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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 5-19 in the reply filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged. The non-elected claims, claims 1-4, and 20 have been canceled. Applicant has added new claims 21-24.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “configured to be the same depth of the replaceable filter element” should read “configured to be the same depth as the replaceable filter element.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 13 and 17 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 13 recites “affixed to one of the plurality of supports of the frame bottom.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation (“the plurality of supports”) in the claim. Claim 5 recites “a plurality of support sections,” resulting in uncertainty as to whether the claimed supports and support sections are the same structural element.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the controller together are enabled" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites “at least one control module.” It is unclear whether “the controller” refers to the control module or another component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. (a)(1) being anticipated by Kubokawa et al U.S. Pub. No. 6955702 B2, October 18, 2005 (hereinafter “Kubokawa”).
Regarding claim 5, Kubokawa discloses a reusable air filter frame (2) comprising: a filter frame bottom defined by a plurality of support sections that are enabled to hold a replacement filter element in place within the filter frame bottom (base (4) having perimeter structure (4a), first and second sides (24, 28), and a plurality of transverse ribs (32) extending from first side (24) to second side (28), wherein ribs (32) mesh with pleats (12) and uniformly support filter media (10) of replaceable filter element (8) across the width thereof; base 4 further including longitudinal rails (34) which combine with transverse ribs 32 to form a support grid structure) (Figs. 1–3 and 5; col. 3, ll. 29–43 and 44–65; col. 4, ll. 1–18); and a filter frame top connected by hinges to one of the plurality of support sections on one side of the filter frame bottom (cover 6 pivotally connected to base 4 along corresponding second sides 28, 30 by hinge members (40), wherein the hinge members permit cover (6) to move between an open condition and a closed condition) (Figs. 1 and 4; col. 4, ll. 19–40). Kubokawa further states that conventional hinges may be used and alternatively that base (4) and cover (6) may be joined by a living hinge. Kubokawa discloses that the cover (6) and base (4) having corresponding first side edges (26, 24) that engage in the closed condition to enclose replaceable filter element (8) within frame (2), and latches (42), each comprising a flexible cantilevered bar member (44) that snap-fits over an aligned protrusion (46), thereby maintaining frame (2) in its closed condition (Figs. 1 and 4; col. 4, ll. 29–48).
Regarding claim 6, Kubokawa discloses a plurality of transverse ribs (32) extending from first side (24) of base to second side (28) thereof, wherein ribs (32) mesh with pleats (12) and uniformly support filter media (10) across the entire width of filter element 8 (Figs. 1, 2, and 5; col. 3, ll. 56–65). Kubokawa additionally discloses longitudinal rails (34) extending from first end (16) to second end (20) of base, which combine with transverse ribs 32 to form a grid structure for supporting and spacing the filter element (Figs. 1–3 and 5; col. 4, ll. 1–16).
Regarding claim 7, Kubokawa discloses the base (4) and cover (6) having respective perimeter structures (4a, 6a) surrounding replaceable filter element 8, wherein the perimeter structure of base 4 and/or cover 6 includes an inwardly extending edge portion that provides a sealing surface for the side edges of filter element (8) and prevents air from bypassing the filter element, the edge portion optionally having a zig-zag configuration following the contour of the pleated filter element to provide a closer fit therewith (Figs. 1, 4, and 5; col. 3, ll. 44–55). Kubokawa further discloses that in the closed condition, corresponding side edges (24, 26) of base (4) and cover (6) engage to enclose filter element (8) within frame (2), and latches (42) maintain the frame in the closed condition (Figs. 1 and 4; col. 4, ll. 29–48).
Regarding claim 8, Kubokawa discloses the base (4) including a plurality of substantially parallel transverse ribs (32) extending from first side (24) to second side (28) of base (4), the ribs (32) being configured to mesh with pleats (12) and uniformly support filter media (10) across the width of replaceable filter element 8 (Figs. 1–3 and 5; col. 3, ll. 56–65). Kubokawa further discloses a plurality of longitudinal rails or vertical divider (34) extending from first end (16) to second end 2(0) of base, wherein longitudinal rails (34) combine with transverse ribs or horizontal divider (32) to form a grid structure, thereby providing support members extending in crossing directions within the filter frame bottom (Figs. 1–3 and 5; col. 4, ll. 3–8). Kubokawa further explains that ribs (32) and rails (34) may be formed as separate members or as a unitary structure.
Regarding claim 9, Kubokawa discloses the replaceable filter element comprising filter media (10) having a plurality of pleats or folds (12), wherein transverse support ribs (32) are provided on base and extend across the base to mesh with and support the pleats (12) (Figs. 1, 2, and 5; col. 3, ll. 56–65; col. 4, ll. 1–3). Kubokawa further discloses that ribs (32) may be molded with perimeter structure (4a) of base or may comprise wires, dowels, or other members attached to the perimeter structure (4a) of the base, and that longitudinal rails (34) combine with ribs (32) to form a support grid, with spacer portions (34a) following the contour of pleats (12) to provide spacing along the depth of the pleat face (Figs. 1–3 and 5; col. 4, ll. 1–16). Kubokawa expressly teaches that, when the filter media is non-self-supporting, support ribs (32) are needed to support and space the media when the filter element is subjected to an air stream so as to prevent pleats (12) from bowing or collapsing, thereby supporting the filter folds against distortion during use (Figs. 2 and 5; col. 7, ll. 9–15).
Regarding claim 10, Kubokawa discloses a reusable filter frame (2) including base (4) configured to receive replaceable pleated filter element (8), the filter element having a size and configuration adapted to fit within base (4); Figs. 1, 4, and 5). Kubokawa expressly discloses that filter element 8 has an appropriate size and configuration to fit into base 4. Kubokawa further discloses that the frame has a defined depth, including embodiments in which the residential filter frame has a depth of less than 2 inches, preferably less than 1 inch (col. 2, ll. 60–65), and Fig. 5 shows the pleated filter element received within the depth of the closed frame between base (4) and cover (6).
Regarding claim 11, Kubokawa discloses that cover (6) inter-engages the periphery of base (4) to securely retain filter element (8) within frame (2) while permitting air to flow through the cover, filter element (8), and base (4) during operation of the air-handling system (Figs. 4 and 5; col. 4, ll. 19–25 and 60–67).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 12-14, 17-19, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubokawa et al U.S. Pub. No. 6955702 B2, October 18, 2005 (hereinafter “Kubokawa”) in view of Arthur et al, U.S. Pub. No. 20180140989 A1, May 24, 2018 (hereinafter “Arthur”).
Kubokawa is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 12, Kubokawa fails to disclose the claimed sensors, control module, and communication module. However, Arthur discloses a smart filter system having one or more sensors, associated processing circuitry, and wireless communication circuitry, wherein the circuitry may be located in a frame that holds the filter (Figs. 21–22; paragraphs [0138]–[0143]). Arthur further discloses pressure sensors (1410, 1415), circuit/logic (1430), and radio/antenna (1435) for communicating sensor data to a cellphone (1440), Wi-Fi router (1445), and cloud platform (Fig. 12; paragraphs [0088]–[0089]).
It would have been obvious to modify Kubokawa’s reusable filter frame to include Arthur’s sensors, processing circuitry, and communication circuitry in order to monitor filter condition and remotely communicate filter information to a user or external system.
Regarding claim 13, Arthur discloses a differential pressure sensor having openings on opposite sides of the filter media for sensing upstream and downstream pressure, wherein the pressure difference is used to determine filter condition (Figs. 2–3; paragraphs [0043], [0053]–[0059]). Arthur further discloses a tube (210) extending through the filter media to an upstream opening (212) on the side receiving incoming air, while a downstream opening communicates pressure from the opposite side to differential pressure sensor 315, thereby measuring pressure differential across the filter (Figs. 2–3; paragraphs [0054]–[0056], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate Arthur’s differential-pressure sensing arrangement into Kubokawa’s reusable filter frame to monitor pressure upstream and downstream of the replaceable filter and determine filter loading or replacement condition.
Regarding claim 14, Arthur further discloses wherein the plurality of sensors further comprise at least an air temperature sensor and at least an air humidity sensor, wherein one or more sensors monitor temperature and humidity on the clean and dirty sides of the filter and specifically identifies a temperature/humidity/pressure sensor (Fig. 14; paragraphs [0092]). It would have been obvious to include Arthur’s temperature and humidity sensors in Kubokawa’s reusable filter frame to monitor environmental conditions of the air passing through the filter.
Regarding claim 17, Arthur discloses calibration of the differential-pressure sensing system after installation of the filter, including installing the sensor and filter and setting the differential pressure to zero as an initial reference value (paragraphs [0061]–[0069], [0070]–[0076]). Arthur also teaches that the sensor assembly may be removed and reused with replacement filter media, thereby providing calibration when a replacement filter is installed.
It would have been obvious to configure Arthur’s differential-pressure sensor and processing circuitry to establish an initial baseline differential pressure upon installation of each replacement filter element so that subsequent pressure changes accurately indicate filter loading.
Regarding claim 18, Arthur discloses that filter-condition information derived from pressure sensing is communicated to a user through an application, including notifications indicating when the filter should be replaced. Arthur teaches that a pressure-drop threshold may trigger a customer notification to replace the filter, and that the application may notify the user when it is time to change the filter (paras. [0040]–[0042], [0058]). Arthur further discloses that an increase in pressure difference across the filter indicates increasing obstruction and a need for replacement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the communication module of the Kubokawa/Arthur filter system to provide a consumer notification when the sensed differential pressure changes by an amount indicative of filter loading, because Arthur expressly teaches using pressure-change thresholds to determine when a filter requires replacement and communicating that condition to the user. Such a modification would predictably allow timely filter replacement without manual inspection.
Regarding claim 19, Regarding claim 19, Arthur discloses a smart filter system configured to provide air-quality data from sensors associated with the HVAC/filter system, wherein software algorithms collect sensor data, store multiple data strings for future transmission and reporting, and communicate the information to an external mobile device or cloud platform (paragraphs [0139]–[0141]). Arthur also teaches air-quality sensing including particulate and VOC measurements.
It would have been obvious to configure the communication module of the Kubokawa/Arthur filter system to transmit sensed air-quality data to an external device or cloud-based system for storage and subsequent analysis or reporting, as expressly taught by Arthur
Regarding claim 23, Arthur further discloses differential-pressure sensor housing (200) having tube (210) extending through the filter material to provide opening (212) on the upstream side, thereby communicating upstream pressure to the differential-pressure sensor (Figs. 2–3; paragraphs [0053]–[0056]). Arthur expressly teaches that the sensor arrangement may be installed on a reusable filter frame having replaceable filter media.
It would have been obvious to provide Kubokawa's replaceable filter element with an opening or cutout aligned with Arthur's differential-pressure sensor opening to permit pressure communication across the filter while accommodating the sensor structure
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubokawa and Arthur, as applied to claims 13 and 14, in further view of Dage et al. U.S. Pub. No. 6347746 B1, February 19, 2002 (hereinafter “Dage”).
Regarding claim 15, Kubokawa in view of Arthur discloses the reusable filter frame of claim 14, including an air temperature sensor as discussed above. Arthur, however, does not expressly disclose that the temperature sensor enables control of the filtered-air temperature by the HVAC system.
Dage discloses a temperature and humidity sensor assembly for an HVAC system, wherein the temperature sensor provides a temperature signal to electronic controller (40), which controls HVAC actuators to regulate the temperature and flow of air (Fig. 2; col. 3, ll. 1–31). Dage further expressly states that the temperature and humidity sensors are electrically connected through circuit board (62) to electronic controller (40) for control of the HVAC system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the temperature sensed by Arthur’s filter-associated temperature sensor as an input to an HVAC controller in the manner taught by Dage, in order to regulate the temperature of air supplied by the HVAC system.
Regarding claim 16, Kubokawa in view of Arthur discloses the reusable filter frame of claim 14, including an air humidity sensor as discussed above. Arthur expressly discloses monitoring humidity on the clean and dirty sides of the filter and identifies a temperature/humidity/pressure sensor. Dage discloses a humidity sensor providing humidity information to electronic controller 40, wherein the controller operates HVAC components based on sensed conditions. Dage further teaches that the HVAC system controls air temperature and, to a lesser extent, humidity, and that the evaporator is controlled to dehumidify air passing through the HVAC system (Figs. 1–2; col. 2, ll. 45–67; col. 3, ll. 1–31).
It would have been obvious to use the humidity information sensed by Arthur’s filter-associated humidity sensor as an input to an HVAC controller in the manner taught by Dage, in order to control the humidity of air processed by the HVAC system.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubokawa in view of Fox et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20150047507 A1, February 19, 2015 (hereinafter “Fox”).
Regarding claim 21, Kubokawa discloses the reusable filter frame of claim 5 and a replaceable filter element comprising filter media 10 having a plurality of pleats 12, wherein the filter element is retained and supported by the perimeter structure of the reusable frame (Figs. 1, 4, 6–8).
Fox further discloses pleated air-filter elements configured so that filters of like size and shape are nested/stacked together, with the pleated media reversibly compressing when the filters are nested and returning to their pleated configuration when separated (Figs. 3–4; paragraphs [0055]–[0058]).
It would have been obvious to configure Kubokawa's replaceable pleated filter element according to Fox's nestable pleat arrangement so that corresponding pleated patterns of multiple filter elements align during stacking, thereby reducing space required for packaging, transportation, and storage.
Regarding claim 24, Kubokawa discloses that the perimeter structure includes an inwardly extending edge portion providing a sealing surface for the side edges of the filter element, thereby preventing air from bypassing the filter element (col. 3, ll. 44–55). The edge portion may follow the pleated contour to provide a closer fit (Figs. 1, 4–5). Kubokawa further teaches that the cover engages the periphery of base to securely retain the filter element and prevent air from flowing around the filter element when the frame is closed (col. 4, ll. 20-24).
It would have been obvious for the edges of the nestable pleated filter element of Kubokawa as modified by Fox to engage Kubokawa's sealing surfaces when the frame is latched closed, thereby supporting the filter element and preventing air leakage around its edges.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubokawa in view of Corbett et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20190126183 A1, May 02, 2019 (hereinafter “Corbett”).
Regarding claim 22, Kubokawa discloses the reusable filter frame of claim 5, including a replaceable filter element retained within a closable filter frame. Kubokawa further discloses latches (42) for maintaining the frame in a closed condition. Corbett discloses an HVAC filter closure system in which one or more magnets (106) are positioned between a filter grille and inner frame to magnetically secure the grille in the closed position, including an embodiment in which the grille is hinged on one side and the magnet functions as the closure mechanism on the opposite side (Figs. 1–2, 5–8; paragraphs [0025]–[0028]). Corbett further discloses apertures/ports configured to accommodate and align with components of the closure system, including port (304) and aperture (204) aligned with a closure-related protrusion (Figs. 3, 7–8; paragraphs [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace Kubokawa’s mechanical latch with Corbett’s magnetic closure in order to provide a simple releasable closure that avoids latch failure, and to provide a corresponding cutout in the replaceable filter element where necessary to accommodate and align with the magnetic closure structure without interfering with closure of the frame
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights