set dated October 02, 2025. Claim 16 was objected to as being dependent on rejected base claims 11 and 15, but would be allowable if rewritten in indenpdent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 21 does not include all of the limitations of claim 16 from the October 02, 2025. For instance, claim 21 does not specify that the filter unit further includes a filter frame having a support that supports an upper or lower side of the filtering parts, and fails to include the feature of the composite filter further includes a connection member attached to an upper side or lower side of the support and the module frame disposed adjacent to each other to seal a gap between the support and the module frame of claim 11 from the October 02, 2025 claim set.
Claim 21 also includes at least one limitation that renders it indefinite. Specifically, claim 21 recites–“wherein the filter module further includes a module frame supporting an upper or lower side of the air purification member.” The claim initially introduces “at least one filter module” (singular or plural). Therefore, the above limitation renders claim 21 indefinite because the claim has not specified that the “at least one filter module” is singular.
Claim 21 would likely be rejoined and would be in condition for allowance if the Applicant exactly follows the directions in paragraph [0041] (“Allowable Subject Matter”) of the Final Rejection dated November 06, 2025, while carefully proofreading to ensure that there are no 35 U.S.C. 112 issues.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Portelli, US 2021/0106936 A1 (air filter comprising panels attached to one another); Braunecker et al., US 2009/0320426 A1 (filter assembly with panels connected to each other); Nowak et al., US 2008/0148698 A1 (foldable filter for air filtration).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 An original, untranslated copy of He is in the record as the 8-page Foreign Reference filed January 03, 2023. A translation is in the record as the 3-page Foreign Reference dated July 02, 2025. The rejection cites to the untranslated copy for figures and the translation for text.
2 Note that numeral 3 in He refers to the frame of each filter element. This communication cites to numeral 3 as the filter element itself, for convenience.
3 Note that numeral 3 in He refers to the frame of each filter element. This communication cites to numeral 3 as the filter element itself, for convenience.
Prosecution Insights