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 § 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 10, 13, 23–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Barry et al., US 2019/0262754 A1 (“Barry”) in view of Epli et al., US 2016/0263514 A1 (“Epli”).
Regarding claim 10:
Barry discloses that a method of manufacturing and shipping a disposable air filter media (Barry’s method of making filter media element 1010, Barry Fig. 10, [0200]), comprising:
attaching one parallel edge of a first filter strip (where label 1010 points in Fig. 10A of Barry) to a parallel edge of a second filter strip (the other filter strip in Barry’s Fig. 10A) to form two parallel widthwise outer edges and two parallel lengthwise outer edges to define the air filter media (as shown in Fig. 10A of Barry, the two strips forms a square shape, and two read on the claimed widthwise outer edges and the other two reads on the lengthwise outer edges, Barry Fig. 10A, [0200]); and
forming a folding crease (shown in Fig. 10A of Barry) in either the two parallel widthwise outer edges or the two parallel lengthwise outer edges, wherein the first and second filter strips include a plurality of pleats extending between the respective parallel edges (see Fig. 10B of Barry, where fold lines 1012 extends parallel between respective parallel edges) and wherein each of the pleats have a triangular shape (best shown in Barry’s alternative embodiment Fig. 12A).
Barry does not disclose the triangular shape is formed by two trapezoid shaped sides (, each of the sides having a bottom edge, a parallel top edge, a pair of tapered side edges each joining one end of the bottom edge to one end of the top edge, the top edges joined together to from an apex of the triangular shape, and wherein the top edges being shorter than the bottom edge to define a tapered space between the bordering first and second filter strips
In the analogous art of pleated filters, Epli discloses a pleated filter formed by two trapezoid shaped sides (as shown in Fig. 6 of Epli, pointed by label 20), each of the sides having a bottom edge (proximate Epli’s label 50, Epli Fig. 6), a parallel top edge (located on bottom of Epli’s Fig. 6)), a pair of tapered side edges each joining one end of the bottom edge to one end of the top edge (side pointed by label 40 and the opposite side, Epli Fig. 6; noted here that Epli’s shows one edge as clearly tapered, and the other straight, however, Epli discloses its filter bellows could have symmetrical end edges, like a truncated wedge, and therefore, Epli discloses a pair of tapered sides, Epli Fig. 6, [0011]; additionally, Epli discloses its filter bellows could tapers or widens in the direction of flow direction, Epli [0011], indicating that the shorter edge could be the top edge), the top edges joined together to from an apex of the triangular shape, and wherein the top edges being shorter than the bottom edge to define a tapered space between the bordering first and second filter strips (Epli’s top edge is shorter than the bottom edge, which defines a tapered space between bordering first and second filter strips, Epli Fig. 6). Epli discloses its design allows improvement of freedom e of shape of the filter bellows and thus be optimally adapted to different filter housing, Epli [0010]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Barry’s filter bellows to have improved shape as that designed by Epli for the benefits of optimum flexibility to adapt to filter housing.
Regarding claim 13:
While modified Barry does not disclose that the method of claim 10, further comprising attaching an edge of a third filter strip to an opposite edge of the second filter strip to form two parallel widthwise outer edges and two parallel length wise edges to define the air filter media, Barry discloses an alternative embodiment of Fig. 11, where a panel of 4 by 2 filter strip are attached together, which would read on the claimed limitation, Barry Fig. 11, in the embodiment of Fig. 10A, Barry discloses in a different embodiment of Fig. 47A, where edges of a third filter strip is attached between the first and second filter strips, Barry Fig. 47, [0237].
Regarding claim 23:
Barry discloses that a method of manufacturing a disposable air filter media (Barry’s process of making its air filter as shown in Fig. 19, Barry Fig. 19, [0209]) comprising:
attaching a plurality of filter strips to each other (Barry’s Fig. 19 show four filter strips, Barry Fig. 19, [0209]), wherein each of the plurality of filter strips include a plurality of pleats made of a filtration layer (as shown in Fig. 19), wherein the filtration layer is one or more of a spun fiberglass material, pleated paper, cotton, a synthetic blend, graphite, foam, a flexible metal blend, or cloth (Barry discloses its filtration layer could be a pleated paper top layer, Barry Fig. 19, [0237]), and wherein the plurality of pleats have a triangular shape (as best shown in Fig. 10B of Barry).
Barry does not disclose wherein the triangular shape is formed by two trapezoid shaped sides, each of the sides having a bottom edge, a parallel top edge, a pair of tapered side edges each joining one end of the bottom edge to one end of the top edge, the top edges joined together to from an apex of the triangular shape, and wherein the top edges being shorter than the bottom edge to define a tapered space between bordering filter strips.
In the analogous art of pleated filters, Epli discloses a pleated filter formed by two trapezoid shaped sides (as shown in Fig. 6 of Epli, pointed by label 20), each of the sides having a bottom edge (proximate Epli’s label 50, Epli Fig. 6), a parallel top edge (located on bottom of Epli’s Fig. 6)), a pair of tapered side edges each joining one end of the bottom edge to one end of the top edge (side pointed by label 40 and the opposite side, Epli Fig. 6; noted here that Epli’s shows one edge as clearly tapered, and the other straight, however, Epli discloses its filter bellows could have symmetrical end edges, like a truncated wedge, and therefore, Epli discloses a pair of tapered sides, Epli Fig. 6, [0011]; additionally, Epli discloses its filter bellows could tapers or widens in the direction of flow direction, Epli [0011], indicating that the shorter edge could be the top edge), the top edges joined together to from an apex of the triangular shape, and wherein the top edges being shorter than the bottom edge to define a tapered space between the bordering first and second filter strips (Epli’s top edge is shorter than the bottom edge, which defines a tapered space between bordering first and second filter strips, Epli Fig. 6). Epli discloses its design allows improvement of freedom e of shape of the filter bellows and thus be optimally adapted to different filter housing, Epli [0010]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Barry’s filter bellows to have improved shape as that designed by Epli for the benefits of optimum flexibility to adapt to filter housing.
Regarding claim 24:
Modified Barry discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the plurality of pleats are formed using a mold (Barry’s alternative embodiment of Fig. 12 showing a mold forming filter pleats, Barry Fig. 12A, [0202]).
Claims 11–12, 17–20, 29–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Barry in view of Epli, and in further view of Sebastian et al., US 2019/0299035 A1 (“Sebastian”).
Regarding claim 11:
Barry discloses the length wise and widthwise outer edges define a shape of the air filter media (as shown in Barry Fig. 10B).
Barry does not disclose the method of claim 10, further comprising forming the lengthwise and the widthwise outer edges from un-attached edges of the filter strips via a hot press,; and wherein the air filter media has the shape suitable to be enclosed in a fixed size frame meeting established HVAC standards.
In the analogous art of making air filters, Sebastian discloses forming an attached edge of filter strip via a hot press (Sebastian’s edge dam 40 which comprises hardened adhesive, which could be pressure-sensitive adhesive, Sebastian Fig. 2, [0022] and [0049]); and wherein the air filter media has the shape suitable to be enclosed in a fixed size frame meeting established HVAC standards (Sebastian also discloses its filter can be used in HVAC system, Sebastian [0062]). Sebastian discloses its edge dam serve as an edge seal to substantially prevents air or any other flowing gas from flowing laterally outward beyond a corrugated edge of the pleated filter media and thus at least partially bypassing the filter media. Sebastian also discloses that its edge dam eliminates the need to cover the corrugated edges and thus allowing the complexity and cost of filter element to be reduced, Sebastian [0050]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Sebastian’s edge dam in modified Barry for the benefits disclosed above.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Barry discloses that the method of claim 11, wherein additional material is provided on the outer edges (Sebastian’s edge dam is made of hardened adhesive, Sebastian [0050]).
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Barry discloses that the method of claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of pleats is comprised of synthetic filter media (Barry discloses its filter media maybe layered and include materials that are spun bonded, Barry [0189], which means the material is synthetic) having a top filtration layer (Barry discloses as an undulating nonwoven layer Barry [0210]) and a back supporting layer (Barry’s supporting grid fiber layer, Barry [0210]).
Regarding claim 18:
Modified Barry discloses that the method of claim 17, wherein the top filtration layer is one of spun fiberglass material, pleated paper, cotton, a synthetic blend, graphite, foam, a flexible metal blend, or cloth (Barry discloses its filter material could be a foam, Barry [0189]).
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Barry discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of pleats are formed in a mold (Barry discloses a pleat mold in Fig. 12A, Barry Fig. 12A, [0202]).
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Barry discloses that the method of claim11, further comprising folding the air filter media along the folding crease for packing in a shipping container (Barry Fig. 10, [0044]).
Regarding claim 29:
Modified Barry does not disclose the method of claim 23 2-, further comprising forming at least two outer edges perpendicular to the plurality of pleats from the plurality of filter strips via a hot press.
In the analogous art of making air filters, Sebastian discloses forming an attached edge of filter strip via a hot press (Sebastian’s edge dam 40 which comprises hardened adhesive, which could be pressure-sensitive adhesive, Sebastian Fig. 2, [0022] and [0049]). Sebastian discloses its edge dam serving as an edge seal to substantially prevent air or any other flowing gas from flowing laterally outward beyond a corrugated edge of the pleated filter media and thus at least partially bypassing the filter media. Sebastian also discloses that its edge dam eliminates the need to cover the corrugated edges and thus allowing the complexity and cost of filter element to be reduced, Sebastian [0050]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Sebastian’s edge dam in modified Barry for the benefits disclosed above.
Regarding claim 30:
Modified Barry discloses the method of claim 29, wherein forming the at least the two outer edges by hot press closes open ends of the pleats and prevents air leakage from the open ends of the pleats during operation (Sebastian [0050]).
Regarding claim 31:
Modified Barry discloses that the method of claim 20, wherein the shipping container is one of a vapor barrier- bag with air, a standard envelope, a Polybag, a Soft Pack, or a standard shipping box (Barry discloses its package could be a soft-walled envelop or bag, Barry Fig. 22B, [0212]).
Claims 14, 26–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Barry in view of Epli, and in further view of Bostock et al., US 2001/0015205 A1 (“Bostock”).
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Barry does not disclose that the method of claim 13, wherein the first and second filter strips are joined via one of gluing, sewing, melting, welding, or taping to form a seam between the first and second filter strips.
In the analogous art of foldable air filter, Bostock discloses a plurality of filter strips (Bostock’s central portion 52, first member 54 and second member 54, Bostock Fig. 8, [0048]) joined to each other via bond 55 and 57, Bostock Fig. 8, [0048]. Bostock discloses the bondng could be carried out by welding, adhesive bonding, stapling, sewing, thermomechnical, pressure, or other suitable means and can be intermittent or continuous, Bostock Fig. 8, [0060]. Bostock discloses such bonding means are suitable for securing the end portions, Bostock Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Barry’s first and second filter strips to be joined via Bostock’s method because Bostock discloses those method are suitable to join two filter stirps.
Regarding claim 26:
Modified Barry does not disclose that the method of claim 23, wherein the plurality of filter strips comprising a first filter strip and a second filter strip that are joined v by one of gluing, sewing, melting, welding, or taping to form a seam between the first and second filter strips.
In the analogous art of foldable air filter, Bostock discloses a plurality of filter strips (Bostock’s central portion 52, first member 54 and second member 54, Bostock Fig. 8, [0048]) joined to each other via bond 55 and 57, Bostock Fig. 8, [0048]. Bostock discloses the bondng could be carried out by welding, adhesive bonding, stapling, sewing, thermomechnical, pressure, or other suitable means and can be intermittent or continuous, Bostock Fig. 8, [0060]. Bostock discloses such bonding means are suitable for securing the end portions, Bostock Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Barry’s first and second filter strips to be joined via Bostock’s method because Bostock discloses those method are suitable to join two filter stirps.
Regarding claim 27:
Modified Barry discloses that the method of claim 26, wherein the seam enables folding of the filter media for packaging and shipping in a shipping container (as shown in Barry Fig. 20C, [0209]).
Regarding claim 28:
Modified Barry discloses that the method of claim 27, wherein the shipping container is one of a vapor barrier- bag with air, a standard envelope, a Polybag, a Soft Pack, or a standard shipping box (Barry discloses its package could be a soft-walled envelope or bag, Barry Fig. 22B, [0212]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The examiner withdraws the current objection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 112(b) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection.
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
In view of the amendment, the examiner relies on Epli to teach the amendment limitation. Regarding Applicant’s arguments of Epli’s inverted trapezoid shape, Applicant Rem. dated Jul. 29, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) ps. 6–7.
It is noted here that Epli discloses its filter bellows could tapers or widerns in the direction of flow of the fluid through the filter bellows, and Epli also discloses its filter bellows could be a truncated wedge shape, Epli [0011]. Epli therefore does not limit its trapezoid shape to be what is shown in Figs. 6–7.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments of Epli does not teach the bordering pleats creates a triangular shape, Applicant Rem. p. 7.
It is pointed out here that Epli is not relied upon to teach the triangular shape. Additional, Epli discloses its filter bellows is pleated in zig-zag shape, Epli [0029]. Epli therefore teaches such limitation even though Epli is not relied upon for such limitation.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments of HVAC standards, it is noted that the current invention is directed to a method of manufacturing and shipping a disposable air filter media, the limitation of “the shape suitable to be enclosed in a fixed size frame meeting established HVAC standards” is therefore interpreted as not being part of the claimed method. However, assuming, arguendo, the limitation of HVAC standards is recited in claim 11, and claim 11 is rejected in further view of Sebastian, and Sebastian discloses its filter is suitable for HVAC systems, Sebastian [0062].
Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
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
