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 and 4–7, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The terms “the engagement counter elements” and the two engagement counter elements” are interchangeably used, 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 1–20 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 is indefinite because the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(D).
Claims 2–20 are indefinite because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 17 is indefinite because the term “the cross shape” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–2, 4, 8–14, 17–18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Schneider et al., US 2002/0112458 A1 (“Schneider”) in view of Simmons et al., US 2016/0052095 A1 (“Simmons”).
Regarding claim 1:
Schneider discloses that a filter device (Schneider’s air filter system 10, Schneider Fig. 1, [0022]) comprising:
a filter element (Schneider’s filter element 50, Schneider Fig. 3, [0028]) comprising a filter medium body (Schneider’s filtration media 55, Schneider Fig. 3, [0029]) and a frame (Schneider’s outer peripheral frame 52, Schneider Fig. 3, [0029]) surrounding the filter medium body (55 of Schneider), wherein the frame (52 of Schneider) comprises opposed lateral faces (Schneider’s side edges 58, 58’, Schneider Fig. 3, [0029]);
engagement elements (Schneider’s pegs 60, Schneider Fig. 3, [0036]);
a filter housing (Schneider’s filter housing 20, Schneider Fig. 5, [0055]) comprising two opposed wall sections (Schneider’s side wall 28, 28’ integral with fixed rails 80, Schneider Fig. 2 and 5, [0055] and [0044]), wherein the two opposed wall sections each comprise two engagement counter elements (Schneider’s support slots 82, Schneider Fig. 5, [0045]);
wherein the engagement counter elements (82 of Schneider) each are formed as a groove in the respective wall section (28, 28’ of Schneider) and comprise an insertion section (Schneider’s support slots 82a, 82b, Schneider Fig. 5, [0045]) and a blocking section (Schneider’s locking slots 72a and 72b, Schneider Fig. 5, [0046]), wherein the blocking section (72a, 72b of Schneider) is connected to the insertion section (82a, 82b of Schneider) and angled in relation to the insertion section (as shown in Schneider Fig. 5), wherein the blocking section (72a, 72b of Schneider) is configured to receive with form fit a respective engagement element of the engagement elements (Schneider’s pegs 60 forms fits into Schneider’s slots 72a, 72b as shown in Schneider Fig. 5), and wherein the insertion section (82a, 82b of Schneider) is configured to permit an insertion movement of the respective engagement element substantially along a flow direction through the filter element in a mounted state of the filter element in the filter housing (as shown in Schneider’s Fig. 2, Schneider shows an air inlet 32 and outlet 34’, Schneider Fig. 2, [0024], Schneider’s air flow therefore passing through Schneider’s filter vertically, and Schneider’s peg 60 inserts vertically through the slots 82a and 82b, which is along a flow direction of the filter housing, Schneider Fig. 5);
wherein, in the mounted state of the filter element (50 of Schneider) in the filter housing (20 of Schneider), the respective engagement element (60 of Schneider) is arranged at one of the opposed lateral faces of the frame (as shown in Schneider Fig. 3), extends away from the filter medium body (see Schneider Fig. 3), and is held in the respective blocking section of the respective engagement counter element (see Schneider Fig. 7).
Schneider does not disclose hold sections connected to the engagement elements and, in the mounted state of the filter element in the filter housing, at least partially engaging the filter element.
In the analogous art of filter frame mounting structures, Simmons discloses a filter frame (Simmons’s extending rail 10, Simmons Fig. 4, [0071]) comprising an engagement element (Simmons’s thread portion of screw fastener 20, Simmons Fig. 3, [0068]). Simmons discloses a hold section (Simmons head portion of screw fastener 20, Simmons Fig. 3, [0068]) connected to Simmons thread portion of screw fastener 20. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Schneider to have a through hole designed to allow its pegs 60 to pass through its frame structure because Simmons discloses bolt fastener is known in the art to secure a filter frame to a housing. And a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use such bolt fasteners for easy access of parts and disassembly for easy shipping and storage. With such modification, modified Schneider’s peg structure 60 would each be connected to a hold section (similar to Simmons’s screw head of its screw fastener 20), and in the mounted state of the filter element in the filter housing, modified Peg’s hold section would be engaged with Schneider’s filter element (Schneider’s frame 52).
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 1, wherein the filter element comprises an inflow side (proximate Schneider’s inlet 32, Schneider Fig. 1, [0027]) and an outflow side (proximate Schneider’s outlet 34, Schneider Fig. 1, [0027]), wherein the hold sections (screw head of modified Schneider’s peg 60) engage the filter element at the inflow side; at the outflow side; or at the inflow side and the outflow side (screw head of modified Schneider’s peg 60 located on a side wall 58 of Schneider’s peripheral 52, which is either on the inflow side or the outflow side, Schneider Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 1, wherein the two engagement counter elements (82, 72 of Schneider) extend oppositely in the respective wall section (Schneider’s slots 82a, 82b has a width in the horizontal direction, the width of slots 82a, 82b could be interpreted as extend oppositely in the respective wall section, Schneider Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 1, wherein the engagement elements are embodied as separate parts (as discussed in claim 1, modified Schneider’s engagement element 60 is modified to be a screw fastener ad shown by Simmons, which are embodied as separate parts).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 8, wherein the engagement elements are detachably fastenable to the filter element and to the filter housing (screw fastener is detachably fastenable to the filter element and the filter housing).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 1, wherein the engagement elements are fastened to the filter element (screw fastener are fastened to the filter element the same way as shown in Simmons Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 1, wherein the respective blocking section (72 of Schneider) comprises a pocket or a through opening in the respective wall section (72 of Schneider is shown as a pocket shape, Schneider Fig. 5, [0045]), wherein the respective engagement element engages with form fit the pocket or the through opening in the mounted state of the filter element in the filter housing (Schneider’s engagement element 60 form fit into the pocket of Schneider’s element 72 because Schneider’s engagement element 60 is round shaped, and Schneider’s pocket part of blocking section has a corresponding round shape, Schneider Fig. 5, [0045]).
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 1, wherein the opposed lateral faces of the frame (52 of Schneider) each comprise two through openings (similar to the through opening shown on Simmon’s rail 10 that accommodates screw fastener 20, Simmons Fig. 3, [0068]), wherein the two through openings, in the mounted state of the filter element in the filter housing (20 of Schneider), are positioned opposite the blocking sections (72 of Schneider) of the engagement counter elements (72, 82 of Schneider) in the opposed wall sections, respectively, wherein, in the mounted state of the filter element in the filter housing, the respective engagement element (60 of Schneider) passes through the respective through opening (the same way as Simmons fastener 20 passes through its through openings) and engages with form fit the respective blocking section (72 of Schneider).
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 1, wherein the hold sections (similar to the screw head of Simmons’s screw fastener 20) are arranged, in the mounted state of the filter element in the filter housing, in a recessed region of the filter medium body (spaces between Schneider’s longitudinal members 57), respectively, wherein the recessed region of the filter medium body is accessible from a side (top side as shown in Schneider’s Fig. 3) from which mounting of the filter element in the filter housing is carried out.
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 13, wherein the hold sections (screw head of modified Schneider’s peg 60) each comprise a cross shape (from left to right in reference to Simmons’s screw head on screw fastener 20, Simmons Fig. 3) and the engagement elements are arranged at a bottom end of the cross shape (left end in reference to Simmons’s screw head on screw fastener 20, Simmons Fig. 3), respectively, wherein the cross shape laterally engages a rim of the frame (since Schneider’s peg 60 is located proximate top edge of Schneider’s side edge 58, top end in reference to Simmons’s screw head on screw fastener 20 would necessarily contact the top edge of Schneider’s side edge 58 because it has a larger diameter compared to the peg, which reads on laterally engages a rim—top edge of Schneider’s side wall 58, Simmons Fig. 3 and Schneider Fig. 3), wherein the rim is arranged at an inflow side and/or at an outflow side of the filter element (Schneider’s top edge of side wall 58 would either be the inflow or outflow side as shown in Fig. 2 of Schneider).
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 13, wherein an upper end of the cross shape comprises a grip section for manually mounting the engagement elements arranged thereat (the entire circumferential edge of screw head could be a grip section when a person of ordinary skill in the art choose to manually insert modified Schneider’s peg 60 with Simmons’s screw head and mounting the engagement elements 60, Simmons Fig. 3 and Schneider Fig. 3, upper end of the cross shape is part of the entire circumferential edge of the screw head).
Regarding claim 18:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 13, wherein two of the hold sections (screw head of Simmons’s screw fastener 20, Simmons Fig. 3) are connected by a connection piece (portion of Schneider’s side wall between Schneider’s pegs 60 would read on the claimed “connection piece”, Schneider Fig. 3), respectively.
Regarding claim 20:
Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 1, wherein two of the engagement elements (peg 60 of Schneider) are connected by a connection piece (portion of Schneider’s side wall 58 between the two pegs 60 of Schneider, Schneider Fig. 3), respectively.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Schneider in view of Simmons as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Nefzer et al., US 2016/0280045 A1 (“Nefzer”).
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 2, wherein the frame has an inflow side rim (Schneider’s top edge of Schneider’s side wall 58, Simmons Fig. 3) and an outflow side rim (Schneider’s top edge of Schneider’s side wall 58).
Modified Schneider does not disclose that the filter device according to claim 2, wherein the hold sections engage the filter element at the inflow side rim of the frame; at the outflow side rim of the frame; or at the inflow side rim of the frame and the outflow side rim of the frame.
In the analogous art of the air filters, Nefzer discloses an air filter 1, comprising engagement elements (Nefzer’s projection 17, Nefzer Fig. 1, [0039]). Additionally, Nefzer discloses an inflow side rim (Nefzer’s long leg 16, Nefzer Fig. 1, [0039]). Nefzer discloses its engagement element 17 is located on the inflow side rim 16 of the frame 3, Nefzer Fig. 1. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modified Schneider’s inflow side rim to look like Nefzer’s inflow side rim 16 to provide a handle when inserting the filter without interfering with filter media during installation. With such modification, modified Schneider’s peg 60 and its screw head would be located on an inflow side rim similar to that disclosed by Nefzer and therefore engage with the inflow side rim of the frame in modified Schneider.
Claims 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Schneider in view of Simmons as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Enderle et al., US 2023/0158432 A1 (“Enderle”).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 4, wherein the two engagement counter elements (72, 82 of Schneider) each comprise an L shape (as shown in Fig. 6 of Schneider), wherein a first leg of the L shape is the insertion section (82 is the insertion section) and a second leg of the L shape is the blocking section (72 is the blocking section, Schneider Fig. 6, [0045]).
Modified Schneider does not disclose that the L shapes of the two engagement counter elements are arranged mirror-symmetrically to each other in the respective wall section.
In the analogous art of air filter assemblies, Enderle discloses a similar engagement element (Enderle’s retaining pins 76, 78, Enderle Fig. 11, [0083]) and engagement counter elements (Enderle’s guide flanks 90, 92, Enderle Fig. 11, [0082]). Enderle’s engagement counter elements 90, 92 are also L-shaped, Enderle Fig. 11. Additionally, Enderle’s engagement counter elements 90, 92 are symmetrically arranged to each other in the respective wall section (44 of Enderle), Enderle Fig. 11, [0083]. Enderle discloses its filter element can be mounted particularly easily in its predetermined installation position in the filter housing, and an improved filter element for mounting in the corresponding air filter device, Enderle Fig. 11, [0009]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Enderle’s symmetric design for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Schneider discloses that the filter device according to claim 4, wherein the insertion sections (82 of Schneider) of the two engagement counter elements (82, 72 of Schneider) are arranged parallel to each other in the respective wall section (as shown in Schneider Fig. 6).
Modified Schneider does not disclose that t the blocking sections of the two engagement counter elements face away from each other in the respective wall section.
However, as discussed in claim 5, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Enderle’s symmetric design for the benefits disclosed. With such modification, modified Schneider would have its engagement counter elements facing away from each other in the respective wall section the same ways as shown in Enderle’s Fig. 11.
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Schneider does not disclose that the filter device according to claim 4, wherein, in an undeformed state of the filter element, a first distance between two of the engagement elements arranged at one of the opposed lateral faces of the frame is larger than a second distance between the insertion sections of the two engagement counter elements of the respective wall section so that, at an end of the insertion movement, said two engagement elements snap into the respective blocking sections.
However, as discussed in claim 5, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Enderle’s symmetric design for the benefits disclosed. Enderle discloses in an undeformed state of the filter element, a first distance (distance between 76 and 78 of Enderle, Enderle Fig. 7) between two of the engagement elements (76, 78 of Enderle) arranged at one of the opposed lateral faces of the frame is larger than a second distance (distance between 90, 92 of Enderle, Enderle Fig. 8) between the insertion sections (90, 92 of Enderle) of the two engagement counter elements of the respective wall section so that, at an end of the insertion movement (distance between 76, 78 as shown in Fig. 7 is larger than distance between 90, 92 of Enderle as shown in Fig. 8, because 76, 78 will eventually stop at guide end region 98, 100, Enderle Fig. 8), said two engagement elements snap into the respective blocking sections (Enderle’s engagement elements 76, 78 will be pushed into the blocking sections 98 and 100, which could be interpreted as a snap, Enderle Fig. 8, [0081]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15–16 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Schneider does not disclose that the filter device according to claim 14, wherein the cross shape engages the wall sections of the filter housing, respectively. Because modified Schneider’s cross shape is located entirely within Schneider’s filter frame 52, which does not contact/engage the wall sections of the filter housing 20, Schneider Figs. 2–3 and Simmons Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Schneider does not disclose that the filter device according to claim 13, wherein the cross shape engages the wall sections of the filter housing, respectively. Because modified Schneider’s cross shape is located entirely within Schneider’s filter frame 52, which does not contact/engage the wall sections of the filter housing 20, Schneider Figs. 2–3 and Simmons Fig. 3.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Schneider for such limitation because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Regarding Claim 19:
Modified Schneider does not disclose that the filter device according to claim 18, wherein the connection piece extends parallel or perpendicularly to the opposed lateral faces of the frame in the mounted state of the filter element in the filter housing because the connection piece is essentially part of the lateral faces of the frame.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Schneider for such limitation because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Double Patenting
Claims 1 and 8 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/628,943 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 18 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/628,950 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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
Prosecution Insights