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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the applicant argues that Moran’s cover would not separate the filter seat from the air inlet opening as claimed. The examiner points out that Moran is relied upon to modify Neunhauserer. Neunhauserer discloses an air inlet opening which leads to a ducts with filters. The air inlet opening additionally leads to the filter insertion passageways, but is blocked from these during operation by a cover which is separate from the filter frame. Moran teaches a cover for blocking air from a filter insertion passageway which belongs to filter frame. The substitution of the cover of Moran in the device of Neunhauserer would separate the filter seat from the air inlet opening.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
“support means” in claim 1; and
“actuation means” in claim 1.
The applicant’s specification states “Preferably, the support means or actuation means for facilitating insertion and/or removal of the filter element comprise a guide mechanism, which may be a sliding-block guide, and/or a spring element configured to at least partially displace the filter element from its operating position that it assumes when it is inserted in the filter seat” and “According to an embodiment, the support means or actuation means comprise an actuation surface, which is configured for performing a manual insertion and/or removal movement of the filter element, wherein the manual movement is specifically performed by the user. Said actuation surface is particularly a gripping surface, which may be arranged at or on a handle”
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“marking or indicator means” in claim 11;
“track guide means” in claim 12;
“purification means” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neunhauserer (US 20190195511 A1), hereinafter Neunhauserer.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neunhauserer (US 20190195511 A1), hereinafter Neunhauserer, in view of Moran (US 20220226678 A1), hereinafter Moran.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 9, Neunhauserer discloses an extraction device for removing air from an area above a cooking hob, the extraction device being a downdraft extraction hood and/or forming a combination appliance in combination with the cooking hob, the extraction device being arranged below the cooking hob, the extraction device comprising:
an air inlet opening arranged at or below a cutout or a recess of a worktop of the cooking hob (“The extractor fan apparatus 2 comprises an inflow opening 11. The inflow opening 11 penetrates the hot plate 6” paragraph [0062]);
a fan for aspirating air from the area above the cooking hob through the air inlet opening, in particular through the cutout or recess of the worktop (“The extractor fan apparatus is configured to convey cooking vapours through the inflow opening 11 along the flow channel 12 and through the two fans 14” paragraph [0064]);
a filter seat (“The filter replacement space 21 has a guide device 25 for the guided displacement of the two filters 20. The guide device 25 is formed by way of the walls of the filter seat 19” paragraph [0069]);
a filter element removably arranged in the filter seat downstream of the air inlet opening and accessible through the air inlet opening via the cutout or recess of the worktop (“In order to insert the respective filter 20 into the filter seat 19, the respective filter 20 is first of all deformed, in particular curved about the vertical axis, is subsequently introduced through the inflow opening 11 into the negative pressure channel section 18, and is moved along the filter replacement space 21 through the transport channel 26 and onto the filter seat 19 in a manner which is guided by the guide device 25” paragraph [0084]), the filter element comprising:
a filter body comprising an odour filter adapted to remove odours from the aspirated air, and/or a grease particle filter adapted to remove particles from the aspirated air, and/or an electrostatic filter adapted to remove particles electrostatically from the aspirated air (“The two filters 20 are configured as odour filters” paragraph [0065]),
an outlet opening for exhausting air (“the cooking vapours are aspirated through the inflow opening 11 along the flow channel 12 to the fans 14, and are discharged through the filters 20 and the flow opening 22” paragraph [0079]),
support means or actuation means configured for supporting or facilitating manual movement of the filter element into and/or from the filter seat, the support means or actuation means being arranged at and/or acting on the filter element in a direction at least partially opposite to a direction of insertion of the filter element, said support means or actuation means being arranged at an end or side of the filter element facing the direction of insertion or a direction of removal movement of the filter element, and/or acting on an end or side of the filter element (“In accordance with one aspect of the invention, the at least one filter has an actuating means. The actuating means can be configured as a handle for the manual removal from the extractor fan apparatus, in particular by hand” paragraph [0036] and “In order to remove the respective filter 20 through the filter replacement space 21 and the inflow opening 11, said filter 20 is curved about a vertical axis, in particular is rolled up. In the curved form, the filter 20 is removable from the extractor fan apparatus through the inflow opening 11. In order to insert the respective filter 20 into the filter seat 19, the respective filter 20 is first of all deformed, in particular curved about the vertical axis, is subsequently introduced through the inflow opening 11 into the negative pressure channel section 18, and is moved along the filter replacement space 21 through the transport channel 26 and onto the filter seat 19 in a manner which is guided by the guide device 25. The displacement of the respective filter 20 takes place in a partially automated manner by way of actuation of the drive device 34” paragraphs [0083]-[0084]. In this case, the guide device 25, the drive device 34, and the handle seen in figure 3 are equivalent to the sliding block guide, the spring, and the gripping surface respectively disclosed by the applicant’s specification as the prior art element perform the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produce substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification);
wherein the filter element comprises a frame part that supports the filter body (“The filter can have a flexible, in particular pliable filter frame” paragraph [0031]).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
484
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
496
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
478
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Neunhauserer does not disclose the filter element comprising a cover that forms an end portion or end element of the filter element viewed in a direction of insertion of the filter element into the filter seat, wherein the cover separates the filter seat from the air inlet opening, wherein the cover of the filter elements comprises:
a cover plate arranged within an entrance zone of the filter seat, and
an O-ring seal that provides a seal between an outer surface of the cover plate and an inner surface of the entrance zone, such that the cover separates the filter seat from the air inlet opening in an airtight manner;
wherein the cover is fixed to and/or integrally formed with the frame part of the filter element.
However, Moran teaches the filter element comprising a cover that forms an end portion or end element of the filter element viewed in a direction of insertion of the filter element into the filter seat, wherein the cover separates the filter seat from the ambient air (“the drawer 154 is positioned within the chassis 134, and a seal 158 and an O-ring 162 are secured to an edge of the drawer 154, thereby securing the internal filter 130 within the chassis 134” paragraph [0023]), wherein the cover of the filter elements comprises:
a cover plate arranged within an entrance zone of the filter seat (“edge of the drawer 154” paragraph [0023]), and
an O-ring seal that provides a seal between an outer surface of the cover plate and an inner surface of the entrance zone, such that the cover separates the filter seat from the ambient air in an airtight manner (“an O-ring 162” paragraph [0023]);
wherein the cover is fixed to and/or integrally formed with the frame part of the filter element (154 forms a frame for the filter 130. The edge of 154 forms the cover).
PNG
media_image5.png
634
512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Neunhauserer does not disclose the claimed cover. Moran teaches the claimed cover. The substitution of one known element (the closure flap 27 of Neunhauserer) for another (the cover of Moran) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the cover taught in Moran would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for sealing the filter seat from air ingress at points other than the intended flow opening Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claim 2, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 1, wherein the filter element is arranged downstream of the fan (“the cooking vapours are aspirated through the inflow opening 11 along the flow channel 12 to the fans 14, and are discharged through the filters 20 and the flow opening 22” paragraph [0079]) and is removable through the air inlet opening through the cutout or recess of the worktop (“the filter 20 is removable from the extractor fan apparatus through the inflow opening 11” paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 4, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 1, wherein the filter element is both positionable in and at least partially removable from its operating position within the filter seat by a mechanical action in the direction of insertion (“In accordance with one aspect of the invention, the at least one filter has an actuating means. The actuating means can be configured as a handle for the manual removal from the extractor fan apparatus, in particular by hand” paragraph [0036] and “In order to remove the respective filter 20 through the filter replacement space 21 and the inflow opening 11, said filter 20 is curved about a vertical axis, in particular is rolled up. In the curved form, the filter 20 is removable from the extractor fan apparatus through the inflow opening 11. In order to insert the respective filter 20 into the filter seat 19, the respective filter 20 is first of all deformed, in particular curved about the vertical axis, is subsequently introduced through the inflow opening 11 into the negative pressure channel section 18, and is moved along the filter replacement space 21 through the transport channel 26 and onto the filter seat 19 in a manner which is guided by the guide device 25. The displacement of the respective filter 20 takes place in a partially automated manner by way of actuation of the drive device 34” paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 5, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device claim 1, wherein the support means or actuation means comprise a gripping surface configured for performing a manual insertion and/or removal movement of the filter element (“In accordance with one aspect of the invention, the at least one filter has an actuating means. The actuating means can be configured as a handle for the manual removal from the extractor fan apparatus, in particular by hand” paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 8, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 7, wherein the filter element passes through the entrance zone of the filter seat during its insertion into the filter seat (“In order to insert the respective filter 20 into the filter seat 19, the respective filter 20 is first of all deformed, in particular curved about the vertical axis, is subsequently introduced through the inflow opening 11 into the negative pressure channel section 18, and is moved along the filter replacement space 21 through the transport channel 26 and onto the filter seat 19 in a manner which is guided by the guide device 25” paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 10, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 1, wherein the filter element is:
bendable in the insertion and/or the removal direction for an adaptation to a curved insertion and/or removal path, and/or
incompressible or only marginally compressible in the direction of its movement (“In order to remove the respective filter 20 through the filter replacement space 21 and the inflow opening 11, said filter 20 is curved about a vertical axis, in particular is rolled up” paragraph [0083] and “In order to insert the respective filter 20 into the filter seat 19, the respective filter 20 is first of all deformed, in particular curved about the vertical axis, is subsequently introduced through the inflow opening 11” paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 12, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 1, further comprising an insertion aid for facilitating insertion of the filter element into the filter seat, the insertion aid comprising:
a rail or track guide means, and/or
at least one guiding surface (“The filter replacement space 21 has a guide device 25 for the guided displacement of the two filters 20. The guide device 25 is formed by way of the walls of the filter seat 19. During the introduction of the filters 20 into the filter seat 19, said filters 20 are guided between an upper and a lower wall, and by a rear-side wall of the filter seat 19” paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 13, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 12 wherein the insertion aid:
is an integral element of the extraction device, or
is insertable into the extraction device through the air inlet opening, prior to the filter element insertion process, and is removable from the extraction device after finalization of the filter element insertion process (“The filter replacement space 21 has a guide device 25 for the guided displacement of the two filters 20. The guide device 25 is formed by way of the walls of the filter seat 19. During the introduction of the filters 20 into the filter seat 19, said filters 20 are guided between an upper and a lower wall, and by a rear-side wall of the filter seat 19” paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 1, wherein the filter element is insertable into and/or removable from the filter seat in an at least approximately horizontal direction and a horizontal extension of the filter element in its direction of movement is equal to or greater than its vertical extension, a vertical cross-section of the filter element being rectangular or oval (See figures).
Regarding claim 21, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 1, comprising an air duct downstream of the fan that forms the filter seat (“the filters 20 are arranged in the flow channel 12 in such a way that the cooking vapour flow flows completely through them” paragraph [0066]), wherein a wall of the air duct forms an entrance zone of the filter seat and defines an aperture for insertion of the filter element into the air duct (“In order to insert the respective filter 20 into the filter seat 19, the respective filter 20 is first of all deformed, in particular curved about the vertical axis, is subsequently introduced through the inflow opening 11 into the negative pressure channel section 18, and is moved along the filter replacement space 21 through the transport channel 26 and onto the filter seat 19 in a manner which is guided by the guide device 25” paragraph [0084]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neunhauserer, in view of Moran, and further in view of Mckechnie (US 20160296870 A1), hereinafter Mckechnie.
Regarding claim 3, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 1.
Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, does not disclose wherein the support means or actuation means comprise a sliding-block guide, and/or a spring element configured to at least partially displace the filter element from its operating position that is assumed by the filter element when it is inserted in the filter seat, wherein the displacement takes place upon a user's manual operation.
However, Mckechnie teaches wherein the support means or actuation means comprise a sliding-block guide, and/or a spring element configured to at least partially displace the filter element from its operating position that is assumed by the filter element when it is inserted in the filter seat, wherein the displacement takes place upon a user's manual operation (“the filter/cartridge can be inserted through that opening into the filter receptacle 20. Thereafter, the retainer 44 is released and the filter/cartridge is pressed into the receptacle 20, in the direction of the arrow as seen in FIG. 14a, until it engages and presses the ejector 42 against the biasing action of its associated spring 42” paragraph [0058]).
PNG
media_image6.png
434
462
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Neunhauserer does not disclose the claimed actuation means. Mckechnie teaches the claimed actuation means. The substitution of one known element (the drive device 34 of Neunhauserer) for another (the spring of Mckechnie) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the spring taught in Mckechnie would have yielded predictable results, namely, means to eject the filter from the receptacle enough for a user to grasp and remove it Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neunhauserer, in view of Moran, and further in view of Hsieh (US 20200037837 A1), Hsieh.
Regarding claim 11, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 1.
Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, does not disclose wherein a marking or indicator means configured to point out access to or a position of the filter element to the user, which marking or indicator means:
is visible or noticeable through the air inlet opening,
provides a visual and/or haptic guidance to the user,
is located on a bottom cover or an intermediate bottom wall of the extraction device.
However, Hsieh teaches wherein a marking or indicator means configured to point out access to or a position of the filter element to the user, which marking or indicator means:
is visible or noticeable,
provides a visual and/or haptic guidance to the user,
is located on a wall of the device (“To facilitate the replacement, cleaning and installation of the filter 12, the housing 11 can include a foolproof means of a position indicator or positioning member 113 etc. in order to prevent the filter 12 from being installed into the dust collector apparatus 100 in an incorrect direction. The term “positioning” described in this content refers to a member for restricting or positioning during the installation of the filter 12 by the user, or a member for facilitating the user to directly or indirectly determine the installation position of the filter 12. The installation position refers to the installation direction, orientation, forward/reverse, location, sequence, angle etc. of the filter 12, but not limited to: shape matching, retention matching, drawing matching, color indication etc” paragraph [0053]).
In view of the teachings of Hsieh, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the indicator as is taught in Hsieh, in the extraction device disclosed by Neunhauserer because Hsieh states that the indicator facilitates correct installation. The examiner notes that the particular location of the indicator will be tied to the particular location of the filter in Neunhauserer.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neunhauserer, in view of Moran, and further in view of Mahle (DE 202009017271 U1), hereinafter Mahle.
Regarding claim 15, Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 1.
Neunhauserer, as modified by Moran, does not disclose purification means for a cleaning of the aspirated air, the purification means comprising:
silver ions included in the filter element, and/or
lighting means emitting ultraviolet rays and being included in the extraction device, which lighting means irradiate the filter means at least during operating periods or at least one time range of an operating period of the extraction device.
However, Mahle teaches purification means for a cleaning of the aspirated air, the purification means comprising:
silver ions included in the filter element, and/or
lighting means emitting ultraviolet rays and being included in the extraction device, which lighting means irradiate the filter means at least during operating periods or at least one time range of an operating period of the extraction device (“According to one advantageous embodiment of the invention, are a filter layer or several filter layers doped with silver ions, causing bacterial growth is significantly reduced on the respective filter layer” citations from machine translation appended to the foreign reference).
In view of the teachings of Mahle, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the purification means as is taught in Mahle, in the extraction device disclosed by Neunhauserer because Mahle states that the silver ions significantly reduce bacterial growth. Therefore, including the silver ions of Mahle will improve sanitation in Neunhauserer.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neunhauserer, in view of Flesch (WO 2019081262 A1), hereinafter Flesch, and further in view of Moran.
Regarding claims 16, Neunhauserer discloses an extraction device for removing air from an area above a cooktop, the extraction device comprising:
a casing disposed beneath the cooktop and having an interior that communicates with the area above the cooktop via an air inlet opening thereof (Figure 2 for instance), the air inlet opening being accessible from above the cooktop through a cutout therein (“The extractor fan apparatus 2 comprises an inflow opening 11. The inflow opening 11 penetrates the hot plate 6” paragraph [0062]);
a filter assembly that is insertable through said air inlet opening (“In order to insert the respective filter 20 into the filter seat 19, the respective filter 20 is first of all deformed, in particular curved about the vertical axis, is subsequently introduced through the inflow opening 11 into the negative pressure channel section 18, and is moved along the filter replacement space 21 through the transport channel 26 and onto the filter seat 19 in a manner which is guided by the guide device 25” paragraph [0084]);
a receiving space within the interior of the casing and dimensioned to accommodate the filter assembly (“The filter replacement space 21 has a guide device 25 for the guided displacement of the two filters 20. The guide device 25 is formed by way of the walls of the filter seat 19” paragraph [0069]);
an air duct at least partially disposed in said casing (“the filters 20 are arranged in the flow channel 12 in such a way that the cooking vapour flow flows completely through them” paragraph [0066]); and
a fan disposed within said casing and configured to draw air from above the cooktop, through said air inlet opening and then through said filter assembly when installed in said receiving space, prior to exhausting the air through the air duct (“the cooking vapours are aspirated through the inflow opening 11 along the flow channel 12 to the fans 14, and are discharged through the filters 20 and the flow opening 22” paragraph [0079]);
said air duct comprising a filter seat configured to accommodate slide-in insertion of the filter assembly along an insertion direction into a region of said air duct that is immediately downstream from the fan, said filter seat being located adjacent to said receiving space (Figure 1);
said filter assembly comprising:
a filter material adapted to filter odors from air that passes through the filter material (“The two filters 20 are configured as odour filters” paragraph [0065]),
a flexible frame extending around a perimeter of the filter material, said frame having dimensions substantially complementary to those of the air duct in a vicinity of the filter seat so that when installed therein, air expelled from the fan outlet will pass through the filter material, wherein a length dimension of said frame is greater than a width dimension of said frame (“The filter can have a flexible, in particular pliable filter frame” paragraph [0031] see figures for filter dimensions);
wherein said filter seat is accessible from above said cooktop for slide-in insertion of said filter assembly therein through said air inlet opening when said filter assembly is not installed in said receiving space (“In order to remove the respective filter 20 through the filter replacement space 21 and the inflow opening 11, said filter 20 is curved about a vertical axis, in particular is rolled up. In the curved form, the filter 20 is removable from the extractor fan apparatus through the inflow opening 11. In order to insert the respective filter 20 into the filter seat 19, the respective filter 20 is first of all deformed, in particular curved about the vertical axis, is subsequently introduced through the inflow opening 11 into the negative pressure channel section 18, and is moved along the filter replacement space 21 through the transport channel 26 and onto the filter seat 19 in a manner which is guided by the guide device 25. The displacement of the respective filter 20 takes place in a partially automated manner by way of actuation of the drive device 34” paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Neunhauserer does not disclose:
wherein a length dimension of said inlet opening is greater than a width dimension of said inlet opening;
said filter assembly comprising a cover fixed to the frame that forms an end portion or end element of the filter assembly viewed in the insertion direction, wherein the cover separates the filter seat from the air inlet opening.
However, Flesch teaches wherein a length dimension of said inlet opening is greater than a width dimension of said inlet opening (“The recess 1000 is located in the middle of the width of the cover plate 100, has a rectangular shape” all citations from machine translation appended to the foreign reference. See also “two odor filter 115”).
PNG
media_image7.png
400
488
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
372
398
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In view of Flesch’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein a length dimension of said inlet opening is greater than a width dimension of said inlet opening as is taught in Flesch, in the extraction device disclosed by Neunhauserer because Flesch states “Preferably, the air inlet opening and also the recess a rectangular, elongated shape and extending in the depth direction of the hob. This allows lateral to the air inlet opening cooking modules of the hob to be provided and thus a reliable suction can be ensured during cooking on the cooking modules resulting streaks and vapors.” Therefore, including the rectangular inlet will ensure reliability of suction in Neunhauserer.
Neunhauserer, as modified by Flesch, does not disclose said filter assembly comprising a cover fixed to the frame that forms an end portion or end element of the filter assembly viewed in the insertion direction, wherein the cover separates the filter seat from the air inlet opening.
However, Moran teaches said filter assembly comprising a cover fixed to the frame that forms an end portion or end element of the filter assembly viewed in the insertion direction, wherein the cover separates the filter seat from the ambient air (“the drawer 154 is positioned within the chassis 134, and a seal 158 and an O-ring 162 are secured to an edge of the drawer 154, thereby securing the internal filter 130 within the chassis 134” paragraph [0023]).
Neunhauserer does not disclose the claimed cover. Moran teaches the claimed cover. The substitution of one known element (the closure flap 27 of Neunhauserer) for another (the cover of Moran) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the cover taught in Moran would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for sealing the filter seat from air ingress at points other than the intended flow opening Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claim 17, Neunhauserer, as modified by Flesch and Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 16, said filter seat being oriented such that said insertion direction for slide-in insertion of said filter assembly is at an angle from the length dimension of the air inlet opening when viewed from above (Figure 3 of Neunhauserer), such that following insertion into said receiving space of said filter assembly oriented such that its length dimension is parallel to the length dimension of the air inlet opening (Figure 14 of Flesch), the filter assembly must be deflected according to said angle in order to achieve slide-in insertion into the odor-filter seat, wherein the flexibility of said frame accommodates said deflection (“In order to remove the respective filter 20 through the filter replacement space 21 and the inflow opening 11, said filter 20 is curved about a vertical axis, in particular is rolled up. In the curved form, the filter 20 is removable from the extractor fan apparatus through the inflow opening 11. In order to insert the respective filter 20 into the filter seat 19, the respective filter 20 is first of all deformed, in particular curved about the vertical axis, is subsequently introduced through the inflow opening 11 into the negative pressure channel section 18, and is moved along the filter replacement space 21 through the transport channel 26 and onto the filter seat 19 in a manner which is guided by the guide device 25. The displacement of the respective filter 20 takes place in a partially automated manner by way of actuation of the drive device 34” paragraphs [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 18, Neunhauserer, as modified by Flesch and Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 17, further comprising an insertion aid that is insertable into said receiving space and comprises a sliding surface configured to guide deflection of said filter assembly according to said angle in order to complete slide-in insertion thereof into the filter seat (“The filter replacement space 21 has a guide device 25 for the guided displacement of the two filters 20. The guide device 25 is formed by way of the walls of the filter seat 19. During the introduction of the filters 20 into the filter seat 19, said filters 20 are guided between an upper and a lower wall, and by a rear-side wall of the filter seat 19” paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 19, Neunhauserer, as modified by Flesch and Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 17, said angle being 90° (Figure 14 of Flesch shows that the modified angle is 90°).
Regarding claim 20, Neunhauserer, as modified by Flesch and Moran, discloses the extraction device according to claim 17, said cover of the filter assembly comprising a handle that extends along the width dimension of the frame, such that slide-in insertion of said filter assembly into said filter seat can be achieved via pushing the filter assembly via said handle, along the length dimension of the frame, toward and into the filter seat (“In accordance with one aspect of the invention, the at least one filter has an actuating means. The actuating means can be configured as a handle for the manual removal from the extractor fan apparatus, in particular by hand” paragraph [0036] of Neunhauserer. Neunhauserer has been modified by Moran to possess a cover on the width end of the frame. Additionally, Moran shows a handle on the cover).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Forlin (IT 201700066244 A1)
PNG
media_image9.png
420
450
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights