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 submission of new drawings and amendment to the claimed filed on 9/23/2025 is hereby acknowledged.
The new drawings over the objections to drawings.
Amendment to claims obviates the rejections under 112(b).
Claim 1 is amended to incorporate the limitations of claim 2.
Claims 2 and 12 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11, which depends from claim 1, recites “the filter frame comprising a plurality of filter cells located in the cavity of the filter frame”. Claim 1 recites “the filter frame comprising a holder defining a cavity configured to receive a plurality of filter cells”. It is not clear how claim 11 distinguishes from claim 1; they appear to be the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 14 under 35 USC 102(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant specifically argues that the amended claim comprising “a basing element configured to urge the plurality of filter cells together within the cavity such that adjacent filter cells within the plurality of filter cells are pressed against one another” is not disclosed by Soh (see Remarks, page 9 through page 10. 3rd paragraph). The examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 8,821,754 to Mann et al. (hereinafter “Mann”).
With respect to remaining claims, Applicant takes the position these dependent claims are “patentable by at least dependency on an allowable claim”. Independent claim 1 is not allowable and, therefore, the dependent claims are not found allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1, 3. 4, 9, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 2006/0042207) in view of Mann (US 8,721,754 ).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, and 11, Jenkins discloses a fan coil media cabinet (Fig. 1; abstract) (i.e., the filter frame) for use with a fan coil unit (Fig. 1; abstract) (i.e., a filter frame for an air handling unit), the fan coil media unit, comprising:
an inner liner 15 that is contained within an outer shell 16 (Fig. 1; first 2 lines of [0015]) (i.e., a holder defining a cavity), the inner liner is dimensioned so that media filters having a width up to five inches may be inserted into and removed from the liner through the door opening (first 4 lines of [0016]) (i.e., configured to receive a plurality of filter cells); and
a door 27 is removably secured to the inner liner (Fig. 1; lines 6-7 of [0016]) (i.e., a removable lid configured to secure the plurality of filter cells in the cavity).
Jenkins fails to disclose wherein the filter frame comprises a biasing element configured to urge the plurality of filter cells together within the cavity such that adjacent filter cells within the plurality of filter cells are pressed against one another.
Mann discloses a filtration apparatus that holds a filter element which is used to clear air (col. 1, lines 15). Mann discloses a spring-loaded filter clamping frame that includes a rear frame section defining an interior space which secures a filter media. The filter claiming frame also includes a front frame section defining an interior space. The front frame section is slidably engageable with the rear frame section and the front section secures the filter media. The filter clamping frame also includes a frame biasing member located between the rear frame section and the front frame section. The frame biasing member applies a force urging the rear frame section and the front frame section apart, resulting in a spring-loaded filter clamping frame. See col. 1, lines 47 to col. 2, line 14. The spring-loaded filter clamping frame includes a coil spring coil in each of four corners (see col. 6, lines 37-41). Mann further discloses the spring-loaded filter frame is designed to hold a filter media within the frame and also limit the movement of a final filter when the spring-loaded filter clamping frame is located between the final filter and a fixed object, such as a holding frame. See col. 3, lines 19-25.
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 filter system of Jenkins to have included the biasing element disclosed by Mann because Mann discloses the biasing element limits the movement of the filters contained within the frame, promotes a filter gasket seal for the final filter and ensure fluid flow passes through the filter media and not around the filter media (see Mann, col. 3, lines 19-23 and 34-49).
Regarding claim 9, Jenkins discloses the shell 16 is fabricated from a single sheet of sheet metal that is bent to form a top wall 41 and a bottom wall 42 that are co-joined by a back wall 43 (Fig. 3; lines 4-7 [0019]) (i.e., the holder comprises a U-shaped body).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Jenkins discloses a method of assembling a fan coil media cabinet (Fig. 1; abstract) (i.e., the filter frame) for a fan coil unit (Fig. 1; abstract) (i.e., a filter frame for an air handling unit), the method comprising:
providing a media filter cabinet (i.e., a filter frame) [0014] as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection above); providing media filters(first 4 lines of [0016]) (i.e., a plurality of filter cells);
the media filters inserted into and removed from the liner through the door opening (first 4 lines of [0016]) (i.e., inserting the plurality of filter cells into the cavity);
and removably securing the door 27 to the inner liner (Fig. 1; lines 6-7 of [0016]) (i.e., mounting the removable lid to the holder, such that the plurality of filter cells are held securely within the cavity).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 20060042207 A1), further in view of Singh (US 20200269172 A1).
Jenkins teaches all limitations as set forth above and teaches a door 27 is removably secured to the inner liner (Fig. 1; lines 6-7 of [0016]) (i.e., a removable lid). Jenkins is silent on the holder is configured to receive the removable lid at a plurality of positions; wherein a volume of the cavity is defined by the position in which the removable lid is received.
Singh is directed to an adjustable filter track system for an air handling system (abstract). Singh recites the adjustable filter track system 100 (i.e., the holder) includes a plurality of recesses 102 formed by a plurality of filter tracks 104 (Fig. 5; [0068]) (i.e., configured to receive the removable lid at a plurality of positions). The depth 114 of the plurality of recesses 102 may be adjusted by switching between the first configuration and the second configuration (Fig. 5; [0069]) (i.e., wherein a volume of the cavity is defined by the position in which the removable lid is received). Jenkins and Singh are both directed to filter 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 Jenkins to include the plurality of positions and cavity volumes because it allows the system to accept filters of different sizes, as taught by Singh ([0069]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 20060042207 A1), further in view of Jeong (US 20200061231 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jenkins teaches all limitations as set forth above, and recites that any suitable type of connector for removably securing the door to the frame may be employed without departing from the teachings of the invention (end of [0016]).
Jenkins is silent on the removable lid is configured to be slidably received by the holder. Jeong is directed to an air purifier (see Abstract).
Jeong discloses the door 1190 (i.e., the removable lid) completely separated from the body 110 (i.e., the holder) is closed by coupling the door 1190 to the body 110 in a sliding manner (Fig. 15; lines 9-11 [0156]) (i.e., configured to be slidably received by the holder).
Jenkins and Jeong are both directed to air purification apparatuses. 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 Jenkins to include the removable lid being slidably received by the holder because separation of the door allows the user to reduce time and cost for replacement of the filters, as taught by Jeong (see [0157]).
Regarding claim 7, Jenkins teaches all limitations as set forth above, but is silent on the holder comprises a first pair of rails; wherein the removable lid comprises a second pair of rails; and wherein the holder is configured to receive the removable lid by sliding engagement between the first pair of rails and the Jeong is directed to an air purifier. (abstract) Jeong recites the body 110 (i.e., the holder) is formed with door guide grooves 1117 (Fig. 15; lines 17-19 of [0156]) (i.e., a first pair of rails). The door guides 910 (i.e., a second pair of rails) are formed at both sides of the door 1190 (Fig. 15; lines 15-16 of [0156]) (i.e., the removable lid). The door 1190 is coupled to the body 110 by inserting the door guides 910 into the door guide grooves 1117 (Fig. 15; lines 23-25 of [0156]) (i.e., wherein the holder is configured to receive the removable lid by sliding engagement between the first pair of rails and the second pair of rails). Jenkins and Jeong are both directed to air purification apparatuses. 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 Jenkins to include the removable lid being slidably received by the holder because it allows the door to be secured to the body, and separated from the body [0156], which allows the user to reduce time and cost for replacement of the filters, as taught by Jeong (see [0157]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 20060042207 A1), further in view of Jeong (US 20200061231 A1) and Singh (US 20200269172).
Jenkins and Jeong teach all limitations as set forth above, but are silent on a height of the first pair of rails relative to a base of the holder is adjustable from a first height to a second height. Singh is directed to an adjustable filter track system for an air handling system (abstract). Singh recites the plurality of filter tracks 104 (i.e., the first pair of rails) is spaced with a respective distance 192 between one another along the height 190 of the first strut 106 and the second strut 108 (Fig. 8; [0079]) (i.e., relative to a base of the holder is adjustable from a first height to a second height).
Jenkins and Singh are both directed to filter 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 Jenkins to include the adjustable height of the rails, because it provides a plurality of configurations that enable a filter track to secure filters having various sizes and/or thicknesses, as taught by Singh [0067]. 20.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 20060042207 A1), further in view of Park (US 20200398207).
Jenkins teaches all limitations as set forth above, and teaches the cabinet (i.e., filter frame) is mounted in the return air duct of a ducted system directly to the inlet (i.e., an opening configured to define an air inlet) of a fan coil unit [0014]. The opening configured to define an inlet can be seen in Fig. 1. The outlet is on the opposite side of the cabinet (see [0014]).
Jenkins is silent on the removable lid comprises an opening configured to define the other of the air outlet or air inlet.
Park is directed to a filter module for use with an air purifier (abstract). Park recites the movable housing 12 (i.e., removable lid) has a front surface forming the front surface of the main body 10 (i.e., filter frame), and a plurality of the inlets 12a provided on the front surface of the movable housing 12 are provided (Fig. 2; [0046]) (i.e., an opening configured to define the air inlet).
Jenkins and Park are both directed to air filter 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 Jenkins to include the inlet placement because it allows the filters to collect foreign substances in the air immediately after entering the inlet [0057]. 21.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0042207 to Jenkins et al. (hereinafter “Jenkins”) in view of US 20150273376 to Sohn et al. (hereinafter “Sohn”).
Regarding claim 13, Jenkins is silent on an air pump in flow communication with the filter frame for pumping air through the plurality of filter cells.
Sohn is directed to a filter assembly within an air cleaner. (abstract) Sohn recites the air cleaner 10 (i.e., an air handling unit) may further include a blower fan assembly 60 (i.e., an air pump) to suction in and discharge indoor air, a filter assembly 80 (i.e., plurality of filter cells) to purify the air suctioned by the blower fan assembly 60 (Fig. 5; [0059]) (i.e., flow communication with the filter frame for pumping air through the plurality of filter cells).
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 Jenkins to include an air pump because it allows the system to suction in, purify, and discharge indoor air (see [0059]).
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 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