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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siegele et al. WO 2022111918 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Siegele et al. teaches a filter for cleaning air flow represented by cabin filter 10. Cabin filter 10 comprises of the following elements of the current invention:
At least one filter element for a first filter stage represented by first filter element 3 (Fig. 3, pg. 7).
A second filter element for a second filter stage represented by second filter element 4 (Fig. 3, pg. 7).
The second filter element being provided with a circumferential sealing element that is materially connected to the second filter element represented by circumferential seal 42 and frame device 41 wherein “the frame device 41 of the second filter element 4 has a peripheral seal 42.” The reference further teaches “the frame device 41 of the second filter element 4 comprises a plastic frame to which the filter medium body 43 of the second filter element 4 is connected,” rendering the circumferential seal 42 to be materially connected to the second filter element 4 (Fig. 3, pg. 7).
An outer circumferential sealing surface configured for sealing with respect to a filter receptacle represented by contact shoulder 27 and one side of the circumferential seal 42 wherein “the circumferential seal 42 of the second filter element 4 is brought into sealing contact with the radially projecting circumferential contact shoulder 27 of the filter housing 2” (Fig. 3, pg. 8)
An inner circumferential sealing surface configured for sealing with respect to the filter element represented by one side of the circumferential seal 42 wherein “the first filter element 3 does not have its own seal with respect to the housing 2 but is sealed indirectly with respect to the housing 2 via the seal 42 of the second filter element” (Fig. 3, pg. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Siegele et al. teaches the inner circumferential sealing surface of the sealing element being formed by a sealing lip represented by “the circumferential seal 42 can have at least one radially projecting sealing lip that can be brought into radially sealing contact with the axially extending wall section” (Fig 3, pg. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Siegele et al. teaches the sealing element being molded onto the second filter element and being made of polyurethane or silicone represented by “the seal of the second filter element can be molded onto the frame device” (pg. 4). The reference further teaches “the seal of the second filter element can have or consist of an ethylene-propylene diene (monomer) rubber, which is advantageous since this material is characterized by particularly low fogging values. Other elastomers, in particular thermoplastic elastomers, and/or polyurethanes can also be used in embodiments” (pg. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Siegele et al. teaches the first filter element being configured as a particle filter and/or the second filter element is configured as an adsorption filter element represented by “in embodiments, the filter medium body of the first filter element can have a particle filter medium and/or a gas adsorption medium and/or the filter medium body of the second filter element can have a HEPA filter medium” (pg. 5). It is well known in the art HEPA filters use adsorption; therefore, the second filter element is an adsorption filter.
Regarding claim 11, Siegele et al. teaches a filter assembly represented by by cabin filter 10. Cabin filter 10 comprises of the following elements of the claim 1:
At least one filter element for a first filter stage represented by first filter element 3 (Fig. 3, pg. 7).
A second filter element for a second filter stage represented by second filter element 4 (Fig. 3, pg. 7).
The second filter element being provided with a circumferential sealing element that is materially connected to the second filter element represented by circumferential seal 42 and frame device 41 wherein “the frame device 41 of the second filter element 4 has a peripheral seal 42.” The reference further teaches “the frame device 41 of the second filter element 4 comprises a plastic frame to which the filter medium body 43 of the second filter element 4 is connected,” rendering the circumferential seal 42 to be materially connected to the second filter element 4 (Fig. 3, pg. 7).
An outer circumferential sealing surface configured for sealing with respect to a filter receptacle represented by contact shoulder 27 and one side of the circumferential seal 42 wherein “the circumferential seal 42 of the second filter element 4 is brought into sealing contact with the radially projecting circumferential contact shoulder 27 of the filter housing 2” (Fig. 3, pg. 8)
An inner circumferential sealing surface configured for sealing with respect to the filter element represented by one side of the circumferential seal 42 wherein “the first filter element 3 does not have its own seal with respect to the housing 2 but is sealed indirectly with respect to the housing 2 via the seal 42 of the second filter element” (Fig. 3, pg. 8).
Siegele et al. further teaches a filter housing configured for accommodating the filter represented by filter housing 2 (Fig. 3, pg. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Siegele et al. teaches the assembly having a frame-shaped cap configured to be connected to the filter housing represented by filter housing part 21 and a filter housing cover 22 where in “a filter housing part 21 and a filter housing cover 22 which closes the filter housing 2” (Fig. 4, pg. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Siegele et al. teaches a vehicle represented by motor vehicle 100 (Fig. 1, pg. 7).
Siegele et al. teaches the filter assembly according to claim 11 (see above).
Siegele et al. further teaches a cabin air inlet represented by inlet opening 23 (Fig. 3, pg. 7).
Siegele et al. further teaches the filter assembly being configured to filter and clean air passing through the cabin air inlet represented by “the filter housing 2 has an inlet opening 23 and an outlet opening 25 (see FIG. 3). Through the inlet opening 23, unfiltered raw air is the filter housing 2 can be supplied and filtered clean air can be removed from the housing 2 through the outlet opening (Fig. 1, pg. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegele et al. WO 2022111918 A1 in view of Gieseke et al. US 6190432 B1.
Regarding claim 2, Siegele et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Siegele et al. fails to teach the first filter element being received in a press fit in the sealing element.
Gieseke et al. teaches the first filter element being received in a press fit in the sealing element represented by “the filter pack 50 is press-fit into the first housing compartment 310 such that the compressible seal member 250 is compressed between and against the tip portion 263 of the frame 205 and the sidewall 260 of the first housing compartment 310, to form radial seal 172 therebetween” (Fig. 9, pg. 20). The filter being press fit is beneficial to form a radial seal to prevent leakage, as taught by the reference.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegele et al. with the teachings of Gieseke et al. to incorporate the first filter element being received in a press fit in the sealing element to form a radial seal and prevent leakage.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegele et al. WO 2022111918 A1 in view of Kapelarie et al. US 20110000174 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Siegele et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Siegele et al. fails to teach the sealing lip overlapping the surface of the first filter element by at least 1mm in an undeformed state.
Kapelarie et al. teaches the sealing lip overlapping the surface of the first filter element by at least 1mm in an undeformed state represented by “the inner frame is completely enclosed by a sealing material of an axial sealing in its region that overlaps the filter body in an axial direction” (Claim 6). The reference clearly teaches the sealing surface can overlap the filter element. It is well known in the art that overlapping a sealing element onto a filter is beneficial to improve the integrity and durability of the seal. The reference is silent as to the overlapping being at least 1 mm, however, using the teachings of Kapelarie et al. to modify the length of overlapping is simply routine optimization.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegele et al. with the teachings of Kapelarie et al. to incorporate the sealing lip overlapping the surface of the first filter element by at least 1mm in an undeformed state to improve the integrity and durability of the seal.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegele et al. WO 2022111918 A1 in view of Munkel et al. US 20120167534 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Siegele et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Siegele et al. fails to teach the sealing element having a circumferential compensation groove , configured as a circumferential depression arranged on an inflow side.
Munkel et al. teaches the sealing element having a circumferential compensation groove , configured as a circumferential depression arranged on an inflow side represented by “the sealing surfaces 25, 26 comprises one or several circumferentially extending sealing contours, for example, depressions or ribs or sealing lips 35 in order to increase, on the one hand, the pressing force to obtain a good sealing action and, on the other hand, to facilitate the insertion action” [0044]. The reference clearly teaches the circumferential depressions are beneficial to increase the pressing force to obtain a good seal. The reference is silent as to the circumferential depressions being arranged on an inflow side. However, that is simply a design choice. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegele et al. with the teachings of Munkel et al. to incorporate the sealing element having a circumferential compensation groove , configured as a circumferential depression arranged on an inflow side to obtain a good seal.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegele et al. WO 2022111918 A1 in view of Verstraete et al. US 20220288522 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Siegele et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Siegele et al. fails to teach the material of the sealing element having a Shore A hardness of 20 to 50.
Verstraete et al. teaches the material of the sealing element having a Shore A hardness of 20 to 50 represented by “the material for forming the seal may be selected based on the desired Shore hardness of the resulting seal. In some embodiments, the seal has a Shore A value of at least 25, at least 30, at least 35, at least 40, at least 45, at least 50, at least 55, or at least 60” [0128]. These levels of shore hardness are beneficial as it is well known in the art to be flexible and not too rigid. The reference is silent as to the Shore A hardness being precisely between 20 to 50, however, using the teachings of Verstraete et al. to modify the Shore A hardness is simply routine optimization.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegele et al. with the teachings of Verstraete et al. to incorporate the material of the sealing element having a Shore A hardness of 20 to 50 to ensure the material is flexible.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegele et al. WO 2022111918 A1 in view of Oelsner et al. US 20210023494 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Siegele et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Siegele at al. further teaches the first filter element embodied as a bellows comprising a pleated filter medium represented by “the filter medium bodies of the first and/or second filter element have a filter medium which is pleated to form a bellows” (pg. 5).
Siegele et al. fails to teach the first filter element being provided circumferentially with edge strips.
Oelsner et al. teaches the first filter element being provided circumferentially with edge strips represented by edge strips 3 wherein edge strips are seen to be circumferentially around filter element 10 (Fig. 1, [0036]). The reference teaches the edge strips are beneficial for “stabilizing and sealing the bellows” [0036].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegele et al. with the teachings of Oelsner et al. to incorporate the first filter element being provided circumferentially with edge strips to help stabilize and seal the bellows.
Regarding claim 9, Siegele et al. in view of Oelsner et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8.
The references are silent as to edges of two end pleats of the filter medium of the first filter element being oriented towards an inflow side of the filter. However, a side of the first filter element is inherently facing towards an inflow side of the filter as seen by Figure 3. Therefore, arranging the edges of two end pleats toward the inflow side of the filter is simply a design choice to help influence airflow in the desired manner. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegele et al. in view of Oelsner et al. to incorporate to edges of two end pleats of the filter medium of the first filter element being oriented towards an inflow side of the filter to help influence the airflow entering the filter.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegele et al. WO 2022111918 A1 in view of Lee et al. US 20240047720 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Siegele et al. teaches a filter assembly according to claim 11.
Siegele et al. fails to teach a fuel cell unit, an inlet air filter, and the filter assembly being configured to filter and clean air passing through the inlet air filter.
Lee et al. teaches a fuel cell unit, an inlet air filter, and the filter assembly being configured to filter and clean air passing through the inlet air filter represented by:
Fuel cell stack 100 (Fig. 1, [0054]). The fuel stack 100 is beneficial to “generate electricity” [0005].
An inlet air filter represented by air filter 212 wherein air filter 212 is beneficial “ for filtering out foreign substances such as dust contained in the air to be introduced into the fuel cell stack 100” (Fig. 1, [0074]).
The reference is silent as to the filter assembly being configured to filter and clean air passing through the inlet air filter. However, the reference states “various types of accessory devices” may be used to filtering out the air entering the fuel cell stack 100 [0074]. Therefore, adding the filter assembly of claim 11 after the air filter 212 is simply heling further filter the air entering the stack.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siegele et al. with the teachings of Lee et al. to incorporate a fuel cell unit to generate electricity, an inlet air filter to filter out foreign substances from entering the fuel cell unit, and the filter assembly being configured to filter and clean air passing through the inlet air filter to further filter the air entering the cell unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights