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 § 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 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seyboth US 2021/0291098 (hereafter Seyboth).
Regarding claim 1, Seyboth teaches a filter (100) for a spray coating system (where the filter is fully capable of being used for a spray coating system in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g); ¶77, ¶204), comprising:
a housing (110) with an inlet opening (112) and an outlet opening (clean gas side opening of ¶119); and
a flat filter medium (12) folded in a zigzag-shaped manner received in the housing (as shown in Fig 6),
wherein the filter medium is spaced apart from the inlet opening for flow homogenization (as shown in Fig 6), with at least one collecting volume (volume of 47) being formed.
Regarding claim 2, Seyboth teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Seyboth further teaches wherein the filter medium is held in the housing in a form-fitting and/or force-fitting manner (as shown in Fig 6).
Regarding claim 3, Seyboth teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Seyboth further teaches wherein support elements are arranged in the housing, and wherein the filter medium abuts against the support elements at least in sections (as shown in Figs 2-10).
Regarding claim 4, Seyboth teaches all the limitations of claim 3. Seyboth further teaches wherein first support elements (46, 47) of the support elements are assigned to the collecting volume.
Regarding claim 5, Seyboth teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Seyboth further teaches wherein shoulders (50) on which the filter medium is supported are formed from the first support elements.
Regarding claim 6, Seyboth teaches all the limitations of claim 3. Seyboth further teaches wherein second support elements (72) of the support elements are assigned to the outlet opening.
Regarding claim 7, Seyboth teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Seyboth further teaches wherein the filter medium interlocks in sections with the second support elements (as shown in Fig 6, where elements 72 interlocks with layer 14).
Regarding claim 8, Seyboth teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Seyboth further teaches wherein edges of the filter medium that are assigned to the outlet opening are formed such that undercuts (30 of 14) are produced on a side of the edges which faces the inlet opening.
Regarding claim 9, Seyboth teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Seyboth further teaches wherein the edges (¶161).
Regarding claim 10, Seyboth teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Seyboth further teaches wherein the filter medium comprises at least one layer of non woven material (¶27-28, ¶146, ¶173).
Regarding claim 11, Seyboth teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Seyboth further teaches wherein the housing and/or the support elements are formed from cardboard (¶17, ¶72-76).
Regarding claim 13, Seyboth teaches the filter according to claim 1.
Seyboth further teaches a filter arrangement for a spray coating system (¶77, ¶204), comprising a first filter stage (200) facing a spray mist and a second filter stage (100; see claim 1 rejection above) downstream of the first filter stage.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seyboth as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Seyboth teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Seyboth does not teach wherein the at least one collecting volume extends over at least ¼ of the depth and the folded filter medium over at most ¾ of the depth of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one collecting volume (volume in 47) of Seyboth such that wherein the at least one collecting volume extends over at least ¼ of the depth and the folded filter medium over at most ¾ of the depth of the housing as a matter of obvious change in size/proportion (MPEP 2144.04 IV A) and in order to provide deep corrugations to increase the filter surface area and to provide a sufficiently deep outflow surface.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allen et al. US 2,936,855 (hereafter Allen).
Regarding claim 1, Allen teaches a filter (Figs 1-3) for a spray coating system (where the filter is fully capable of being used for a spray coating system in accordance with MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)), comprising:
a housing (12, 14 at top and bottom of filter as shown in Figs 1, 3) with an inlet opening (left side in Fig 2 with feature 18) and an outlet opening (right side in Fig 2 with feature 16); and
a flat filter medium (20) folded in a zigzag-shaped manner received in the housing (as shown in Fig 2),
wherein the filter medium is spaced apart from the inlet opening for flow homogenization (as shown in Figs 1-2), with at least one collecting volume (volume in 18) being formed.
Regarding claim 2, Allen teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Allen further teaches wherein the filter medium is held in the housing in a form-fitting and/or force-fitting manner (as shown in Figs 1-3).
Regarding claims 3-6, Allen teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Allen further teaches wherein wherein support elements (labeled below; elements between folds of filter 20) are arranged in the housing, and wherein the filter medium abuts against the support elements at least in sections (as shown in Fig 2); wherein first support elements (labeled below; elements between folds of filter 20 on the inlet side) of the support elements are assigned to the collecting volume; wherein shoulders (labeled below; section of first support elements which constrict to accommodate bumps 50) on which the filter medium is supported are formed from the first support elements; wherein second support elements of the support elements are assigned to the outlet opening.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Shoulders)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second support elements)][AltContent: textbox (First support elements)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Allen teaches all the limitations of claim 6. Allen further teaches wherein the filter medium interlocks in sections with the second support elements (interlock with dimples 52).
Regarding claim 8, Allen teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Allen further teaches wherein edges of the filter medium that are assigned to the outlet opening are formed such that undercuts (52, 48) are produced on a side of the edges which faces the inlet opening.
Regarding claim 9, Allen teaches all the limitations of claim 8. Allen further teaches wherein the edges assigned to the outlet opening are rounded (52, 48).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakayama et al. US 5,674,302 (hereafter Nakayama).
Regarding claim 10, Allen teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Allen further teaches wherein the filter medium comprises at least one layer of suitable filter material (col 1 lines 65-72).
Allen does not teach wherein the filter medium comprises at least one layer of non woven material.
Nakayama teaches a filter medium comprising at least one layer of non woven material in order to filter the gas and allow for multilayered, variable density construction (col 3 line 54 – col 4 line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suitable filter material (col 1 lines 65-72) of Allen by using the filter medium comprising at least one layer of non woven material (col 3 line 54 – col 4 line 9) of Nakayama as an matter of obvious selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP 2144.07) and in order to filter the gas and allow for multilayered, variable density construction (col 3 line 54 – col 4 line 9).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Seyboth US 2021/0291098 (hereafter Seyboth).
Regarding claim 11, Allen teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Allen does not teach wherein the housing and/or the support elements are formed from cardboard.
Seyboth teaches a filter structure (abstract) wherein the housing and/or the support elements are formed from cardboard in order to be low cost and available worldwide requiring small amounts of raw material and suitable for filtering gas (¶17, ¶72-76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing (12, 14) and/or the support elements (labeled above) of Allen to be formed of cardboard (¶17, ¶72-76) of Seyboth in order to be low cost and available worldwide requiring small amounts of raw material and suitable for filtering gas (¶17, ¶72-76).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Allen teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Allen does not teach wherein the at least one collecting volume extends over at least ¼ of the depth and the folded filter medium over at most ¾ of the depth of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one collecting volume (volume in 18) of Allen such that wherein the at least one collecting volume extends over at least ¼ of the depth and the folded filter medium over at most ¾ of the depth of the housing as a matter of obvious change in size/proportion (MPEP 2144.04 IV A) and in order to provide a ridged screen and/or reduce pressure loss through the filter material.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seyboth US 2021/0291098 (hereafter Seyboth).
Regarding claim 13, Allen teaches the filter according to claim 1.
Allen does not teach a filter arrangement for a spray coating system, comprising a first filter stage facing a spray mist and a second filter stage downstream of the first filter stage, wherein the second filter stage is the filter according to claim 1.
Seyboth teaches a filter arrangement for a spray coating system (¶77, ¶204), comprising a first filter stage (200) facing a spray mist and a second filter stage (100) downstream of the first filter stage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first filter stage (Figs 1-3) of Allen by using the first stage as the first stage (100) in the a filter arrangement for a spray coating system (¶77, ¶204) of Seyboth in order to separate spray (¶77, ¶204).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights