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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 11 recites “the HVAC system including a duct and a plurality of louvers positioned in the duct”. Examiner has reviewed the specification and the drawings and is unable to locate support for “a plurality of louvers positioned in the duct”. Examiner notes figures 2 and 3 of the current drawings provides for a duct(16), however figures 2 and 3 do not provide support for a plurality of louvers positioned in the duct. Examiner notes that figures 2 and 3 show a register cover(28), wherein the register cover includes a plurality of louvers, however the register cover is separable from the duct(16), and therefore any louvers of the register cover are not “positioned in the duct”. Examiner respectfully submits that for louvers to be “positioned in the duct”, the louvers would be required to be either frictionally attached to an internal surface of the duct, or attached by fasteners to an internal surface of the duct. Examiner suggests amending claim 11 lines 3-4 to state “the HVAC system including a duct”, and amending line 8 to delete “behind a vent cover attached to the duct”, and insert “behind a register cover attached to the duct, the register cover comprising a plurality of louvers”. Claims 12-15, 17, and 18 depend on claim 11 and hence are also rejected.
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 11-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van de Graff et al(5509950) taken together with Kubokawa et al(6740137) in view of Hawkins et al(5597392).
Van de Graff et al in figures 1 and 2 teaches an air filtration device comprising a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC) system in fluidic communication with a substantially airtight space, the HVAC system including a duct(air inlet shaft 18) , and an air filtration device comprising a filter assembly sized and shaped complementarily to a cross-sectional profile of the duct of the HVAC system(air inlet shaft 18), wherein the filter assembly being inserted into the duct of the HVAC system(noting filter assembly including filter element holding frame 14 for insertion into air inlet shaft 18), the filter assembly comprising: a filter(self supporting pleated filter element 12) having a perimeter complementary to the cross-sectional profile of the duct, wherein the filter is configured for frictionally attaching to the duct and for removing contaminants from air exiting from the vent cover(noting self supporting filter frictionally positioned within the filter element holding frame), and a plurality of pleats positioned in the filter such that a surface area of the filter is greater than a cross-sectional area of the duct. Van de Graff et al is silent as to a plurality of ribs; and the filter attached to the plurality of ribs.
Kubokawa et al in figures 1 and 2 teaches a filter assembly sized and shaped for use in an HVAC system(column 5 lines 42-43), wherein the filter assembly includes a pleated filter element(2), and the pleated filter element including a plurality of ribs(spacing structure 8; noting column 4 lines 36-40 stating “providing the spacing structure 8 in the form of one or more strips extending along the face edges of the media 4 or across the interior face region 14 of the media 14 arranged perpendicular to the direction of pleating”, and wherein the filter is attached to the plurality of ribs(noting column 4 lines 58-59 stating “the spacing structure 8 is preferably adhered to the media”. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a self supporting filter element of Kubokawa et al, the self supporting filter element including a plurality of ribs attached to the filter, in order to provide a mechanism for providing additional support and pleat spacing for a filter within the duct of the HVAC system of Van de Graff et al.
Van de Graff et al taken together with Kubokawa et al is silent as to a plurality of louvers, and each pleat of the plurality of pleats aligning with and receiving a respective louver of the plurality of louvers when the filter is positioned in the duct. Hawkins et al in figure 1 teaches an air filtration device including a filter assembly, the filter assembly including a filter element (filter material 33), the filter element frictionally positioned within a duct(forced air duct outlet 12), and a register cover attached to the duct, the register cover including a plurality of louvers extending in a direction towards the duct. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a register cover , the register cover including louvers, attached to the duct of Van de Graff et al in order to provide a mechanism for covering the filter assembly during operation of the HVAC system. Examiner notes that Van de Graff teaches providing a self supporting pleated filter element, therefore providing a register including louvers of Hawkins et al directly adjacent to the self supporting pleated filter element would provide for each pleat of the plurality of pleats aligning with and receiving a respective louver of the plurality of louvers when the filter is positioned in the duct. Examiner respectfully submits that it would have been obvious to adjust a number of pleats in the filter element of Van de Graff to match a number of louvers of a standard register so that each pleat aligns with and receives a respective louver.
With regards to claim 12, Van de Graff et al taken together with Kubokawa et al in view of Hawkins et al further teaches wherein the ribs of the plurality of ribs are substantially parallel.
With regards to claim 13, Van de Graff et al taken together with Kubokawa et al in view of Hawkins et al further teaches wherein the ribs of the plurality of ribs are substantially evenly spaced.
With regards to claim 14, Van de Graff et al taken together with Kubokawa et al in view of Hawkins et al further teaches wherein the ribs of the plurality of ribs comprise plastic, metal, or wood( column 4 lines 17-20 of Kubokawa et al stating “suitable spacing structures 8 include scrims, screens, nets, mesh structures or the like formed of , for example, synthetic plastic materials, metals, or natural fibers such as cotton thread).
With regards to claim 15, Van de Graff et al taken together with Kubokawa et al in view of Hawkins et al is silent as to wherein the filter comprise paper, cotton, or polyurethane foam( column 2 lines 58-62 stating “preferably, the filter medium … will comprise the same plastic material, this plastic material is preferably polypropylene). Examiner notes that paper, cotton, or polyurethane foam are all common materials for formation of a pleated filter media for air filtration, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute paper, cotton, or polyurethane foam for the polypropylene of Van de Graff et al in order to provide a filtration media material of a selected choice for the HVAC system.
With regards to claim 17, Van de Graff et al taken together with Kubokawa et al in view of Hawkins et al further teaches wherein the ribs of the plurality of ribs are substantially perpendicular to the pleats of the plurality of pleats.
With regards to claim 18, Van de Graff et al taken together with Kubokawa et al in view of Hawkins et al further teaches the ribs of the plurality of ribs being substantially parallel, the ribs of the plurality of ribs being substantially evenly spaced, the ribs of the plurality of ribs comprising plastic, metal, or wood; and a plurality of pleats positioned in the filter, such that a surface area of the filter is greater than a cross-sectional area of the duct, the ribs of the plurality of ribs being substantially perpendicular to the pleats of the plurality of pleats. Van de Graff et al taken together with Kubokawa et al in view of McLean is silent as to the filter comprising paper, cotton, or polyurethane foam. Examiner notes that paper, cotton, or polyurethane foam are all common materials for formation of a pleated filter media for air filtration, therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute paper, cotton, or polyurethane foam for the polypropylene of Van de Graff et al in order to provide a filtration media material of a selected choice for the HVAC system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-6-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues it is respectively submitted that a filter including a plurality of pleats with each pleat receiving a respective louver of the plurality of louvers when the filter is positioned in the duct is not disclosed, taught, suggested , or contemplated in the collective teaching of the cited references.
Examiner notes that the amendment to claim 11 required citation of the new reference Hawkins et al(5597392), wherein Hawkins et al specifically teaches modification of Van de Graaf to include a register cover with louvers, wherein each pleat of the filter of Van de Graaf receives a respective louver of the plurality of louvers when the filter is positioned in the duct.
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 ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
October 21, 2025