Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/116,132

Filter Systems for Room Air Conditioners

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 01, 2023
Examiner
MCKENZIE, THOMAS B
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Rheem Manufacturing Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
551 granted / 961 resolved
-7.7% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
91 currently pending
Career history
1052
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.5%
-12.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 961 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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. Claim 12 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 12 recites: 12. The air filter of claim 1, wherein the filter is configured to cover all, or substantially all, of an air intake portion of an air conditioner unit, to enable the filter to filter air before it passes over an indoor coil and is subsequently outputted by the air conditioner unit via one or more air outlets. Emphasis added. Claim 12 is indefinite because “the filter” lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, claim 12 could be rewritten as: 12. The air filter of claim 1, wherein the air filter is configured to cover all, or substantially all, of an air intake portion of an air conditioner unit, to enable the air filter to filter air before it passes over an indoor coil and is subsequently outputted by the air conditioner unit via one or more air outlets. 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. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poggi, Jr. et al., US 5,458,667 in view of Dimicelli, US 7,037,354 B1. Regarding claim 1, Poggi teaches an air filter panel 20, which reads on the claimed “air filter.” See Poggi Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 27–31. The filter panel 20 comprises a frame (referred to in Poggi as peripheral edge 21), which reads on the claimed “body.” See Poggi Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 34–37. The frame 21 comprises a pair upper and lower guide edge portions 21b, 21d, which read on the “pair of horizontal members.” Id. The frame 21 also comprises a leading edge 21a and a trailing edge 21c, which read on the “pair of vertical members.” Id. The frame 21 also comprises an upstream face (adjacent to filter deflector 36 seen in Fig. 3) and a downstream face (opposite the deflector 36), which read on the “first face” and the “second face,” respectively. Id. at Figs. 2, 3, col. 4, ll. 28–42. The frame 21 further a notch in the top, left-hand corner of the frame 21 (from the perspective of Fig. 2), which reads on the “first notched corner.” The notch is formed by a “first cutout” on the upstream face, as claimed, which is the portion of the upstream face of the frame 21 cut away to form the notch, as seen in Fig. 2. The notch also comprises a “second cutout” on the trailing edge 21c (the “first vertical member in the pair of vertical members”), as claimed, which is the portion of the trailing edge 21c that is cut away to form the notch, as seen in Fig. 2. Further, the notch comprises a “third cutout” in the upper edge portion 21b (the “first horizontal member in the pair of horizontal members”), as claimed, which is the portion of the upper edge portion 21b that is cut away to form the notch, as seen in Fig. 2. The filter panel 20 further comprises a filter medium 22 (the “filter medium”) located within the frame 21, with the filter medium 22 being configured to filter air passing through, as claimed. See Poggi Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 37–47. The filter panel 20 comprises a “structure” located in the frame 21, with the “structure being at least partially exposed” by the notch in the top, left-hand corner, as claimed, which is the structure of the frame 21 exposed by the notch in the top, left-hand corner, as seen in Fig. 2. Note that this interpretation of the “structure” is reasonable, even though the frame 21 reads on the claimed “body,” because claims 7 and 8 indicate that the “structure” comprises a material that is the same as the material of the body, with the body and the structure being formed from a unitary piece of material. PNG media_image1.png 785 861 media_image1.png Greyscale Poggi differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to a buffer material located on the downstream face (the “second face”) of the filter panel 20 and configured to separate the downstream face from one or more components of an air conditioning unit. Poggi also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to material used to manufacture the frame 21 (the “body”), and therefore fails to provide enough information to teach the frame 21 comprises a paper product. But Dimicelli teaches a panel-type air filter for an air conditioning system comprising an outer frame 100 made from various materials including wax coated cardboard, chip board, beverage board, among other materials. See Dimicelli Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 9–15. It would have been obvious to manufacture the frame 21 of Poggi from wax coated cardboard because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. With this modification, the wax coating on the downstream face of the frame 21 of Poggi reads on the “buffer material located on the second face.” It is capable of separating the downstream face from one or more components of an air conditioning unit, as claimed, because the wax coating is provided on the outer surface the cardboard of the downstream face. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function). Also, because the frame 21 (the “body”) is made of wax coated cardboard, and cardboard is a paper product, this reads on “the body comprises a paper product.” Regarding claim 4, the notch in the top, left-hand corner of the filter panel 20 (the “first notched corner”) of Poggi is capable of interfacing with at least a portion of an air conditioning unit when the filter panel 20 is installed in an air conditioning unit, because a portion of an air conditioning unit could be positioned within the notch. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function). Regarding claim 5, the structure of the frame 21 exposed by the notch in the top, left-hand corner of the frame 21 (the “structure”) is capable of interfacing with at least a portion of an air conditioning unit when the filter panel 20 is installed in an air conditioning unit, because a portion of an air conditioning unit could be contacted with the structure. See MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function). Regarding claims 7 and 8, Poggi teaches that the structure of the frame 21 exposed by the notch in the top, left-hand corner of the frame 21 (the structure reads on the “structure”) comprises a material that is the same as the material of the frame 21 (the “body”), with the frame 21 and the structure being formed from a unitary piece of material, because the structure is part of the frame 21, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 11, Poggi in view of Dimicelli teaches that the wax coating (the “buffer material”) is capable of functioning as a “resilient water barrier,” as claimed, because wax is a hydrophobic material. Regarding claim 12, Poggi teaches that the filter panel 20 is capable of covering all or substantially all of an intake portion of an air conditioner unit to enable the air filter to filter air before it passes over an indoor coil and is subsequently outputted by the air conditioner unit via one or more air outlets because the filter panel 20 is configured to filter air before it enters a blower unit 12 of an air conditioning system. See Poggi Figs. 1–3, col. 3, ll. 14–64. Regarding claim 14, Poggi as modified teaches that the waxy coating of the cardboard of the frame 21 (the “buffer material”) is discontinuous and located at one or more discrete positions around a perimeter of the downstream face of the frame 21 (the “second face”) because the material of the frame 21 on the downstream face is discontinuous due to the notch in the top, left-hand corner of the frame 21, as seen in Fig. 2. Regarding claim 15, Poggi teaches that the filter panel 20 further comprises a sealing means 24 (the “gasket”) located on at least a portion of an outer edge of the frame 21 (the body”) configured to ensure that substantially all passing air flows through the filter medium 22 when the filter panel 20 is installed in air filter mounting assembly 10. See Poggi Fig. 3, col. 3, ll. 48–64, col. 5, ll. 5–20. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 1, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poggi, Jr. et al., US 5,458,667 in view of Kershaw, US 4,420,315. Regarding claim 1, Poggi teaches an air filter mounting assembly 10 and air filter panel 20, which collectively read on the claimed “air filter.” See Poggi Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 27–31. Note that it is reasonable to consider the combined structure of the mounting assembly 10 and the filter panel 20 as an “air filter” because the mounting assembly 10 acts as a housing to hold the filter panel 20 (which acts as a filter element), and it was conventional in the art for an air filter to comprise a housing holding a filter element. See e.g., Alagouda, US 2022/0118399 A1, [0003] (“Such air filters generally comprise a housing…with a…filter element disposed within the housing”); Xie, US 2020/0297538 A1, abstract (“The air filter includes…a filter element…a housing”). The filter panel 20 comprises a frame (referred to in Poggi as peripheral edge 21), which reads on the claimed “body.” See Poggi Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 34–37. The frame 21 comprises a pair upper and lower guide edge portions 21b, 21d, which read on the “pair of horizontal members.” Id. The frame 21 also comprises a leading edge 21a and a trailing edge 21c, which read on the “pair of vertical members.” Id. The frame 21 also comprises an upstream face (adjacent to filter deflector 36 seen in Fig. 3) and a downstream face (opposite the deflector 36), which read on the “first face” and the “second face,” respectively. Id. at Figs. 2, 3, col. 4, ll. 28–42. The frame 21 further a notch in the top, left-hand corner of the frame 21 (from the perspective of Fig. 2), which reads on the “first notched corner.” The notch is formed by a “first cutout” on the upstream face, as claimed, which is the portion of the upstream face of the frame 21 cut away to form the notch, as seen in Fig. 2. The notch also comprises a “second cutout” on the trailing edge 21c (the “first vertical member in the pair of vertical members”), as claimed, which is the portion of the trailing edge 21c that is cut away to form the notch, as seen in Fig. 2. Further, the notch comprises a “third cutout” in the upper edge portion 21b (the “first horizontal member in the pair of horizontal members”), as claimed, which is the portion of the upper edge portion 21b that is cut away to form the notch, as seen in Fig. 2. The filter panel 20 further comprises a filter medium 22 (the “filter medium”) located within the frame 21, with the filter medium 22 being configured to filter air passing through. See Poggi Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 37–47. The air filter also comprises a “structure” located in the frame 21, with the “structure being at least partially exposed” by the notch in the top, left-hand corner, as claimed, which is the structure of the frame 21 exposed by the notch in the top, left-hand corner, as seen in Fig. 2. Note that this interpretation of the “structure” is reasonable, even though the frame 21 reads on the claimed “body,” because claims 7 and 8 indicate that the “structure” comprises a material that is the same as the material of the body, with the body and the structure being formed from a unitary piece of material. The air filter further comprises a sealing means 24 located on the downstream face of the frame 21 when the air filter panel 20 is installed in the air filter mounting assembly 10. See Poggi Fig. 3, col. 3, ll. 48–55, col. 5, ll. 5–11. The sealing means 24 reads on the “buffer material.” The sealing means 24 is configured to separate the downstream face of the frame 21 from an entry portion 13 of an air conditioning system (“one or more components of an air conditioning system”), as claimed. Id. at col. 3, ll. 14–27. PNG media_image2.png 823 1843 media_image2.png Greyscale Poggi differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to material used to manufacture the frame 21 (the “body”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the frame 21 comprises a paper product. But Kershaw teaches an air filter panel 30 for an air conditioner comprising a peripheral frame 34 surrounding a filter material 32 (similar to the configuration and operation of the frame 21 of Poggi) where the frame 34 can be made of various materials, such as paperboard, metal, plastic or other suitable material. See Kershaw Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 44–46. It would have been obvious to manufacture the frame 21 of Poggi from paperboard because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. With this modification of the frame 21 being made of paperboard, this reads on “the body comprises a paper product,” as claimed. Regarding claims 7 and 8, Poggi teaches that the structure of the frame 21 exposed by the notch in the top, left-hand corner of the frame 21 (the structure reads on the “structure”) comprises a material that is the same as the material of the frame 21 (the “body”), with the frame 21 and the structure being formed from a unitary piece of material, because the structure is part of the frame 21, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 11, Poggi teaches that the sealing means 24 (the “buffer material”) is capable of functioning as a “resilient water barrier,” as claimed, because the sealing means 24 would be expected to prevent at least some water from penetrating it as it is intended to seal against air infiltration. See Poggi col. 3, ll. 48–55. Regarding claim 12, Poggi teaches that the air filter is capable of covering all or substantially all of an intake portion of an air conditioner unit to enable the air filter to filter air before it passes over an indoor coil and is subsequently outputted by the air conditioner unit via one or more air outlets because the filter panel 20 is configured to filter air before it enters a blower unit 12 of an air conditioning system. See Poggi Figs. 1–3, col. 3, ll. 14–64. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poggi, Jr. et al., US 5,458,667 in view of Kershaw, US 4,420,315 and in further view of Eyers et al., US 2010/0001477 A1. Regarding claim 10, Poggi teaches that the sealing means 24 (the “buffer material”) can be made of a foam material, but is silent as to the foam being “closed cell foam,” as claimed. See Poggi col. 3, ll. 48–55. But Eyers teaches a closed cell foam material that is useful to make a gasket. See Eyers [0021]. It would have been obvious to manufacture the sealing means 24 of Poggi from the closed cell foam material of Eyers because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 and 6 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. Claim 3 is allowable over both interpretation of Poggi as modified because there is no motivation to provide a notched corner in the top, right-hand corner of the frame 21 to read on the claimed “second notched corner.” Claim 6 is allowable over both interpretation of Poggi as modified because the “structure” comprises part of the frame 21 instead of the filter medium 22, as required by the claim. Response to Arguments 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3–8, 10–12, 14 and 15 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. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 01, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 29, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 03, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 03, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 25, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 26, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600661
FIBERGLASS FILTER ELEMENT CONTAINING ZINC OXIDE-BASED COMPOSITE NANOPARTICLES AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595775
A UNIDIRECTIONAL FUEL NOZZLE FOR IMPROVING FUEL ATOMIZATION IN A CARBURETOR OR SIMILAR APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589342
Filter Sheet Media and Method for Manufacturing a Filter Sheet Media
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582927
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR DEGASSING A DEVICE, AND CORRESPONDING TEST SYSTEM FOR GAS ANALYSIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571559
INTEGRATED VENTILATION REGISTER FILTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+29.7%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 961 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month