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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 already includes that the spacer comprises an adhesive. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wiser USPA 2023/0324059 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Wiser discloses a filter media module for use in an air filter to filter contaminants (paragraph 2) comprising: a filter frame (figure 13: 184); and a filter media removably mounted within the filter frame and defining a thickness of the filter media (figure 13: filter 125), wherein the filter media comprises channels therethrough (figure 13: channels between layers 125); wherein the channels are defined by spacers (spacers 129 define the channels), wherein the spacers comprise discrete structural elements including adhesive spacers that bond with adjacent filter media layers while defining the channels (figure 13: spacers 129 are adhesive according to paragraph 95), wherein the filter media comprises more than two layers of filter media, wherein the more than two layers of filter media are separated by the spacers (see figure 13).
Regarding claim 2, Wiser discloses that the spacers have a circular cross sectional shape (figure 15: spacers 129 have a circular cross sectional shape at least at one location).
Regarding claim 3, Wiser discloses that the spacers have an elongated cross sectional shape at least at one location (see figure 13: spacer 129).
Regarding claim 7, Wiser discloses that the spacers between the layers of the filter media form the channels (see figure 13).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the filter media layers of Wiser can be considered stacked horizontally or vertically, depending on which direction the filter is oriented (see figure 13).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Wiser discloses that the channels are entirely oriented parallel to airflow therethrough or at an angle to airflow (figure 13: airflow is capable of flowing parallel or at an angle to the channels). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 13, Wiser discloses that the channels are oriented such that they terminate before a trailing end of the filter media module (figure 14: ½ of the channels terminate on the right and the other ½ of the channels terminate on the left).
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.
Claims 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiser USPA 2023/0324059 A1.
Wiser is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 6, Wiser does not disclose that the adhesive does not emanate VOCs. It nevertheless would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize an adhesive that does not emanate VOCs in the filter of Wiser, since the purpose of Wiser is air filtration. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Wiser does not disclose that the media comprises activated carbon granules or powder located between nonwoven media. Nevertheless, these are well-known air filtration media. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have the filtration media of Wiser contain activated carbon granules or powder located between nonwoven media, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 are 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.
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 CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776