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 6–8 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 6 recites:
6. The filter device according to claim 1, wherein
the metal mesh material comprises a central plane having a rectangular shape in plan view, a first extension plane and a second extension plane extending outward from opposite two sides of the central plane in a developed state;
the first leg portion and the second leg portion are formed by folding the first extension plane and the second extension plane on fold lines parallel to the two sides; and
ridgelines of the first leg portion and the second leg portion on the filter material side are mountain fold lines when viewed from the filter material side. Emphasis added.
Claim 6 is indefinite because “the filter material side” lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, claim 6 could be amended to read:
6. The filter device according to claim 1, wherein
the metal mesh material comprises a central plane having a rectangular shape in plan view, a first extension plane and a second extension plane extending outward from opposite two sides of the central plane in a developed state;
the first leg portion and the second leg portion are formed by folding the first extension plane and the second extension plane on fold lines parallel to the two sides; and
ridgelines of the first leg portion and the second leg portion on [[the]] a filter material side are mountain fold lines when viewed from the filter material side.
Claims 7 and 8 are indefinite because they depend from claim 6.
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 1–8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimura, JP 30948181 in view of Yasunaga, JPH0724227A2 and in further view of Juodkazis et al., US 2016/0212989 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Niimura teaches a filter device, which reads on the claimed “filter device.” See Niimura Fig. 4, [0022].
The filter device comprises a filter element 5, which reads on the “filter body.” See Niimura Fig. 4, [0022].
The filter also comprises a filter cover 11 made from mesh and mounted to the filter element 5. See Niimura Fig. 4, [0022], [0030]. The filter cover 11 reads on the “mesh filter cover mounted to the filter body.”
The filter element 5 has a filter material having a rectangular shape in plan view, as claimed, which is the material in the interior of the filter element 5, as seen in Fig. 4. The filter element 5 also has an air filter case 7 holding an outer edge of the filter material, which reads on the “frame member holding an outer edge of the filter material.”
The filter cover 11 comprises multiple layers because it comprises a pile of about ten sheets. See Niimura [0012].
The filter cover 11 comprises a gauze portion 11a having a rectangular shape in plan view, which reads on the “purification portion.” See Niimura Fig. 4, [0021]. The filter cover 11 also comprises two rectangular, leg-shaped plate members 11b extending along two mutually facing sides among four sides of the gauze portion 11a. Id. One of the plate members 11b reads on the “first leg portion” and another plate member 11b reads on the “second leg portion.”
The plate members 11b extend in a direction perpendicular to the gauze portion 11a and in a thickness direction of the filter case 7 in cross-sectional view, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 4.
The filter cover 11 is mounted to the filter element 5 by engaging the plate members 11b with the filter case 7, as claimed, because the filter element 5 is inserted into the recessed part between adjacent plate members 11b. see Niimura Fig. 4, [0022].
PNG
media_image1.png
602
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Niimura differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the multilayer configuration of the filter cover 11 being formed by folding a metal mesh material. Instead, Niimura teaches that the filter cover 11 is formed by piling about ten sheets of mesh material. See Niimura [0012].
But Yasunaga teaches a filter material useful for filtering gases comprising a plurality of metal mesh layers that are folded a plurality of times. See Yasunaga [0001], [0012], [0014]. The filter material is an improvement over a conventional technique of stacking several sheets of mesh (as in the filter cover 11 of Niimura) because the filter material has improved strength and is less likely to clog compared to a filter material manufactured with this conventional technique. Id. at [0004]. The filter of Yasunaga is also beneficial because it is inexpensive to manufacture. Id. at [0005].
PNG
media_image2.png
931
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the filter material of Yasunaga as the filter material of the filter cover 11 of Niimura to improve strength, reduce the likelihood of clogging and reduce cost.
Niimura also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the mesh material of the cover 11 having an uneven surface formed with an interval between protrusions ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 µm, as claimed.
But Juodkazis teaches a technique for providing biocidal nanospikes on the surface of a substrate. See Juodkazis [0009]. The nanospikes can be applied to a surface used for various applications, including filtration (as the substrate can be a face mask). Id. at [0040]. The surface can be metal, and the nanostructured surface can be applied to the strands or fibers. Id. at [0040]. The nanospikes have an interval between adjacent nanospikes from about 200 nm to about 700 nm, which converts to 0.2 to 0.7 µm. Id. at [0036]. The nanospikes are beneficial because they are able to eliminate microbes that could accumulate on the substrate. Id. at [0007].
It would have been obvious to apply the nanospikes of Juodkazis onto the mesh material of the filter cover 11 of Niimura (as modified) to eliminate microbes that accumulate on the filter cover. With this modification, the nanospikes form an “uneven surface” as claimed with an interval between nanospikes (“protrusions”) from 0.2 to 0.7 µm. The prior art range of 0.2 to 0.7 µm overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 to 1.5 µm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Niimura as modified teaches that the uneven surface formed by the nanospikes of Juodkazis has an antiviral action, as claimed, because it can eliminate virus infected cells. See Juodkazis [0033].
Regarding claim 3, Niimura as modified by Yasunaga teaches that the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 (the “metal mesh material”) comprises a “central plane having a rectangular shape in plan view,” as seen in Figs. 2 and 4 of Yasunaga. Yasunaga also teaches “extension planes extending outward from” at least two sides of the central plane in a developed state, with eh filter 1 being obtained by folding the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 on the two sides serving as folding lines, as seen in Figs. 2, 4 and 9(b).
The mesh filter material of Yasunaga differs from claim 3 because, while the drawings of the reference show the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 being folded at two sides of the rectangle (e.g., Fig. 9(b)), the reference fails to provide enough information to explicitly teach the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 being folded on all four sides of the rectangle. But Yasunaga teaches that the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 are folded over the three wire mesh groups 3, 4, 5 so that the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 wrap the other groups 3, 4, 5. See Yasunaga [0013]. Also, the folding is intended to prevent the ends of striations 10 of each of the layers from being exposed to the outside to improve safety. Id. at [0019]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 being folded on all four sides of the rectangle to full wrap the groups 3, 4, 5 to prevent the ends of striations 10 of each of the layers from being exposed to the outside to improve safety. Id. at [0019].
Regarding claim 4, Niimura as modified by Yasunaga teaches that the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 (the “metal mesh material”) comprises a “central plane having a rectangular shape in plan view,” as seen in Figs. 2 and 4 of Yasunaga. The first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 also have “first and second extension planes extending outwards from mutually facing first and second sides among four sides of the central plane, respectively, in a developed state” which are the two vertical sections of the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6, seen in Fig. 4. The “filter cover” formed by the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 is obtained by folding the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 “on the first and second sides serving as fold lines to that the central plane and the first and second extension planes are stacked,” as seen in Fig. 4.
PNG
media_image3.png
740
1174
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Niimura as modified by Yasunaga teaches the limitations of claim 4, as explained above.
Yasunaga differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 (the “metal mesh material”) comprising third and fourth extension planes that extend outward from mutually facing third and fourth sides among the four sides in the developed state and are smaller than the “first and second extension planes,” with the “filter cover” being obtained by folding the metal mesh material on the third and fourth sides serving as folding lines.
But it would have been obvious or the first and fifth wire mesh groups 2, 6 being folded on all four sides of the rectangle to full wrap the groups 3, 4, 5 to prevent the ends of striations 10 of each of the layers from being exposed to the outside to improve safety, for the reasons explained in the rejection of claim 3 above.
With this modification, the two short sides of the rectangle folded up read on the “third and fourth extension planes.”
Regarding claim 6, Niimura teaches that the mesh material of the filter cover 11 comprises a central plane having a rectangular shape in plan view, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 4. The mesh material of the filter cover 11 also has a “first extension plane” and a “second extension plane” extending outward from opposite two sides of the central plane in a developed state, as claimed, which are the planes formed by plate members 11b, as seen in Fig. 4.
The two plate members 11b (the “first leg portion” and the “second leg portion”) have the same structure as would be produced by the claimed process of “folding the first extension plane and the second extension plane on fold lines parallel to the two sides” as seen in Fig. 4. See MPEP 2113, subsection I (the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production unless the method steps impart structure).
Also, ridgelines of the plate members 11b on the top side of the cover 11 (the “filter material side”) have the structure of “mountain fold lines” when viewed from the top side, as seen in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 7, Niimura teaches that the middle of each of the plate members 11b (the “first and second leg portions”) are provided on an inner side of the left and right hand sides of the filter case 7 (the “frame member”), as seen in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 8, Niimura teaches that the plate members 11b are provided along an outer side of the front and back sides of the filter case 7 (the “frame member”) of the filter element 5 because the filter element 5 is inserted into the recessed part between the plate members 11b. See Niimura Fig. 4, [0022].
Regarding claim 10, Niimura teaches an air suction system, which reads on the claimed “air conditioner.” See Niimura [0004]. Note that the air suction system is an “air conditioner” because it conditions air at least by removing particulate matter from it.
The air suction system comprises the filter device. See Niimura [0004].
The air suction system also comprises an air passage through which air flows, as claimed. See Niimura [0004].
The filter device is provided in the air passage. See Niimura [0004].
The filter cover 11 is provided on an upstream side with respect to the filter element 5 (the “filter body”), as claimed. See Niimura [0016].
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the Non-Final Rejection dated September 18, 2025, in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–8 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
1 Nimura is in the record as the 26-page Foreign Reference dated May 19, 2023.
2 Yasunaga is in the record as the 16-page Foreign Reference dated May 19, 2023.