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
Claims 1–9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation of “strip-shaped partition adhesive layer and “partition adhesive layer” are interchangeably used. Similar issue with “strip-shaped contour adhesive layer” and “contour adhesive layer.” Same issue with “strip-shaped reinforcing adhesive layers” and “reinforcing adhesive layers.” Please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5–7 and 9 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.
Claims 5–7 are indefinite because the limitation of “the planned excised region” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 6–7 are also indefinite because they depend on claim 5.
The limitation of “the object” in claim 6 lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “a first object” and “a second object.” It is unclear which one is the claimed “the object.”
Claim 7 is indefinite because the limitation of “the grid-like adhesive layers” lacks antecedent basis, because there is a plurality of grid-like adhesive layers, and therefore it is unclear if the term “the grid-like adhesive layers” is referring a subset of entirety of the plurality of grid-like adhesive layers.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the limitation of “the reinforcing adhesive layer” lacks antecedent basis because there are “at least two strip-shaped reinforcing adhesive layer.”
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 1–5 and 7–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reeves et al., US 5,912,369 A (“Reeves”).
Regarding claim 1:
Reeves discloses that a filter structure (Reeves’s filter assembly 10, Reeves Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 65–66) comprising a filter layer (Reeves’s blank 12, Reeves Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 1–5) that has air permeability to filter passing gas (Reeves’s blank 12 is a filter and therefore would necessary has air permeability to filter passing gas) and an adhesive layer formed of adhesive on at least a part of a surface of the filter layer (Reeves’s adhesive-layer applied on surface 28 of blank 12, Reeves Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 45–49),
a size of the filter layer being set to be appropriate for a dimension of a first object to which the filter layer is to be attached (see the size shown in Fig. 1 of Reeves, which is before cut, and would fit an rectangular object), in a case of attachment to a second object having a dimension smaller than that of the first object, the filter layer being configured to be cut at a predetermined position (see the size shown in Fig. 2 of Reeves, where the filter is cut to be circular, which is smaller than that is shown in Fig. 1 and fits a second object, of a fan 32, Reeves, Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 62–67),
wherein the adhesive layer includes a strip-shaped contour adhesive layer that is continuous along a contour of the filter layer (the adhesive layer applied on surface 28 of blank 12 corresponds to the outermost circle 18, Reeves, Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 32–40) and a strip-shaped partition adhesive layer that is continuous along at least a part of the contour adhesive layer (the adhesive layer applied on surface 28 of blank 12 corresponds to the outermost square 20, Reeves Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 32–40), at a predetermined interval from the contour adhesive layer (as shown in Fig. 1 of Reeves), within the contour adhesive layer (as shown in Fig. 1 of Reeves);
and an appropriate cut region (Reeves second outer most circle 18, Reeves Fig. 1) is set between the contour adhesive layer (outermost circle 18 of Reeves) and the partition adhesive layer (outermost square 20 of Reeves) so that the filter layer is cut to have a size appropriate for a size of the second object (Reeves discloses its template 14 could be cut to enable user a shape or size that the compatible with an intake region of the device on which the sel-adhesive air fitler will be installed, Reeves, Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 33–44).
Regarding claim 2:
Reeves discloses that the filter structure according to claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer includes a plurality of partition adhesive layers (Reeves’s squares 20, Reeves Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 32–44) with different intervals from the contour adhesive layer (outermost circle 18 of Reeves).
Regarding claim 3:
Reeves discloses that the filter structure according to claim 1, wherein the partition adhesive layer is formed to be continuous along a part of the contour adhesive layer (outermost circle 18 of Reeves) and be connected, at an end of the partition adhesive layer (outermost square 20 of Reeves), to another part of the contour adhesive layer (as shown in Reeves Fig. 1, the outermost square 20 is connected to the outermost circle 18 at four points and therefore read on the limitation).
Regarding claim 4:
Reeves discloses that the filter structure according to claim 1, wherein the appropriate cut region (second outermost circle 18 of Reeves) set between the contour adhesive layer (outermost circle 18 of Reeves) and the partition adhesive layer (outermost square 20 of Reeves) is so configured that the filter layer before cutting and the filter layer after cutting are similar to each other (as shown in Fig. 1 of Reeves).
Regarding claim 5:
Reeves discloses that the filter structure according to claim 1, wherein in the filter layer, at least one planned excised region (S) for excising a part of the filter layer is set (Reeves’s filter structure could be cut at various geometric shaped, 18, 20, 22, therefore reading on the claimed “planned excised region, Reeves, Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 32–44),
the adhesive layer further includes a boundary adhesive layer (Reeves’s adhesive layer corresponds to perpendicular lines 24) that is formed on a non- excised side of the filter layer to be continuous along a contour of the planned excised region (Reeves’s lines 24 are continuous along a contour of the planned excised region as shown in Fig. 1, Reeves, Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 32–44), and the boundary adhesive layer is continuous with the contour adhesive layer (as shown in Fig. 1 of Reeves).
Regarding claim 7:
Reeves discloses that the filter structure according to claim 5, wherein the filter layer has a rectangular shape or a square shape (Reeves filter layer has a square shape as shown in Fig. 1),
the planned excised region is set in a region including at least one of four corners of the filter layer (Reeves’s cut line 22 is set at corner, Reeves Fig. 1),
the adhesive layer further includes a plurality of grid-like adhesive layers formed in parallel to the contour adhesive layer (Reeves’s inner circle 18 are formed like grid line and they are parallel with the contour adhesive layer, which is the outermost circle 18, Reeves Fig. 1),
the boundary adhesive layer (line 24 of Reeves) corresponding to the planned excised region is formed by a part of the grid-like adhesive layers (since line 24 of Reeves intersects with inner circle 18 and the intersect part would read on being “part of the grid-like adhesive lays”),
and a part of the grid-like adhesive layers is selectable as the partition adhesive layer (Reeves’s inner circle 18 could be selected as partition adhesive layer because it is an inner cut line located inside the outermost circle 18, which is similar to Reeves’s square 20, Reeves, Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 32–44).
Regarding claim 8:
Reeves discloses that the filter structure according to claim 1, further comprising a sheet layer that is laminated on a surface of the adhesive layer and is peelable (Reeves discloses its template 14 is could be peeled away to from its air filter 42 to expose the self-adhesive filter, Reeves, Fig. 3, col. 5, ll. 1–14).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeves in view of Nakagawa et al., JP 2002085927 A (“Nakagawa”)1.
Regarding claim 6:
It is noted that the current invention is directed to a filter structure, the claimed “object” is not part of the filter structure, rather recites an application where is the filter structure could be used. Such intended use limitation gets patentable weight only insofar as it affects the actual structure of the claimed invention. The examiner is therefore interpreting this limitation as requiring the filter structure has a cut out for sensors.
Reeves does not disclose that the filter structure according to claim 5, wherein the object is a ceiling-embedded air conditioner in which a sensor is provided at least a part of an inside or a periphery of an air inlet, and the planned excised region of the filter layer is provided at a position corresponding to the sensor.
In the analogous art of air filters capable to adjust shape via cutting, Nakagawa [0038]. Nakagawa discloses that a filter 15 of an air conditioner 20, Nakagawa Fig. 1, [0046]. Nakagawa also discloses its air conditioner 20 comprising a temperature sensor 24 and the filter 15 has a notch 33 provided to expose the sensor, Nakagawa Fig. 8, [0047]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Reeves filter to have such a planned excised region of the filter provided at a position corresponding to a temperature sensor when the filter is applied to an air conditioner, because temperature sensor is a key component of the air conditioner and one understands that the sensor has to be exposed for an accurate reading.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeves in view of Adachi et al., WO 2018/043522 A1 (“Adachi”)2.
Regarding claim 9:
Reeves does not disclose that the filter structure according to claim 8, wherein the sheet layer includes at least two split sheet layers that are separated at least at an intermediate position or near the intermediate position on the filter layer, the adhesive layer further includes at least two strip-shaped reinforcing adhesive layers (21, 22) that are formed along adjacent contours of the adjacent split sheet layers, and a width dimension of the reinforcing adhesive layer is set to be larger than a width dimension of the contour adhesive layer and/or the partition adhesive layer.
Similar to Reeves, Adachi discloses a filter that are configured to cut to fit a target object. Adachi Fig. 13, [0008]. Adachi discloses a release sheet 40 that is attached to the filter to protect the adhesive portion 20, Adachi Fig. 4, [0058]. Adachi discloses a configuration of Fig. 12, where the sheet layer includes at least two split sheet layers (Adachi’s left and right layers separated at separation line 41, Adachi Fig. 12, [0072]) that are separated at least at an intermediate position or near the intermediate position on the filter layer (10 of Adachi, Adachi Fig. 12, [0064]), the adhesive layer further includes at least two strip-shaped reinforcing adhesive layers (Adachi’s third and fourth strip 23, 24, Adachi Fig. 12, [0065]) that are formed along adjacent contours of the adjacent split sheet layers (see Adachi Fig. 12), and a width dimension of the reinforcing adhesive layer (23, 24 of Adachi) is set to be larger than a width dimension of the contour adhesive layer (21 or 22 of Adachi) and/or the partition adhesive layer. Adachi discloses its design allows accommodation for air intake surfaces of various manufactures and model sizes, Adachi [0003]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Reeves to have a design similar to that shown in Adachi to accommodate for air intakes of various manufacture and models sizes.
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
1 Nakagawa is the 29-page FOR dated Dec. 15, 2023. The examiner relies on the machine translation provided for the text and original document provided for the figure.
2 Adachi is the 87-page FOR dated Dec. 15, 2023. The examiner relies on the machine translation provided for the text and original document provided for the figure.