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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims filed on 5/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-8 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered.
Examiner agree with the Applicant’s argument, “Noh does not disclose or suggest that first electrode 211 or second electrode 221 are bent, but rather, merely discloses a structure in which dust collecting sheet 200 disposed between the first electrode 211 and the second electrode 221 includes a plurality of bent portions 203 bent in a zigzag shape.”
With respect to non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejection over co-pending Application 18/016713, now US Patent 12496591 (hereinafter “Patent ‘591”), Applicant argues that since the limitations of claim 4 have been incorporated into independent claim 1, the rejection is moot. This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 of Patent ‘591 recite the features of amended claim 1.
Upon further search and consideration of amendment to the claims, new grounds of rejection is set forth in view of US Patent 4750921 to Sugita et al. which was cited in the IDS filed 1/5/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1++ is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4750921 to Sugita et al. (hereinafter “Sugita”).
With respect to claim 1, Sugita discloses a dust collecting filter comprising:
a filter member 21 which is bent in a corrugated shape and forms a plurality of bent portion;
a plurality of first conductive spacers 24 (equivalent to claimed plurality of first electrodes) along the corrugated shape of the filter member and to which a high voltage is applied;
a plurality of second conductive spacers 24 (equivalent claimed plurality of second electrodes) which are disposed along the corrugated shape of the filter member so as to be spaced apart from each other between the plurality of first conductive spacers 24 and are grounded, wherein the first and second conductive spacers 24 are bent in a direction intersecting the direction in which the corrugations of the filter member proceed and have a plurality of valleys and crests. See col. 2, lines 35-64, and Figs. 3 and 4. Below is an annotated Fig. 4 from Sugita reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
791
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, the figure above illustrates wherein the plurality of first and second conductive spacers are disposed parallel to each other.
With respect to claim 3, the figure above illustrates wherein the first and second conductive spaces 24 are disposed in direction parallel with a direction in which the corrugations of the filter member proceed.
With respect to claim 5, the figure above illustrates a filter medium wherein the first conductive member 24 is disposed on the first flat portion of the filter medium and the second conductive member 24 is disposed on the second flat portion of the filter medium.
With respect to claim 6, the figure above illustrates wherein the filter medium is bent at least once to form at least one bent portion within repetition of valleys and crests.
With respect to claim 7, figures 3 and 4 illustrate filter member 21 having bent portion and flat portions. Therefore, figure 3 and 4 would have the imaginary lines recited in said claim.
With respect to claim 8, it can be seen from Fig. 4 above, that the distance between the first electrode and the second electrode is greater than the width of each of the first electrode and the second electrode.
In conclusion, claims 1-3 and 5-7 are anticipated by Sugita.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4750921 to Sugita et al. (hereinafter “Sugita”) in view of US 20200030731 to Dhau et al. (hereinafter “Dhau”).
With respect to claims 9-10, Sugita is silent on a second filter medium disposed on at least one side of an upstream side and a downstream side of the first filter medium, wherein a pores of the first filter medium are wider than a pores of the second filter medium.
Dhau is directed to a filtration system (title). Dhau discloses the filter media
preferably includes one or more trapping layers 130 of the same or different
types that function to capture one or more contaminants [0074]. The particle-
trapping layer can be an active trapping layer (e.g., electrostatic), wherein the
particle-trapping layer may define a higher porosity (e.g., greater permeability)
versus a passive layer, because additional trapping occurs (e.g., beyond the mechanical filtration of the layer) due to the electrostatic attraction between the
charged layer and contaminant particles [0086]. Thus, a first electrostatic trapping
layer (i.e., first filter medium) may have wider pores than a passive trapping layer
(i.e., second filter medium).
Sugita and Dhau are both directed to filtration systems. Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Noh to add
an additional filter layer with a smaller pore size because filter media with
multiple layers shows improved particulate removal efficiency (e.g., by physically
filtering contaminants and/or particulates)[0027], and because the electrostatic
filter media may have higher porosity because additional trapping occurs due to
the electrostatic attraction between the charged layer and contaminant particles
[0086], as taught by Dhau.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of US Patent 12496591 to Park et al. (herein after “Patent ‘591). Please note co-pending Application No. 18/016713 is now US Patent 12496591.
Each set of claims in instant application and Patent ‘591 are directed to a dust collecting filter comprising a filter medium bent into a corrugated shape, a plurality of first electrodes and a plurality of second electrodes.
The differences between instant application and Patent ‘591 are Patent ‘591 does not explicitly claim(1) wherein the plurality of first and second electrodes are bent and (2) there is a pattern of valleys and crests. Because Patent ‘591 recites a dust collecting filter having a similar design of corrugated shape filter medium and placement of first and second electrodes on the corrugated filter medium with bent portions, Patent ‘591 would be expected have bent first and second electrodes and to form a pattern of valleys and crests.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IN SUK C BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
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.
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights