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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–2, 7–8 and 10–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaiser et al., US 2019/0015769 A1 (“Kaiser”) in view of Oh et al., DE 112012000443 T5 (“Oh”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kaiser discloses that a filter assembly (Kaiser’s filter device 1). Kaiser Fig. 1, [0046]. Kaiser discloses that the filter assembly 1 comprising: a filter element (Kaiser’s filter insert 3). Kaiser Fig. 2, [0046]. Kaiser discloses a filter housing 2 configured to accommodate the filter element 3. Kaiser Fig. 1, [0047]. Kaiser also discloses a bellows of a filter medium (Kaiser’s filter could be folded, which is a filter bellows).
Kaiser does not explicitly disclose that the filter element 3 comprising a filter frame. However, Kaiser discloses in its own disclosure a prior art (Oh) in its disclosure that a filter insert could have a frame element, which is configured to accommodate filter material with an end-side flange to hold a seal. Kaiser [0004]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Kaiser’s filter insert 3 to have a similar frame element as that disclosed by Oh such that Kaiser’s end-side flange to hold a seal could have a holding surface. With such modification, Kaiser’s filter element 3 would be accommodate in a filter frame similar to Oh’s frame 48. Oh Fig. 2, p. 4.
Kaiser also discloses that a seal 19 externally circumferential on the filter frame (similar to that disclosed in Oh, where Oh shows an externally circumferential seal 26 on its filter frame 48). Oh Fig. 2, P. 4. Kaiser discloses that at least one filter-side mechanical encoding element (Kaiser’s support element 24) is integrated in the seal (Kaiser’s support element 24 is integral with seal 19). Kaiser Fig. 6, [0063]. Kaiser also discloses that the at least one filter-side encoding element 24 is configured to be a recess in the seal because Kaiser discloses its support element 24 could have teeth, which engaged with the recess 14 of the contour 13. Kaiser Fig. 6, [0064]. Kaiser’s teeth structured support element 24 would have recesses matching Kaiser’s intermediate element 31, and that the recess comprising a groove matching the shape of Kaiser’s intermediate element 31. Kaiser Fig. 6, [0064]. Kaiser discloses that the seal 19 has a reduced height in a region of the filter-side encoding element (as shown in Fig. 6), wherein at least one housing-side mechanical encoding element 13 is integrated in the filter housing 4, wherein the at least one housing-side encoding element 13 comprises an elevation comprising a tongue, nose or rib (Kaiser’s contour 13 comprising a tongue, nose or rib 31 as shown in Fig. 6). Kaiser Fig. 6, [0062]. Kaiser discloses that the at least one filter-side encoding element 24 and the housing-side coding element 13 together form an encoding device (Kaiser discloses its support element 24 could provide with teeth, which engages with the recess 14 of the counter 13). Kaiser Fig. 6, [0064]. Kaiser discloses that the seal 19 comprises a radial seal (Kaiser discloses sufficient pressing of the upper sealing surface 23 against upper housing structure 26 is desired, sufficient pressing of sealing element 19 would causing the sealing element to expand in a direction perpendicular to side wall 29, and therefore the sealing surface of seal 19 directly contacting side wall 29 would be a radial seal, because the sealing force comes from a radial direction). Kaiser Fig. 6, [0017]. Kaiser also discloses that the filter housing 4, on an inner side thereof, has a step (flat surface between inner web 9 and outer web 10, similar to that shown in Fig. 1) as a circumferential shoulder (the step is shown as a circumferential step similar to that shown in Fig. 1) that forms an axial bearing surface for the seal 19 (as shown in Fig. 1, the step forms an axial bearing surface for seal 19). Kaiser Figs. 1 and 6, [0015].
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Kaiser discloses that the filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the radial seal 19 has a compensation groove (as shown in Fig. 6). Kaiser Fig. 6, [0062].
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Kaiser discloses that the filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the elevation 31 only extends over part of a height of the filter housing 4. Kaiser Fig. 6, [0047].
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Kaiser discloses that the filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the elevation 31 is integral and a same material as the filter housing 4 because they both belong to the lower housing structure, which are made of the same material. Kaiser Fig. 6, [0029].
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Kaiser discloses that the filter assembly according claim 1, wherein the bellows is in a filter plane (similar to that shown in Fig. 2, which is horizontal), wherein an insertion direction of the filter element 3 into the filter housing 4 is oriented perpendicular to the filter plane (similar to that shown in Fig. 1, which is vertical), and wherein the at least one housing-side encoding element 13 and the at least one filter-side encoding element 24 extend in the insertion direction (both 13 and 24 extends in vertical direction). Kaiser Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Kaiser discloses that a method, comprising using the filter element of claim 1 in a passenger cabin of a vehicle to filter secondary air or fresh air (Kaiser discloses its filter has numerous applications, including in motor vehicles for filtering air, It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Kaiser’s filter element as discussed in claim 1 to be used to filter air in a passenger cabin of a vehicle). Kaiser [0007].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaiser in view of Oh, and in further view of Epli et al., CN 109689181 A (“Epli”).
Regarding Claim 3:
Kaiser does not disclose the filter element of claim 1, wherein the seal is coupled to the filter frame in an interlocking manner, and wherein, to create the interlocking connection, a groove is disposable in the seal and a tongue is providable on the filter frame, the groove and the tongue engaging each other.
Similar to modified Kaiser, Epli discloses a rectangular filter frame 28 comprising a peripheral seal 40. Epli Fig. 9, p. 7, 3rd para. Epli discloses the seal 40 is coupled to the filter frame 28 in an interlocking manner, wherein, a groove (between Epli’s sealing surface 42 and 44) is disposable in the seal 40 and a tongue (Epli’s tab 31) is providable on the filter frame 28, the groove and the tongue 31 engages with each other. Epli Fig. 10, p. 8, 4th para. It would have been obvious for Kaiser’s seal 19 to be in an interlocking connection with its frame because such interlocking connection is known in the air filtration art to be suitable to connect a peripheral seal with a rectangular filter frame.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaiser in view of Oh, and in further view of Franz et al., WO 2019/110786 A1 (“Franz”).
Modified Kaiser discloses that the filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the seal 19 is foamed (Kaiser discloses its seal is a foam material). Kaiser [0067].
Modified Kaiser does not disclose that the filter seal 19 is molded, onto the filter frame so as to provide an adhesive bond between the seal and the filter frame.
Similar to modified Kaiser, Franz discloses s seal 22 comprising an encoding element 240. Franz Fig. 8, p. 9, last para. Additionally, Franz discloses its seal 22 could be “indissolubly” molded on to the filter frame, which means there is an adhesive bond between the seal and the filter frame. Franz p. 5, 2nd para. It would have been obvious for modified Kaiser’s seal 22 to be molded on the filter frame the same way as disclosed by Franz because such design is known in the art as being suitable to attached seal structure to the frame.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The examiner drops the objection in view of applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner drops the rejection because the applicant cancels claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The applicant argues that the frame Kaiser disclosed is from a piece of background art, and Kaiser merely states the background art discloses a filter insert with a frame element which has an end-sided flange, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to incorporate a frame-element with an end-sided flange into Kaiser’s device because such structure is incompatible to interact with contour 13 of the Kaiser’s housing 4. Applicant Rem. dated Oct. 16, 2025, p. 7.
The examiner does not agree. The applicant does not give a specific reason of why the proposed modification in view of the background art reference (hereinafter “Oh”) presented in the rejection is not compatible with Kaiser. Oh discloses a similar panel filter as that disclosed in Kaiser, and Oh’s frame structure 48 is located at a similar position as that disclosed by Applicant’s annotated Fig. 1. Oh Fig. 2. Based on the teaching given in Oh, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a filter frame structure in Kaiser such that Kaiser’s end-side flange to hold a seal could have a holding surface as discussed in the rejection section. Additionally, Kaiser does not exclude the possibility of using filter frames and adding such frame structure is beneficial to protect the filter insert of Kaiser.
The applicant then argues that Kaiser fails to describe a radial seal, where the seal is externally circumferential on the filter frame because Kaiser merely teaches the use of two-part housing, where the filter inserted is situated in between. Applicant Rem. ps. 7–9.
The examiner does not agree, Oh clearly shows a seal 26 externally circumferential on the filter frame 48. Oh Fig. 2, p. 4. Note that Oh is now included as a secondary reference in the rejection section with the same ground of rejection. Oh is included merely for the purpose of better illustrating the proposed amendment. Additionally, modified Kaiser’s seal 19 has s sealing surface contacting Kaiser’s side wall 29, which is a radial seal because that sealing surface provides a sealing function in a radial direction. Kaiser discloses a sufficient pressing on seal 19 is preferred, which would cause sufficient deformation of seal 19, which would inevitably causing the seal 19 to expand horizontally in response to the pressure, and causing a radial seal effect between side wall 29 and seal 19, and therefore, seal 19 is a radial seal.
Applicant’s argument regarding the housing-side encoding element (Applicant Rem. p. 9) is moot because the current rejection relies on Kaiser’s Fig. 6, which is an alternative embodiment provided by Kaiser.
Applicant also argues its design separate the functions of sealing and positioning/identification aid, and Kaiser’s device fails to perform such function. Applicant Rem. ps. 10–11.
The examiner points out that for apparatus claims, the examination is focused on the proposed structure rather than a function, not to mention that the function is not included in the claim. Such argument is not commensurate with the scope of the invention.
Applicant’s argument regarding “mere reversal of parts” (Applicant Rem. p. 10) is moot because the current rejection does not rely on such rationale.
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