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 Invention I, claims 1–15 in the reply filed on July 07, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1–15 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:
1. A filter module for a fume extraction system or air purifier comprising:
a first frame member, the first frame member being annular and defining a first opening;
a second frame member;
a first conduit member defining an air inlet configured to be connected to an air source;
a second conduit member defining an air outlet configured to outlet air;
at least a first filter and a second filter; and
a mechanism;
wherein at least the first annular frame, the first conduit member and the second conduit member define a passage including the first opening for insertion and removal of the first filter and the second filter to reach an aligned position in which at least the first filter and the second filter are in series relative to an airflow direction and form an air conduit with the first conduit member and the second conduit member;
wherein the mechanism releasably maintains at least the first filter and the second filter between the first conduit member and the second conduit member. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what element (the passage or the first opening) is “for insertion and removal of the first filter and the second filter.” For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 1 is interpreted such that the passage is “for insertion and removal of the first filter and the second filter.”
Claims 2–15 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
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 1–5 and 9–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shagott et al., US 5,593,470.
Regarding claim 1, Shagott teaches a filtration unit 10, which reads on the claimed “filter module for a fume extraction system or air purifier.” See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 3, l. 66–col. 4, l. 14. The filtration unit 10 comprises:
An inlet module 14, which reads on the “first frame member.” See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 15–31.
The inlet module 14 is “annular,” as claimed, because it has a continuous surface that contacts annular gasket 40. See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 47–54.
The inlet module 14 defines a “first opening,” as claimed, which is the opening formed in the interior of the inlet module 14 that communicates with filter modules 36, 44. See Shagott Fig. 1, 47–67.
Fan modules 50, 52, which collectively read on the “second frame member.” See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 1–6.
A duct inlet 16, which reads on the claimed “first conduit member defining an air inlet configured to be connected to an air source.” See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 8–14.
An exhaust port (not shown), which reads on the “second conduit member defining an air outlet configured to outlet air.” See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 41–48.
A bag filter module 36, which reads on the “first filter” and a HEPA filter module 44, which reads on the “second filter.” See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 55–57.
Cam locks 12, which collectively read on the “mechanism.” See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 1–14.
The inlet module 14, duct inlet 16, exhaust port, define a “passage,” as claimed, which is the passage extending from the inlet duct 16 to the exhaust port. See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 4, l. 32–col. 5, l. 48. The passage includes the “first opening,” as claimed, because air moves through the opening formed in the interior of the inlet module 14 before moving through the filter modules 36, 44 toward the exhaust port. Id. The passage is for insertion and removal of the filter modules 36, 44 to reach an aligned position in which at least the bag filter module 36 and HEPA filter module 44 are in series relative to an airflow direction, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1 where the filter modules 36, 44 can be inserted into the filtration unit 10 with the filter units 36, 44 being in series, and with the filter modules 36, 44 being removable from the filtration unit 10 (by disengaging cam locks 12). Id. This configuration forms an “air conduit” with the duct inlet 16 and the exhaust port, as claimed, which is the structure that allows air to flow from the duct inlet 16 through the filter modules 36, 44 to the exhaust port. Id.
The cam locks 12 releasably maintain the filter modules 36, 44 in a location between the duct inlet 16 and the exhaust port, as claimed, when the cam locks 12 are engaged to hold the filtration unit 10 together in the configuration seen in Fig. 2. See Shagott Fig. 2, col. 3, l. 66–col. 4, l. 14.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shagott teaches that the “second frame member” formed by fan modules 50, 52 is “annular,” as claimed, because it has a continuous surface comprising gasket 45. See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 1–6. The second frame member 50, 52 defines a “second opening,” as claimed, which is the opening formed in the interior of the fan modules 50, 52 communicating with filter modules 36, 44. Id.
Regarding claim 3, Shagott teaches that the “passage” includes the second opening, as claimed, because the passage extends from the inlet duct 16 to the exhaust port, with the exhaust port expelling air form the interior of the fan modules 50, 52. See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 41–48.
Regarding claim 4, Shagott teaches that the duct inlet 16 (the “first conduit member”) includes duct connector 18, which reads on the claimed “first plenum portion.” See Shagott Fig. 4, col. 4, ll. 10–14.
Regarding claim 5, Shagott teaches that the exhaust port (the “second conduit member”) includes a “second plenum portion,” which is the outlet structure of either blower 56 leading to the exhaust port. See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 45–48.
Regarding claim 9, Shagott teaches that the “second frame member” (formed by the fan modules 50, 52) is expandable to expand the size of the “second opening,” as claimed, because the height of the second frame member (50, 52) could be increased by detaching the cam locks 12 that hold the two fan modules 50, 52 together to add an additional fan module. See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 1–6; MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
Regarding claims 10–13, Shagott teaches that the filtration unit 10 further comprises a “frame plate,” which is the plate of HEPA filter module 44 holding gasket 46. See Shagott Fig. 1, col 4, ll. 55–62. The frame plate is supported by the inlet module 14 and the “second frame member” (fan modules 50, 52), as claimed, when modules are attached to each other as seen in Fig. 2, at least because the inlet module and second fame member (50, 52) hold up the HEPA filter module 44 so it is supported by the castors 17 (claim 10). The “passage” includes the frame plate, as claimed, because air moves through the space formed by the plate holding gasket 46 while moving from inlet 16 to the exhaust port (claim 11). The frame plate includes a “stopper” to delimit the aligned position, as claimed, which is the gasket 46 and the bottom lip extending from the bottom of the plate holding gasket 46, as seen in Fig. 1. (claim 12). Id. The stopper includes a “bent portion of the frame plate,” which is the bottom lip extending from the bottom of the plate holding gasket 46, as seen in Fig. 1 (claim 13).
PNG
media_image2.png
633
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shagott et al., US 5,593,470 in view of Grant et al., US 2007/0084339 A1.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Shagott teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Shagott differs from claims 6 and 7 because it is silent as to the duct inlet 16 (including the “air inlet”) or the exhaust port (including the “air outlet”) are spigots, as claimed.
But Grant teaches an air filtration system comprising an inlet and an outlet where the inlet and outlet each comprise a valve to open or close the respective inlet or outlet when necessary, to control airflow into the filtration system. See Grant Fig. 1, [0012]. It would have been obvious for both the duct inlet 16 and the exhaust port of Shagott to include a valve to allow for control of airflow into and out of the filtration unit 10. With this modification, the air inlet of the duct inlet 16 and the air outlet of the exhaust port would each be a “spigot” as claimed because of the valves.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shagott et al., US 5,593,470.
Regarding claim 8, Shagott teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Shagott differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the inlet module 14 (the “first frame member”) being expandable to expand the size of the first opening.
But Shagott suggests that the height of the filtration unit 10 can be increased by adding an additional fan module onto the two fan modules 50, 52 illustrated in Fig. 1 because the fan modules 50, 52 are removably attached to each other with cam locks 12, with the reference saying that additional blowers 56 can be included with the air filtration unit. See Shagott Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 1–10. It would have been obvious for the height of the inlet module 14 to be adjustable to enable accommodating the height of an additional fan module, with this merely representing making separable an otherwise integrated component. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection V, C. With this modification, the inlet module 14 is expandable to expand the size of the first opening, as claimed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shagott et al., US 5,593,470 in view of Stoneham et al., US 2022/0339572 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Shagott teaches that the “mechanism” includes cam locks 12 that are located between in the area between the filter modules 36, 44 (the “first frame member and/or the second fame member”) and the inlet duct 16 and exhaust port (the “first conduit member and/or the second conduit member”), as seen in Fig. 1.
Shagott differs from claim 14 because it is silent as to the cam locks 12 being toggle clamps. But the purpose of the cam locks 12 is to attach the various modules to each other. With this in mind, Stoneham teaches a filter housing comprising a lid 26 that is attached to a container 28 using various clamp mechanisms, including toggle clamps 90. See Stoneham Fig. 1, [0048]. It would have bene obvious to use the toggle clamps of Stoneham as the cam locks 12 of Shagott because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shagott et al., US 5,593,470 in view of Ellis et al., US 4,968,333.
Regarding claim 15, Shagott teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Shagott differs from claim 15 because it is silent as to the filtration unit 10 being passive, as it contains fan blowers 56.
But Ellis teaches a filtration system comprising a filter unit 11 and a separate structure 12 that holds a blower for moving air through the filter unit 11, with the filter unit 11 and the structure 12 being connected by a hose 26. See Ellis Figs. 1, 2, col. 2, l. 48–col. 3, l. 8.
PNG
media_image3.png
760
545
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the “second frame member” (50, 52) of Shagott to be a box-structure without the blowers 56, and for the blowers 56 to be located in a separate structure (connected to the filtration unit 10 with a hose) because this would represent obvious separation of parts, in view of Ellis which shows two separate structures (one 11 for housing filters and another 12 for housing a blower). See MPEP 2144.04, subsection V, D.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hauvill, US 2005/0184005 A1 (modular filtration assembly); Senkbeil, Jr. US 2024/0068681 A1 (modular air filtration housing); Zong et al., US 2024/0035156 A1 (exhaust gas filtering apparatus); Cusack et al., US 2023/0390684 A1 (modular filtration system); Coomes, US 11,603,865 B1 (air filter system with connectable parts); Chattell, US 2021/0121814 A1 (dust extraction unit); Cheng, US 2021/0101102 A1 (air cleaner with parts attachable by fastening units 50); Jeong et al., US 2020/0298161 A1 (modular air purifier); Risbjerg Jarlkov et al., US 2020/0094210 A1 (modular particle separation unit); Mann et al., US 2013/0097979 A1 (filter clamping system); Sundet, US 7,393,272 B2 (air filter assembly); Adiletta, US 2002/0141910 A1 (exhaust filter system); Vodo et al., US 2002/0007735 A1 (fan filter); Zboralski et al., US 4,269,615 (filter assembly); .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights