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 § 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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 is indefinite because the limitation of “each of left end component, center component and right end component has a length and height that respectively have values that are within 10% of length and height values of another one of the multiple components, therein facilitating stacking of the components for transport when disengaged” because the components shown in the published drawing show almost identical dimension for the multiple components. It is therefore unclear if the applicant meant to say the dimension difference of each multiple components are within 10% of a second component of the multiple components has a length that is only 10% of a first component of the multiple components. Please clarify.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets this term consistent with what is shown in applicant’s Figure, i.e., where dimension difference is within 10%.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–2, 4–7, 9 and 12–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong, KR 20190023507 A (“Jeong”) in view of Barry et al., US 2019/0262754 A1 (“Barry”).
Regarding claim 1:
Jeong discloses an apparatus (as shown in Jeong’s Fig. 1, Jeong Fig. 1) comprising:
a filter frame (Jeong’s front frame 10, and rear frame 20, Jeong Fig. 2, [0040]) having an outer perimeter (where label 10, 20 points in Fig. 2 of Jeong) and configured to hold at least one filter (Jeong’s filter 30, Jeong Fig. 2, [0040]) within the outer perimeter; and
a fastener (Jeong’s clamp 40, Jeong Fig. 2, [0040]) configured to selectively couple and decouple the filter frame (10, 20 of Jeong) to an air passageway (Jeong’s casing 110, Jeong Fig. 1, [0010]) of an air movement component (Jeong’s air vent damper as shown in Jeong Fig. 1, [0034]), and to seal the outer perimeter around an opening in the air passageway (Jeong discloses an opening on the air vent damper, Jeong Fig. 1, [0055]) via which air may flow by engaging with the air passageway to apply a force to the filter frame in a direction toward the air movement component (Jeong discloses its clamp 40 is configured to mount the rear frame 20 to the air vent damper by fitting into the louver of air vent and establish a seal between the air vent damper and rear frame, Jeong Figs. 1 and 2, [0025] and [0028]), therein forming a sealed air flow channel (formed by interior of Jeong’s front and rear frame 10, 20 and occupied by Jeong’s filter 30, Jeong Fig. 4) through the filter frame (10, 20 of Jeong) and the at least one filter (30 of Jeong) held within the outer perimeter.
Jeong does not disclose the filter frame having separate components including a left end component, a center component and a right end component having slideably engageable features that form a portion of an outer perimeter of the filter frame when the respective left end and right end components are engaged with the center component on opposite ends thereof in a linear arrangement.
In the analogous art of air filter frames, Barry discloses a filter frame (600, Barry Fig. 6B, [0196]) including a left end component (proximate label 600 in Barry Fig. 6B), a center component (Barry’s part 602, Fig. 6B, [0196]) and a right end component (pointed by label 606 in Barry Fig. 6B, [0196]) having slideably engageable features that form a portion of an outer perimeter of the filter frame (as shown in Fig. 6B, and Barry discloses its frame segment could slide along, Barry [0192]) when the respective left end and right end components are engaged with the center component on opposite ends thereof in a linear arrangement (as shown in Fig. 6B). Barry discloses its design allow the filter frame to be precisely dimensioned for filter media, and also allows for a perfect fit, with well-sealed edges, without any deformation of the replacement of the filter, Barry [0003]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Jeong’s outer frame to look like Barry’s frame structure 600 for the benefits disclosed.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Jeong discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the slideably engageable features are located at a portion of the outer perimeter that is configured to be sealed around the opening when the fastener is engaged (with the proposed modification in claim 1, Barry’s frame 600 would replace Jeong’s outer frame 10 and 20, which is configured to be sealed around the opening when the fastener 40 of Jeong is engaged via packing 50 of Jeong, Jeong Fig. 2, [0055]).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Jeong discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the left end, center, and right end components each have structural aspects configured to hold a filter within the outer perimeter (left end, center and right end components of Barry’s frame 600 each have structural aspects that are capable of holding a filter within the outer perimeter, Barry Fig. 6B, [0196]).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Jeong discloses that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the fastener (40 of Jeong) is configured to selectively couple and decouple the filter frame (10, 20 of Jeong) to the air passageway (Jeong’s casing 110) by engaging with louvers in the opening in an air passageway (Jeong discloses its clamp 40 is fit into the louver of the air vent damper, Jeong [0054]) and utilizing the louvers to apply the force to seal the perimeter around the opening (Jeong discloses its clamp 40 is fit into the louver of the air vent damper, and packing 50 is hermetically sealed between rear frame 20 and air vent damper of the vehicle when attached, Jeong [0054] and [0055], which means the connection between clamp 40 and louver applied a force to seal).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Jeong discloses that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the fastener (40 of Jeong) is configured to selectively couple and decouple the filter frame (10, 20 of Jeong) to the air passageway (opening of Jeong’s air vent damper) by engaging with louvers in the opening in an air passageway of an HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) unit (Jeong discloses its clamp 40 is fit into the louver of the air vent damper, Jeong [0054], Jeong’s air vent damper is an essential part of vehicle HVAC system), including sealing the outer perimeter around an air outlet of the HVAC unit to form the sealed air flow channel (Jeong discloses its packing 50 forms a hermetical seal between rear frame 20 and opening of air vent damper, Jeong [0054], and Jeong’s packing is shown surrounding outer perimeter of Jeong’s apparatus, Jeong Fig. 3, [0055]–[0056]), and filtering air expelled by the HVAC unit via the sealed air flow channel (intended use, and air is capable to flow through the sealed air flow channel in both directions).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Jeong discloses that the outer perimeter of the frame is sealed around the opening in the air passageway (Jeong discloses its packing 50 forms a hermetical seal between rear frame 20 and opening of air vent damper, Jeong [0054], and Jeong’s packing is shown surrounding outer perimeter of Jeong’s apparatus, Jeong Fig. 3).
Modified Jeong does not disclose that the apparatus of claim 1, further including a cover that includes the filter frame, the cover being configured to conform over an underlying cover of the air movement component with the outer perimeter of the frame lying within an outer perimeter of the cover.
However, Barry discloses in an alternative embodiment, where a cover includes the filter frame, and the cover, Barry Fig. 14, [0204]. Barry discloses the cover serves as a grate to support the filter media element and present aesthetic purposes, Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Barry’s cover in modified Jeong for the purpose of providing a grate to support the filter media. With such modification, the cover of Barry in modified Jeong would conform over an underlying cover (Jeong’s lovers 150, Jeong Fig. 1) of the air movement component with the outer perimeter of the frame lying within an outer perimeter of the cover (the same way as Barry’s outer perimeter of the frame lying within outer perimeter of the cover as shown in Barry Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Jeong discloses that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the slideably engageable features of at least one of the components includes a channel (Barry’s L-channel 90-degree bend corner pieces 606 comprises an L-channel, Barry Fig. 6B, [0196]) and wherein the slideably engageable features of at least another one of the multiple components includes a protrusion (Barry’s L-channel segment 602 is a protrusion, Barry Fig. 6B, [0196]) configured to slide within the channel to engage the respective components with one another at the outer perimeter (as shown in Barry Fig. 6B, [0196]).
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Jeong does not explicitly disclose that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
each of the left end component, center component and right end component has a length and height that respectively have values that are within 10% of length and height values of another one of the multiple components, therein facilitating stacking of the components for transport when disengaged.
However, Jeong’s Fig. 6A shows a configuration where parts 606 and 602 has the same height values and similar length size, Jeong Fig. 6A. Additionally, Jeong discloses a motivation of reducing dimensions for shipping and storage, Jeong Fig. 6, [0205]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Jeong’s left end component, center component and right end component has a length and height that respectively have values that are within 10% of length and height values of another one of the multiple components, therein facilitating stacking of the components for transport when disengaged.
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Jeong discloses that the apparatus of claim 1, further including the at least one filter (Jeong’s filter 2, Jeong Fig. 2, [0056]), the at least one filter (30 of Jeong) being configured to filter air flowing through the sealed air flow channel (Jeong Fig. 2, [0056]).
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Jeong discloses that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the filter frame (10, 20 of Jeong) is configured to hold first and second filters (30 of Jeong) within the outer perimeter at respective portions of the filter frame (as shown in Jeong Fig. 2, [0051]),
the first filter being configured to filter air flowing into the air movement component and the second filter being configured to filter air flowing out of the air movement component (intended use, and the first filter and second filter are capable of allowing air to flow both into and out of the air movement components depends on the air flow direction).
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Jeong discloses that the apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the at least one filter includes first and second filters (Jeong’s top and bottom filter 30 as shown in Fig. 2); and the filter frame (10, 20 of Jeong) includes first and second regions (above and below Jeong’s cross frames 12, 22, Jeong Fig. 2) in which:
the first region holds the first filter and is configured to form a seal around a first opening in the air passageway via which air flows into the air movement component (portion of packing 50 around top filter 30, Jeong Fig. 2), therein forcing air flowing into the air movement component to pass through the first filter (air flow direction is not part of the claimed apparatus, and is considered intended use, and Jeong’s first opening is capable of allowing air to flow in both directions),
and the second region holds the second filter and is configured to form a seal around a second opening in the air passageway via which air is expelled from the air movement component (portion of packing 50 around top filter 30, Jeong Fig. 2), therein forcing air expelled from air movement component to pass through the second filter (air flow direction is not part of the claimed apparatus, and is considered intended use, and Jeong’s first opening is capable of allowing air to flow in both directions).
Claims 10–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Barry as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Weisbach et al., US 2018/0221802 A1 (“Weisbach”).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Jeong does not disclose that the apparatus of claim 9, wherein: one of the protrusion and the channel includes a tab; and the other one of the protrusion and the channel includes an opening, the opening and tab being configured to lock the protrusion into the channel when the respective components are engaged with one another, by depressing as the protrusion is slid into the channel and by extending into the opening and locking the components together when the respective components are fully engage.
In the analogous art of adjustable filter frames comprising slidable frame members, Weisbach discloses a slidable frame 403 and 404, where 404 is a channel and 403 is a protrusion, Weisbach Fig. 24, [0077]–[0078]. Weisbach discloses one of the protrusion and the channel includes a tab (Weisbach’s half tangs 62 located on parts 403); and the other one of the protrusion and the channel includes an opening (part 72 of Weisbach includes an opening, Weisbach Fig. 24, [0078]), the opening and tab being configured to lock the protrusion into the channel when the respective components are engaged with one another, by depressing as the protrusion is slid into the channel and by extending into the opening and locking the components together when the respective components are fully engage (Weisbach Fig. 24 [0078]). Weisbach discloses such structures serve to maintain the engagement. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Jeong to use Weisbach’s feature to maintain engagement of its frame structure.
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Jeong discloses that the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the tab is configured to unlock the components from one another for disengagement in response to pressure applied thereto and sliding of the protrusion out of the channel (see Weisbach Fig. 24, [0049] and [0076]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 12 remains rejected because of the reasons stated above. Please clarify in writing what the claim should be interpreted because what is claimed seems teaching away from what is shown.
Per the applicant’s request, a phone call is made to Eric J. Curtin on Sep. 17, 2026. Details are provided in the Interview Summary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding Boschert or Porterfield is moot because the current rejection does not rely on Boschert or Porterfield.
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