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 of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on November 21st, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17-20 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 21st, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 13-14 are drawn to only the flexible lip of claim 12 and does not incorporate all the limitations of claim 12, therefore failing to further limit the scope of claim 12. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 206514498 U to Liu (hereinafter referred to as Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a system for mounting a filter (Fig. 1) comprising: a first rail comprising a first channel; a second rail comprising a second channel (Pg. 2, “And the filter hoisting device 2 is provided with a through-hole on both sides of the front end face of the hoisting device 2”); a first rope configured to be inserted into the first channel of the first rail (Fig. 1, line 3 connected to the left side of the filter screen runs through the through hole of hoisting device 2); a second rope configured to be inserted into the second channel of the second rail (Fig. 1, line 3 connected to the right side of the filter screen runs through the through hole of hoisting device 2); a first filter having a first side and a second side, wherein the first rope is connected to the first side and the second rope is connected to the second side (Fig. 1, lifting filter 4 has a left (first) side and a right (second) side, each of which are connected to their own corresponding ropes).
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches the system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the first rope comprises a first flexible material and the first flexible material is connected to the first side of the first filter (Pg. 1, “Further, the lifting wire adopts one of a nylon rope and a wire rope.” ; nylon is a flexible material ; Fig. 1, the nylon rope is attached to the left side of the filter 4).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches the system as applied to claim 2 above, wherein the second rope comprises a second flexible material and the second flexible material is connected to the second side of the first filter (Pg. 1, “Further, the lifting wire adopts one of a nylon rope and a wire rope.” ; nylon is a flexible material ; Fig. 1, the nylon rope is attached to the right side of the filter 4).
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches the system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the first rope is substantially cylindrical (Pg. 1, “Further, the lifting wire adopts one of a nylon rope and a wire rope.” ; Ropes are cylindrical).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches the system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the first rail is affixed to a surface (Fig. 1, the through hole of hoisting device 2 is embedded within the side of the duct-type indoor unit 1).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches the system as applied to claim 10 above, wherein the surface is vertical (Fig. 1, the through hole of hoisting device 2 is on the vertical left and right surfaces) and the first rail is rigidly mounted to the surface (Fig. 1, the through hole of hoisting device 2 is embedded within the side of the duct-type indoor unit 1 and therefore reads on being “rigidly mounted” to the surface).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, and further in view of Ateret ½” Nylon Rope. Product Information [Online]. Amazon, 2021 [retrieved on 2025-12-23]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://www.amazon.com/ATERET-Polyester-Multipurpose-Lightweight-Weather-Resistant/dp/B091G21MSF/ref=sr_1_6?crid=50E7MRYY08VS&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.HdAs_Ewx2DVOzZODPGT8GT0DD0EG8akjw3I5oCNTLeb-h6-GHF_QO38rgkBaLVnWMvn6ZAnyTddlyy_PAPdj6DcWzElbnGDY4HCYcU0iA8YccUh7hH5WZ5Bu-iLkpS7Y_ZtnZQVKOO2tzWlnFiDhBa3zv0hUthYqHha-ncC7JCGpDG4HXtyUNUvxGJO0_HI3trodaoG5n8svJr7R9THyvrQjOEBG_K_Per_P51SwMKR1esZgjSZ38o2budj0aCaZSFnazqZl7DWFR-7-P0pvWG8cl_DBJv0onRTg13s4DKo.bbONgBnzVubPh5UR9alv88CKV0xePrqUCZP5O49oZV4&dib_tag=se&keywords=everbilt%2Bnylon%2Brope%2B1%2F2%2Bin&qid=1766517795&sprefix=everbilt%2Bnylon%2Brope%2B1%2F2%2Bin%2Caps%2C119&sr=8-6&th=1 > (hereinafter referred to as Ateret).
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches the system as applied to claim 1 above. Liu does not disclose the diameter of the rope used.
However, Ateret discloses a ½ in. nylon rope (12.7 mm) for sale as of March 31st, 2021, which qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) because it was on sale before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Liu is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of mounting filters. Ateret is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (successfully mounting the filter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the rope as taught by Liu could be substituted with the rope as taught by Ateret. Such a substitution of the ropes would result in a predictable result (successful mounting of the filter screen); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 7387654 B1 to Byers (hereinafter referred to as Byers).
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches the system as applied to claim 2 above. Liu does not teach wherein a first flange extends from the first side and the first flexible material is connected to the first flange.
However, Byers teaches a screen assembly kit for an air filter (Abstract “A screen assembly, associated kit and method of forming the same.”), wherein a filter screen is securely installed using attachment strips (Fig. 11, inner attachment strip 132 and outer attachment strip 134 engage the edges of screen 112). The attachment strips have apertures to connect elastic cords (Col. 4, lines 20-24 “the associated inner strip and the exterior surface of the air processing unit that provides clearance for elastic cords or similar mechanisms to engage apertures 150 in the plates to better secure the screen assembly 110 to the unit 100.”).
Liu and Byers are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filter screen insertion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Liu to further include the flange attachment strips as taught by Byers to more securely fasten the rope to the first side of the filter.
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches the system as applied to claim 5 above. Liu does not teach wherein a second flange extends from the second side and the second flexible material is connected to the second flange.
However, Byers teaches a screen assembly kit for an air filter (Abstract “A screen assembly, associated kit and method of forming the same.”), wherein a filter screen is securely installed using attachment strips (Fig. 11, inner attachment strip 132 and outer attachment strip 134 engage the edges of screen 112). The attachment strips have apertures to connect elastic cords (Col. 4, lines 20-24 “the associated inner strip and the exterior surface of the air processing unit that provides clearance for elastic cords or similar mechanisms to engage apertures 150 in the plates to better secure the screen assembly 110 to the unit 100.”).
Liu and Byers are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filter screen insertion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Liu to further include the flange attachment strips as taught by Byers to more securely fasten the rope to the second side of the filter.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Byers, and further in view of Titan Survival Patented Paracord. Product Information [Online]. Amazon, 2018 [Retrieved on 2025-12-23]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://www.amazon.com/SurvivorCord-Paracord-Parachute-Integrated-Waterproof/dp/B07JX8PPFR/ref=sr_1_2?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.1LG8Fo5M-RdKvv903JLK31T30L6iHH8kADpy_BKu41gzOenO4ye7Rayfkskbx35GoiTVhs4wH8XDG0ID4QWInRSaZ0CDedm9yTEWCL4D8IpOnwBTPDufLJH64GcjyJgqS24d8VB7Sf76PB_Q4Lq7QABMIiuw2mmL_w7L23A4sXgcVgi1GXSlyaGSZiWsVf9nZp6IENLiCqB93goYoa_pRpFJsGZKQuUkOb7tjFq6ztnVxmyzVIDk9l99pb9rZbzON9a8MNmaH4u4M5qfwP1DIj5IKdVoHkRuZbsUZ5rkiQY.-01wUvgfTXG3DXDSUvQg3KJ-eGTn6oSwbEOKUCMDiBs&dib_tag=se&keywords=kernmantle%2Brope&qid=1766538800&sr=8-2&th=1 > (hereinafter referred to as Titan).
Regarding claim 4, Liu and Byers teach the system as applied to claim 3 above. Liu and Byers do not disclose the exact composition of the rope used within said system.
However, Titan Paracord discloses a kernmantle rope which comprises a semirigid Kevlar core surrounded by a flexible nylon sheath. This product qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) because it was on sale before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Liu and Byers are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filtration. Titan is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (successfully mounting the filter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the rope as taught by Liu could be substituted with the rope as taught by Titan. Such a substitution of the ropes would result in a predictable result (successful mounting of the filter screen); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 7, Liu and Byers teach the system as applied to claim 6 above. Liu and Byers do not disclose the exact composition of the rope used within said system.
However, Titan Paracord discloses a kernmantle rope which comprises a semirigid Kevlar core surrounded by a flexible nylon sheath. This product qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) because it was on sale before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Liu and Byers are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filtration. Titan is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (successfully mounting the filter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the rope as taught by Liu could be substituted with the rope as taught by Titan. Such a substitution of the ropes would result in a predictable result (successful mounting of the filter screen); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 2013/0340400 A1 to Minaeeghainipour (hereinafter referred to as Minaeeghaiipour).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches the system as applied to claim 1 above. Liu does not teach wherein the first filter further comprises a flexible lip which extends from the first filter below the first rail.
However, Minaeeghainipour teaches an air filter attachment (Fig. 2, rectangular air filter 50) that has flexible flaps on each side of the filter (Fig. 2, flaps 33 ; ¶0023 “Flaps could be made from other materials, including but not limited to plastic, and given the ability to fold against the fan with, for example, flexible material, or living or mechanical hinges.”) in order to lock said filter in place (¶0022 “The magnetic strips 33a magnetically locks onto the steel surface of the respective top or side of the fan 10, securely but removably affixing filter 50 to the face of the fan.”).
Liu and Minaeeghainipour are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filtration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Liu to further include the flexible flaps as taught by Minaeeghainipour to securely but removably hold the filter in place once installed.
Regarding claim 13, Liu and Minaeeghainipour teach the flexible lip as applied to claim 12 above. Minaeeghainipour further teaches wherein the flexible lip further comprises affixing hardware for removably securing the first filter in a desired location (¶0022 “The magnetic strips 33a magnetically locks onto the steel surface of the respective top or side of the fan 10, securely but removably affixing filter 50 to the face of the fan.”).
Regarding claim 14, Liu and Minaeeghainipour teach the flexible lip as applied to claim 13 above. Minaeeghainipour further teaches wherein the affixing hardware comprises one or more magnet (¶0022 “The magnetic strips 33a magnetically locks onto the steel surface of the respective top or side of the fan 10, securely but removably affixing filter 50 to the face of the fan.”).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, as evidenced by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2024/0261717 A1 to Simmons et al. (hereinafter referred to as Simmons).
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches the system as applied to claim 1. Liu does not teach wherein the second rail further comprises a third channel, the system further comprising: a third rail comprising a fourth channel; a third rope configured to be inserted into the third channel of the second rail; a fourth rope configured to be inserted into the fourth channel of the third rail; and a second filter having a third side and a fourth side, wherein the third rope is connected to the third side and the fourth rope is connected to the fourth side. However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As evidenced by Simmons, systems that comprise two filter screens in series is known in the art (Fig. 1) and it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Liu to include additional rails, channels, and ropes to accommodate the mounting of more than one filter at a time. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 16, Liu, as evidenced by Simmons, teaches the system as applied to claim 15 above. With the modification of Liu to include the duplication of rails, channels, and ropes in order to accommodate a second filter, such a modification would result in a system wherein the first filter is secured between the first rail and the second rail and the second filter is secured between the second rail and the third rail.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776