DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
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 1-21, 23-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osborne et al. US 2007/0169447 (hereafter Osborne).
Regarding claim 1, Osborne teaches a filter mount (Fig 15) comprising:
a filter capture ledge or angle (1502);
a mount extension (1504);
a U-clip base (as labeled below) comprising two sides with a channel or opening gap between said sides;
an attachment device (1514);
said filter mount capturing a frame of an air handling device (802, ¶45).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (U-clip base)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches a structure (structure of Fig 15) to hold a filter in place behind an air handling device, including a linear bar grille or diffuser (where the air handling device is fully capable of being a linear bar grille or diffuser, see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 3, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said mount extension supports a filter (802), and said filter is contained above said filter capture ledge or angle (as shown in Fig 15, ¶45).
Regarding claim 4, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said air handling device is a linear bar grille
or a slot diffuser (where the air handling device is fully capable of being a linear bar grille or slot diffuser, see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 5, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Osborne further teaches wherein the depth of said mount extension is sufficient to support the thickness of said filter (as shown in Fig 15, ¶45).
Regarding claim 6, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 5. Osborne further teaches wherein depth of said mount extension is adjustable (where the depth of the mount extension can be adjusted by using a shim; see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 7, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said channel or opening gap is where said air handling device frame is inserted (as shown in Fig 15, ¶45).
Regarding claim 8, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said U-clip base comprises a shorter side and a longer side, that assists with installing said filter mount on an air handling device frame that has already been installed (as shown in Fig 15).
Regarding claim 9, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Osborne further teaches wherein said U-clip base provides a stop for said filter so it can't move up and down (as shown in Fig 15).
Regarding claim 10, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said attachment device helps to hold said air handling device frame within said channel (as shown in Fig 15, ¶45).
Regarding claim 11, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Osborne further teaches wherein said the filter is removed and re-positioned along said air handling device frame (where the filter is fully capable of being removed and repositioned in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 12, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Osborne further teaches wherein said filter is attached to said grille frame by said filter mount before said framed grille is installed (where the filter is fully capable of being attached as claimed in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 13, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Osborne further teaches wherein said filter is attached to said grille frame by said filter mount after said framed grille is installed (where the filter is fully capable of being attached as claimed in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 14, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Osborne further teaches wherein said filter mount is used with frame having removable cores (where the filter is fully capable of being used with the frame as claimed in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 15, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said filter mount is attached to any linear bar grille frame (where the mount is fully capable of being attached to any linear bar grille frame, see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 16, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said filter mount is attached to bottom of an air handling device on any of four sides of said air handling device (where the mount is fully capable of being attached to bottom an air handling device on any of four sides of said air handling device, see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 17, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said filter mount is attached to bottom of said air handling device in at least three locations (where the mount is fully capable of being attached to bottom of said air handling device in at least three locations, see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 18, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said filter mount is attached to bottom of said air handling device frame with no tools (where the mount is fully capable of being attached as claimed, see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 19, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said filter mount is attached to bottom of said air handling device frame with a press fit pin (where the mount is fully capable of being attached as claimed, see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 20, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said filter mount is attached to bottom of said air handling device frame with construction adhesive (where the mount is fully capable of being attached as claimed, see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 21, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said filter mount is attached to bottom of said air handling device frame with high strength bonding foam tape (where the mount is fully capable of being attached as claimed, see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 23, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said channel of said U-clip base wraps around said air handling device frame (as shown in Fig 15).
Regarding claim 24, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said U-clip base is squared or radiused at the bottom (as shown in Fig 15).
Regarding claim 25, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein to secure said filter mount to said air handling device, construction adhesive or high strength foam tape is placed inside said channel of said U-clip base (where the mount is fully capable of being secured as claimed, see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 26, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said filter mount is secured to said air handling device by a pin inserted into a through hole (channel 1514) in said U-clip base (where the mount is fully capable of being secured as claimed, see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 27, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Osborne further teaches wherein said mount extension projects downward from said U-clip base to a filter capture ledge being a right angle support (as shown in Fig 15).
Regarding claim 30, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Osborne further teaches wherein said capture ledge acts as surface on which said filter rests (as shown in Fig 15).
Regarding claim 32, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Osborne further teaches wherein said capture ledge and base of said U-clip
create a recess for said filter to be positioned in (as shown in Fig 15).
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 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 22, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Osborne does not teach wherein said filter mount is constructed of plastic or metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter mount of Osborne (Fig 15) to be constructed of plastic or metal in order to be strong, lightweight, and made of readily available material (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 29, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Osborne does not teach wherein said capture ledge projects a minimum of .50 inches away from said mount extension length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capture ledge of Osborne (1502) to be a minimum of 0.50 inches away from said mount extension length in order to capture a filter cartridge of appropriate size (¶45, see MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne as applied to claim 27 above.
Regarding claim 28, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 27.
Osborne does not teach wherein said mount extension has a length from 1 inch to 2.5 inches to accommodate a range of filter thicknesses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mount extension of Osborne to have a length from 1 inch to 2.5 inches in order to capture a filter cartridge of appropriate size (¶45, see MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne as applied to claim 30 above.
Regarding claim 31, Osborne teaches all the limitations of claim 30.
Osborne does not teach wherein said capture ledge is longer than .50 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capture ledge of Osborne (1502) to be longer than 0.50 inches in order to capture a filter cartridge of appropriate size (¶45, see MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776