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 § 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, 9–10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2013/0160410 A1 (“Kim”) in view of Stender et al., US 2022/0314152 A1 (“Stender”).
Regarding claim 1:
Kim discloses that an air filter assembly (Kim’s air filter 230, Kim Fig. 9, [0088]) for use in an aircraft galley insert (intended use, and Kim’s air filter is capable to be used in an aircraft galley insert), the assembly comprising
a cavity (Kim’s opening 211, Kim Fig. 9, [0088]) for receiving an air filter cassette in use (in use configuration shown in FIG. 8);
a door (Kim’s air filter bracket 220, Kim Fig. 10, [0088]) for providing or blocking access to the cavity (as shown in Fig. 8), wherein said door (220 of Kim) is hinged (via hinge 223 of Kim, Kim Fig. 10, [0093]) and comprises a front grill (Kim’s inlet port 221 is shown as grill, Kim Fig. 10, [0088]) configured for intaking air;
the air filter cassette (Kim’s air filter 230, Kim Fig. 10, Kim Fig. 10, [0088]); and
a door unlocking mechanism (Kim’s latch unit 240, Kim Fig. 10, [0098]) configured to unlock the door to the cavity (Kim’s latch unit 240 coupled to the base plate 210 in an engaged manner, Kim Fig. 10, [0098]).
Kim does not disclose wherein the door unlocking mechanism (240 of Kim) comprises the air filter cassette comprising a detachable tool that is configured to unlock the door to the cavity.
In the analogous art of cassette filters, Stender discloses that the air filter assembly (Stender’s filter securement assembly 80, Stender Fig. 2, [0036]) comprising the air filter cassette (Stender filter assembly 80 is shown in a filter cassette) comprising a detachable tool (Stender’s tool accommodated in Stender’s tool receiver 154, Stender Fig. 5, [0035]–[0036]) that is configured to unlock the door to the cavity (intended use, and Stender discloses its tool can be used to pivot the cover 112 relative to the filter frame 108 to remove the filter, Stender Fig. 3, [0036]). Stender discloses its design allows its filter to be easily removed and cleaning, Stender [0013]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Stender’s tool receiver 154 and tool accommodate therein for an ease of filter removal and cleaning.
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Kim discloses that the air filter assembly of claim 1, wherein, in use, the air filter cassette is held under compression when positioned in the cavity (Kim discloses when in use, the filter is engaged in the based plate via a hook 141b and latch unit 150 via an elastic force generated by spring , Kim Fig. 3, [0027] and [0070], it is thus understood that the air filter cassette 230 is held under compression when in use).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Kim discloses that the air filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the air filter cassette has an outer perimeter and comprises a filter frame extending around the outer perimeter and a central section comprising a filter material (as best shown in Fig. 10 of Kim, Kim’s air filter cassette 230 has a filter frame surrounding a filter material, Kim Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Kim discloses that the air filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the door (Kim’s alternative embodiment of Fig. 17 shows Kim’s air filter bracket 330, which is the claimed “door”, Kim Fig. 17, [0112]) comprises a lip (Kim’s guide rail 331, Kim Fig. 17, [0111]) that, in use, sits inside the cavity (as best shown in Fig. 15, when the Kim’s filter bracket 330 is in closed configuration, the guide rails 331 would sit inside the cavity, Kim Fig. 15), such that when the air filter cassette is inserted into the cavity, the air filter cassette is held in place between the door and the lip (as best shown in Fig. 17 of Kim).
Claims 5–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Stender as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Merton et al., US 2021/0322916 A1 (“Merton”).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Kim discloses that the air filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the detachable tool is integrated into a mold shape of the air filter assembly (as shown in Fig. 2 of Stender).
Modified Kim does not disclose a disposable break-off support or a plurality of disposable break-off supports.
In the analogous art of filter integrated with detachment tools, Merton discloses a filter detachment tool (Merton’s removal device 100, Merton Fig. 11, [0030]) integrated into a filter frame 28, Merton Fig. 11, [0030]. Merton discloses its removal device 100 is integrated into the filter frame 28 via a perforated section or sections 300 (read on the claimed “disposable break-off support”), Merton Fig. 11, [0032]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Merton’s perforated section or sections 300 in modified Kim to connect Stender’s tool to its tool receiver 154 in modified Kim. Such perforation would be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art because it contains certain degree of connection strength to allow tool to stay attached when not in use and yet it is easy enough for a person to tear apart during maintenance. Further noted here that when the perforation line is disconnected, one cannot reinstall the tool back to the tool receiver in modified Kim, such design would be appreciated by a person of ordinary skill in the art to clearly indicated that the filter is used and replaced.
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Kim discloses that the air filter assembly of claim 5, further comprising a tool guide slot (as best shown in Stender Fig. 6, tool receivers 154 is shown as a slot, Stender Fig. 6, [0020]) which provides access to a tool receiving passage cavity in the air filter assembly (Stender’s Fig. 5 shows tool inserted in the slot 154, Stender Fig. 5, [0020]), wherein the tool receiving passage (154 of Stender) has an internal shape and size that corresponds to an external shape and size of the detachable tool (as shown in Stender’s Fig. 5, [0020]).
Claims 11 and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Stender as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Cole et al., US 2021/0213382 A1 (“Cole”).
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Kim does not disclose that the air filter assembly of claim 1, wherein at least a section of the air filter cassette is manufactured from one or more of: paper, foam, carbon, aluminium, steel, fiberglass, plastic and/or combinations of the same.
In the analogous art of air filters, Cole discloses a filter 346 comprising a peripheral frame made of paper or plastic material, Cole Fig. 16, [0120]. Cole discloses such frame elements is configured to provide structural support to the filter, Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Kim’s peripheral frame of Kim’s air filter cassette to be made of paper or plastic to provide structural support to Kim’s air filter cassette. Additionally, a filter frame made of paper or plastic is known in the filter frame art as disclosed by Cole.
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Kim does not disclose that the air filter assembly of claim 1, further comprising an interface display.
In the analogous art of air filters, Cole discloses an interface display (Cole’s indicator 355, Cole Fig. 16, [0130]). Cole discloses its indicator can be used to detect pressure differential between static and abmibent air, or output condition of the air filter to indicate if the filter need to be changed, Cole Fig. 16, [0126] and [0132]). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Cole’s indicator 355 in Kim such that user could have a better idea of when the filter need to be changed.
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Kim discloses that the air filter assembly of claim 13, wherein the interface display displays information relating to one or more of equipment control and status (Cole’s indicator 355 is configured to tell a pressure differential status of the filter, Cole Fig. 16, [0126] and [0132]), feedback of running programs, start-up sequences.
Regarding claim 15:
Kim does not disclose that the air filter assembly of claim 1 further comprising:
an Air Flow Control System that is configured to monitor an air flow through the air filter assembly and alert a user when the air flow is below a predetermined threshold.
However, as discussed in claim 13, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Cole’s indicator 355 in Kim such that user could have a better idea of when the filter needs to be changed. Cole’s indicator 355 is an Air Flow Control System because it monitors the air flow through the air filter assembly by detecting air pressure differential and alert a user when the air flow is below a predetermined threshold (the air pressure differential triggers the indicator 355 to alert the user that filter need to be changed, Cole Fig. 16, [0132]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7–8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Kim does not disclose that the air filter assembly of claim 6, wherein the detachable tool has a first unlocking feature, wherein the door unlocking mechanism further comprises a second unlocking feature and wherein the first unlocking feature is shaped and sized such that when the detachable tool is inserted into the tool receiving passage, the first unlocking feature contacts and exerts a force on the second unlocking feature, the exertion of the force resulting in an unlocking of the door.
The claimed tool receiving passage is mapped to Stender’s tool receiver 154, Stender Fig. 5, [0020] in modified Kim. However, the proposed modification does not disclose that the first unlocking feature is shaped and sized such that when it is inserted into the tool receiving passage it contacts and exerts a force on the second, door unlocking feature, the exertion of force resulting in an unlocking of the door because Stender tool receiver 154 is a storage slot. It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Kim for the recited limitation because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Claim 8 would be allowable because it depends on claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The examiner drops the current objections because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 112(b) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 102(a) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The applicant argues that Stender discloses both an filter and a tool receiver, wherein the tool receiver facilitates the handling and lifting of the cover, and that there is no mention of an air filter cassette that comprises a detachable tool that is configured to unlock the door of the cavity, Applicant Rem. dated Jul. 15, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 6. The applicant also argues that none of the cited references, either alone or in combination, disclose or contemplate the novel feature of a door unlocking mechanism that comprises an air filter cassette comprising a detachable tool that is configured to unlock the door to the cavity. The cited references also do not provide any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the cited references in such a manner. Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims rely on the allowability of claim 1, Applicant Rem. ps. 7–8.
Noted here that Stender discloses a filter securement assembly 80 is the filter cassette, Stender Fig. 2, [0020]. Stender’s filter cassette 80 comprising a detachable tool (the tool disclosed in tool receiver 154), Stender Fig. 2, [0020]. The limitation of “configured to unlock the door of the cavity” is directed to intended use, and Kim in view of Stender teaches the claimed structure limitation and therefore read on the claim. Also noted here that the rejection is based on Kim in view of Stender, rather than Stender alone.
Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights