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 1–19 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 recites:
1. A filter assembly for securing to an intake face of an air handling unit, comprising:
a base mesh ply having a base mesh frame adapted to being secured to the intake face in order to cover an opening of the air handling unit; and
an outer mesh ply having an outer mesh frame attached to the base mesh frame of said base mesh ply, said outer mesh ply and outer mesh frame being configured to be manipulated to permit access to said base mesh ply without removal of said base mesh ply from the air handling unit. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “base mesh ply” or the “base mesh frame” (or both) is “adapted to being secured to the intake face.”
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is unclear whether the “outer mesh ply” or the “outer mesh frame” (or both) are attached to the base mesh frame.
Claims 15 and 18 are indefinite for the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 2–14, 16, 17, and 19 are indefinite because they depend from claims 1 or 15.
Claim 3 recites:
3. The filter assembly of claim 1, further comprising said base and outer mesh plies being joined together along at least one common edge. Emphasis added.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the base and outer mesh plies themselves are joined together along at least one common edge, or whether the base mesh frame and outer mesh frame are joined together along at least one common edge. This is because the literal text of the claim indicates that the base and mesh plies are joined together along at least one common edge. But the figures of the specification illustrate the base mesh frame and outer mesh frame (and not the plies) being joined together along at least one common edge. See MPEP 2173.03 (a claim, although clear on its face, may be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain).
Claim 4 is indefinite because it depends from claim 3.
Claim 5 recites:
5. The filter assembly of claim 2, further comprising said outer mesh ply having a modified and segmented outer perimeter with cutouts aligning with an arrangement of the fasteners for securing said base mesh ply to the air handling unit. Emphasis added.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear whether it is the “outer mesh ply” or the “outer mesh frame” that has a modified and segmented outer perimeter with cutouts. This is because the literal text of the claim indicates that it is the outer mesh ply that has the modified and segmented outer perimeter. But the figures of the disclosure (e.g., Fig. 5) illustrate that it is the outer mesh frame that has the modified and segmented outer perimeter. See MPEP 2173.03 (a claim, although clear on its face, may be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain).
Claim 6 is indefinite because it depends from claim 5.
Claims 9 and 10 recite:
9. The filter assembly of claim 3, further comprising said base and outer mesh plies being secured along each of four interconnected edges, a zippered extending edge further defined along an interior of the outer mesh ply for providing access between said plies. Emphasis added.
10. The filter assembly of claim 3, further comprising said base and outer mesh plies being secured along each of four interconnected edges, a slit extending along an interior of said outer mesh ply in combination with opposing hook and loop portions established between said plies in proximity to said slit for providing access between said plies.
Claims 9 and 10 are indefinite because it is unclear whether it is the “base and outer mesh plies” that are secured along each of four interconnected edges, or whether it is the “base mesh frame” and the “outer mesh frame” that are secured along each of four interconnected edges. This is because the literal text of each claim indicates that the base and outer mesh plies are secured along each of four interconnected edges. But the figures of the disclosure (e.g., Fig. 16) illustrates the base mesh frame and outer mesh frame being secured along each of four interconnected edges. See MPEP 2173.03 (a claim, although clear on its face, may be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain).
Claim 18 recites:
18. A filter assembly for securing to an intake face of an air handling unit, comprising:
a base mesh ply having a base mesh frame adapted to being secured to the intake face in order to cover an opening of the air handling unit;
an outer mesh ply having an outer mesh frame attached to the base mesh frame of said base mesh ply, said base and outer mesh plies being secured along each of three interconnected edges, and having a fourth openable and reclosable side for permitting side access between said plies so that said outer mesh ply is configured to be manipulated to permit access to said base mesh ply without removal of said base mesh ply from the air handling unit; and
a third removable mesh ply having a rigid form defining outer frame insertable through said fourth openable side between said base and outer mesh plies. Emphasis added.
Claim 18 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the base and outer mesh plies themselves are secured along each of three interconnected edges, or whether the bae mesh frame and outer mesh frame are secured along each of three interconnected edges. This is because the literal text of the claim indicates that the base and outer mesh plies themselves are secured along each of three interconnected edges. But Fig. 19 of the disclosure illustrates that it is the base mesh frame and the outer mesh frame that are secured along each of three interconnected edges. See MPEP 2173.03 (a claim, although clear on its face, may be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain).
Claims 12 and 16 are indefinite for the same reason as claim 18.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it depends from claim 12.
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, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiser, III et al., US 2019/0283040 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Wiser teaches an air filter assembly 100, which reads on the claimed “filter assembly.” See Wiser Fig. 1A, [0020]. The limitation of the filter assembly being “for securing to an intake face of an air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction if the body of the claim fully sets forth all the limitations of the claim and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention). The filter assembly 100 comprises:
A right-hand wire mesh 114 (the “base mesh ply”) having a frame 112 (the “base mesh frame”). See Wiser Fig. 1A, [0020]. The limitation of “adapted to being secured to the intake face in order to cover an opening of the air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
A left-hand wire mesh 114 (the “outer mesh ply”) having a frame 112 (the “outer mesh frame”) attached to the right-hand frame 112 at a hinged edge. See Wiser Fig. 1A, [0020].
The left-hand wire mesh 114 and frame 112 are capable of being manipulated to permit access to the right-hand mesh 114 without removal of the right-hand mesh 114 from an air-handling unit, as claimed, because the left-hand mesh 114 and frame 112 could be moved by the hinge to the open position seen in Fig. 1A to allow access to the right-hand mesh 114. See Wiser Fig. 1A, [0020]; MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image1.png
705
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Wiser teaches that the air filter assembly 100 comprises a charging screen 106 (the “third removable mesh ply”) has a rigid form defining outer frame, as claimed, because it comprises a rigid outer frame 105. See Wiser Fig. 1A, [0019]. The charging screen 106 is insertable between the two meshes 114, as seen in Fig. 1A.
Regarding claim 15, Wiser teaches an air filter assembly 100, which reads on the claimed “filter assembly.” See Wiser Fig. 1A, [0020]. The limitation of the filter assembly being “for securing to an intake face of an air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction if the body of the claim fully sets forth all the limitations of the claim and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention). The filter assembly 100 comprises:
A right-hand wire mesh 114 (the “base mesh ply”) having a frame 112 (the “base mesh frame”). See Wiser Fig. 1A, [0020]. The limitation of “adapted to being secured to the intake face in order to cover an opening of the air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
A left-hand wire mesh 114 (the “outer mesh ply”) having a frame 112 (the “outer mesh frame”) attached to the right-hand frame 112 at a hinged edge. See Wiser Fig. 1A, [0020]. The left-hand wire mesh 114 and frame 112 are capable of being manipulated to permit access to the right-hand mesh 114 without removal of the right-hand mesh 114 from an air-handling unit, as claimed, because the left-hand mesh 114 and frame 112 could be moved by the hinge to the open position seen in Fig. 1A to allow access to the right-hand mesh 114. See Wiser Fig. 1A, [0020]; MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
A charging screen 106 (the “third mesh ply”) removably inserted between the left and right-hand meshes 114. See Wiser Fig. 1A, [0019].
PNG
media_image1.png
705
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Wiser teaches that the charging screen 106 (the “third removable mesh ply”) has a rigid form defining outer frame, as claimed, because it comprises a rigid outer frame 105. See Wiser Fig. 1A, [0019]. The charging screen 106 is insertable through a fourth opening between the two wire meshes 114 (the “base and outer mesh plies”), as seen in Fig. 1A where the charging screen 106 could be inserted into the opening between the two meshes 114 when the two meshes (connected together with a hinge) are opened. Id. at Fig. 1A, [0020].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5–8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simmons et al., US 2017/0128868 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Simmons teaches a dual layer filter screen, which reads on the claimed “filter assembly.” See Simmons Fig. 8A, [0099]. The dual layer filter screen is configured to be secured to an intake face of an air intake structure 4, as claimed. Id. at Figs. 8A, 9A [0084]. The dual layer filter screen comprises:
A back filter screen 92 (the “base mesh ply”) having reinforced edges 94 (the “base mesh frame”), and adapted to be secured to the intake face to cover an opening of the air handling unit. See Simmons Figs. 8A, 9A, [0099].
A front filter screen 92’ (the “outer mesh ply”) having reinforced edges 94’ (the “outer mesh frame”) attached to the reinforced edges 94 of the back filter screen 92. See Simmons Figs. 8A, 9A, [0099].
The front filter screen 92’ and reinforced edges 94’ are capable of being manipulated to permit access to the back filter screen 92 without removal of the back filter screen 92 from the air handling unit, as claimed, because the front filter screen 92’ could be pulled off of the back filter screen 92 while the back filter screen 92 remains attached to the air handling unit via the fasteners 90. See Simmons Figs. 8A, 9A, [0098]–[0099].
PNG
media_image2.png
969
803
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Simmons teaches that the back reinforced edges 94 comprise spaced apart grommets receiving fasteners for securing to the intake face. See Simmons [0086]. Also, the front filter reinforced edges 94’ comprise spaced apart grommets that align with the spaced apart grommets of the back reinforced edges 94. Id.
Regarding claim 3, Simmons teaches that the front and back screens 92, 92’ are joined together along four common edges, which reads on “at least one common edge.” See Simmons Fig. 8A.
Regarding claim 5, Simmons teaches that the front screen 92’ has a modified and segmented outer perimeter with cutouts aligning with an arrangement of the fasteners for securing the back screen 92 to the air handling unit, as claimed, because the front screen 92’ has holes for the fasteners (e.g., 90) to go through, as seen in Figs. 7 and 8A.
Regarding claim 6, Simmons teaches that the fasteners comprise twist lock fasteners, toggle lock fasteners, screws, or washers. See Simmons [0029], [0031], [0083], [0088].
Regarding claim 7, Simmons teaches screw fasteners 20 (threaded bolts) and surface mounted rails 10/12 (channel track sections) adapted to being secured to the intake face for mounting the back screen 92. See Simmons Figs. 8A, 9A, [0085], [0100].
Regarding claim 8, Simmons teaches the front screen 92’ having an outer perimeter dimension (the “reduced perimeter dimension”) seating against the back screen 92 inward from the fasteners securing the back screen 92 to the intake face (seen in Fig. 9A), with the back face of the front screen 92’ (the “opposing inner face of said outer mesh ply”) adhering inwardly of the grommets associated with the back screen 92 and the fasteners projecting through the grommets (seen in Figs. 8A and 9A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams, US 2008/0216456 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches a screen 11 with a filter apparatus 10 removably attached to it, with the combined structure reading on the claimed “filter assembly.” See Williams Fig. 5, [0025]. The limitation of the filter assembly being “for securing to an intake face of an air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction if the body of the claim fully sets forth all the limitations of the claim and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention). The “filter assembly” 10, 11 comprises:
The screen 11, which reads on the “base mesh ply.” See Williams Fig. 5, [0025]. The outer frame of the screen 11 (seen in Fig. 5) reads on the “base mesh frame.” The limitation of “adapted to being secured to the intake face in order to cover an opening of the air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
The filter apparatus 10 reads on the “outer mesh ply” because it comprises a filter member 12 made of a first predetermined material that can be a mesh. See Fig. 5, [0025]–[0026]. The filter apparatus 10 comprises a frame member 14 (the “outer mesh frame”) attached to the frame of the screen 11 (through a fastening means 28), as claimed. Id. at Fig. 5, [0032].
The filter apparatus 10 and the frame 14 is capable of being manipulated to permit access to the screen 11 without removal of the screen from where it is attached, as claimed, because the filter apparatus 10 (and frame 14) are removably attached to the screen 11. See Williams [0036].
PNG
media_image3.png
619
703
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Williams teaches that the screen 11 and the filter member 12 are joined together along at least one common edge, as claimed, because four edges of the filter member 12 are joined to the screen 11. See Williams Fig. 5, [0032].
Regarding claim 4, Williams teaches hook and loop fasteners for joining the screen 11 and filter member 12. See Williams [0032].
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 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, US 2008/0216456 A1 in view of Hoffman, US 2005/0072538 A1.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Williams teaches that the screen 11 and filter member 12 are secured along each of four interconnected edges, as claimed. See Williams Fig. 5, [0032].
Williams differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to a zipper extending edge being further defined along an interior of the filter member 12 for providing access between the screen 11 and filter member 12. Williams differs from claim 11 because it is silent as to intermediate zippered edges dividing the filter member 12 into separable halves for gaining access to the screen 11.
But Williams teaches that the screen 11 and filter member 12 can be made of a screen material for a door. See Williams [0002], [0026]. Also, Hoffman teaches a screen wall section that can be used to cover a garage door comprising a screen 30 with a zipper 60. See Hoffman Fig. 1, [0022]. The zipper 60 is beneficial because it allows for in/out traffic through the door without having to take down the screen section. Id.
PNG
media_image4.png
576
678
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the screen 11 and the filter member 12 to each comprise the zipper 60 of Hoffman to allow access through the doorway covered by the screen 11 and filter member 12.
With this modification, the portion of the filter member 12 comprising the zipper reads on the “zippered extending edge further defined along an interior of the outer mesh ply for providing access between said plies” (claim 9). Also, the two halves of the zipper in the filter member 12 reads on the “intermediate zippered edges dividing said outer mesh ply into separable halves for gaining access to said base mesh ply.”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams, US 2008/0216456 A1 in view of Hoffman, US 2005/0072538 A1 and in further view of Smith, US 2011/0061817 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Williams teaches that the screen 11 and filter member 12 are secured along each of four interconnected edges, as claimed. See Williams Fig. 5, [0032].
Williams differs from claim 10 because it is silent as to a slit extending along an interior of the filter member 12 in combination with opposing hook and loop portions established between the screen 11 and filter member 12 in proximity to the slit for providing access between the plies.
But Williams teaches that the screen 11 and filter member 12 can be made of a screen material for a door. See Williams [0002], [0026]. Also, Hoffman teaches a screen wall section that can be used to cover a garage door comprising a screen 30 with a slit that is closable by a zipper 60. See Hoffman Fig. 1, [0022]. The slit is beneficial because it allows for in/out traffic through the door without having to take down the screen section. Id.
PNG
media_image4.png
576
678
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the screen 11 and the filter member 12 to each comprise the slit of Hoffman to allow access through the doorway covered by the screen 11 and filter member 12.
While the modification teaches a zipper instead of hook and loop portions, Smith teaches a screen that uses zippers or hook and loop attachment mechanisms. See Smith [0019]. It would have been obvious to use a hook and loop attachment instead of the zipper 60 of Hoffman because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3 and 12–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bivens, US 5,870,945.
Regarding claim 1, Bivens teaches a filtering mechanism 70, which reads on the claimed “filter assembly.” See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 4, ll. 21–25. The limitation of the filter assembly being “for securing to an intake face of an air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction if the body of the claim fully sets forth all the limitations of the claim and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention). The filtering mechanism 70 comprises:
A filter screen 78, which reads on the “base mesh ply.” See Bivens Figs. 8, 10, col. 5, ll. 38–45. The outer perimeter of the filter screen 78 reads on the “base mesh frame.” The limitation of “adapted to being secured to the intake face in order to cover an opening of the air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
A filter screen 86, which reads on the “outer mesh ply.” See Bivens Figs. 8, 10, col. 5, ll. 38–45. The outer perimeter of filter screen 86 reads on the “outer mesh frame.” The outer perimeter of filter screen 86 is attached to the outer perimeter of filter screen 78, seen in Fig. 10.
The filter screen 86 and outer perimeter are capable of being manipulated to permit access to filter screen 78 without removal of the filter screen 78 from an air handling unit, as claimed. This is because the filter screens 78, 86 form an envelope 76 that can be opened (by channel 204) at one side, and the filter screen 86 (including its outer perimeter) could be moved to allow access to filter screen 78 when the envelope 76 is opened. See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 5, l. 56–col. 6, l. 4.
PNG
media_image5.png
758
1209
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bivens teaches that the screens 78, 86 are joined together along three common edges (“at least one common edge”), as seen in Figs. 8 and 10.
Regarding claim 12, Bivens teaches that the screens 78, 86 are secured along each of three interconnected edges and have a fourth openable and reclosable side (reclosable by channel 204) for permitting access between the screens 78, 86, as claimed. See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 5, l. 38–col. 6, l. 4.1
Regarding claim 13, Bivens teaches that a filter insert 94, which reads on the “third removable mesh ply.” See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 4, ll. 58–66. The filter insert 94 is a “mesh” because it can be a metallic plate having a tubular slit grid. Id. The filter insert 94 has a “rigid form,” as claimed. Id. The filter insert 94 defines “outer frame,” as claimed, because the filter insert 94 acts as a frame to support and maintain separation between the filter screens 78, 86. Id. at col. 5, ll. 12–13. The filter insert 94 is insertable through the opening of the envelope 76 between the two screens 78, 86, as claimed. Id. at Fig. 8, col. 5, ll. 6–13.
Regarding claim 14, Bivens teaches a filter insert 94, which reads on the “third removable mesh ply.” See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 4, ll. 58–66. The filter insert 94 is a “mesh” because it can be a metallic plate having a tubular slit grid. Id. The filter insert 94 has a “rigid form,” as claimed. Id. The filter insert 94 defines “outer frame,” as claimed, because the filter insert 94 acts as a frame to support and maintain separation between the filter screens 78, 86. Id. at col. 5, ll. 12–13.
Regarding claim 15, Bivens teaches a filtering mechanism 70, which reads on the claimed “filter assembly.” See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 4, ll. 21–25. The limitation of the filter assembly being “for securing to an intake face of an air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction if the body of the claim fully sets forth all the limitations of the claim and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention). The filtering mechanism 70 comprises:
A filter screen 78, which reads on the “base mesh ply.” See Bivens Figs. 8, 10, col. 5, ll. 38–45. The outer perimeter of the filter screen 78 reads on the “base mesh frame.” The limitation of “adapted to being secured to the intake face in order to cover an opening of the air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
A filter screen 86, which reads on the “outer mesh ply.” See Bivens Figs. 8, 10, col. 5, ll. 38–45. The outer perimeter of filter screen 86 reads on the “outer mesh frame.” The outer perimeter of filter screen 86 is attached to the outer perimeter of filter screen 78, seen in Fig. 10.
The filter screen 86 and outer perimeter are capable of being manipulated to permit access to filter screen 78 without removal of the filter screen 78 from an air handling unit, as claimed. This is because the filter screens 78, 86 form an envelope 76 that can be opened (by channel 204) at one side, and the filter screen 86 (including its outer perimeter) could be moved to allow access to filter screen 78 when the envelope 76 is opened. See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 5, l. 56–col. 6, l. 4.
The filtering mechanism 70 also comprises a filter insert 94 (the “third mesh ply”) removably inserted between the filter screens 78, 86. See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 5, l. 56–col. 6, l. 4. The filter insert 94 is a mesh because it has a tubular slit grid. Id. at col. 4, ll. 61–67.
PNG
media_image5.png
758
1209
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Bivens teaches that filter screens 78, 86 are secured along each of three interconnected edges, as claimed, because three peripheral edges of each screen 78, 86 are attached to channel 202 and to each other (seen in Fig. 10) to form an envelope 76. See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 5, l. 38–col. 6, l. 4.2 The filter screens 78, 86 have a fourth openable and reclosable side for permitting side access between the screens 78, 86, as claimed, because one side of the envelope 76 can be opened and closed by channel 204. Id. at Fig. 8, col. 5, ll. 46–51.
Regarding claim 17, Bivens teaches a filter insert 94 can be inserted into the space between the two screens 78, 86. Id. The filter insert 94 reads on the “third removable mesh ply.” See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 4, ll. 58–66. The filter insert 94 is a “mesh” because it can be a metallic plate having a tubular slit grid. Id. The filter insert 94 has a “rigid form,” as claimed. Id. The filter insert 94 defines “outer frame,” as claimed, because the filter insert 94 acts as a frame to support and maintain separation between the filter screens 78, 86. Id. at col. 5, ll. 12–13. The filter insert 94 is insertable through the opening of the envelope 76 between the two screens 78, 86, as claimed. Id. at Fig. 8, col. 5, ll. 6–13.
Regarding claim 18, Bivens teaches a filtering mechanism 70, which reads on the claimed “filter assembly.” See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 4, ll. 21–25. The limitation of the filter assembly being “for securing to an intake face of an air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction if the body of the claim fully sets forth all the limitations of the claim and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention). The filtering mechanism 70 comprises:
A filter screen 78, which reads on the “base mesh ply.” See Bivens Figs. 8, 10, col. 5, ll. 38–45. The outer perimeter of the filter screen 78 reads on the “base mesh frame.” The limitation of “adapted to being secured to the intake face in order to cover an opening of the air handling unit” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
A filter screen 86, which reads on the “outer mesh ply.” See Bivens Figs. 8, 10, col. 5, ll. 38–45. The outer perimeter of the filter screen 86 reads on the “outer mesh frame.” The outer perimeter of the filter screen 86 is attached to the outer perimeter of the filter screen 78, as seen in Fig. 10.
The filter screens 78, 86 are secured along each of three interconnected edges, as claimed, because three peripheral edges of each screen 78, 86 are attached to channel 202 and to each other (seen in Fig. 10) to form an envelope 76. See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 5, l. 38–col. 6, l. 4.3 The filter screens 78, 86 have a fourth openable and reclosable side for permitting side access between the screens 78, 86, as claimed, because one side of the envelope 76 can be opened and closed by channel 204. Id. at Fig. 8, col. 5, ll. 46–51. This permits side access between the screens 78, 86 so that the screen 86 can be manipulated to permit access to the screen 78 without removal of the screen 78 from an air handling unit, as claimed, because when the channel 204 opens the envelope 76, a filter insert 94 can be inserted into the space between the two screens 78, 86. Id.
The filter insert 94 reads on the “third removable mesh ply.” See Bivens Fig. 8, col. 4, ll. 58–66. The filter insert 94 is a “mesh” because it can be a metallic plate having a tubular slit grid. Id. The filter insert 94 has a “rigid form,” as claimed. Id. The filter insert 94 defines “outer frame,” as claimed, because the filter insert 94 acts as a frame to support and maintain separation between the filter screens 78, 86. Id. at col. 5, ll. 12–13. The filter insert 94 is insertable through the opening of the envelope 76 between the two screens 78, 86, as claimed. Id. at Fig. 8, col. 5, ll. 6–13.
PNG
media_image5.png
758
1209
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–19 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zheng, US 2012/0073770 A1 (collapsable sun shade made from mesh sections that are zippered to each other with a middle section in between two outer sections, Fig. 7); Delts, US 6,790,261 B1 (filter frame with mesh sections that are removable from each other, Fig. 6).
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 Note that Fig. 19 of the disclosure illustrates three edges of the base mesh frame and outer mesh frame being connected, instead of the baes mesh ply and outer ply being connected along three edges. Therefore, the interpretation of Bivens of the screens 78, 86 being connected on three sides at the outer perimeter is reasonable even though the outer perimeter of each screen 78, 86 reads on the “base mesh frame” and “outer frame,” respectively.
2 Note that Fig. 19 of the disclosure illustrates three edges of the base mesh frame and outer mesh frame being connected, instead of the baes mesh ply and outer ply being connected along three edges. Therefore, the interpretation of Bivens of the screens 78, 86 being connected on three sides at the outer perimeter is reasonable even though the outer perimeter of each screen 78, 86 reads on the “base mesh frame” and “outer frame,” respectively.
3 Note that Fig. 19 of the disclosure illustrates three edges of the base mesh frame and outer mesh frame being connected, instead of the baes mesh ply and outer ply being connected along three edges. Therefore, the interpretation of Bivens of the screens 78, 86 being connected on three sides at the outer perimeter is reasonable even though the outer perimeter of each screen 78, 86 reads on the “base mesh frame” and “outer frame,” respectively.
Prosecution Insights