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 Objections
Claim 6 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
There is a typo in the limitation of “a diameter of from 3 inches to 5 inches in diameter.” Emphasis Added.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 16–17 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.
Claims 16–17 are indefinite because it is not a standard industry term. It is therefore unclear which dimension is referred to as the claimed “thickness.” Additionally, regarding the claimed “the thickness of a pleated filter media,” it is also unclear which dimension is referred to. For example, a pleated filter thickness could refer to the pleat depth or the filter media thickness before it was pleated. For the purpose of examination, the limitation of “pleat guide channel thickness” and “pleated filter media thickness” are interpreted as the pleat depth of the pleated guide channel and pleated filter media, respectively. Claims 16–17 are also indefinite because the limitation of “the thickness of a pleated filter media” lacks antecedent basis.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–3, 7–13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kao, GB 2413510 A (“Kao”).
Regarding claim 1:
Kao discloses that a filter assembly component comprising a pleat guide (Kao’s bracing members 3, shaping pieces 4, 5) comprising a repeating pattern comprising a plurality of peaks and a plurality of valleys distributed about a circumference of the pleat guide (as shown in Fig. 1). Kao Fig. 1, p. 6, ll. 1–10. Kao also discloses that the plurality of peaks and the plurality of valleys are configured to interface with a pleated filter media (Kao’s filtering member 2) to maintain pleat spacing between corresponding pleats of the pleated filter media. Id.
Regarding claim 2:
Kao discloses that the filter assembly component of claim 1, wherein the pleat guide comprises an interior pleat guide (Kao’s bracing members 3 is interior pleat guide). Kao Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 3:
Kao discloses that the filter assembly component of claim 1, wherein the pleat guide comprises an exterior pleat guide (Kao’s shaping pieces 4, 5 are exterior pleat guide). Kao Fig. 3, p. 7, ll. 7–14.
Regarding claim 7:
Kao discloses that the filter assembly component of claim 1, wherein the pleat guide comprises a central aperture (as clearly shown in Fig. 3a). Kao Fig. 3a.
Regarding claim 8:
Kao discloses that the filter assembly component of claim 1, wherein the pleat guide defines a plurality of hollow passages (Kao’s hollows 32) extending from a central portion of the pleat guide to a circumferential surface of the pleat guide, wherein the pleat guide 3 further defines an air inlet port (Kao’s hole 321) in fluid communication with the plurality of hollow passages. Kao Fig. 2, p. 6, ll. 5–10.
Regarding claim 9:
Kao discloses that the filter assembly component of claim 1, wherein the pleat guide 3 further comprises a first spoke wheel (top pleat guide 3 as shown in Fig. 1), a second spoke wheel spaced apart axially from the first spoke wheel (second pleat guide 3 from top as shown in Fig. 1), and a central longitudinal axle portion (Kao’s rod 11) connecting the first spoke wheel and the second spoke wheel. Kao Fig. 1, ps. 5–6, ll. 22–4.
Regarding claim 10:
Kao discloses that the filter assembly component of claim 1,wherein the pleat guide comprises: a first axial frame (Kao’s shaping piece 4) configured to be disposed about an exterior of the pleated filter media, a second axial frame (Kao’s shaping piece 5) configured to be disposed about the exterior of the pleated filter media (both are disposed about the exterior of the pleated filter media 2 as clearly shown in Fig. 3). Kao Fig. 3, p. 6, ll. 1–4. Kao also discloses that the second axial frame 5 spaced apart axially from the first axial frame 4, and a plurality of longitudinal rods 11 extending between valleys on the first axial frame 4 and valleys on the second axial frame 5 to maintain axial spacing of the first axial frame and the second axial frame (as shown in Fig. 3a). Kao Fig. 3a.
Regarding claim 11:
Kao discloses that the filter assembly component of claim 1, wherein the pleat guide 3–5 comprises an interior wire frame (first pleat guide 3) comprising: a first axial frame configured to be disposed within an interior of the pleated filter media (first pleat guide 3 from top as shown in Fig. 1), a second axial frame configured to be disposed within the interior of the pleated filter media (second pleat guide 3 from top as shown in Fig. 1), the second axial frame spaced apart axially from the first axial frame (see Fig. 1), and a plurality of longitudinal rods 11 extending between peaks on the first axial frame and peaks on the second axial frame to maintain axial spacing of the first axial frame and the second axial frame (Kao’s rod 11 pass through crest 31, which is located on peaks). Kao Figs. 1–2, p. 6, ll. 5–10.
Regarding claim 12:
Kao discloses that a filter assembly component comprising: an end cap (Kao’s shaping pieces 4, 5) comprising a pleat guide channel disposed about a circumference of the end cap (as shown in Fig. 1a, the end cap 4 and 5 has a star shaped hollow interior, which reads on the claimed “pleat guide channel”), the pleat guide channel comprising a repeating pattern comprising a plurality of peaks and a plurality of valleys distributed about the circumference of the end cap 4 or 5 (as shown in Fig. 1). Kao Fig. 1, p. 5, ll. 1–5. Kao discloses that the pleat guide channel is configured to receive and mechanically support a pleated filter media 2 within the pleat guide channel. Kao Figs. 1, p. 6.
Regarding claim 13:
Kao discloses that the filter assembly component of claim 12, wherein the pleat guide channel comprises a uniform pleat channel depth (as shown in Fig. 1a, both shaping pieces 4 and 5 has a uniform pleat depth). Kao Fig. 1, p. 6.
Regarding claim 19:
Kao discloses that the filter assembly component of claim 12, wherein the repeating pattern comprises a repeating pattern of uniformly distributed peaks and valleys about the circumference of the end cap (as shown in Fig. 1). Kao Fig. 1.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kao in view of Sarangapani et al., US 2005/0004525 A1 (“Sarangapani”).
Regarding claim 4:
Kao does not explicitly disclose that the filter assembly component of claim 1, wherein the plurality of peaks extend away from a center point of the pleat guide from 0.25 inches to 0.5 inches.
However, Kao discloses that the length of each bracing member 3 can be adjusted in assembling in pursuance of the size of a dust collector to be used for. Kao p. 8, ll. 9–12.
Additionally, in the analogous art of pleated filters, Sarangapani discloses a filter with 0.5 inches in diameter. Sarangapani Fig. 5, [0041]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kao’s filter to have a size similar to that of Sarangapani because such filter size are known in the art. With such modification, modified Kao would have a filter diameter of 0.5 inches, which gives a radius of 0.25 inches. Kao’s pleat guide 3 functions as an inner support, and the claimed dimension from a center point of the pleat guide 3 is essentially claiming the radius of Kao’s pleat guide, which would correspond to the filter bag radius, and therefore modified Kao has a peak extending from a center point of the pleat guide falls within the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 5 and 16–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kao.
Regarding claim 5:
Kao does not disclose that the filter assembly component of claim 1, wherein the pleat guide is from 3 mm to 5 mm thick.
However, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose a thickness by design to ensure sufficiently stability of the pleat guide. A person of ordinary skill in the art is capable of selecting an optimum thickness that provide sufficient support without wasting material.
Regarding claim 16:
Kao discloses that the filter assembly component of claim 12, wherein the pleat guide channel comprises a thickness that is greater than the thickness of a pleated filter media to be placed into the pleat guide channel as shown in Kao’s Fig. 3a to allow accommodating Kao’s rod 11. Kao FIG. 3a.
While Kao does not disclose a range of 20% to 30% greater, the thickness different directly corresponds to the diameter of the rod, because the space is configured to accommodate Kao’s rod 11. Since Kao’s rod are used to provide support to the filter media and Kao’s bracing members 3, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a suitable rod diameter that can provide both enough support strength without unnecessarily wasting materials and therefore reduce cost.
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 17:
Kao discloses that the filter assembly component of claim 12, wherein the pleat guide channel comprises a thickness that is greater than the thickness of a pleated filter media to be placed into the pleat guide channel as shown in Kao’s Fig. 3a to allow accommodating Kao’s rod 11. Kao FIG. 3a.
While Kao does not disclose a range of 25% greater, the thickness different directly corresponds to the diameter of the rod, because the space is configured to accommodate Kao’s rod 11. Since Kao’s rod are used to provide support to the filter media and Kao’s bracing members 3, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a suitable rod diameter that can provide both enough support strength without unnecessarily wasting materials and therefore reduce cost.
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kao in view of Li et al., US 2013/0195740 A1 (“Li”).
Regarding Claim 6:
Kao does not disclose that the filter assembly component of claim 1, wherein the pleat guide comprises a diameter of from 3 inches to 5 inches in diameter.
However, Kao discloses that the length of each bracing member 3 can be adjusted in assembling in pursuance of the size of a dust collector to be used for. Kao p. 8, ll. 9–12.
Additionally, in the analogous art of filter bags, Li discloses a filter bag with a diameter between 4 and 36 inches. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kao’s filter to have a size similar to that of Li because such filter size are known in the art. With such modification, modified Kao would have a filter diameter between 4 and 36 inches. Kao’s pleat guide 3 functions as an inner support, which would have a diameter correspond to the filter bag diameter. Modified Kao therefore has pleat guide diameter overlaps with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kao in view of Stanley et al., US 2022/0323896 A1 (“Stanley”).
Regarding claim 14:
Kao does not disclose that the filter assembly component of claim 12, wherein the pleat guide channel comprises a non-uniform pleat channel depth.
However, in the analogous art of pleated filters, Stanley discloses a non-uniform pleat channel depth filter 10. Stanley Fig. 1, [0020]. Stanley discloses its non-uniform pleat design provide pleat configurations that use the existing outside filter geometry while increasing the amount of usable or “unmasked” filter material within the given filtration space. Stanley Fig. 1, [0006]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adopt Stanley’s non-uniform pleat design in Kao for the benefits disclosed. With such modification, modified Kao would necessarily have a pleat guide channel comprise a non-uniform pleat channel depth to match the non-uniform pleat filter.
Regarding claim 20:
Kao does not disclose that the filter assembly component of claim 12, wherein the repeating pattern comprises a repeating pattern of non-uniformly distributed peaks and valleys about the circumference of the end cap.
However, in the analogous art of pleated filters, Stanley discloses a non-uniform pleat channel depth filter 10. Stanley Fig. 1, [0020]. Stanley discloses its non-uniform pleat design provide pleat configurations that use the existing outside filter geometry while increasing the amount of usable or “unmasked” filter material within the given filtration space. Stanley Fig. 1, [0006]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adopt Stanley’s non-uniform pleat design in Kao for the benefits disclosed. With such modification, modified Kao would necessarily have a pleat guide channel comprise a non-uniform pleat channel depth to match the non-uniform pleat filter.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kao in view of Yadav et al., US 2016/0177891 A1 (“Yadav”).
Regarding claim 15:
Kao does not disclose that the filter assembly component of claim 12, wherein the pleat guide channel comprises a depth of from 0.125 inches to 1.0 inches.
However, in the analogous art of cylindrical pleated filters, Yadav discloses a pleated depth of at least 25 mm (equivalent to 0.98 inch). Yadav FIG. 7, [0114]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kao’s pleat depth to be similar to that disclosed by Yadav because such pleat depth is known in the art as being suitable for cylindrical pleated filters. With such modification, modified Kao would have a pleat depth falls within the claimed range and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kao in view of Schrage et al., US 2003/0182911 A1 (“Schrage”).
Regarding claim 18:
Kao does not disclose that the filter assembly component of claim 12, wherein the end cap 4, 5 comprises a diameter of from 3 inches to 5 inches in diameter.
In the analogous art of cylindrical pleated filters, Schrage discloses a pleated filter with end cap 60 and 61. Schrage Fig. 1. Schrage discloses the end cap would have an outer side diameter of 3.5 inches to 7.5 inches. Schrage [0161]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Kao’s end cap to have outer diameter range similar to that disclosed by Schrage because such range are known in the art as being suitable for cylindrical pleated filter end caps. With such modification, modified Kao would have an end cap diameter overlapping the claimed range and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776