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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of February 5, 2025 which amended the abstract, provided a substitute specification, amended claims 1-20,and added new claims 21-23.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the multiple rows of filters as set forth in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 after “filtering partition” “each” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 “identifying” should be “defining”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 “identifying” should be “defining”. 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 1-23 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.
It is noted that the instant case appears to be a translation from a foreign language. Examples of unclear language are presented below but the applicant is encouraged to review the claims for clarity.
The claims are vague and indefinite because in claim 1, at line 7, the tubular filtering partitions are said to be “radially crossable during filtering”. This is confusing because it is unclear which reference frame is intended for judging “radially”. It is noted that “radially” could mean relative to a central or longitudinal axis of the “tubular filtering partitions” or a could be a reference to one of the three earlier claimed axis. For purposes of examination it will be assumed that radially is relative to a longitudinal axis of the filtering partition.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because in line 11 the flat plate body is said to extend “with respect to an imaginary plane”. It is unclear what structural limitation is intended to be placed upon the claim. Specifically it is unclear if a particular face of the plate body must extend along the imaginary development plane, if a major/longer side or dimension is required to be coincident with the imaginary plane (S) (such as the average height dimension as shown in the annotated Fig. 3A below), if the plate body must only have a thickness in that imaginary plane (such as a plane parallel S’ to the minimum width as shown in annotated Fig. 3A) or something else.
PNG
media_image1.png
377
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is vague an indefinite because it sets forth that the abutment elements are longitudinally spaced (clearly a reference to the longitudinal axis of line 4) apart from the wall and “mutually axially spaced apart”. It is unclear which axis is being referred to here and for purposes of examination it will be assumed that being spaced apart along the second axis is intended.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite because in lines 24-27 it sets forth “wherein the at least one sealing profile and/or the at least two abutment profiles are shaped or are mutually positioned with respect to the imaginary development plane having vertical variable distance therefrom, measured in a direction orthogonal to the insertion direction, along said insertion direction”. It is unclear how the elements are intended to be “shaped or mutually positioned” relative to the insertion direction. It is noted that any element/profile having a shape (which is all elements/profiles) would have this shape relative to a direction (such as the insertion direction) and any element/profile which is positioned or located at a would have such a location relative to any plane. The claim is vague and indefinite because it seems to be setting forth that the claim limitations have relationships relative to one another without setting forth what those specific relationships are. It is noted that any two elements will have a relationship spatially. With respect to the limitation “measured in a direction orthogonal to the insertion direction, along said insertion direction” it is unclear if a variability was intended to be set forth or not in the spacing along the insertion direction. The limitation “vertical variable distance” is also confusing since it is unclear if there is one particular distance and the distance may be varied or if there are a collections of distances having different values. The material of lines 28-32 is similarly confusing and it is additionally noted that in lines 28 and 29 the reference to “the at least one sealing profile and/or the at least two abutment profiles are shaped or are mutually positioned” is a reference the same limitations of lines 21 and 22 or a different group or set of the at least one sealing profile and/or the at least two abutment profiles are shaped or are mutually positioned.
Lastly, with regards to claim 1, in lines 34 and 35, it is unclear how the “configuration of the plate group accommodated in the housing region” is intended to further limit the recitation that “the plate group is accommodated in said housing region” in lines 21 and 22. It is unclear if a portion of the plate group is being referenced or if the claim is making reference to a time “when the plate group is” accommodated or loaded into the housing region. Claim 2 is similarly confusing for the recitation in lines 3 and 4.
Claim 6 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the material after “in particular…” is intended to further limit the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is vague and indefinite because in line 2 it is unclear if the “same row” of line 2 is an additional different row or part of the extension row already defined in claim 6.
Claims 8-12 are rejected for similar reasons that will be described with regards to claims 8 and 9. Claim 8 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if all the points in the continuous plane are part of the first face or part of the imaginary/planar plane. It is also unclear how the “containing all the points…” limitation is intended to further define the claimed invention since the limitation is merely set forth as extending with respect to the other planes. Lastly, in line 2 it is unclear how “with respect to” is intended to further limit the claim. Is this intended to be parallel, orthogonal, merely angled or intersecting? Claim 9 is similarly vague and indefinite since it is unclear how breaking up an imaginary plane into multiple planes would further define the first face that merely is described as extending “with respect to the imaginary plane”. Claims 8-12 all try to limit the first or second faces by describing different features of imaginary planes that the first face “extends with respect to”. These descriptions do not seem to limit the first and second faces since the faces only need to extend with respect to the imaginary planes or the features of the imaginary planes as set forth.
Claim 13 is vague and indefinite because in lines 3 and 4 it is unclear what is meant by “the second face is engaged by a thrust action”. It is noted the “engaged by” suggest a physical contact while “thrust action” suggest a movement or action. It is unclear how the face can be engaged by an action or movement. Claim 14 is similarly confusing in lines 3-5.
Claims not specifically mentioned are indefinite since they depend from one of the above claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither discloses nor makes obvious an air filtration assembly as understood to be claimed comprising: a box comprising a wall extending along a first axis and a second axis and comprising at least one outflow mouth through which air flows, wherein the box further comprises a longitudinal axis incident to the first axis and the second axis; and a filtering cartridge comprising: at least two tubular filtering partitions radially crossable during filtration; and a plate group comprising a plate body to which the at least two tubular filtering partitions are operatively connected, wherein the plate body extends with respect to an imaginary development plane and, on opposite sides of said imaginary development plane, comprises a first face comprising at least one sealing profile and a second face comprising at least two abutment profiles, wherein the plate body comprises at least one outflow opening suitable for putting the at least two tubular filtering partitions in fluid communication with the at least one outflow mouth; wherein the filtering cartridge is insertable into the box along an insertion direction substantially parallel to the first axis or the second axis; wherein the box further comprises a housing region between the wall and at least two abutment elements longitudinally spaced apart from the wall and mutually axially spaced apart, wherein the pIate group is accommodated in said housing region with the first face sealingly engaged with the wall and the second face engaged by the at least two abutment elements; and wherein the plate body is a single component made of an elastically yielding material and wherein in a configuration of the plate group accommodated in the housing region, the flat plate body is subjected to a volume compression.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Girondi ‘689 & ‘960, Dewit et al, Schrage et al and Huttlin disclose filter assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
February 18, 2026