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 1–3, 6, 7, 11–20 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 1 recites:
1. An apparatus comprising a filtering device which includes a plurality of filtering elements made of a filter material, the apparatus further comprising a cleaning system for periodically cleaning the filtering device in order to remove contaminating particles from the filtering device, the apparatus further comprising an intermediate structure having an inner region delimited at least partly by an impact surface and an outer region which surrounds at least partly the inner region, the cleaning system having at least one percussion element for applying percussions at least on the impact surface of the intermediate structure, so as to generate, for each percussion, an impact which is able to detach from the filter material a first fraction of the contaminating particles adhering to it and then vibrate the filter material to detach from it further contaminating particles, the intermediate structure being interposed between the percussion element and the filter material, the intermediate structure having an inner region delimited at least partly by the impact surface and an outer region which surrounds at least partly the inner region, wherein:
- the intermediate structure has a capacity to absorb energy deriving from the percussions which is greater in the inner region than in the outer region,
- the intermediate structure comprises a head which supports the filtering elements and a distributor frame facing the percussion element for receiving the percussions and distributing on the head the energy deriving from the percussions,
- the distributor frame and the head are in contact with each other in the outer region, and
- in the inner region, the distributor frame is interposed between the percussion element and
the head and is spaced apart from the head, so that a gap is defined between the head and the distributor frame in the inner region. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the limitation—“the intermediate structure having an inner region delimited at least partly by the impact surface and an outer region which surrounds at least partly the inner region”—as the claim previously indicates that the intermediate structure has an inner region delimited at least partly by an impact structure and an outer region which surrounds at least partly the inner region. To overcome this rejection, claim 1 could be rewritten as:
1. An apparatus comprising a filtering device which includes a plurality of filtering elements made of a filter material, the apparatus further comprising a cleaning system for periodically cleaning the filtering device in order to remove contaminating particles from the filtering device, the apparatus further comprising an intermediate structure having an inner region delimited at least partly by an impact surface and an outer region which surrounds at least partly the inner region, the cleaning system having at least one percussion element for applying percussions at least on the impact surface of the intermediate structure, so as to generate, for each percussion, an impact which is able to detach from the filter material a first fraction of the contaminating particles adhering to it and then vibrate the filter material to detach from it further contaminating particles, the intermediate structure being interposed between the percussion element and the filter material,
- the intermediate structure has a capacity to absorb energy deriving from the percussions which is greater in the inner region than in the outer region,
- the intermediate structure comprises a head which supports the filtering elements and a distributor frame facing the percussion element for receiving the percussions and distributing on the head the energy deriving from the percussions,
- the distributor frame and the head are in contact with each other in the outer region, and
- in the inner region, the distributor frame is interposed between the percussion element and
the head and is spaced apart from the head, so that a gap is defined between the head and the distributor frame in the inner region.
Claims 2–3, 6, 7, 11–20 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cairns, US 5,084,076.
Regarding claim 1, Cairns teaches a filter unit 80, which reads on the claimed “apparatus.” See Cairns Fig. 8, col. 5, ll. 33–41. The filter unit 80 comprises a filter element assembly 88 comprising a plurality of filter elements (the “filtering device which includes a plurality of filtering elements made of a filter material”). Id. at Figs. 6, 8, col. 5, ll. 43–52.
The filter unit 80 also comprises a “cleaning system” for periodically cleaning the filter element assembly 88 in order to remove contaminating particles from the filtering device, with the “cleaning assembly” including vibration motor 100. See Cairns Fig. 10, col. 6, ll. 18–27.
The filter unit 80 further comprises an “intermediate structure” comprising mounting bridge 99, mounting frame 92, runners 96, 91, bolts 97, air seal 98 and filter frame 90. See Cairns Fig. 10, col. 5, l. 42–col. 6, l. 27. The “intermediate structure” has an “inner region” which is the area toward the middle of the “intermediate structure,” as seen in Fig. 10. The “inner region” is delimited at least partly by an “impact surface,” which is the surface of mounting bridge 99 adjacent to vibration motor 100. Id. The “inner region” is also delimited by an “outer region which surrounds at least partly the inner region,” which is the area away from the middle of the “intermediate structure,” as seen in Fig. 10.
The “cleaning system” has the vibration motor 100, which reads on the “percussion element.” See Cairns Fig. 10, col. 6, ll. 18–27. The vibration motor 100 is capable of performing the claimed function of—applying percussions on the “impact surface of the intermediate structure, so as to generate, for each percussion, an impact which is able to detach from the filter material a first fraction of the contaminating particles adhering to it and then vibrate the filter material to detach from it further contaminating particles”—because the vibration motor 100 vibrates the mounting bridge 99 (including the “impact surface”) to send vibrations to the filter elements to remove debris and these vibrations could reverberate to remove further debris from the filter elements. Id.; MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
The “intermediate structure” is interposed between the vibration motor 100 and the filter material, as claimed, because the mounting bridge 99, mounting frame 92, runners 96, 91, bolts 97 and air seal 98 are below the vibration motor 100 but above the filter elements 10, as seen in Fig. 10.
The “intermediate structure” has an “inner region” delimited at least partly by the “impact surface” and an “outer region” which surrounds at least partly the inner region, as explained above.
The “intermediate structure” has a capacity to absorb energy deriving from the percussions which is greater in the “inner region” than in the “outer region,” as claimed, at least because the “inner region” includes the mounting bracket that the vibration motor 100 is attached to, as seen in Fig. 10.
The “intermediate structure” includes the filter frame 90 (the “head”) which supports the filter elements 10. See Cairns Fig. 10, col. 5, ll. 42–52. The “intermediate structure” also includes mounting bridge 99, mounting frame 92, runners 96, 91, bolts 97, which collectively reads on the “distributor frame.” See Cairns Fig. 10, col. 5, l. 53–col. 6, l. 27. The mounting bridge 99 of the “distributor frame” faces the vibration motor 100 (the “percussion element”), as seen in Fig. 10. The “distributor frame” is also capable of performing the claimed function of receiving the percussions and distributing on the on the filter frame 90 energy deriving from the percussions, because the vibration motor 100 vibrates the mounting bridge 99 and the vibrations are ultimately transferred to the filter elements 10 for cleaning. Id. at col. 6, ll. 18–27.
The “distributor frame” and filter frame 90 are in contact with each other in the “outer region,” as claimed, as seen n Fig. 10 where the runners 91 and air seal 98 of the “distributor frame” contact the filter frame 90.
In the “inner region,” at least the mounting bridge 99 of the “distributor frame” is interposed between the vibration motor 100 (the “percussion element”) and the filter frame 90 (the “head”) and is spaced apparat from the filter frame 90, so that a gap is defined between the filter frame 90 and the mounting bridge 99 in the “inner region,” as claimed, as seen in Figs. 10 where a space is formed between the mounting bridge 99 and the filter frame 90 in the “inner region.”
PNG
media_image1.png
692
825
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cairns teaches that the “intermediate structure” has a greater flexibility in the “inner region” than the “outer region,” as claimed, because the inner region is in the middle of an elongated sheet of material while the outer region is on the outer edges, while the outer region also includes relatively rigid materials such as bolts 97 whereas the inner region includes relatively flexible materials, such as the sheet forming the mounting bridge 99.
Regarding claim 3, Cairns teaches that the “intermediate structure” has, in the “inner region,” a geometry that is different than the “outer region,” as claimed, because the “inner region” includes a flat portion of mounting bridge 99 and the bracket for holding vibration motor 100, whereas the “outer region” includes a slanted portion of mounting bridge 99, as seen in Fig. 10. The geometry results in a capacity for absorbing energy in the inner region being greater than the outer region, at least because the mounting bracket is designed to receive vibrations from the vibration motor 100.
Regarding claim 6, Cairns teaches that the mounting bridge 99 (the “head”) has a recess facing the filter frame 90 (the “distributor frame”), as claimed, which is the recess formed at the angled portions of the mounting bridge 99, as seen in Fig. 10.
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 12–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cairns, US 5,084,076 in view of McGill, US 2002/0155806 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Cairns teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Cairns differs from claim 12 because it is silent as to an insulator element movable between an open position, in which the insulator element lets pass a gaseous flow coming from the filtering device, and a closed position, in which the insulator element blocks the gaseous flow.
But Cairns teaches that the filter unit 80 comprises an air outlet 83 for expelling purified air. See Cairns Fig. 8, col. 5, ll. 33–41.
PNG
media_image2.png
851
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With this in mind, McGill teaches a damper 10 for controlling the flow of filtered air supplied by an air filtration system, where the damper 10 is movable between an open position, allowing air to pass, and a closed position blocking air from flowing. See McGill Fig. 1, [0006], [0017]. The damper 10 is beneficial because it allows for accurate regulation of air that exits the filtration system. Id. at [0005].
PNG
media_image3.png
572
792
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the air outlet 83 of Cairns to comprise the damper 10 of McGill to allow for accurate regulation of air flowing out of the outlet 83. With this modification, the damper 10 reads on the “insulator element.”
Regarding claims 13–15, Cairns in view of McGill teaches that the damper 10 (the “insulator element”) is movable between the open and closed position by moving in a plane of the control plates 14, 15 of McGill around an axis of rotation. See McGill Fig. 1, [0018]. The prior art combination differs from claim 13 because the plane would not be perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the filter unit 80 of Cairns because the air outlet 83 of Cairns is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the filtering device. The prior art also differs from claim 15 because the air outlet 83 is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and therefore air would not escape from the damper 10 parallel to the longitudinal axis, as claimed.
But it would have been obvious to relocate the air outlet 83 of Cairns to be on the top wall, with the outlet 83 being in line with the longitudinal axis because this would be obvious rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection VI, C. With this modification, the plane that the damper 10 opens/closes in would be perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the filter device of McGill, with the axis of rotation that the plates 14, 15 rotating being parallel to the longitudinal axis. Also with this modification, air would escape from the damper 10 parallel to the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 16, Cairns in view of McGill teaches that the damper 10 of McGill (the “insulator element”) is movable between the open and closed position independently of the vibration motor 100 of Cairns (the “percussion element”) because the damper 10 is movable by a tool 42 (see McGill Fig. 3, [0020]) while the vibration motor 100 is moved by its own motor (see Cairns Fig. 10, col. 6, ll. 18–27).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cairns, US 5,084,076 in view of Engel et al., US 5,647,093.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Cairns teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Cairns differs from claims 17 and 18 because it is silent as to a containment element that houses the vibration motor 100 (the “percussion element”).
But Engel teaches a filter cleaning device comprising a motor 50 with an eccentric weight 52 and a motor support 64 that contains the motor 50. The motor support 64 is removably mounted to a support plate 70 (similar to the mounting bridge 99 of Cairns) by fasteners 68. The motor support 64 is beneficial because it provides a support mechanism for holding the motor 50 onto the support plate 70. See Engel Fig. 3, col. 3, ll. 34–47.
It would have been obvious to use the support 64 and fasteners 68 of Engel with the vibration motor 100 of Cairns to provide a support mechanism for holding the vibration motor 100 on the mounting bridge 99. With this modification, the motor support 64 reads on the “containment element which houses the percussion element.” The motor support 64 is mounted in a removable manner so as to be removable from the filter unit 80 by fasteners 68.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 11, 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, assuming the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are overcome.
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 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