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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/034141, filed on May 3, 2016.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 4, “the[[se]] side tabs.”
Claims 3 and 4 line 3, “[[this]]the opening”.
Claim 4 lines 2 and 6, respectively, replace the pronouns “them” and “its” with the antecedents that the pronouns represent for preciseness.
Claim 6 line 5, “the[[se]] openings”.
Claim 9 line 4, “the[[se]] side tabs”.
Claim 10 line 4, “[[this]]the opening”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Use of reference characters in the claims has no effect on the scope of the claims.
The structural limitations of claim 1 are interpreted as— the frame, at least one separator element, inflow and outflow openings, first and second covers, and the covers related to the frame and the pre-separator unit. The functional language includes the following: “for separating particles,” “for receiving at least one separator element,” “can be combined to form,” and “can be arranged.” Using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) prior art capable of performing the listed functions will be considered to read on the functional limitations. Similarly recited limitations found in claim 8 are also interpreted as indicated above. The phrase “can be combined to form a pre-separator unit after the openings are opened and can be arranged on the frame in the region of the inflow opening” recited in claims 1 and 8 is not interpreted as a positive recitation.
NOTE—Regarding claim 2, the phrases “formed by folding over two opposite sides” and “to form a pre-separator unit, these side tabs engage in marginal recesses in the other cover”; are product-by-process limitations and in claim 3, the phrases “is also connected to the relevant opening by some pieces after said relevant opening is opened” and “is the inflow opening”. These phrases are considered intended use/results. It is noted that apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the use claims are not proper process claims under 35 USC 101. A method step is not affirmatively recited in the claims. Instead, an intended use is recited in the preamble of claim 6— “intended for separating particles entrained in a raw gas flow.” Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and is also rejected. See MPEP § 2173.05(q)(I).
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 1-10 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 recites the limitation "the operationally ready state" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the operationally ready state" in line 4. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the operationally ready state" line 5. The limitation "operationally ready state" was not previously recited.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitation "the frame material" in lines 6 and 5, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "a frame material" was not previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the phrase "the frame material…acts as a first cover and a second cover" in lines 6-7. The phrase raises the question—is the frame material comprised of a first cover and a second cover? Unclear whether a first cover and a second cover exists before opening, after opening, or both since the limitation "the openings" appears to exist before opening. The scope of this claim language is unclear. Claim 8 recites the phrase in lines 6-7 and is also rejected using the previously provided rationale.
Claims 1 and 8 recite "the phrase the two covers…can be combined to form a pre-separator unit…after the openings…are opened and can be arranged on the frame…in the region of the inflow opening…" [emphasis added] at the end of the claims that does not clearly set forth the boundaries to be patentably protected in the claims. The phrase “can be combined to form …can be arranged…” recited in claims 1 and 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The claim language is imprecise.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the relevant opening" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation "a relevant opening" was not previously recited.
Claims 6 and 7 are indefinite because they appear to merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). MPEP 2173.05q.
Claim 6 and 7 recite the limitation "a separator device" in line 1. Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 1 that recites limitation "a separator device" in line 1. Is the limitation "a separator device" recited in claim 6 and 7 distinct from or the same as claim 1? A similar question is also raised for the limitations--"a raw gas flow," "at least one separator element," "two openings," "a pre-separator unit."
Claims 6 and 7 recite the limitation "frame material" in lines 1 and 2, respectively. It is unclear if the limitation "frame material" is the same as or distinct from the limitation "the frame material" in line 6 of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitations that have insufficient antecedent basis and were not previously recited. The limitations are: "the frame material," "the first cover," "the second cover," "the pre-separator unit," "the region," and "the inflow opening." The listed limitations were not previously recited.
Claims 8 and 9 are process/method claim without any recited process/method steps. Without process steps, the claims merely recite a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said cover" in line 3 and "a pre-separator unit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "said cover" in the claim. The limitation "a cover" was not previously recited. Regarding the limitation "a pre-separator unit" it is unclear if this limitation is the same as or distinct from the limitation "the pre-separator unit" recited in claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a pre-separator unit" in line 5, and it is unclear if this limitation is the same as or distinct from the limitation "the pre-separator unit" recited in claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitations that have insufficient antecedent basis and were not previously recited. The limitations are: "the cover," "the side tabs," "the relevant opening," "said relevant opening," "the surface," "the other cover," and "the opening." The listed limitations were not previously recited.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for depending from claim 1. Claims 9-10 are rejected for depending for claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu (CN 209985061 U).
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted above, Lu discloses a separator device for separating particles entrained in a raw gas flow (Figs. 1-5, 8-11) for receiving at least one separator element and two openings (box 3 comprises a filtering unit 31; Figs. 3-4, 6), an inflow opening and an outflow opening (inherent; Figs. 1-4), in the frame in the operationally ready state, characterized in that the frame material closing the openings before the openings are opened acts as a first cover and a second cover (“Fig. 9 and 10 are schematic structural views of the pre-filter baffle 21 and the pre-filter baffle 22 in example 2, respectively. The present example differs from example 1 in that: in this embodiment, the first ventilation holes 211 of the front filtering baffle 21 and the second ventilation holes 221 of the front filtering baffle 22 are in a central symmetrical pattern.”; Figs. 3, 7-11), and the two covers can be combined to form a pre-separator unit after the openings are opened and can be arranged on the frame in the region of the inflow opening (Fig. 11).
For claims 2 and 9, Lu further discloses wherein one of the two covers comprises side tabs formed by folding over two opposite sides (see middle section of Fig. 11), and wherein, when the covers are combined to form a pre-separator unit, these side tabs engage in marginal recesses in the other cover (Figs. 3-4, 7-11).
For claim 3, and similarly for claim 10, Lu further discloses wherein the cover comprising the side tabs is also connected to the relevant opening by some pieces (Figs. 3-4, 7-11) after said relevant opening is opened, and wherein this opening is the inflow opening (Figs. 3-4, 7-11). The phrase “after said relevant opening is opened” is an intended result/use. See MPEP § 2114. Further, regarding claim 10, Lu discloses the covers are combined to form a pre-separator unit, the cover remaining connected to the inflow opening by some pieces is pivoted outward from the surface having the inflow opening and wherein the other cover is completely detached from the opening, the outflow opening, and is combined with the cover to obtain the pre-separator unit (Figs. 3-4, 7-11).
For claim 4, Lu further discloses wherein the cover comprising the marginal recesses comprises them in a first edge and this cover comprises a second edge opposite this first edge (Figs. 3-4, 7-11), and wherein when the covers are combined to form a pre-separator unit, the cover comprising the marginal recesses is inserted into the inflow opening by its second edge (Figs. 3-4, 7-11).
For claim 5, Lu further discloses wherein one of the two covers comprises an elongate slot extending in parallel with the adjacent edge, in which slot a marginal, blade-like support portion on the other cover engages when the covers are combined to form a pre-separator unit (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 6, to advance prosecution on the merits, Lu is considered the closest prior art of record and discloses frame material of a separator device intended for separating particles entrained in a raw gas flow (Figs. 1-5, 8-11, see claim 1), which separator device comprises a frame for receiving at least one separator element and two openings in the frame in the operationally ready state (box 3 comprises a filtering unit 31; Figs. 3-4, 6), wherein the frame material closes the openings before these openings are opened, as covers of a separator device according to claim 1 which can be combined to form a pre-separator unit .
Regarding claim 7, to advance prosecution on the merits, Lu is considered the closest prior art of record and discloses a separator device (Figs. 1-5, 8-11, see claim 1) together with a pre-separator unit (Figs. 1-5, 8-11), combined therewith and made of frame material of the separator device (Fig. 11), for separating particles entrained in a raw gas flow.
Regarding claim 8, as interpreted above, Lu discloses a method for obtaining a pre-separator unit that can be used together with a separator device (Figs. 1-5, 8-11), wherein the separator device comprises a frame (box 3 comprises a filtering unit 31; Figs. 3-4, 6) for receiving at least one separator element and two openings (box 3 comprises a filtering unit 31; Figs. 3-4, 6), an inflow opening and an outflow opening (inherent; Fig. 1-4), in the frame in the operationally ready state, wherein the frame material closing the openings before the openings are opened (par [0028]; Fig. 5) acts as the first cover and the second cover (“Fig. 9 and 10 are schematic structural views of the pre-filter baffle 21 and the pre-filter baffle 22 in example 2, respectively. The present example differs from example 1 in that: in this embodiment, the first ventilation holes 211 of the front filtering baffle 21 and the second ventilation holes 221 of the front filtering baffle 22 are in a central symmetrical pattern.”; Figs. 3, 7-11), and wherein the two covers can be combined to obtain the pre-separator unit after the openings are opened and the pre-separator unit can be arranged on the frame in the region of the inflow opening (Fig. 11).
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Finley (US 20060236876 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted above, Finely discloses a separator device for separating particles entrained in a raw gas flow (Figs. 1, 2, 5; pars [0023]-[0028]), and comprising a frame (lower tray 20a of tray members 20; Fig. 5) for receiving at least one separator element and two openings (par [0023]; Fig. 5), an inflow opening and an outflow opening (pars [0023]-[0028]; Fig. 5), in the frame in the operationally ready state, characterized in that the frame material closing the openings before the openings are opened (par [0028]; Fig. 5) acts as a first cover and a second cover (pars [0016]-[0020]; Figs. 1, 2, 5), and the two covers can be combined to form a pre-separator unit after the openings are opened and can be arranged on the frame in the region of the inflow opening.
Regarding claim 7, to advance prosecution on the merits, Finley discloses a separator device (Figs. 1, 2, 5; pars [0023]-[0028], see claim 1 above) together with a pre-separator unit, combined therewith and made of frame material of the separator device (tray members 20; Fig. 5), for separating particles entrained in a raw gas flow.
Regarding claim 8, as interpreted above, Finley discloses a method for obtaining a pre-separator unit that can be used together with a separator device (Figs. 1, 2, 5; pars [0023]-[0028]), wherein the separator device comprises a frame (lower tray 20a of tray members 20) for receiving at least one separator element and two openings (par [0023]; Fig. 5), an inflow opening and an outflow opening (pars [0023]-[0028]; Fig. 5), in the frame in the operationally ready state, wherein the frame material closing the openings before the openings are opened (par [0028]; Fig. 5) acts as the first cover and the second cover (pars [0016]-[0020]; Figs. 1, 2, 5), and wherein the two covers can be combined to obtain the pre-separator unit after the openings are opened and the pre-separator unit can be arranged on the frame in the region of the inflow opening.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. Also, see the prior art examples provided below in response to this correspondence. Examples follow:
US 20160263506 A1: separation structure 1; opening elements/covers 8; box 5; frame 12; separator/cleaning module 10; flaps 11; Figs. 1a-h, 2a-h, 3a-c, 4a-b, 5a-e.
US 20210291098 A1: filter module 100 comprises a three-dimensional filter structure body 10 through which the raw gas stream can be conducted, and an outer frame 110 for receiving the filter structure body 10.
US 20090183477 A1: grid 322; holds 326; fold segments 344; support tabs 370.
US 7537632 B2: grill portion 20; holes 40; panel filter frame 14; filter media 12; interlocking structure includes apertures 286 in opposite flap portions 232, 236 and corresponding foldable tabs 284; Figs. 9-12.
US 8834592 B1: Figs. 6A-C, 8A-B.
EP 2532409 A1: Figs. 1-3; filter module 10; filters 14; frame 12; tabs/rivets 28.
DE 102014003608 A1: Figs. 1-2; filter housing 1; filter body 2; filter units 3-6.
DE 102015112113 A1: Figs.1-5; filter module 10; filter structure body 12; support structure 14 segments 18 (U-profiles or V-profiles); connection area 34, 35; folded-out distance/stiffening elements 28, 30, 32; opening 64; side opening 62 ;frame 60; closure parts 68; inside 66; filter layer 50.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571) 272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (EST).
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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 August 19, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights