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 § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 12–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad et al., US 2019/0145655 A1 (“Conrad”).
Regarding claim 12:
Conrad discloses that a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (Conrad discloses its system is for HVAC filter assembly, Conrad Fig. 1, [0001]), comprising:
a fan filter unit (Conrad’s filter assembly 100, Conrad Fig. 1, [0097]) configured to filter an air flow directed through the fan filter unit (see air flow arrow in Conrad Fig. 6), wherein the fan filter unit comprises:
a housing (fan casing pointed by label 20 in Conrad Fig. 6) comprising a first opening (left or right opening of fan casing pointed by label 20, Conrad Fig. 6), an internal volume (interior of Conrad’s fan 20, Conrad Fig. 6, [0097]), and a second opening (the other of left or right opening of fan casing pointed by label 20, Conrad Fig. 6);
a fan (Conrad’s fan blade 20, Conrad Fig. 6, [0097]) disposed within the internal volume (as shown in Conrad Fig. 6) and configured to direct the air flow through the housing (as shown in Conrad Fig. 6), wherein the fan (fan blade of Conrad’s fan 20) is removable from the housing via the second opening (intended use, and one could remove Conrad’s fan blade from the right side of Conrad’s right side opening of fan casing 20); and
a filter rack assembly (Conrad’s end 12 of conduit 10, Conrad Fig. 6, [0097]) configured to removably mount to an exterior surface of the housing (Conrad’s Fig. 2 shows filter rack assembly 12 removably mounted to an exterior surface—Conrad’s receive end 22, Conrad Fig. 2, [0098]), wherein the filter rack assembly (12 of Conrad) is configured to contain and support a filter (Conrad’s filter 50, and Conrad’s end 12 support filter 50 because Conrad’s filter rest on end 12, Conrad Figs. 2 and 6, [0099]), and the fan (20 of Conrad) is configured to discharge the air flow from the housing via the second opening and to direct the air flow through filter (as indicated by air flow in Fig. 6 of Conrad).
Regarding claim 13:
Conrad discloses that that the HVAC system of claim 12, wherein the filter rack assembly (12 of Conrad) is configured to removably mount to the exterior surface (22 of Conrad, Conrad Fig. 2) of the housing (fan casing pointed by label 20 in Fig. 2 of Conrad) adjacent to the second opening (left opening of Conrad’s fan 20, Conrad Fig. 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–3, 8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Xu, CN 111006329 A (“Xu”)1.
Regarding claim 1:
Conrad discloses that a fan filter assembly (Conrad’s filter assembly 100, Conrad Fig. 1, [0097]), comprising: a main housing (Conrad’s fan casing, where Conrad’s label 20 points, Conrad Fig. 5, [0097]) comprising a first opening (left opening of Conrad’s fan housing 20, Conrad Fig. 5, [0107]) and a second opening (right opening of Conrad’s fan housing 20, Conrad Fig. 5,[0107]);
a fan (Conrad’s blade structure of air flow fan 20, Conrad Fig. 4, [0109]) configured be disposed within and removably coupled to the main housing (Conrad’s blade structure would be removable the opposite way as it is assembled, because Conrad’s fan is not a manmade product, Conrad, Fig. 4);
a first filter housing (Conrad’s end 12 of conduit 10, Conrad Fig. 4, [0098]) configured to couple to a first external surface (portion of Conrad’s main housing of fan 20 contacted by gasket 40, Conrad Fig. 4, [0107]) of the main housing (case of Conrad’s fan 20, Conrad Fig. 4) adjacent to the first opening (left opening of Conrad’s fan case, Conrad Fig. 4, [0109]), wherein the first filter housing (12 of Conrad) is configured to support a first filter (Conrad’s filter 50, Conrad Fig. 4, [0107]).
Conrad does not disclose a second filter housing configured to removably couple to a second external surface of the main housing adjacent to the second opening, wherein the second filter housing is configured to support a second filter, wherein the second filter housing is removable from the main housing to enable access to the fan via the second opening.
In the analogous art of fan filter assembly, Xu discloses a fan filter assembly (Xu’s air conditioning body 1, Xu Fig. 1, p. 4. Similar to Conrad, Xu discloses a fan 3 disposed in a main housing (where label 1 points in Xu’s Fig. 1), Xu Fig. 1, p. 4. Additionally, Xu discloses its main housing comprising a first opening (left opening as shown in Xu’s Fig. 1) and a second opening (right opening as shown in Xu’s Fig. 1). Also similar to Conrad, Xu discloses a first filter housing (Xu’s connecting frame 205, Xu Fig. 6, p. 5) configured to couple to the main housing adjacent to the first opening (Xu discloses its connecting frame 205 is coupled to HVAC body 1 via mounting slot 209 at first opening, Xu Figs. 1, 6 and 8, p. 5), wherein the first filter housing (205 of Xu) is configured to support a first filter (Xu’s filter 2, as best shown in Figs. 1 and 8, Xu p. 5).
Furthermore, Xu discloses a second filter 4 located on the other side of Xu’s fan 3, Xu Fig. 1, p. 5. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Conrad to include an outlet end filter device similar to that disclosed by Xu to provide an enhanced filtration effect. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a filter at an outlet side of the fan filter assembly to prevent dust from entering Conrad’s fan filter assembly and damage the fan blade from the outlet side. With such modification, Conrad would have a second filter assembly located on the right side of Conrad’s fan assembly 20, which could be connected the same way as shown between Conrad’s first filter 50 and fan 20.
The proposed modification would provide a second filter housing (similar to Conrad’s end 12 of conduit 10, Conrad Fig. 5, [0098]) configured to removably couple to a second external surface (similar to Conrad’s fan housing 20 contacted by gasket 40, located on the right side of Conrad’s fan housing pointed by Conrad’s label 20 in Fig. 5 of Conrad) of the main housing (Conrad’s fan housing pointed by label 20, Conrad Fig. 5) adjacent to the second opening (right opening of Conrad’s fan housing pointed by label 20 in Fig. 5), wherein the second filter housing is configured to support a second filter (a second filter similar to that disclosed by Xu, but with a structure similar to Conrad’s first filter 50), wherein the second filter housing is removable from the main housing to enable access to the fan via the second opening (intended use, and modified Conrad’s second filter housing would be removable from the main housing of Conrad the same way as its first filter housing similar to that shown in Conrad Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Conrad discloses that the fan filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the fan is configured to draw an air flow through the first filter in the first filter housing and into the main housing via the first opening, and the fan is configured to discharge the air flow from the main housing via the second opening and direct the air flow through the second filter in the second filter housing (as discussed in claim 1, the proposed modification would include a second filter on the right side of Conrad’s fan 20, and as indicated by the arrow shown Conrad’s Fig. 6, an air flow indicated by the arrow through pass through Conrad’s first filter 50 in the first filter housing 12 on Conrad, and Conrad’s fan 20 discharge the air flow from the main housing pointed by label 20 via the right side and direct the air flow through modified Conrad’s second filter in the second filter housing, Conrad Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Conrad discloses that the fan filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the first external surface and the second external surface are opposite one another relative to an interior volume of the main housing (the first and second external surface are located on the left and right side of Conrad’s main housing pointed by label 20, which is opposite one another relative to an interior volume of the main housing 20, Conrad Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Conrad discloses that the fan filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the fan is removable from the main housing via the second opening (intended use, and Conrad’s fan would be capable of being removed from the second opening if one prefers).
Regarding claim 14:
Conrad does not disclose that the HVAC system of claim 12, wherein the fan filter unit comprises a filter housing configured to mount to an additional exterior surface of the housing adjacent to the first opening, wherein the filter housing comprises an additional filter, and the fan is configured to draw the air flow through the additional filter and into the housing via the first opening.
In the analogous art of fan filter assembly, Xu discloses a fan filter assembly (Xu’s air conditioning body 1, Xu Fig. 1, p. 4. Similar to Conrad, Xu discloses a fan 3 disposed in a main housing (where label 1 points in Xu’s Fig. 1), Xu Fig. 1, p. 4. Additionally, Xu discloses its main housing comprising a first opening (left opening as shown in Xu’s Fig. 1) and a second opening (right opening as shown in Xu’s Fig. 1). Also similar to Conrad, Xu discloses a first filter housing (Xu’s connecting frame 205, Xu Fig. 6, p. 5) configured to couple to the main housing adjacent to the first opening (Xu discloses its connecting frame 205 is coupled to HVAC body 1 via mounting slot 209 at first opening, Xu Figs. 1, 6 and 8, p. 5), wherein the first filter housing (205 of Xu) is configured to support a first filter (Xu’s filter 2, as best shown in Figs. 1 and 8, Xu p. 5).
Furthermore, Xu discloses a second filter 4 located on the other side of Xu’s fan 3, Xu Fig. 1, p. 5. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Conrad to include an outlet end filter device similar to that disclosed by Xu to provide an enhanced filtration effect. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a filter at an outlet side of the fan filter assembly to prevent dust from entering Conrad’s fan filter assembly and damage the fan blade from the outlet side. With such modification, Conrad would have a second filter assembly located on the right side of Conrad’s fan assembly 20, which could be connected the same way as shown between Conrad’s first filter 50 and fan 20.
The proposed modification would provide a filter housing (similar to Conrad’s end 12 of conduit 10, Conrad Fig. 3, [0098]) configured to mount to an additional exterior surface (the other side of fan case pointed by label 20 the same way shown between end 12 and case pointed by label 20, Conrad Fig. 3) of the housing (Conrad’s fan case pointed by label 20) adjacent to the first opening (left or ride side of fan case pointed by label 20, Conrad Fig. 3), wherein the filter housing comprises an additional filter (similar to Xu’s filter 4, Xu Fig. 1), and the fan (20 of Conrad) is configured to draw the air flow through the additional filter and into the housing via the first opening (air flow shown in Conrad Fig. 6).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Haslebacher et al., US 2016/0236130 A1 (“Haslebacher”).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Conrad discloses that the fan filter assembly of claim 1, the fan (20 of Conrad) is configured to draw an air flow across the first filter (50 of Conrad) via the first opening (left opening of Conrad’s main housing pointed by label 20, Conrad Fig. 6) and into the main housing (pointed by label 20 in Conrad Fig. 6), and the fan (20 of Conrad) is configured to discharge the air flow from the main housing via the second opening (right opening of Conrad’s main housing pointed by label 20, air flow direction indicated by arrow, Conrad Fig. 6), direct the air flow through the second filter (as modified in claim 1, there would be an outlet filter similar to that shown in Xu).
Modified Conrad does not disclose that the fan filter assembly is configured to be installed at least partially within a ceiling of a conditioned space, the fan is configured to draw an air flow from a plenum space within the ceiling and direct the air flow into the conditioned space.
In the analogous art of HVAC filtration systems, Haslebacher discloses a HVAC filter assembly that is disposed in the ceiling, Haslebacher Fig. 1, [0029]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Conrad’s device to be used in a ceiling to save floor space. With such modification, modified Conrad would have a fan draw an air flow from a plenum space within the ceiling and direct the air flow into the conditioned space (below ceiling).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shama et al., US 2021/0372637 A1 (“Sharma”).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Conrad does not disclose that the fan filter assembly of claim 1, comprising the first filter and the second filter, wherein the first filter is a pre-filter configured to capture first particles having a first particle size, the second filter is a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter configured capture second particles having a second particle size, wherein the second particle size is smaller than the first particle size.
In the analogous art of HVAC filters, Sharma discloses a first filter (Sharma’s dust filter 1224, Sharma Fig. 12B, [0210]) and a second filter (Sharma’s HEPA filter 1238, Sharma Fig. 12B, [0210]), where Sharma’s first filter is a pre-filter configured to capture first particles having a particle size (Sharma discloses its dust filter is a MERV 7, Sharma [0047], MERV 7 is a medium-efficiency, pleated filter configured to capture particles between 3 and 10 microns per the MERV rating), Sharma’s second filter is a HEPA filter (Sharma Fig. 12B, [0210]) configured to capture at least 99.97% of particles as small as 0.3 microns (per HEPA definition provided by Sharma [0008]). Sharma discloses its design provides various filtration methods for reducing the level of infectious or noxious pathogens in ambient air and thus, reducing the risk of contracting viral or infectious disease or otherwise compromising immunity from inhalation of infected ambient air, Sharma [0006]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Sharma’s design in modified Conrad for the benefits disclosed. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art understands the need to put a coarse filter upstream of HEPA filter to increase the life span of HEPA filter.
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Conrad does not disclose that the fan filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the fan filter assembly comprises a plurality of fan support members secured to the main housing, and wherein the fan is configured to removably couple to the plurality of fan support members.
In the analogous art of fan filters, Sharma discloses a fan 910 comprising a plurality of fan supports (Sharma’s top and bottom portion 910t and 910b) removably coupled to the fan 910, and the plurality of fan support members 910b, 910t is secured to Sharma’s main housing (casing of 900 as shown in Sharma Fig. 9B). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Sharma’s fan supports in modified Conrad because for a fan to rotate freely, fan support structures are necessarily to maintain a rotation space while keep secure connection to the rest of fan-filter structure.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Brill et al., US 2019/0301764 A1 (“Brill”).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Conrad does not disclose that the fan filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the fan comprises a backwards inclined fan.
In the analogous art of HAVC filters, Brill discloses any type of air movers (axial fan, backward inclined impeller, etc.) could be used as HVAC filter fan, Brill [0017]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Conrad’s fan to be backward inclined fan because such fans are known in the HVAC art as being suitable as an air mover. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose such fan based on availability or price.
Claims 9–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Xu as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Cole et al., US 2021/0213382 A1 (“Cole”).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Conrad does not disclose that the fan filter assembly of claim 1, comprising a latch assembly configured to removably couple the second filter housing to the main housing.
In the analogous art of HVAC systems, Cole discloses a filter housing 40 that uses a latch assembly (Cole’s latch 70) configured to removably couple the filter housing 40 to the main housing 24 (Cole Fig. 4, [0049]). Cole discloses its latch is centrally controlled and thus may be actuated by the same control tool which a user utilizes to lower the filter housing, Cole [0086]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Cole’s latch in modified Conrad for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Conrad discloses that the fan filter assembly of claim 9, wherein the latch assembly comprises:
a latch pin (Cole’s arm 78, Cole, Fig. 4, [0048]) configured to extend through the second filter housing (as shown in Fig. 7, Cole Fig. 7, [0044]); and
a latch fastener (Cole’s aperture 82, Cole Fig. 4, [0048]) configured to engage with the latch pin (78 of Cole), wherein the latch fastener is configured to slide relative to the latch pin to engage and disengage the latch fastener from the latch pin (Cole discloses latches may slide between locked and unlocked position, Cole Fig. 4, [0086]).
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Conrad discloses that the fan filter assembly of claim 10, wherein the latch pin (78 of Cole) is secured to the main housing (24 of Cole) and extends outwardly from the second external surface of the main housing (as shown in Fig. 7), and the latch fastener (82 of Cole) is coupled to the second filter housing (40 of Cole when latch is in locked position, Cole Figs. 4 and 7).
Claims 15–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Park et al., US 2020/0398207 A1 (“Park”).
Regarding claim 15:
Conrad does not disclose that the HVAC system of claim 12, wherein the fan filter unit comprises a plurality of latch assemblies, wherein the plurality of latch assemblies is configured to removably mount the filter rack assembly to the exterior surface of the housing without a tool.
In the analogous art of air filter systems, Park discloses a filter (Park’s pre-filter 43, Park Fig. 9, [0100]), Park discloses a plurality of latch assemblies (Park’s rewind release device 60, Park Fig. 13, [0099]), wherein the plurality of latch assemblies is configured to removably mount the filter rack assembly (as shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 14 of Park, [0099–0101])) to an exterior surface of Park’s housing (as shown in Park Fig. 9, the filter is mounted to an exterior surface of Park’s main housing 31, Park Fig. 9, [0099]) without a tool.
Park discloses its filter 43 is a roller structure and Park’s rewind release device 60 controls rewind of pre-filter 60, Park Fig. 9, [0095]. Park discloses roller filer can be used without replacing and cleaning the filter module for a long period of time by allowing the used section containing sufficient number of foreign substances in the filter to be recovered on the recovery roller and unused section in the filter to be supplied from the supply roller, Park [0025]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Conrad’s filter to have a design as disclosed by Park for the benefits disclosed. Note that Park’s rewind release device is essentially a latch because it fixes Park’s roller in the housing.
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Conrad discloses that the HVAC system of claim 15, wherein each latch assembly (60 of Park) comprises: a post (Park’s release pin 61, Park Fig. 13, [0099]) secured to the housing (31 of Park, Fig. 13, [0099) and configured to extend through a respective opening (Park’s locking hole 41A-1, Park Fig. 13, [0098]) formed in the filter rack assembly (43, 41A of Park, Park Fig. 9);
and a latch (Park’s locking member 51, Park Fig. 13–14, [0096]) coupled to the filter rack assembly (43 of Park, Park Figs. 13–14),
wherein the latch (51 of Park) is slidable relative to the filter rack assembly between an engaged position and a disengaged position (as shown in Figs. 13–14),
and the latch (51 of Park) is configured to capture the post in the engaged position to removably mount the filter rack assembly to the housing (Fig. 14 of Park shows in an engaged position, where the Park’s locking member 51 and post 61 is engaged, Park Fig. 14, [0101]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Haslebacher.
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Conrad discloses that the HVAC system of claim 12, wherein the fan filter unit is configured to draw an air flow into the housing (as indicated by air flow arrow in Conrad’s Fig. 6), and that the fan is configured to direct the air flow through the filter (as indicated by air flow arrow in Conrad’s Fig. 6).
Modified Xu does not disclose that the fan filter unit is configured to be moutned to a ceiling f a conditioned space, and that the air flow is from a plenum within the ceiling and that the air flow is directed into the conditioned space.
In the analogous art of HVAC filtration systems, Haslebacher discloses a HVAC filter assembly that is disposed in the ceiling, Haslebacher Fig. 1, [0029]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Conrad’s device to be used in a ceiling to save floor space. With such modification, modified Conrad would have a fan draw an air flow from a plenum space within the ceiling and direct the air flow into the conditioned space (below ceiling).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Sharma.
Regarding claim 18:
Conrad discloses that a fan filter unit of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system (Conrad’s HVAC filter assembly 100, Conrad Fig. 1, [0097]), comprising: a fan housing (Conrad’s fan housing pointed by label 20 in Fig. 2, Conrad Fig. 2, [0098]) configured to receive an air flow (as indicated by Conrad in Fig. 6), wherein the fan housing defines a first opening (left or right opening of fan housing pointed by label 20, Conrad Fig. 2) and a second opening (the other of left or right opening of fan housing pointed by label 20, Conrad Fig. 2),
a fan disposed within the fan housing (Conrad’s fan bald structure inside fan housing pointed by label 20, Conrad Fig. 2),
wherein the fan is configured to draw an air flow into the fan housing via the first opening and to discharge the air flow from the fan housing via the second opening (as indicated by air flow arrow in Conrad Fig. 6);
a filter housing (end 12 of conduit 10, Conrad Fig. 3, [0098]) removably coupled to an exterior surface of the fan housing adjacent to the second opening (Conrad’s Fig. 2 show disassembled state, Conrad Fig. 2, [0097]), wherein the filter housing is removable from the fan housing to expose the fan via the second opening of the housing in an installed configuration of the fan filter unit (as shown in Conrad Fig. 2);
and a filter (Conrad’s filter 50, Conrad Fig. 2, [0099]) disposed within the filter housing (12 of Conrad) and configured to filter the air flow discharged from the fan housing via the second opening (as indicated by air flow in Conrad Fig. 6).
Conrad does not disclose that the fan housing comprises a plurality of support members and that the fan is removably mounted to the fan housing via the plurality of support members.
In the analogous art of fan filters, Sharma discloses a fan 910 comprising a plurality of fan supports (Sharma’s top and bottom portion 910t and 910b) removably coupled to the fan 910, and the plurality of fan support members 910b, 910t is secured to Sharma’s main housing (casing of 900 as shown in Sharma Fig. 9B). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Sharma’s fan supports in Conrad because for a fan to rotate freely, fan support structures are necessarily to maintain a rotation space while keep secure connection to the rest of HVAC structure.
Claims 19–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad in view of Sharma as applied in claim 18 above, and in further view of Park.
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Conrad does not disclose that the fan filter unit of claim 18, comprising a latch assembly configured to removably secure the filter housing to the fan housing, wherein the latch assembly comprises:
a latch post secured to the fan housing and configured to extend through an aperture formed in the filter housing, and
a latch fastener coupled to the filter housing and configured to engage with the latch post, wherein the latch fastener is configured to translate relative to filter housing and relative to the latch post to engage and disengage the latch fastener from the latch post.
However, as discussed in claim 15, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Conrad’s filter to have a design as disclosed by Park for the benefits disclosed. Note that Park’s rewind release device is essentially a latch because it fixes Park’s roller in the housing.
With such modification, modified Conrad discloses the fan filter unit of claim 18, comprising a latch assembly (Park’s rewind release device 60) configured to removably secure the filter housing (41A, 41B of Park) to the fan housing (Conrad’s fan case pointed by label 20 in Conrad Fig. 3, the same way as Park’s device 60 function in Park’s housing 31, Conrad Fig. 3 and Park Figs. 9 and 13–14), wherein the latch assembly comprises:
a latch post (Park’s release pin 61, Park, Fig. 13, [0101]) secured to the fan housing (Conrad’s fan case pointed by label 20, Conrad Fig. 3) and configured to extend through an aperture (Park’s locking hole 41A-1, Park Figs. 13–14, [0101]) formed in the filter housing (41A of Park, Park Fig. 13, [0098]), and
a latch fastener (Park’s locking member 51, Park Fig. 13, [0101]) coupled to the filter housing (41A of Park) and configured to engage with the latch post (as shown in Fig. 14, Park [0101]),
wherein the latch fastener (51 of Park) is configured to translate relative to filter housing and relative to the latch post to engage and disengage the latch fastener from the latch post (as shown in Fig. 13 and 14 of Park, Park [0101]).
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Conrad discloses that the fan filter unit of claim 19, wherein the latch fastener is actuatable to engage and disengage the latch fastener from the latch post without a tool in the installed configuration of the fan filter unit (Park’s release pin 61 is capable of being moved without a tool, Park Fig. 14, [0099]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The applicant amends the claims to include a further limitation of “external surface” and argues that Xu and Conrad fail to teach or disclose at least the above amendments, Applicant Rem. dated May. 04, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 8. Applicant’s arguments depend on Xu as the primary reference, Id. at ps. 9–11.
In response, the examiner points out that the current rejection relies on Conrad as the primary reference. Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous set of rejection are therefore moot.
In response to Applicant’s argument based on amendment to claim 12 (Applicant Rem. ps. 12–13), the examiner points out that the current rejection for claim 12 depends solely on Conrad, rendering applicant’s argument moot.
In response to Applicant’s argument based on amendment to claim 18 (Applicant Rem. ps. 11–15), the examiner points out that the current rejection for claim 18 depends Conrad as a primary reference, rendering applicant’s argument moot.
Applicant’s argument of dependent claims relies on the allowability of independent claims (Applicant Rem. p. 16), and since independent claims are rejected using a different primary reference Conrad, the respective dependent claims are not allowable.
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 A copy of Xu’s original document and machine translation are provided with the office action. The examiner relies on the original document for the text and machine translation for the figure.
Prosecution Insights