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 8, 9, and 11–13 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 8 recites:
“a MaVE filter comprising a first stage filter and a second stage filter;
(a) the first stage hollow filter comprising…
(b) the second stage hollow filter comprising…” Emphasis added.
Claim 8 is indefinite because “the first stage hollow filter” and “the second stage hollow filter” lack antecedent basis.
To overcome this rejection, claim 8 could be amended to read:
“a MaVE filter comprising a first stage hollow filter and a second stage hollow filter;
(a) the first stage hollow filter comprising…
(b) the second stage hollow filter comprising…”
Claims 9 and 11–13 are indefinite because they depend from claim 8.
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 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unger et al., US 6,302,932 B1 in view of Ziebold et al., US 2006/0150594 A1 in view of Plizak et al., US 3,266,227 in further view of Wenger et al., US 2022/0203288 A1.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Unger teaches a method of filtering aircraft cabin air, which reads on the claimed “method of filtering aircraft cabin air.” See Unger col. 1, ll. 15–16. The method comprises passing aircraft air through a filter system (the “system for filtering aircraft air”). Id. at Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 31–43. The filter system comprises a filter 10, which reads on the “mist and vapor eliminating (MaVE) filter device.” Id. The filter 10 comprises:
A “main housing including a housing body,” which is the middle housing section of the filter 10 seen in Fig. 1. An “inlet duct,” which is the duct on the upstream side of the filter 10, connected to a first end of the middle housing section. See Unger Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 31–43. An “outlet duct,” which is the duct on the downstream side of the filter 10, connected to a second end of the middle housing section. See Unger Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 31–43.
A pair of filter elements 14, 15 which collectively read on the “MaVE filter.” See Unger Fig. 1, col 3, ll. 52–67.
The upstream filter 14 reads on the “first stage hollow filter.” See Unger Fig. 1, col 3, ll. 52–67. The upstream filter 14 comprises two end caps on either end, which is the structure at either end of the filter 14. The two end caps collectively read on the “first housing.” Id. at Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 50–67. The end of the filter 14 adjacent to the upstream end cap reads on the “first housing first end.” The end of the filter 14 adjacent to the downstream end cap reads on the “first housing second end.” Arranged between the end caps is:
An odor removal layer 13 comprising activated carbon. See Unger Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 30–35. The odor removal layer 13 reads on the “first adsorption element comprising activated carbon.”
A support layer 25 surrounding the odor removal layer 13. See Unger Fig. 2, col. 5, ll. 11–15. The support layer 25 can be made from polyester, which is a hydrophobic material.
The downstream filter 15 reads on the “second stage hollow filter.” It comprises two end caps on either end, which is the structure at either end of the filter 15. The end caps collectively read on the “second housing.” Id. at Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 50–67. The end of the filter 15 adjacent to the upstream end cap reads on the “second housing first end.” The end of the filter 15 adjacent to the downstream end cap reads on the “second housing second end.” Arranged between the end caps is:
An odor removal layer 13 comprising activated carbon. See Unger Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 30–35. The odor removal layer 13 reads on the “second adsorption element comprising activated carbon.”
A support layer 25 surrounding the odor removal layer 13. See Unger Fig. 2, col. 5, ll. 11–15. The support layer 25 can be made from polyester, which is a hydrophobic material.
The two filters 14, 15 are connected by an intermediate endcap, which is the structure between the filters 14, 15, as seen in Fig. 1.
The two filters 14, 15 (the “mist and vapor eliminating filter device”) are arranged in the middle housing between the inlet duct and the outlet duct, as seen in Fig. 1.
The two filters 14, 15 include a horizontal axis, which is the axis that runs through the middle of the two filters 14, 15 from left-to-right as seen in Fig. 1.
The method includes collecting free water on an upstream surface of the support layers 25, as claimed, because the support layers 25 are made from a hydrophobic material while the air that contacts the upstream surface of each support layer 25 comprises mist. See Unger col. 3, ll. 44–51.
PNG
media_image1.png
705
1110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Unger differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the support layers 25 on the first and second filters 14, 15, being pleated.
But Ziebold teaches a mist collecting filter, where the entire structure of the filter material 37, including support layers 40’’, 57’’, 59’’ are pleated. See Ziebold Fig. 5C, [0057]. The pleated configuration is beneficial because it increases the surface area of the collecting media. Id.
It would have been obvious for the filter material of the first and second filters—including the support layer 25, to be pleated, to increase the surface area of the collecting media. With this modification, the support layer 25 in the upstream and downstream filters 14, 15, read on the “first hydrophobic pleated hollow porous medium” and the “second hydrophobic pleated porous medium,” respectively.
Unger also differs from claim 8, because it is silent as to the end caps having a drain channel. But each filter 14, 15 comprises a water coalescing layer 12 and a frame 11 that channels coalesced water toward sump 22. See Unger Fig. 1, col. 4, l. 50–col. 5, l. 15.
With this in mind, Plizak teaches a separator for removing water and mist from air. See Plizak Fig. 2, col. 1, ll. 13–16. The separator comprises foam members 31, 41, 51, 61 that act as water coalescers to remove water from the air. Id. at Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 69–72. Each foam member is supported by a structure that includes a wall (e.g., 49) and a drainage port (e.g., 55). Id. at Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 49–67. The drainage ports removes water that has coalesced in each foam member into a drainage unit 75 that discharges into a drainage port 76. Id. at Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 25–35. The drainage ports are perpendicular to the horizontal axis that runs through the middle of the separator, as seen in Fig. 2. The drainage configuration is beneficial because it provides rapid drainage and maximum efficiency of the foam members. Id. at col. 2, ll. 64–68.
PNG
media_image2.png
569
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify Unger such that the intermediate end cap (between filters 14, 15) and the second end cap (the end cap at the downstream end of filter 15) have a drainage port that drains into a drainage unit, in order to improve the drainage efficiency of the filter 10.
With this modification, the drainage port in the intermediate end cap reads on the “first drain channel” and the drainage port in the second end cap reads on the “second drain channel.” The drainage ports are arranged perpendicular to the horizontal axis that runs through the middle of the filter 10 of Unger, in a similar manner as shown in Fig. 2 of Plizak.
Unger also differs from claim 8 because it fails to teach a bypass valve that includes a pivotable plate, as claimed.
But the filter 10 comprises a relief valve 27 that allows an excess amount of inlet air to flow through the filters 14, 15, to bypass being filtered by the material of these filters. See Unger Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 56–68. Also, as noted, the system of Unger is for air conditioning.
With this in mind, Wenger teaches an air conditioning system comprising a bypass duct that runs parallel with a duct that carries a HEPA filter 1560. See Wenger Fig. 15A, [0127]. The bypass duct contains a damper 1580 that allows the system to partially circumvent the duct with the filter 1560. Id.
PNG
media_image3.png
611
783
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify Unger to provide a bypass duct parallel to the filter 10, with the bypass duct containing a damper, instead of using the relief valve 27, because this would merely represent substituting one known bypass mechanism for another with a reasonable expectation of success.
With this modification, the bypass system would read on the “bypass valve.” The damper 1580 reads on the “pivotably bypass plate.” The bypass duct reads on the “hollow sleeve.” The bypass duct is arranged between the middle housing body and the outlet duct, because it would be a bypass around the filters 14, 15. The bypass duct provides an aircraft air flow path through the filter 10 partially bypassing the filters 14, 15, because this is the purpose of the bypass system, in the same way that the relief valve 27 provides a bypass flow path through the filter 10 so that air does not have to pass through the material of the filters 14, 15.
With this modification, when the bypass system is open, this reads on the claimed step of “opening the bypass valve; and flowing aircraft air through the MaVE filter device while partially bypassing the MaVE filter” (claim 8). When the bypass system is closed, this reads on “closing the bypass valve and flowing aircraft air through the MaVE filter” (claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, Unger as modified teaches that collected water on the upstream surface of the support layers 25 is passed through the drainage port in the intermediate end cap (the “first drain channel”) and the drainage port in the second end cap (“second drain channel”) because the purpose of these drain channels is to collect free water removed by the filter 10, as explained in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, assuming the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues are resolved.
Claim 12 is allowable over Unger as modified because the prior art combination fails to teach the step of reintroducing the collected free water from the first drain channel and the collected free water from the second channel to airflow downstream from the filter 10. Instead, Unger teaches that water removed from the filter 10 exits through drain 23 without being reintroduced into an airflow, while Plizak teaches that water id discharged through drainage port 76 without being reintroduced into an airflow.
Claim 13 is allowable because it depends from claim 12. It is noted that claim 13 recites:
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising mixing cold air from an air-conditioning pack, the cold air further comprising the collected free water, with warmer recirculated air.
The term “cold” does not render claim 13 indefinite, even though it is relative terminology, because a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the claim as a whole would understand that the air is “cold” relative to the “warmer recirculated air.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McAferty et al., US 5,882,386 (device for removing moisture from gas vented from aircraft); Miller et al., US 4,444,575 (filter system for filtering air delivered to an aircraft cabin).
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
Prosecution Insights