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 § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakane, JP 2009–45571 A (“Nakane”)1.
Regarding claim 1:
It is noted that the published specification (hereinafter “Spec.”) discloses that the filter pan 18a has a generally rectangular shape that has two sides longer than the other two. Spec. [0021] and Fig. 4. The examiner is interpreting the limitation of a rectangular shaped filter consistent with what is shown in Fig. 4 of the Spec.
Nakane discloses that a cartridge (Nakane’s cabinet 1) for a vertically oriented dust collector (intended use). Nakane Fig. 1, p. 2. Nekane discloses its cartridge 1 comprises: a rectangular filter pan (Nakane’s filter attaching/detaching mechanism 5) having an opening (Nakane’s circular opening 7). Nakane Fig. 2B, p. 2. Nakane also discloses the claimed limitation of that a filter (Nakane’s filter F) incorporated into said opening 7. Nakane Fig. 2B, p. 2. Nakane also discloses that the filter pan 5 have two alignment openings on opposite sides of said filter pan 5 (Nakane’s notch 11 and insertion hole 10 are located on opposite sides on filter pan 5), each said alignment opening 10 and 11 are configured to align with an alignment block (Nakane’s bolt 13 and support pin 12, respectively) in the vertically oriented (intended use) dust collector 1. Nakane Fig. 1, p. 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
797
1074
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Nakane discloses the claimed limitation of that the cartridge of claim 1 further comprising said opening 7 is circular and said filter F has a circular cross-section. Nakane Figs. 1 and 2B, p. 4.
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Nakane discloses the claimed limitation of that the cartridge of claim 1, wherein said filter pan 5 is a double walled pan that comprises a top pan (main body 8) and a bottom pan (reinforcing member 9). Nakane Fig. 2A, p. 2.
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:
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nakane in view of Clements, US 9,616,371 B1 (“Clements”)
Regarding claim 2:
Nakane does not disclose the claimed limitation of that the cartridge of claim 1 further comprising said opening is elliptical and said filter has an elliptical cross section.
Similar to Nakane, Clements is directed to cartridge dust collectors. Clements col. 1, ll. 26–34. Similar to Nakane, Clements discloses a filter cartridge 38 fitted in a filter pan 32. Clements Fig. 9, col. 8, ll. 14–19. Additionally, Clements discloses that its filter cartridge could have an oval or elliptical shape. Clements col. 13, ll. 45–49. Clements discloses that the purpose of making filter cartridge oval or elliptical is to adapt to baghouses having oval or oblong openings. Clements col. 2, ll. 30–34. It would have been obvious for Nakane’s filter to have an elliptical cross section such that Nakane’s filter could be adapt to baghouses having oval or oblong openings.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nakane in view of Clements ’292, US 6,358,292 B1 (“Clements ’292”).
Regarding claim 4:
Nakane does not disclose that the filter pan 5 has mitered corners.
Similar to Nakane, Clements ’292 is directed to dust collectors. Clements ’292 Fig. 1, col. 1, ll. 13–16. Additionally, Clements ’292 discloses a similar configuration of a filter cartridge 14 fitted in a filter pan 12. Clements ’292 col. 3, ll. 14–23. Furthermore, Clements ’292’s filter pan 12 has mitered corners as shown in Fig. 3. Clements ’292 Fig. 3. It would have been obvious for Moore’s filter pan 36 has mitered corners as Clements ’292 because such design is known in the art as being suitable for dust collection system with filter pans.
Regarding claim 8:
Nakane discloses that the cartridge of claim 1 further comprising, said filter pan 5 having a top surface (where label 8 points in Fig. 2(A)). Nakane Fig. 2(A).
Nakane does not disclose the claimed at least one gasket on said top surface, wherein said filter pan 5 is pressed against said at least one gasket to seal the cartridge within the vertically oriented dust collector.
Similar to Nakane, Clements ’292 is directed to dust collectors. Clements ’292 Fig. 1, col. 1, ll. 13–16. Additionally, Clements ’292 discloses a similar configuration of a filter cartridge 14 fitted in a filter pan 12. Clements ’292 col. 3, ll. 14–23. Additionally, Clements ’292 discloses a gasket 38, wherein the filter pan 12 is pressed against the gasket 38 to seal the cartridge 14 within the dust collector 10. Clements ’292 Figs. 1 and 4, col. 4, ll. 15–25. It would have been obvious for Nakane’s filter pan to comprises a gasket similar to Clements ’292’s gasket 38 to ensure air tight seal between Nakane’s filter pan and dust collector. Additionally, such gasket is known in the art as being suitable for sealing filter pan and dust collector.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nakane in view of Clements ’004, US 8,580,004 (“Clements ’004”).
Regarding claim 6:
Nakane does not disclose that the cartridge of claim 1 further comprising a grounding clip.
Similar to Nakane, Clements ’004 is directed to dust collectors. Clements ’004 col. 1, ll. 27–31. Additionally, Clements ’004 discloses an improved embodiment with a grounding clip (i.e., grounding wire 200). Clements’004, Fig. 21, col. 12, ll. 50–59. Clements ’004 also discloses that it is a standard industry practice to electrically ground filter cartridges have metallic components. Id. at col. 12, ll. 34–39. It would have been obvious for the filter cartridge 38 to have a grounding clip 200 because it is standard industry practice.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nakane in view of Kao, US 2004/0250518 A1 (“Kao”).
Regarding claim 7:
Nakane discloses that each alignment opening 10, 11 extend through the thickness of filter pan 5. Nakane Fig. 2(c), p. 2.
Nakane does not disclose that the cartridge of claim 1 further comprising: each said alignment opening is on its outermost perimeter of said filter pan (Nakane’s notch 11 is on the outermost perimeter while Nakane’s insertion hole is not). Nakane Fig. 2(c), p. 2, last para and p. 3, first para. Nakane does not disclose that the two alignment openings 10, 11 each is shaped such that the outer perimeter of said filter pan is other than rectangular because Nakane’s alignment opening 10 does not change the outer perimeter of its filter pan to be other than rectangular.
Similar to Nakane, Kao discloses a filter member 2 attached to a filter pan 6. Kao Fig. 3, [0024]. Similar to Nakane, Kao’s filter pan 6 comprises a plurality of alignment openings (Kao shows three notches on its filter pan 6). Kao Fig. 3, [0024]. Additionally, Kao’s notches are identical to each other. It would have been obvious for Nakane’s alignment opening 10 to be a notch similar to its notch 11 because such design is known in the art. Additionally, identical notches making the manufacturing process easier and cost effective because notch requires less material than a surrounding hole. With such modification, Nakane would have two identical notches 11 instead of 10 and 11, wherein each notch would change the outer perimeter of the filter pan to be other than rectangular.
Double Patenting2
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1–6 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 1–3, 7 and 9–11 of US 11,857,905 B2. Specifically,
Claim 1 of the instant applicant requires, inter alia, a filter pan, a filter and alignment opening align with an alignment block. All of the recited limitations are also recited in claim 11 of the patent US 11,857,905 B2. The amended further limitation is intended use and Nakane’s filter cartridge is capable of performing the intended use function, and therefore, instant claim 1 would be obvious over the patent US 11,857,905 B2 in view of Nakane.
Claim 2 of the instant application is identical to claim 2 of the Patent US 11,857,905 B2.
Claim 3 of the instant application is identical to claim 3 of the Patent US 11,857,905 B2.
Claim 4 of the instant application is identical to claim 7 of the Patent US 11,857,905 B2.
Claim 5 of the instant application is identical to claim 9 of the Patent US 11,857,905 B2.
Claim 6 of the instant application is identical to claim 10 of the Patent US 11,857,905 B2.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The applicant argues that Nakane’s notch 11 and insertion hole 10 are both alignment openings is improper, Applicant Rem. dated Mar. 20, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 2. The applicant argues that Nakane’s notch 11 cannot align with both the bolt 13 and support pin 12 and Nakane’s insertion hole cannot align with both the bolt 13 and the support pin 12. Id.
In response, the examiner points out that the instant claim 1 does not require the recited “two alignment openings” to be identical. And therefore, applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the invention.
The applicant then argues that it is not suggest, taught or even possible to rotate the filter pan so that the notch would align with the insertion hole, Applicant Rem. p. 3. Applicant argues that the instant invention differs in that the orientation of filter is irrelevant when installing, and the applicant claims two alignment that can both align with the same alignment block, Id.
In response, the examiner points out that applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The applicant’s argument regarding claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 depends on the allowability of claim 1. Applicant Rem. p. 4. Since the examiner does not think claim 1 is allowable, applicant’s argument regarding those claims are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments regarding claim 7 focuses on the claimed “rectangular filter pan.” The applicant argues that this is not merely a design choice because its rectangular design allows its pan to turn around. Kao is not possible for such function. Kao does not show or at all discusses what the purposes of the notches are. The applicant argues that Kao does not identify the notches and there is not teaching in Kao regarding the notches. The applicant argues that Kao focuses on the construction rather than the installation alignment of the claim. Applicant Rem. p. 5.
The examiner does not agree. Kao’s figures, which are part of his invention, clearly shows notches on opposite side of a filter pan structure, indicating that such notch design is known in the art. The function of such notches are not commensurate with the scope of the invention because those functional limitations are not included in applicant’s claim. Additionally, the applicant’s invention is directed to an apparatus, and the examination is focused on the structure. MPEP 2114.
Double Patenting
The applicant argues that its amendment of claim 1 would overcome the current double patenting rejection. Applicant Rem. p. 7.
The examiner does not agree. All the structure limitations of current claim 1 is recited in claims of US 11,857,905 B2, and therefore the examiner maintains the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 Michener can be reached on (571) 270-7872424. 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
1 A copy of Nakane’s original document and machine translation are provided with the office action. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and the machine translation for the text.
2 Per MPEP 804, since same invention belongs to same inventive entity and it is between the current application and a patent US 11,857,905 B2, this is a Statutory Double-Patenting Rejection.
Prosecution Insights