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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation of “and/or of circumferentially extending frame device” should be “and/or of the circumferentially extending frame device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected because the limitation of “at least one of the filter medium bodies of the prefilter element” should be “the at least one body of the prefilter element”.
Please use the term consistently with proper antecedent basis to avoid confusion.
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 1–20 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 1 is indefinite because the limitation of “the air inlet” “the air outlet” lack antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites at least one air inlet and at least one air outlet, it is therefore unclear which one is “the” air inlet/outlet when there are more than one inlet/outlet.
Claims 2–20 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 9 is indefinite for the same reason as claim 1 because it recites the same limitation of “the air inlet” and “the air outlet.”
Claim 11 is indefinite because the term “clean” is subjective and a standard is not given in the instant disclosure.
Claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear what it means “the clamping force generation device attacks at the radially projecting circumferentially extending collar.” Emphasis Added.
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 1–15 and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Crabtree et al., US 2011/0308210 A1 (“Crabtree”) in view of Hong et al., US 2019/0001249 A1 (“Hong”), and in further view of Handley et al., US 2011/0067368 A1 (“Handley”).
Regarding claim 1:
Crabtree discloses that an ambient air purification device (Crabtree’s device as shown in Fig. 3, Crabtree Fig. 3, [0031]) comprising:
a housing (Crabtree’s housing 100, Crabtree Fig. 3, [0031]) comprising at least one air inlet (Crabtree’s inlet 202) and at least one air outlet (Crabtree’s outlet opening 208, Crabtree Fig. 8, [0050]);
a filter device (Crabtree’s prefilter 136 and V-Bank filter 138, Crabtree Fig. 6, [0042]) arranged in the housing (100 of Crabtree) between the air inlet (202 of Crabtree) and the air outlet (208 of Crabtree) in relation to the air flow, the filter device (136, 138 of Crabtree ) comprising a main filter element (136 of Crabtree), and a prefilter element (138 of Crabtree),
wherein the main filter element (136 of Crabtree) comprises a circumferentially extending frame device (Crabtree’s frame 109, Crabtree Fig. 5, [0026]),
wherein the prefilter element (138 of Crabtree) comprises a circumferentially extending frame device (Crabtree’s peripheral and outwardly projecting rectangular flange 142, Crabtree Fig. 4, [0036]),
wherein the housing (100 of Crabtree) comprises a filter receiving region (where Crabtree’s filter 138 and 136 resides in housing 100, Crabtree Fig. 6), and
wherein the filter device (136, 138 of Crabtree) is arranged in the filter receiving region comprising a protruding circumferentially extending contact shoulder (see annotated Fig. 6 of Crabtree below);
a clamping force generating device (Crabtree’s locking bolt 134 together with screw 118, Crabtree Fig. 6, [0045]) arranged in the housing (100 of Crabtree) and configured to exert (Crabtree’s locking bolt 134 and screw 118 apply a clamp force to keep the filters 136, 138 attached to the housing, Crabtree Fig. 2, [0028]), in a mounted state of the filter device, an axially directed clamping force on the circumferentially extending frame device (109 of Crabtree) of the main filter element (136 of Crabtree),
wherein, at an upstream end of the main filter element, the circumferentially extending frame device (109 of Crabtree) of the main filter element (136 of Crabtree), in the mounted state of the main filter element, rests at the circumferentially extending frame device of the prefilter element (as shown in Fig. 6, Crabtree’s frame 109 rests at 142 of Crabtree’s filter 138, Crabtree Fig. 6),
wherein the axially directed clamping force is transmitted to the circumferentially extending frame device of the prefilter element (as best shown in Figs. 2–3, when Crabtree’s frame 109 is clamped via locking bolt 134, the clamping force is transmitted to Crabtree’s frame 142 to ensure a tight seal); and
a first circumferentially extending seal (Crabtree’s first seal 148, Crabtree Fig. 6, [0037]) interposed between the circumferentially extending frame device (142 of Crabtree) of the prefilter element (138 of Crabtree) and the protruding circumferentially extending contact shoulder of the filter receiving region (as annotated in Crabtree’s Fig. 6 below),
wherein the circumferentially extending frame device (142 of Crabtree) of the prefilter element (138 of Crabtree) is pressed by the axially directed clamping force via the first circumferentially extending seal seal-tightly against the protruding circumferentially extending contact shoulder of the filter receiving region to seal the filter device in relation to the housing (as shown in Fig. 6, an axial clamping force generated by joint effect of screw 118 and lock bolt 134 press the seal against Crabtree’s shoulder structure as shown in annotated Fig. 6 below), and
wherein the circumferentially extending frame device (109 of Crabtree) of the main filter element (136 of Crabtree) is sealed indirectly by the circumferentially extending frame device of the prefilter element in relation to the housing and comprises no seal location of its own in relation to the housing (Crabtree’s element 136 does not seal directly with the housing 100, rather it seals via seal 152, which does not contact Crabtree’s housing 100).
PNG
media_image1.png
655
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Crabtree does not disclose that at least one air flow generating device arranged in the housing and configured to generate an air flow from the air inlet to the air outlet.
In the analogous art of air purifying unit, Hong discloses a air purifying unit 101, Hong Fig. 4, [0049]. Hong discloses a fan structure 120 configured to guide air flow through its prefilter 130 and air purifier 140, Hong Fig. 5, [0064]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a fan as disclosed by Hong to guide air through Crabtree’s filter device.
Crabtree as modified by Hong does not disclose that a main filter element (136 of Crabtree) comprises a plurality of filter medium bodies arranged in a V-shape relative to each other (see Fig. 6 of Crabtree), and a prefilter element (138 of Crabtree) arranged upstream of the main filter element in regard to the air flow and comprising at least one filter medium body.
In the analogous art of air filtration, Handley discloses a pre-filter 100 and a V-bank filter 120, Handley Fig. 20, [0075]. Handley discloses both its pre-filter 100 and V-ban filter in V-panel shape, Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for both Crabtree’s filters 136 and 138 to be arranged in V0shaped relative to each because such design is known and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use such design for an increased filtration area.
However, such modification does not disclose that Crabtree’s filter 138 is arranged upstream of Crabtree’s filter 136. Hong discloses its fan could rotate in reverse direction when there are multiple air filtration units, Hong [0252]. Since Crabtree discloses multiple filter systems 162, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to reverse the fan rotating direction in Crabtree such that the original outlet would be inlet and the original inlet would be outlet to allow a more versatile air intake in more direction for a better filtration result.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, further comprising a second circumferentially extending seal (Crabtree’s second seal 152, Crabtree Fig. 6, [0046]) arranged between the main filter element (136 of Crabtree) and the prefilter element (138 of Crabtree), the second circumferentially extending seal (152 of Crabtree) sealing the circumferentially extending frame device (109 of Crabtree) of the main filter element (136 of Crabtree) in relation to the circumferentially extending frame device (142 of Crabtree) of the prefilter element (138 of Crabtree).
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 2, wherein the first circumferentially extending seal (148 of Crabtree) and the second circumferentially extending seal (152 of Crabtree) are arranged at the prefilter element or at the circumferentially extending frame device of the prefilter element. (both 18 and 152 of Crabtree are arranged at Crabtree’s filter 138, which is mapped to the pre-filter element, Crabtree Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 2, wherein the second circumferentially extending seal (152 of Crabtree) is arranged at a surface of the circumferentially extending frame device of the prefilter element and/or of circumferentially extending frame device of the main filter element (152 of Crabtree is arranged at 142 of Crabtree, Crabtree Fig. 6), and
wherein said surface is oriented normal in relation to a main inflow direction of the air flow (Crabtree’s surface on its structure 142 is vertical, which is normal to a main inflow direction which is horizontal, Crabtree Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein the first circumferentially extending seal (148 of Crabtree) is arranged at a surface of the circumferentially extending frame device of the prefilter element (142 of 138 in Crabtree), and
wherein said surface is oriented normal in relation to a main inflow direction of the air flow (surface is vertical, and flow direction is horizontal and therefore oriented normal to each other).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein the housing comprises at least one service door (Crabtree’s pivoting door 106 or 108, Crabtree Fig. 1, [0025]), through which an interior of the housing or the filter receiving region is accessible (see Fig. 1 of Crabtree).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein a length extension of the plurality of filter medium bodies of the main filter element extends in a horizontal direction in a predetermined operating orientation of the ambient air purification device (as modified in claim 1, Crabtree’s filter 136 would be V-bank shaped with an orientation similar to Crabtree’s filter 138, and therefore, there would a length extension in the a horizontal direction in the orientation shown in Fig. 6, Crabtree, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the filter medium bodies of the prefilter element and/or at least one of the plurality of filter medium bodies of the main filter element comprises a folded bellows of a folded filter medium (Crabtree discloses its filter 138 comprises pleated filter media 147, Crabtree Fig. 4, [0035]).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein the housing (shown in Crabtree’s alternative embodiment 300, Crabtree Fig. 9, [0051]) comprises:
a front wall (317 of Crabtree) and a rear wall (the wall opposite 317, Crabtree Fig. 9) positioned opposite each other;
side walls (316 of Crabtree, Fig. 9, [0051]) positioned opposite each other; and
a top wall (322 of Crabtree, Fig. 9, [0051]) and a bottom wall positioned opposite each other (wall opposite 322 of Crabtree, Id.),
wherein the air outlet (314) is arranged in the front wall or the rear wall (314 is located at rear wall as mapped above, Id.),
wherein the air inlet (304 of Crabtree) is arranged in one of the side walls (Crabtree Fig. 9, [0051]), and
wherein a main flow direction of the air flow between the air inlet and the air outlet experiences at least one directional change in a main flow direction (air enters via 304 and exits via 314, which will require a 90-degree directional change, Crabtree Fig. 9, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 10:
Modified Crabtree does not explicitly disclose that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, further comprising at least one partition arranged in the housing and separating the filter receiving region from a fan receiving region, wherein the air flow generating device is arranged in the fan receiving region, wherein the air flow generating device is held at the partition, and wherein a fluid connection between the filter receiving region and the fan receiving region exists.
However, Hong discloses a first fan guide 191, which read on the partition separating the filter receiving region 195, 196 from fan receiving region 194, Hong Fig. 12, [0108]. Hong discloses its blowing fan 120 is arranged in its fan casing unit 194, and the blowing fan 120 is held at the first fan guide 191, and there is a fluid connection between Hong’s filter casing unit 194, 195 and fan casing unit 194 as clearly shown in Fig. 12, Hong Fig. 12, [0108]. Hong discloses its design reduces air leak between a filter and blowing fan, Hong Fig. 12, [0007]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Hong’s fan guide in modified Crabtree for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein the filter receiving region comprises a clean air region (the space between Crabtree’s filter 136 and 138 is the claimed “clean air region” because air in between has been filtered, Crabtree Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein the circumferentially extending frame device at least of the prefilter element or at least of the main filter element is comprised of, or comprises, a material rigid in compression (Crabtree discloses its flange 142 is formed of rigid plastic, Crabtree Fig. 6, [0037]).
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 12, wherein the material rigid in compression is a plastic material or a steel material (Crabtree discloses its flange 142 is rigid plastic, Crabtree Fig. 6, [0037]).
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Crabtree does not explicitly disclose that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein the circumferentially extending frame device of the main filter element comprises a radially projecting circumferentially extending collar, and
wherein the clamping force generation device attacks at the radially projecting circumferentially extending collar in the mounted state of the filter device.
However, as modified in claim 1, Crabtree’s filter element 136 is amended to be a V-bank filter similar to Crabtree’s filter 138. Crabtree discloses the circumferentially extending frame device 142 of its filter 138 comprising a radially projecting circumferentially extending collar as clearly shown in Fig. 4, Crabtree Fig. 4, [0036]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Crabtree’s filter element 136 to have a similar structure as Crabtree’s filter element 138 to accommodate the V-bank shape. With such modification, Crabtree’s filter element 136 would have a similar collar structure as that of flange 142 and the clamping force would be applied to that collar structure the same way as to Crabtree’s filter 138.
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the main filter element (136 of Crabtree) and the prefilter element (138 of Crabtree) comprises one or more features selected from the group consisting of a particle filter medium, an adsorbent, an antimicrobial finish, an antibacterial finish, and an antiviral finish (Crabtree discloses its filter controls spread of influenza virus, which means its filter has a antimicrobial/antibacterial finish, Crabtree [0003]).
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the main filter element and the prefilter element comprises a polygonal form or a cuboid form (Crabtree’s filter 138 is shown as polygonal form in Fig. 4, Crabtree Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein the filter device is arranged at a suction side in relation to the air flow generating device (similar to that shown in Hong’s Fig. 14, where the filters are arranged at a suction side of fan 120, Crabtree Fig. 14, [0140]).
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of filter medium bodies of the main filter element (136 of Crabtree) comprises at least four filter medium bodies (both Handley and Crabtree’s filter 138 shows at least four panels, Handley Fig. 20 and Crabtree Fig. 4).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Crabtree in view of Hong, and in further view of Handley as applied in claim 15 above, and further in view of Gu et al., US 2015/0316274 A1 (“Gu”).
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Crabtree discloses that the ambient air purification device according to claim 15, wherein the particle filter medium is a HEPA filter medium (Crabtree discloses its filter element 138 could be a HEPA filter Crabtree Fig. 4, [0040]).
Modified Crabtree does not disclose that the adsorbent is an active carbon and/or a zeolite.
In the analogous art of air filters, Gu discloses a HEPA filter comprising activated carbon, Gu [0058]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include activated carbon in Crabtree’s filter medium because such design is known in the art. Crabtree would appreciate such modification because its device is used in an animal facility and odor control would be a challenge.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Crabtree in view of Hong, and in further view of Handley as applied in claim 19 above, and further in view of Jaganathan et al., US 2016/0175752 A1 (“Jaganathan”).
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Crabtree does not disclose that the ambient air purification device according to claim 19, wherein the at least four filter medium bodies each have a filter surface area of 0.5 m² to 3.5 m².
In the analogous art of air filters, Jaganathan discloses a filter with a filter surface area of greater than 1.75 m2, Jaganathan [0030]. Jaganathan therefore discloses a range overlaps with the claimed range and thus support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I). Selecting a desired filtration surface area based on the filtration need would be a routine engineering choice and since Jaganathan discloses the claimed range is known in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the would be capable of selecting a filtration range based on the need.
Conclusion
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