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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 13th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 4th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 6-18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner agrees that the objection to the drawings as established in the Final Office Action mailed January 12th, 2026 was made in error and has therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed March 4th, 2026, with regards to the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the horizontal support members as taught by Holsten do not read on the claimed “air flow guiding vane” required by claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the context of the related art a “vane” is defined as a flat or curved surface capable of directing the flow of a fluid (e.g., air) and, in context of the instant application, the vane must additionally read on “air flow guiding.” The horizontal support members of Holsten comprise a flat member that is capable of directing air flow (See Figs. 6E, 7, and 8 of Holsten). Although Applicant correctly asserts that the horizontal support members of Holsten have a primary function of providing structural integrity, apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See MPEP § 2114.
Applicant argues that Holsten does not teach or suggest that the horizontal support members possess a “specific aerodynamic profile or varied edge orientation to deflect air” and that modifying the horizontal support members to include an angle of attack would be improper. As to the aerodynamic profile or varied edge orientation of the claimed vanes, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regarding the angle of attack, as was established in the Final Office Action mailed January 12th, 2026, the horizontal support members of Holsten have been shown to have an angle of attack (as defined in claim 6) between 5 and 85 degrees (See Pg. 7-8 of Final Office Action mailed January 12th, 2026). No modification is necessary to meet the claim requirements.
Applicant additionally argues that the air flow guiding structure as taught by Holsten does not teach or suggest transforming axial pulse flow into a radial filter cleaning flow. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As is required by amended claim 1, the at least one vane must be configured to guide the pulse air flow from an axial direction into a substantially radial direction to guide a pulse air flow through the cage and filter media pack. As established in the Final Office Action mailed January 12th, 2026, it can be seen in Figure 8 of Holsten that airflow 244 is guided axially into the interior of the filter cage 110 before being guided in a radial direction out towards filter 134. Applicant appears to additionally argue that Holsten does not teach a vane with a first edge oriented toward a first end of the air flow guiding structure and a second edge oriented toward a second end but does not explain how the teachings of Holsten (established in the Final Office Action mailed January 12th, 2026) do not read on such an orientation.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as established in the Final Office Action mailed January 12th, 2026 has been maintained.
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, 3, 6-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2014/0237763 A1 to Holsten et al. (hereinafter referred to as Holsten).
Regarding claim 1, Holsten teaches an air flow guiding structure (Fig. 5, filter cage 110) for a pulse air filter cartridge (Abstract “A backflush filter cleaning system for use with a vacuum cleaner employing an internal filter”) configured to include a hollow filter media pack (Fig. 5, filter 134), said air flow guiding structure extending from a first end to a second end (Fig. 6E, filter cage 110 has first end 126 and second end 128) and being configured to be positioned inside a hollow filter media pack of a pulse air filter cartridge (Fig. 5 depicts a cross sectional view of filter cage 110 inside of hollow filter 134), and said air flow guiding structure comprises a cage and at least one air flow guiding vane arranged at least partially within an interior volume of said cage (Fig. 6E, horizontal support members 111 ; the horizontal support members extend inwards and are therefore partially within an interior of the cage), which vane is configured to guide two air flows in opposite directions: a filtration air flow in a first direction through the filter media pack and through the cage into an interior volume thereof (Fig. 7 depicts the airflow during vacuum use wherein the air flows through the filter and then through the cage), and an air flow of an air pulse in a second direction, opposite to the first direction, directed into the air filter cartridge from said second end, from an interior volume thereof and through the cage and the filter media pack during use (Fig. 8 depicts the airflow during a cleaning stage wherein the air flows through the interior of the cage and then out through the filter); wherein the at least one vane is configured to guide the pulse air flow from an axial direction into a substantially radial direction to guide the pulse air flow through the cage and the filter media pack (Fig. 8, airflow 244 is guided axially into the interior of the filter cage 110 before being guided in a radial direction out towards filter 134); wherein the at least one vane comprises a curved or flat vane body having a first edge oriented toward the first end of the air flow guiding structure (Fig.6E, the first edge is the outer top edge of the vane ; see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
475
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a second edge oriented toward said second end (Fig. 6B, the second edge is the lower interior edge of the vane ; see annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
465
1307
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and wherein the vane body is arranged in the air flow guiding structure with its first edge closer to an outer side of the cage (see annotated figure of first edge above ; the first edge is closer to the exterior of the cage), and its second edge closer to a central axis of the cage (see annotated figure of second edge above ; the second edge is closer to the interior and central axis of the cage).
Regarding claim 3, Holsten teaches the air flow guiding structure as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the at least one vane is arranged upstream of the filter media pack with respect to the pulse air flow direction during use (Fig. 8, during a cleaning stage airflow path 244 passes through the filter cage 110, which contains the at least one vane, before passing through the filter 134).
Regarding claim 6, Holsten teaches the air flow guiding structure as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the vane body is arranged in the air flow guiding structure so that an angle of attack for the air flow of the air pulse is between 5 and 85 degrees, said angle of attack being the angle between an axial direction of the cage and a straight line connecting the first edge and the second edge (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
836
931
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Holsten teaches the air flow guiding structure as applied to claim 1 above, comprising a plurality of vanes arranged circumferentially in the cage (Fig. 6E, cage 110 comprises a plurality of horizontal support members 111 arranged around the circumference of the cage).
Regarding claim 8, Holsten teaches the air flow guiding structure as applied to claim 1 above, comprising a plurality of vanes arranged at different locations in a length direction of the air flow guiding structure (Fig. 6E, cage 110 comprises a plurality of horizontal support members 111 which are placed at different lengths throughout the cage).
Regarding claim 10, Holsten teaches the air flow guiding structure as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the at least one vane is located in a cage wall, with its second edge closer to a central axis of the cage than inner side of the cage (see annotated figure of second edge below ; the second edge is closer to an inner side of the cage than the first edge).
PNG
media_image4.png
294
886
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Holsten teaches the air flow guiding structure as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the cage is configured to act as an air filter media supporting cage, when mounted in an air filter cartridge (¶0075 “Filter cage 110 may be tubular, and may be configured to support a filter, such as by receiving a filter there around.”), and has latticework walls configured to support the filter media pack when mounted in an air filter cartridge (Fig. 6E shows filter cage 110 which has horizontal supports 111 that are intersected by longitudinal members 130, thereby reading on a “latticework”), and wherein an outer side of the cage is configured to face the filter media pack when mounted in an air filter cartridge (Fig. 7 is a cross-sectional depiction of the air flow guiding structure when filter media is installed around it ; the exterior of cage 110 will face filter 134 when installed).
Regarding claim 12, Holsten teaches the air flow guiding structure as applied to claim 1 above. Although Holsten does not explicitly teach wherein the cage is configured to act as a vane insert cage on which the at least one vane is positioned and is configured to be arranged within an interior volume of a separate filter media supporting cage, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. That is to say that the air flow guiding structure as taught by Holsten is capable of performing such a function. See MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 13, Holsten teaches the air flow guiding structure as applied to claim 12 above, wherein the vane insert cage is a grid structure (Fig. 6E, cage 110 comprises a grid-like structure). Although Holsten does not explicitly teach wherein the vane insert cage is configured to be positioned adjacent an inner side of the filter media support cage, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. That is to say that the air flow guiding structure is capable of performing such a function. See MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 14, Holsten teaches the air flow guiding structure as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the at least one vane is configured to guide the air flow during filtration from a substantially radial direction into an axial direction, to guide the air flow through the filter media pack and through the cage into the interior volume thereof (Fig. 7 depicts airflow path 242 in the vacuum position, wherein the air is guided through the filter 134 and into the interior of the filter cage 110 wherein the airflow is directed from a radial direction to an axial direction).
Regarding claim 15, Holsten teaches a pulse air filter cartridge (Fig. 7) comprising the air flow guiding structure as applied to claim 1 above (Fig. 7, filter cage 110), and a filter media pack (Fig. 7, filter 134).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holsten, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2014/0102060 A1 to Kato et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kato).
Regarding claim 9, Holsten teaches the air flow guiding structure as applied to claim 1 above. Holsten does not teach wherein the cage is tapered so as to be narrower at the first end than at the second end.
However, Kato teaches an air filter cartridge with an interior air flow guide (Fig. 2, inner line 27), wherein said air flow guide is tapered so as to be narrower at a first end than a second end (¶0059 “The liner 27 also preferably defines a shape that tapers downwardly in size, from an adjacent end cap 34 toward an end adjacent end cap 35, to accommodate a conical shape to the media pack 26”).
Holsten and Kato are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filters with internal support structures. 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 filter cage as taught by Holsten to incorporate the tapered shape as taught by Kato to allow for variations in the shape of the filter media. With such a modification, the air guiding structure as taught by Holsten would be capable of use with both conical and non-conical filter media.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holsten, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5879560 to Seeley et al. (hereinafter referred to as Seeley).
Regarding claim 16, Holsten teaches the pulse air filter cartridge as applied to claim 15 above. Holsten does not teach an exterior support structure, comprising a string, wire, ring or net arranged around an exterior periphery of the filter media pack.
However, Seeley teaches an air filter cartridge that has an internal filter core (Fig. 1, internal core 14) for use inside of a filter media pack (Fig. 1, pleated filter media 16) and an exterior support structure (Fig. 1, cage 12 ; the pattern of the cage reads on a “net”) arranged around the external periphery of the filter media pack. Seeley further teaches that the annular space formed between the filter pack and the exterior cage allow for more efficient cleaning of the filter media when using a reverse pulse (Col. 2, lines 10-14 “In addition to the above advantages, the annular space allows the pleated media to radially expand thereby assisting in the release and removal of trapped particulates from the filter media’s surface.”).
Holsten and Seeley are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filter cartridges capable of cleaning using an air pulse. 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 pulse air filter cartridge as taught by Holsten to further include the exterior support as taught by Seeley to more efficiently release trapped particles when a reverse pulse is applied during cleaning.
Regarding claim 17, Holsten and Seeley teach the pulse air filter cartridge as applied to claim 16 above. Holsten further teaches front and rear end plates (Fig. 6E, ends 126 and 128) and, wherein the filter media pack is a pleated filter medium extending in a circumferential direction of the cage (Fig. 1B depicts an internal view of a pleated air filter surrounding the cage in a circumferential direction ; ¶0082 “The filters, such as filter 134, suitable for use in the assemblies of the present disclosure, may be of the pleated type as illustrated”) with the pleats extending in a length direction of the cartridge (Fig. 17 depicts an interior view of the vacuum apparatus holding the air filter cartridge wherein the pleats of said cartridge are extending in a length direction).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holsten and Seeley as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tharewal, P. G. et al. Application of Nonwovens for Air Filtration, International Journal of Advanced Research in IT and Engineering, Vol. 2 (February 2013), pp. 14-36 (hereinafter referred to as Tharewal).
Regarding claim 18, Holsten and Seeley teach the pulse air filter cartridge as applied to claim 16 above. Holsten and Seeley do not teach wherein the filter media pack comprises loose adsorbent material.
However, Tharewal teaches that fabric filters are more economically beneficial (Introduction “Moreover, the fabric filters are cheaper to produce so that economics made them cost competitive”) and are available as woven or non-woven filtration media (Section 5. “Filter fabrics, woven and non-woven, are increasingly used”). Tharewal further teaches that using non-woven fabrics has the advantages of higher permeability and higher filtration efficiency when compared to woven fabrics (Section 7), as well as decreased cost (Conclusion “The nonwoven fabrics are potentially better filters. Moreover, they are cheaper to produce.”).
Holsten, Seeley, and Tharewal 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 pulse air filter cartridge as taught by Holsten and Seeley to include a loosely packed adsorbent material as taught by Tharewal (more specifically, a non-woven fabric material) to lower the cost of manufacturing such an apparatus.
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
Prosecution Insights