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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant may wish to delete the reference numbers from claim 11 to be consistent with the rest of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 6, 7, 15 and 16 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.
Claims 2, 15 and 16 are indefinite because they recite a depth axis angle but do not specify what the angle is with respect to. This could be anything.
Claims 6 and 7 are indefinite because they use the phrases “for example,” “such as,” and “e.g.” It is unclear whether the subject matter following each phrase is positively required in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the corrugated separators" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The may be changed to “the at least one corrugated separator” (comprises).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bush (US 2,952,333).
Bush ‘333 teaches an air filter pack (16) comprising a horizontal axis, a vertical axis, and a depth axis perpendicular to each other (these can be selected to match the instant invention by rotating the prior filter pack 90° with respect to the air flow horizontal axis), a zigzag folded filter media (18) with longitudinal surfaces extending between inflow and outflow sides of the filter pack, zigzag-corrugated aluminum foil separators (24) inserted between each filter fold, separator corrugation crests (26) with a heigh that extends perpendicular to the length of the fold, and a separator depth axis (the direction of the corrugations across the depth of the filter) that is disposed at an angle that is offset to each of the horizontal, vertical, and depth axes of the filter (see figures, col. 2, line 38 to col. 3, line 67). The filter pack is inherently capable of removing a dispersed fluid phase from a continuous phase of a gas mixture. The offset angle can be taken to be 20-70° from any arbitrary line or plane. Regarding claim 4, the corrugation angle can be taken to enhance separated fluid by gravity because it slopes downwardly (figures). Additionally, the angle will form a baffle that deflects particles and can coalesce liquids that would then fall by gravity. Regarding claim 6, “up to 2000” includes zero so the instant filter is capable of handling such a flow.
Claim(s) 1-6, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rudinger et al. (US 4,728,426).
Rudinger ‘426 teaches an air filter pack (3) comprising a horizontal axis, a vertical axis, and a depth axis perpendicular to each other, a zigzag folded filter media (2) with longitudinal surfaces extending between inflow and outflow sides of the filter pack, zigzag-corrugated aluminum separators (1) inserted between each filter fold, separator corrugation crests (5) with a height that extends perpendicular to the length of the fold, and a separator depth axis (the direction of the corrugations across the depth of the filter) that is disposed at an angle that is offset to each of the horizontal, vertical, and depth axes of the filter (see figures, col. 1, lines 10-26, col. 2, line 43, lines 45-65, col. 3, lines 33-38). The filter pack is inherently capable of removing a dispersed fluid phase from a continuous phase of a gas mixture. The offset angle is 1-45° to an axis of the air flow and 2-90° to an axis of an adjacent separator offset angle. Regarding claim 4, the corrugation angle can be taken to enhance separated fluid by gravity especially if the filter is tilted so the angle forms downward slopes. Additionally, the angle will form a baffle that deflects particles and can coalesce liquids that would then fall by gravity. Regarding claim 6, “up to 2000” includes zero so the instant filter is capable of handling such a flow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a motivation for the frame comprising a horizontal ground area comprising a frame drain opening for draining fluid being separated by the filter element, in combination with the other recited structural limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose air filter support arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm.
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.
/FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
fl
