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 1, 2, 6–10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knuckles, US 10,245,542 in view of Mountford, US 2004/0112019 A1, and in further view of Cavett, US 6,814,660 B1.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Knuckles teaches a foldable air filter 2, which reads on the claimed “filter unit.” See Knuckles Fig. 1, col. 4, l. 66–col. 5, l. 6.
The air filter 2 comprises a frame 20 having an outer shape surrounding an opening through which air flows. See Knuckles Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 1–6. The frame 20 reads on the “frame.” The frame 20 has an upper, dirty side 6 and a clean side 8. See Knuckles Figs. 2–3, col. 5, ll. 1–6. The dirty side 6 reads on the “collection surface” and the clean side 8 reads on the “opposite surface.”
The air filter 2 further comprises a filter media panel 4 that is disposed in the opening and is used to filter foreign substances included in the flowing air. See Knuckles Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 1–6. The filter media panel 4 reads on the “filter member.”
The air filter 2 also comprises a hinge locking means 50 coupled to the frame 20, and configured to fix relative positions of the left-hand and right hand portions of side element 28 of the frame 20, from the perspective of Fig. 10, divided based on one of two hinge joints 40. See Knuckles Fig. 10, col. 6, ll. 28–41. The hinge locking means 50 reads on the “fixing unit.” The left and right-hand portions of side element 28 read on the “one part” and the “another part” of the “frame,” respectively. The hinge joints 40 reads on the “folding groove.”
The hinge joints 40 are formed on the clean side 8 of the frame 20, as claimed. See Knuckles Fig. 5, col. 5, ll. 21–28.
The hinge joints 40 are “formed at at least two points of the frame,” as claimed, because a hinge joint 40 is formed on two side elements 24, 28 of the frame 20. See Knuckles Fig. 5, col. 5, ll. 1–6. Also, when an external force is applied to opposite edge elements 22, 26 of the frame 20 toward the dirtied side 6, the left-hand portion of side element 28 relatively rotates toward the right-hand portion of side element 28, and the frame 20 is folded in such a way that a portion of the dirtied side 6 approaches another portion of the dirtied side 6 as seen in Fig. 5. This reads on “when an external force is applied from the opposite surface of the frame toward the collection surface, one of a part and another part of the frame divided based on the folding groove relatively rotates toward the other one, and the frame is folded in such a way that a portion of the collection surface approaches another portion of the collection surface.”
The hinge locking means 50 includes a strap member (illustrated by the adhesive strap member 250 seen in Fig. 14; the strap member reads on the “holder”) formed on the left-hand portion of the side element 28. See Knuckles Fig. 14, col. 6, ll. 57–col. 7, ll. 3. This reads on “the fixing unit includes: a holder formed on any one of the one part and the another part of the frame divided based on the folding groove.”
The strap member is extended from the left-hand portion of side element 28 so that a portion of the strap member is disposed above the cut 44 of the hinge joint 44, as seen by strap member 250 in Fig. 14. This reads on the “holder is extended from the any one of the one part and the another part of the frame so that a portion of the holder is disposed above the folding groove.”
PNG
media_image1.png
761
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Knuckles differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the hinge locking means 50 (the “fixing unit”) including a fixing protrusion formed on the right-hand side of the side element 28 (the “another part of the frame…on which the holder is not formed”) and configured to be fixed to the strap member (the “holder”), as claimed.
But the strap member can use a mechanical fastener, such as a rivet, to connect the left and right-hand sides of the side element 28 together. See Knuckles col. 6, l. 66–col. 7, l. 3.
With this in mind, Mountford teaches a filter bag comprising a mechanical connection mechanism for attaching two sections of the filter bag together comprising a strip 701 with a female snap portion 703 that be snapped onto a male snap portion 704 of another strip 702. See Mountford Fig. 7, [0022]. The connection mechanism is beneficial because the two sections of the filter bag can be repeatedly attached and detached from each other due to the male and female snap combination.
PNG
media_image2.png
308
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the strap member of Knuckles to comprise a female snap portion that engages with a male snap portion on the right-hand side of side element 28 to provide a mechanical fastener that allows the strap member to be repeatedly attached and detached from the right-hand side of the side element 28.
With this modification, the male snap portion reads on the “fixing protrusion formed to protrude on the other, of the one part and the another part of the frame divided based on the folding groove, on which the holder is not formed, and configure to be fixed to the holder” (claim 1). Also, the hole in the female snap portion reads on the “fixing hole in which the fixing protrusion is inserted” (claim 6).
Knuckles also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the frame 20 including a sliding portion formed along an outer peripheral surface, where the sliding portion is disposed outward of the hinge locking means 50 in an extension direction of the hinge joints 40, where the sliding portion is not overlapped with the hinge locking means 50 when viewed in an extension direction of the hinge joints 40, as claimed.
But the air filter 2 can be used in a heating and air conditioning system. See Knuckles col. 1, ll. 14–15.
With this in mind, Cavett teaches a filter assembly 50 for an HVAC system comprising a filter support portion 52 (i.e., a frame) comprising a tab 62 formed along an outer peripheral surface of one side of the support 52, where the tab 62 is configured to be slidably received in a slot 60 of an assembly 20 of the HVAC system. See Cavett Figs. 1, 2, col. 3, ll. 49–63, col. 4, ll. 1–14. The tab 62 is beneficial because it acts as a key to inhibit placing the filter 50 within the frame in a backward position. Id. at col. 4, ll. 1–14.
PNG
media_image3.png
1005
1632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide the tab 62 of Cavett on the side element 28 at a location above the hinge locking means 50 of Knuckles (from the perspective of Fig. 10 of Knuckles) to provide a key mechanism to prevent the filter 2 of Knuckles from being installed backward. Note that locating the tab 62 above the hinge locking means 50 would have been obvious because this is a convenient location for the tab 62, as seen in Fig. 10 of Knuckles (where there is space above the locking means 50 where the tab 62 could be located) and as seen in Fig. 2 of Cavett (where the tab 62 is located on the upper portion of the frame). It also would have been obvious for the tab 62 of Cavett to extend outwardly past the hinge locking means 50 of Knuckles to ensure that there is enough material of the tab 62 to act as a key to engage with the HVAC system, with Fig. 2 of Cavett illustrating the tab 62 extending a substantial distance from the side of the frame 50.
With this modification, the tab 62 reads on the “sliding portion formed along an outer peripheral surface” of the frame 20. An entirety of the tab 62 would be disposed outward from the hinge locking means 50 of Knuckles (the “fixing unit”) in an extension direction of the hinge joints 40 (the “folding groove”), as claimed, because the tab 62 would be located above the locking means 50 and would extend out past the hinge locking means 50, as explained above. The tab 62 would not be overlapped with the hinge locking means 50 when viewed in the extension direction of the hinge joints 40, as claimed, because the tab 62 would be located above the hinge locking means 50, as explained above.
PNG
media_image4.png
1057
1193
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Knuckles teaches that the hinge joints 40 (the “folding grieve”) comprises a hinge joint 40 formed at each of one point of the frame 20 (the point on side element 24) and an opposite point of the frame 20 (the point on side element 28), as claimed, as seen in Fig. 5. In this way, the frame 20 is folded in half when an external force is applied from the clean side 8 (the “opposite surface of the frame”) toward the dirtied side 6 (the “collection surface”), as claimed, as seen in Fig. 5.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Knuckles as modified teaches that the hinge locking means 50 (the “fixing unit”) is configured to fix the frame 20 such that “one part and the another part of the frame divided based on the folding groove” (the two halves of the side elements 24, 28 split by the hinge joints 40) form a straight angle (claim 7) and are arranged side by side (claim 8), as seen in Fig. 10 of Knuckles.
Regarding claim 9, Knuckles in view of Mountford and Cavett teaches that the hinge locking means 50 of Knuckles (the “fixing unit”) includes the female snap portion of Mountford (the “fixing hole”) formed on the strap member of Knuckles formed on the left-hand portion of side element 28 (“formed on the any one of the one part and the another part of the frame divided based on the folding groove”), as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Knuckles teaches that the frame 20 includes a “handle portion” formed at an upper portion of the frame, which is the edge element 22, as seen in Fig. 1. The edge element 22 is a “handle portion” because it is capable of being gripped. See MPEP 2114, subsection IV (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claim 13, Knuckles as modified teaches that the tab 62 of Cavett (the “sliding portion”) extends along an entire side surface of the frame 20 of Knuckles, as claimed, as seen in Figs. 1 and 2 of Cavett where the tab 62 extends along the entire right-hand side of the frame so that it can be received in slot 60.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knuckles, US 10,245,542 in view of Mountford, US 2004/0112019 A1 in view of Cavett, US 6,814,660 B1 and in further view of Barry et al., WO 2020/076751 A11.
Regarding claim 3, Knuckles as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Knuckles differs from claim 3 because it is silent as the frame 20 comprising a reinforcing rib having both ends connected to the frame 20 to partition the opening.
But Barry teaches a collapsible filter assembly 100 comprising a sub-frame area 134 comprising a diagonally extending stringers 136 with both ends of each stringer 136 connected to the sub-frame area 134, and with each stringer 136 partitioning an opening in the middle of the sub-frame area 134. See Barry Fig. 7, [0055]. The stringers 136 are rib-shaped elements. Id. The stringers 136 are beneficial because they stiffen the filter assembly 100. Id.
PNG
media_image5.png
788
723
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the frame 20 of Knuckles to include the stringers 136 of Barry in order to stiffen the foldable air filter.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knuckles, US 10,245,542 in view of Mountford, US 2004/0112019 A1 in view of Cavett, US 6,814,660 B1 and in further view of Marshall, III, US 2019/0021272 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Knuckles teaches an air conditioning system, which reads on the claimed “air purifier.” See Knuckles col. 1, ll. 19–28. The air conditioning system comprises the air filter 2 (the “filter unit according to claim 1”). Id.
Knuckles differs from claim 11 because it is silent as to the air conditioning system comprising a blower for providing blowing force to allow outside air to pass through the filter 2. But Knight teaches an HVAC unit 12 comprising a filter 38 and a blower assembly 34 for providing blowing force for allowing air from outside of the filter 38 to pass through it. See Knight Fig. 2, [0028]. It would have been obvious for the air conditioning system of Knuckles to include a blower assembly in order to provide motive force for moving air through the air filter 2.
Regarding claim 12, Knuckles teaches that filter 2 is disposed such that air flows through the dirtied side 6 (the “collection surface”) and the clean side 8 (the “opposite surface”) in this order, because the dirtied side 6 is upstream of the clean side 8 as the dirtied side 6 gets dirtied. See Knuckles col. 5, ll. 1–6.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that there is no motivation to modify the structure of Knuckles with the keyway system of Cavett. See Applicant Rem. filed April 13, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 6. Instead, it is argued that the structure of Knuckles would require a substantial redesign to accommodate the keyway system, asserting that Figs. 7 and 10 of Knuckles illustrates the side elements 24, 28 being arranged horizontally inward of the locking means 50. Id. It is argued that this configuration would result in the locking means 50 and side elements 24, 28 being overlapped with each other when viewed in an extension direction of the fold line of the filter media panel 4. Id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The motivation for using the keyway system of Cavett (including tab 62) with the filter media panel 4 of Knuckles is to inhibit placing the filter media panel 4 within the housing it is inserted into in a backward position. When the tab 62 of Cavett is used with the panel 4 of Knuckles, it would have been obvious to locate the tab 62 above the locking means 50 because there is space above the locking means 50 for structure, as seen in Fig. 10 of Knuckles (with Fig. 2 of Cavett also showing the tab 62 being located in an upper portion of the filter element). In this position, the tab 62 (the “sliding portion”) would not be “overlapped with” the locking means 50 (the “fixing unit”) when viewed in an extension direction of the hinge joint 44 of Knuckles (the “folding groove”), as claimed, because the tab 62 would be located above the locking means 50.
PNG
media_image4.png
1057
1193
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Applicant also argues that the cited reference fail to recognize advantageous results achieved by embodiments of the present application of providing for the fixing unit to maintain the filter unit fixed at a straight angle with the shape of the filter unit being stably maintained when used in an unfolded state in the air purifier, with when the holder is disengaged from the fixing protrusion, the frame and the filter unit can be folded in half so the filter unit can be transported with the overall size reduced, demonstrating non-obviousness. See Applicant Rem. 7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s analysis. The Applicant appears to be arguing that claim 1 is non-obvious because of secondary considerations. Secondary considerations include commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected results. See MPEP 2141, subsection II. Objective evidence (beyond mere attorney arguments) is required to establish that a claim is non-obvious due to secondary considerations. See MPEP 2145, subsection I. The Applicant has failed to provide any objective evidence that the alleged improvements result in secondary considerations commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and unexpected results. Therefore, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the alleged improvements render claim 1 non-obvious over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 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 Barry is in the record as the 28-page Foreign Reference filed April 24, 2024.
Prosecution Insights