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 .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on September 15, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 have been amended. Claims 8-11 have been withdrawn. New claims 12-14 have been added. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-7 and 12-14 are examined herein.
Response to Amendments
The Amendments to the Claims filed 09/15/2026 have been entered. The minor informalities have been addressed by amendments and objections to claims 1-7 thereto are withdrawn accordingly. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claims 1-7 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to the Claims both filed 09/15/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that claim 1 and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s), Holder et al. (US 10,537,841 B2) and/or Lee et al. (US 2019/0184324 A1), since the cited reference(s) does not teach the amended features of, in the context of a filter unit to be arranged for a gas mixture to flow in a flow direction from an inflow side through the filter unit to an outflow side, “a circumferential gap that is formed between a lateral surface of a filter and a housing, wherein the circumferential gap is a tapering gap that tapers in a direction from a smaller end face of the filter to a larger end face of the filter” as claimed. Applicants argue that: In contrast to Lee et al., the claimed combination is not merely directed to a tapered filter element. The claimed combination requires a specific relationship between a particle filter, a housing, a lateral surface of the filter, and a sealing element. The claimed combination specifically requires a circumferential gap between the lateral surface and the housing that is a tapering gap that tapers from a smaller end face toward a larger end face and a sealing element is at least partially arranged in that tapering gap. Compared with the present invention, Lee et al. merely directs a person of ordinary skill in the art toward a conical filter that increases filtration area, improves airflow, and improves purification efficiency. Lee et al. provides no teaching or suggestion that directs a person of ordinary skill in the art toward an interface between a filter and a housing of the filter that provides a tapering circumferential gap, wherein a seal is located within the tapering gap, or the tapering gap is used as part of the sealing arrangement. Hoder et al. and Lee et al. as a whole do not teach or suggest a sealing element that is at least partially arranged in a tapering gap as featured in the present invention. The seal of Hoder et al. is provided as not tapering (does not taper) in the axial direction. The present invention requires a sealing element that is at least partially arranged in a tapering gap. After modifying the device of Hoder et al. based on the teachings of Lee et al., the Office Action simply assumes the sealing element of Hoder et al. still functions inside the newly-created tapering gap. No explanation is given in the Office Action whether the seal of Hoder et al. can be used in a tapered gap, how the seal would be positioned, whether the seal would deform differently, and whether the assembly process of Hoder et al. would still be possible. See Remarks, page 10-13.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussions presented in the Office action dated 06/16/2026 (see pages 10-12), Holder discloses a filter unit to be arranged for a gas mixture to flow in a flow direction from an inflow side through the filter unit to an outflow side (col. 1, lines 14-39), the filter unit comprising (Figs. 1-2, a filter plate in Fig. 1 is used for making a filter unit in Fig. 2; col. 6, line 49 thru col. 7, line 58): (i) a housing (3, Fig. 2); (ii) a particle filter (2, Fig. 2) arranged inside the housing (3, Fig. 3), the particle filter (2, Fig. 2) comprising an inflow-side end face, an outflow-side end face and a lateral surface between the inflow-side end face (top and bottom side of the particle filter and side surface of the plastic frame 14, Fig. 2) and the outflow-side end face, the particle filter being configured to filter out particles from a gas mixture flowing in the flow direction through the filter unit (the particle filter 2, Fig. 2 is used for respirators, for medical filters and device particle, especially for manufacturing the particle-filtering element (col. 1, lines 14-17) directs inflow and outflow from a gas mixture flowing in the flow direction through the filter unit as recited). It is reasonably expected that the top and bottom surface of the particle filter (2, Fig. 2) are each perpendicular to the flow direction; wherein a circumferential gap (9, Fig. 2) is formed between the lateral surface and the housing; and a sealing element (10, Fig. 2) at least partially arranged in the circumferential gap (9, Fig. 2).
The missing feature in the Holder compared to the claimed invention of claim 1 is the particle filter has “a tapered shape”, as a result, “a circumferential gap that is formed between a lateral surface of a filter and a housing, wherein the circumferential gap is a tapering gap that tapers in a direction from a smaller end face of the filter to a larger end face of the filter”.
In order to cure the shortfall of the Holder, the Lee et al. (US 2019/0184324 A1) was introduced.
Lee discloses an air cleaner comprising an air cleaner filter to remove contaminants the air. The air cleaner may remove bacteria, viruses, mold, fine dust, and chemical substances causing foul odors from suctioned air thus producing purified air (paragraphs [0002]; [0003]). Lee discloses an embodiment of filter assembly (2, Figs. 6-8) is formed to have a conical shape or a circular truncated conical shape, such that the first filter assembly 2 formed either in the conical shape or in the circular truncated conical shape may have a larger surface area than the other filter assembly formed in a cylindrical shape on the assumption that the first filter assembly 2 and the other first filter assembly are formed to have the same diameter. Therefore, the air suctioned through the inlet 110 may more easily pass in through the first filter assembly 2 having a larger surface area, resulting in improved air purification efficiency (Figs. 6-8; paragraph [0072]).
Both the Holder and Lee references direct a filter unit to be arranged for a gas mixture in a flow direction from an inflow side through the filter unit to an outflow side.
In light of teachings from Holder and Lee, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that an interface between a tapered filter and a housing of the filter provides a tapering circumferential gap, wherein a seal (a foam 10, Fig. 2 of Holder) is located within the tapering gap, this is because a foam 10, Fig. 2 of Holder is an essential component in manufacturing the filter unit of Holder.
A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325 (MPEP 2141.01(a) I.). Therefore, it is still examiner’s position that the Lee reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem of the particle filter has “a tapered shape”, as a result, “a circumferential gap that is formed between a lateral surface of a filter and a housing, wherein the circumferential gap is a tapering gap that tapers in a direction from a smaller end face of the filter to a larger end face of the filter” in the context of manufacturing a filter unit to be arranged for a gas mixture to flow in a flow direction from an inflow side through the filter unit to an outflow side as recited in the claimed invention with motivations that the tapered shape filter unit resulting in improved air purification efficiency as taught by Lee (Figs. 6-8; paragraph [0072]), consequently, the Lee reference can be applied to in analyzing the subject matter at issue.
In addition, per MPEP, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”). See MPEP 2144 IV. Consequently, in light of teachings from Holder and Lee, one skilled in the art would reasonably design/manufacture the filter unit taught by Holder by including feature of the particle filter has “a tapered shape” as taught by Lee, as a result the combined teachings subsequently result in “a circumferential gap that is formed between a lateral surface of a filter and a housing, wherein the circumferential gap is a tapering gap that tapers in a direction from a smaller end face of the filter to a larger end face of the filter” in the context of manufacturing a filter unit to be arranged for a gas mixture to flow in a flow direction from an inflow side through the filter unit to an outflow side as claimed based on the motivation(s) taught by Lee (Figs. 6-8; paragraph [0072]).
It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry. One of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has studied the general principles of chemistry, chemical engineering, and process design. One of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has studied and practiced specific aspects of chemistry and chemical engineering related to specific processes (e.g., a filtering process using a filter unit). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts understands how to apply those general principles to specific apparatuses/processes. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts is considered to understand the value of reference such as Lee as well as its applicability to the problems related to the particle filter has “a tapered shape” in manufacturing a filter unit to be arranged for a gas mixture to flow in a flow direction from an inflow side through the filter unit to an outflow side.
Applicants’ amendment and/or addition of new claims 12-14 necessitated a modified/new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified/new ground of rejections to claims 1-7 and 12-14 are presented, in view of the previously presented prior art(s), Holder et al. (US 10,537,841 B2) and Lee et al. (US 2019/0184324 A1), as presented in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holder et al. (US 10,537,841 B2, hereinafter “Holder”), in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0184324 Al, hereinafter “Lee”)
In regard to claim 1, Holder discloses a filter unit to be arranged for a gas mixture to flow in a flow direction from an inflow side through the filter unit to an outflow side (col. 1, lines 14-39), the filter unit comprising (Figs. 1-2, a filter plate in Fig. 1 is used for making a filter unit in Fig. 2; col. 6, line 49 thru col. 7, line 58):
a housing (3, Fig. 2);
a particle filter (2, Fig. 2) arranged inside the housing (3, Fig. 3), the particle filter (2, Fig. 2) comprising an inflow-side end face, an outflow-side end face and a lateral surface between the inflow-side end face (top and bottom side of the particle filter and side surface of the plastic frame 14, Fig. 2) and the outflow-side end face, the particle filter being configured to filter out particles from a gas mixture flowing in the flow direction through the filter unit (the particle filter 2, Fig. 2 is used for respirators, for medical filters and device particle, especially for manufacturing the particle-filtering element (col. 1, lines 14-17) directs inflow and outflow from a gas mixture flowing in the flow direction through the filter unit as recited). It is reasonably expected that the top and bottom surface of the particle filter (2, Fig. 2) are each perpendicular to the flow direction;
wherein a circumferential gap (9, Fig. 2) is formed between the lateral surface and the housing; and
a sealing element (10, Fig. 2) at least partially arranged in the circumferential gap (9, Fig. 2).
But Holder does not explicitly disclose the particle filter has the shape that one of the inflow-side end face and the outflow-side end face is a smaller end face and the other one of the inflow-side end face and the outflow-side end face is a larger end face, wherein a projection of the smaller end face along the flow direction onto the larger end face is such that the projection of the smaller end face is located entirely inside the larger end face, as a result, the circumferential gap is a tapering gap.
However, Lee discloses an air cleaner comprising an air cleaner filter to remove contaminants the air. The air cleaner may remove bacteria, viruses, mold, fine dust, and chemical substances causing foul odors from suctioned air thus producing purified air (paragraphs [0002]; [0003]). Lee discloses an embodiment of filter assembly (2, Figs. 6-8) is formed to have a conical shape or a circular truncated conical shape, such that the first filter assembly 2 formed either in the conical shape or in the circular truncated conical shape may have a larger surface area than the other filter assembly formed in a cylindrical shape on the assumption that the first filter assembly 2 and the other first filter assembly are formed to have the same diameter. Therefore, the air suctioned through the inlet 110 may more easily pass in through the first filter assembly 2 having a larger surface area, resulting in improved air purification efficiency (Figs. 6-8; paragraph [0072]).
It is noted that both the Holder and Lee references direct a filter unit to be arranged for a gas mixture in a flow direction from an inflow side through the filter unit to an outflow side.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter unit of Holder, in view of Lee, to provide the feature of “the particle filter has the shape that one of the inflow-side end face and the outflow-side end face is a smaller end face and the other one of the inflow-side end face and the outflow-side end face is a larger end face, wherein a projection of the smaller end face along the flow direction onto the larger end face is such that the projection of the smaller end face is located entirely inside the larger end face, as a result, the circumferential gap is a tapering gap, this is because the tapered shape filter unit resulting in improved air purification efficiency as taught by Lee (Figs. 6-8; paragraph [0072]).
In regard to claim 2, Holder discloses the particle filter comprises a pleated form (6, Fig. 1) (col. 6, line 49 thru col. 7, line 58).
In regard to claim 3, Lee discloses the particle filter has the shape of a truncated cone with two circular faces (Figs. 6-8).
In regard to claim 4, Lee discloses a further filter element wherein: the further filter element (11, Fig. 12) is arranged in the housing and downstream of the particle filter with respect to the flow direction. Lee discloses the larger end face of the particle filter is the inflow-side end face (Figs. 6-8).
In regard to claim 5, as set forth above, Holder, in view of Lee, discloses the feature of truncated cone with two circular faces in the filter unit and a tapering gap. The feature of “the larger end face of the particle filter is the outflow-side end face” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize filter unit activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the gas filtering operation (residence time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the filter unit body, the physical and chemical make-up of the gas mixture feedstock as well as the nature of the filtered gas products.
In regard to claim 6, as set forth above, Holder, in view of Lee, discloses the feature of truncated cone with two circular faces in the filter unit and a tapering gap. The feature of “the smaller front surface is at an obtuse angle to the lateral surface and the obtuse angle is between 100 degrees and 115 degrees; and the larger front surface is at an acute angle to the lateral surf ace and the acute angle is between 65 degrees and 80 degrees” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize filter unit activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the gas filtering operation (residence time, temperature, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the filter unit body, the physical and chemical make-up of the gas mixture feedstock as well as the nature of the filtered gas products.
In regard to claim 7, Lee discloses the sealing element (10, Fig. 2) is materially bonded to a circumferential region of the particle filter adjacent to the outer surface of the particle filter (Figs. 2-5; col. 7, lines 1-18).
In regard to claim 12, Holder discloses at least a portion of the particle filter (2, Fig. 2) does not contact the housing (3, Fig. 2) (there is a space between perimeter of hexagonal circumference of the particle filter and the housing).
In regard to claim 13, Holder discloses the circumferential gap (9, Fig. 2) is defined by at least a portion of the particle filter (2, Fig. 2) and an inner surface of the housing (3, Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 14, Holder disclose the sealing element (foam, 10, Fig. 2) only fills a portion of the circumferential gap (a gap between the outer edges of the filter element and a component wall, 9, Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
