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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II: claims 14–21 in the reply filed on Nov. 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 and 20 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 16 and 20 are indefinite because the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(D).
Additionally, claim 20 is also indefinite because of the limitation “the plurality of windows.” Claim 20 depends on claim 19, and claim 19 depends on claim 18. Claim 18 recites “a first window and a second window” which qualifies as “a plurality of windows” and claim 19 recites the term “a plurality of windows”. Additionally, claim 20 requires baffle structure associated with the plurality of windows. The “first window” and “second window” are associated with baffle plates, it is therefore unclear which window structure is referred to when reciting “the plurality of windows.”
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 14–16 and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al., CN 106837470 A (“Jiang”)1.
Regarding claim 14:
Jiang discloses that a flow directing member (Jiang’s collision separation structure as shown in Jiang Fig. 6, p. 9), comprising:
a body (Jiang’s collision separation shell 310, Jiang Fig. 6, p. 9) comprising a plurality of sidewalls (Wall body 312, 314, 313, 315 and cover 320, Jiang Fig. 6, p. 7),
the plurality of sidewalls (312–315 and 320 of Jiang) together defining an interior cavity (Jiang’s separation space 332, Jiang Fig. 6, p.7) sized to receive a filter media (Jiang’s filter 400, Jiang Fig. 6, p. 9) therein,
the plurality of sidewalls (312–315 of Jiang) comprising:
a first sidewall (Jiang’s cover 320, Jiang Figs. 3 and 6, p. 6) defining an opening (Jiang’s inlet nozzle 321, Jiang Fig. 4, p. 6);
and a second sidewall (Jiang’s wall 314, Jiang Fig. 6, p. 7) coupled to the first sidewall (320 of Jiang, 314 and 320 are coupled to each other forming Jiang’s shell 310, Jiang Fig. 6, p. 7),
the second sidewall defining a first window (Jiang’s first air discharge opening 317 counting from left in Jiang’s Fig. 6) and a second window (Jiang’s fourth air discharge opening 317 counting from left in Jiang’s Fig. 6) that are fluidly coupled to the opening (Jiang’s inlet nozzle 321) by the interior cavity (Jiang’s space 332, Jiang Fig. 6, ps.7–8),
the body (310 of Jiang) structured to direct flow leaving through the first window at a first angle that is different from a second angle of the flow leaving through the second window (Jiang’s air flow passing through the filter 400 in a horizontal direction in reference to Fig. 6, and then turn to exit via outlet 317, however, the turning degree is different based on the location of the outlet 317, for example, the outlet 317 on the left most would form an obtuse angle with the outlet 317 to exit and the outlet 317 on the right most would form a nearly 90 degree angle when exiting, Jiang therefore read on this limitation, Jiang Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15:
Jiang discloses that the flow directing member of claim 14, further comprising a flow directing baffle (as shown in Jiang Fig. 3, p. 6) disposed on an edge of the first window (317 of Jiang) and extending away from the second sidewall (314 of Jiang, Jiang Fig. 3, p. 6).
Regarding claim 16:
Jiang discloses that the flow directing member of claim 15, wherein the flow directing baffle is one of a plurality of flow directing baffles including a first flow directing baffle (baffle of the 1st outlet 317 counting from left in reference to Fig. 3 of Jiang) disposed on a first edge (see annotated Fig. 3 of Jiang below) of the first window and a second flow directing baffle disposed on a second edge of the second window (see annotated Fig. 3 of Jiang below), the first edge being substantially perpendicular to the second edge (see annotated Fig. 3 of Jiang below).
PNG
media_image1.png
611
927
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18:
Jiang discloses that a flow directing member (Jiang Fig. 3, p. 6), comprising:
a body (Jiang’s collision separation shell 310, Jiang Fig. 3, p. 6) comprising a plurality of sidewalls (Jiang’s wall body 312–315 and cover 320, Jiang Fig. 3, p. 6),
the plurality of sidewalls (312–315 of Jiang) together defining an interior cavity (Jiang’s separation space 332, Jiang Fig. 6, p. 9) sized to receive a filter media (Jiang’s filter 400, Jiang Fig. 6, p. 9) therein,
the plurality of sidewalls (312–315 of Jiang) comprising a first sidewall (Jiang’s wall 314, Jiang Fig. 6, p. 7) defining a first window (1st outlet 317 from left, Jiang Fig. 6, p. 7) and a second window (1st outlet 317 from right, Jiang Fig. 6, p. 7); and
a flow directing baffle disposed along an edge of the first window and extending away from the first sidewall at an oblique angle relative to the first sidewall (as shown in Jiang Fig. 3, p. 6),
the flow directing baffle directing flow leaving through the first window at a first angle relative to the first sidewall that is different from a second angle of the flow leaving through the second window (Jiang’s air flow passing through the filter 400 in a horizontal direction in reference to Fig. 6, and then turn to exit via outlet 317, however, the turning degree is different based on the location of the outlet 317, for example, the outlet 317 on the left most would form an obtuse angle with the outlet 317 to exit and the outlet 317 on the right most would form a nearly 90 degree angle when exiting, Jiang therefore read on this limitation, Jiang Fig. 6; additionally, the highlighted additional structure on the first window would also cause flow change direction when exiting first window compared to second window, Jiang annotated Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19:
Jiang discloses that the flow directing member of claim 18, wherein the plurality of sidewalls includes a second sidewall (Jiang’s cover 320) defining a plurality of windows extending along the second sidewall (Jiang’s inflow nozzles 321, Jiang Fig. 3, p. 6).
Regarding claim 20:
Jiang discloses that the flow directing member of claim 19, wherein the flow directing baffle is one of a plurality of flow directing baffles including a first flow directing baffle disposed on a first edge of a first one of the plurality of windows and a second flow directing baffle disposed on a second edge of a second one of the plurality of windows, the first edge being substantially perpendicular to the second edge (see annotated Fig. 3 of Jiang below).
PNG
media_image3.png
681
1024
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Li et al., CN 108031192 A (“Li”)2.
Regarding claim 17:
Jiang does not disclose that the flow directing member of claim 14, wherein the first window is one of a first plurality of windows arranged in a first row along the second sidewall and the second window is one of a second plurality of windows arranged in a second row along the second sidewall.
In the analogous art of gas-liquid separator, Li discloses an outlet structure comprising a plurality of baffles (Li’s baffle plate 143, Li Fig. 1, p. 3). Li’s baffle plates 143 are arranged on both side of a wall structure (Li’s plate 141, Li Fig. 1, p. 3). Li discloses that when two sides are provided with a baffle plate, it improves the impact frequency and separation efficiency, Li Fig. 1, p. 2). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include baffle plate on both side of Jiang’s second wall 312 for the benefits disclosed). With such modification, Jiang as modified would have two row along the second sidewall with the first window being one of a first plurality of windows arranged in a first row along the second sidewall and the second window being one of a second plurality of windows arranged in a second row along the second sidewall 312.
Regarding claim 21:
Jiang does not disclose that the flow directing member of claim 18, wherein the flow directing baffle is one of a plurality of flow directing baffles coupled to the first sidewall, and wherein a first angle between a first one of the plurality of flow directing baffles and the first sidewall is different from a second angle between a second one of the plurality of flow directing baffles and the first sidewall.
In the analogous art of gas-liquid separator, Li discloses an outlet structure comprising a plurality of baffles (Li’s baffle plate 143, Li Fig. 1, p. 3). Li’s baffle plates 143 are arranged on both side of a wall structure with different coupling angles with the wall structure (Li’s plate 141, Li Fig. 1, p. 3). Li discloses that its design improves the impact frequency and separation efficiency, Li Fig. 1, p. 2). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use baffle plate design of Li on Jiang’s second wall 312 for the benefits disclosed). With such modification, Jiang as modified would have a first angle between a first one of the plurality of flow directing baffles and the first sidewall is different from a second angle between a second one of the plurality of flow directing baffles and the first sidewall.
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
1 A copy of Jiang’s original document and machine translation is provided with the Office Action. The examiner relies on the original document for the text and machine translation for the figure.
2 Li is original document is 6-page FOR dated Feb. 17, 2023. A copy of Li’s machine translation is provided with the office action. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text.
Prosecution Insights