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 § 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 5, 7 and 8 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.
Claim 5 recites:
5. The retaining element of claim 1 wherein the retaining element is pivotably hinged to the air intake awning assembly. Emphasis added.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “air intake awning assembly” is a positively recited structural element of the claimed apparatus. This is because claim 5 is written such that the “air intake awning assembly” is a non-positively recited element, as claim 1 says that the retaining element is “for multiple air filters of an air intake awning assembly.” But claim 5 appears to intend for the “air intake awning assembly” to be a positively recited structural element as the claim says that the retaining element “is pivotably hinged to the air intake awning assembly.” For the purpose of examination, the “air intake awning assembly” is not a positively recited structural element of the claimed apparatus.
Claim 5 is also indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 5 is to an apparatus because it describes a “retaining element.” The claim also describes method steps of using the apparatus in the limitation requiring that the retaining element “is pivotably hinged to the air intake awning assembly.” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether direct infringement would occur when the retaining element is created that allows it to be pivotably hinged to an air intake awning assembly, or whether infringement would require that the retaining element is pivotably hinged to an air intake awning assembly. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) (A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite).
To overcome these rejections, claim 5 could be rewritten as:
5. The retaining element of claim 1 wherein the retaining element is configured to be pivotably hinged to the air intake awning assembly.
Claim 7 recites:
7. The retaining element of claim 1 wherein the air intake assembly includes a first end comprising an intake opening corresponding to an air inlet of the datacenter and a second end adapted to retain the multiple air filters in a plane perpendicular to the first end. Emphasis added.
Claim 7 is indefinite because “the air intake assembly” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 7 is interpreted to read:
7. The retaining element of claim 1 wherein the air intake awning assembly includes a first end comprising an intake opening corresponding to an air inlet of the datacenter and a second end adapted to retain the multiple air filters in a plane perpendicular to the first end.
Claim 8 recites:
8. The retaining element of claim 1 wherein the air intake awning assembly further comprises one or more rib elements extending along the first axis disposed between air filters of the multiple air filters adjacent to each other along the second axis; and wherein one or more of the first set of members of the retaining element overlie the rib elements. Emphasis added.
Claim 8 is indefinite because “the rib elements” (plural) lacks antecedent basis because the claim only requires a single rib element (i.e., “one or more rib elements”). For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 8 is interpreted to read:
8. The retaining element of claim 1 wherein the air intake awning assembly further comprises one or more rib elements extending along the first axis disposed between air filters of the multiple air filters adjacent to each other along the second axis; and wherein one or more of the first set of members of the retaining element overlie the one or more rib elements.
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)(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.
Claims 1–3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Den Bossche et al., US 2015/0322859 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Van Den Bossche teaches a tubesheet 44 for multiple filter elements. See Van Den Bossche Fig. 6, [0043]. The tubesheet 44 reads on the “retaining element.” Note that the limitation describing that the retaining element is—“for multiple air filters of an air intake awning assembly for a datacenter”—fails to further limit the scope of the claim, because the limitation describes the intended use rather than the structure of the retaining element. See MPEP 2111.02(II) (if the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is no significance to claim construction if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention).
The tubesheet 44 comprises first frame members 50 extending horizontally, which read on the “first set of members extending along a first axis.” See Van Den Bossche Fig. 6, [0045].
The tubesheet 44 also comprises second frame members 52 extending vertically, which read on the “second set of members extending along a second axis.” The first and second frame members 50, 52 define a plurality of openings 48 (“one or more openings”) between the first and second frame members 50, 52. Id. at Fig. 6, [0043].
The frame members 50, 52 are spaced to overlie boundaries between adjacent filter elements 58 when the tubesheet 40 is disposed above the filter elements, as seen in Figs. 4 and 6. Note that the “multiple air filters” are not a positively recited structural element of the claimed device, and therefore the limitations describing the structural relationship between the “multiple air filters” and the “retaining element” fail to further limit the scope of the claim. See MPEP 2115 (A claim is only limited by positively recited elements).
PNG
media_image1.png
916
923
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Van Den Bossche teaches that the horizontal axis (the “first axis”) and the vertical axis (the “second axis”) are perpendicular to each other, as seen in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 3, Van Den Bossche teaches multiple filter elements 58 disposed adjacent to each other along the horizontal axis (the “first axis”). See Van Den Bossche Fig. 3, [0043]. Note that the claimed “multiple air filters” are not positively recited structural elements of the claimed apparatus, because the claim is to a “retaining element for multiple air filters” instead of a retaining element comprising multiple air filters. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claims 7, the limitations of this claim describe the structure of the “air intake assembly” (interpreted as the “air intake awning assembly”). The “air intake awning assembly” is not a positively recited structural element of claim 7 because the claim is to a “retaining element for multiple air filters of an air intake awning assembly” instead of a system comprising the “retaining assembly” and the “air intake awning assembly.” A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. See MPEP 2115. Therefore, the features of claim 7 fail to further limit the scope of the claimed “retaining element” because they describe the structure of the “air intake awning assembly” which is a non-positively recited structural element of the claimed device.
Even if the limitations of claim 7 receive patentable weight, Van Den Bossche teaches a hood 40 and air inlet frame 80, which collectively read on the “air intake awning assembly.” See Van Den Bossche Fig. 2, [0041]. The hood 40 has an air inlet 42 at a first end, which reads on the “first end comprising an intake opening corresponding to an air inlet of the datacenter.” Also, the inlet frame 80 is at a “second end” of the “air intake awning assembly” 40/80 and is adapted to receive filter elements 58 held by the tubesheet 44 in a plane perpendicular to the “first end.” Id. Note that the “datacenter” is not a positively recited element of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of this claim describe the structure of the “air intake awning assembly,” which is not a positively recited structural element of the claim. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. See MPEP 2115. Therefore, the features of claim 8 fail to further limit the scope of the claimed “retaining element.”
Even if the limitations of claim 8 receive patentable weight, Van Den Bossche teaches a hood 40 and air inlet frame 80, which collectively read on the “air intake awning assembly.” The upper panel of frame 80 (seen in Fig. 5) reads on the “one or more rib elements extending along the first axis disposed between air filters of the multiple air filters adjacent to each other along the second axis.” The upper first frame members 50 (“one or more of the first set of members”) of the tubesheet 44 (the “retaining element”) overlie the upper panel of frame 80, as seen in Figs. 5 and 6.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Bossche et al., US 2015/0322859 A1 in view of Shagott et al., US 5,593,470.
Regarding claim 4, Van Den Bossche teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Van Den Bossche differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to the tubesheet 44 (the “retaining element”) including a clip element adapted to attach the retaining element to the air intake awning assembly.
But the tubesheet 44 is attached to hood 40 and inlet frame 80 (an awning assembly) by some mechanism fastener. See Van Den Bossche [0041].
With this in mind, Shagott teaches a filtration unit 100 where module pairs of the housing structure are connected by clip assemblies 136. The clip assemblies 136 are beneficial because they function to lock the pairs together while the filtration unit 100 is in use, but allow the pairs to be disassembled when not in use. See Shagott Fig. 7, col. 5, l. 58–col. 6, l. 7.
It would have been obvious for the tubesheet 40 to be connected to the hood 40 and inlet frame 80 by the clip assemblies 136 of Shagott so these components can be locked together while in use, while allowing them to be disassembled while not in use.
Note that the “intake awning assembly” is not a positively recited structural element of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2115.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Bossche et al., US 2015/0322859 A1 in view of Tocher, US 2002/0123305 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Van Den Bossche teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Van Den Bossche differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the tubesheet 40 (the “retaining element”) is pivotably hinged to an air intake awning assembly.
But Tocher discloses an air intake vent 2 comprising a filter frame 8 that is pivotably hinged to the intake vent 2. See Tocher Figs. 2, 6, [0013]. The pivotable connection is beneficial because it allows the filter frame 8 to be easily removed from the intake vent 2. It would have been obvious for the tubesheet 40 of Van Den Bossche to be pivotably hinged to the hood 40 and inlet frame 80 (an “air intake awning”) to allow the tubesheet 40 to be easily removable from the air intake system 20.
PNG
media_image2.png
582
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Den Bossche et al., US 2015/0322859 A1 in view of White et al., US 2017/0363318 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Van Den Bossche teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Van Den Bossche differs from claim 6 because it is silent as to the tubesheet 44 (the “retaining element”) comprising one or more holes to attach the tubesheet 44 to an air intake assembly awning using one or more fasteners.
But the tubesheet 44 is attached to the hood 40/air inlet frame 80 (an air intake awning) using some type of fastening mechanism. See Van Den Bossche [0041].
With this in mind, White teaches a filter retaining rack comprising holes 112 for receiving mechanical fasteners to fasten the filter retaining rack in an air handler during installation. See White Fig. 4, [0031]. It would have been obvious for the tubesheet 44 of Van Den Bossche to include holes for receiving mechanical fasteners to allow the tubesheet to be attached to the hood 40/air inlet frame 80.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jupudi et al., US 2023/0108653 A1; Singh et al., US 2021/0332991 A1; Parapurath Monangat et al., US 2020/0363080 A1; Nanjappa et al., US 2019/0383514 A1; Krupo et al., US 2016/0076788 A1; Saraswathi et al., US 2015/0152785 A1; Hawkinson et al., US 2014/0251143 A1; Upadhayay et al., US 2014/0251129 A1; Driessens et al., US 2014/0123621 A1; Singh, US 2008/0141636 A1; Klepfer et al., US 2008/0009235 A1; Nelson et al., US 10,077,933 B2; Cheng, US 6,387,164 B1; Beasley, US 5,050,488; Davis, US 4,759,196.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776