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 .
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.
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 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation "the parts" in line 2.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et al (US 20170128870; hereinafter Schmitt) in view of Luley et al (US 20150273985; hereinafter Luley).
As regarding claim 1, Schmitt discloses the claimed invention for an interior room air filter module comprising: a particle filter element (3); an adsorption filter element (4); a first frame (9) circumferentially surrounding the particle filter element and the adsorption filter element, wherein the first frame comprises a radially protruding seal flange (9 and [0039]); wherein the particle filter element comprises a folded pack ([0036]), wherein the folded pack comprises layers ([0036]) of filter medium folded in a zigzag shape (fig. 1), and wherein the layers of filter medium include a first layer of filter medium at an inflow side of the particle filter element and further include a second layer of filter medium at an outflow side of the particle filter element; wherein the first layer of filter medium and the second layer of filter medium, for forming the folded pack, are folded while resting on each other (three layers of particle filtering region); wherein the adsorption filter element comprises one or more shaped bodies configured as a honeycomb body ([0037]), respectively, and configured to adsorb at least hydrocarbons; wherein the radially protruding seal flange (9) is arranged so as to laterally surround circumferentially (fig. 1) the adsorption filter element at a circumferentially extending exterior wall of the adsorption filter element.
Schmitt does not disclose wherein the layers of filter medium include at least one layer comprising an aerosol-separating filter medium. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the layers of filter medium include at least one layer comprising an aerosol-separating filter medium in order to enhance filter module performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Luley ([0007]).
As regarding claim 2, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the radially protruding seal flange defines a seal plane (Luley – about 122 of fig. 3) and is arranged such that the seal plane extends through an interior of the one or more shaped bodies of the adsorption filter element.
As regarding claim 3, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the radially protruding seal flange defines a seal plane dividing the interior room air filter module into a first half and a second half, wherein the radially protruding seal flange is arranged such that a ratio of a mass of the first half to a mass of the second half amounts to a value between 0.6 and 1.4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the radially protruding seal flange defines a seal plane dividing the interior room air filter module into a first half and a second half, wherein the radially protruding seal flange is arranged such that a ratio of a mass of the first half to a mass of the second half amounts to a value between 0.6 and 1.4 in order to enhance filter module performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As regarding claim 4, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for a second frame (Luley – 116; [0082]), wherein the second frame is an auxiliary frame surrounding laterally at least partially the particle filter element and the adsorption filter element, wherein the auxiliary frame connects the particle filter element and the adsorption filter element to each other, wherein the auxiliary frame is connected to the first frame.
As regarding claim 5, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the auxiliary frame is glued to the first frame (Luley – [0029] and [0053]).
As regarding claim 6, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for an intermediate filter layer (three layers – the second layer is the intermediate layer) arranged at an outflow side of the adsorption filter element.
As regarding claim 7, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the particle filter element comprises a third frame surrounding the folded pack, wherein the third frame comprises lateral strips applied to fold profiles of the folded pack and head strips applied to end folds of the folded pack. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the particle filter element comprises a third frame surrounding the folded pack, wherein the third frame comprises lateral strips applied to fold profiles of the folded pack and head strips applied to end folds of the folded pack in order to additional filter element support, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As regarding claim 9, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the shaped bodies of the adsorption filter element are connected to each other (fig. 1).
As regarding claim 10, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the shaped bodies of the adsorption filter element are connected to each other by a thermosetting potting compound (Luley – [0029]).
As regarding claim 11, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the one or more shaped bodies of the adsorption filter element are manufactured at least partially of one or more of the materials selected from the group consisting of a ceramic material, an active carbon material, an ion exchanger material, a molecular sieve material, a zeolite material, an organometallic support material, and a metal material ([0005]).
As regarding claim 12, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein one or more of the parts selected from the group consisting of the particle filter element, the adsorption filter element, the one or more shaped bodies, and the interior room air filter module are embodied in a cuboid shape (fig. 1; near ref. 4).
As regarding claim 13, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for a seal (9) attached to the seal flange.
As regarding claim 14, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the particle filter element and the adsorption filter element are arranged in the interior room air filter module so as to be flowed through in series (fig. 1).
As regarding claim 15, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the particle filter element is arranged upstream of the adsorption filter element (Luley – claim 3).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et al (US 20170128870; hereinafter Schmitt) in view of Luley et al (US 20150273985; hereinafter Luley), as applied supra, and further in view of Mori et al (US 20210252445; hereinafter Mori).
As regarding claim 8, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the aerosol-separating filter medium is an aerosol-separating particle filter medium of the filtration class H13 or H14 according to DIN EN 1822-1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the aerosol-separating filter medium is an aerosol-separating particle filter medium of the filtration class H13 or H14 according to DIN EN 1822-1 in order to enhance filter module performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Mori ([0049]).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et al (US 20170128870; hereinafter Schmitt) in view of Luley et al (US 20150273985; hereinafter Luley), as applied supra, and further in view of Stiehler et al (US 20210275955; hereinafter Stiehler).
As regarding claim 16, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a filter assembly comprising: a filter housing configured to receive at least one of the interior room air filter module, wherein the filter housing comprises a first seal section and a second seal section, wherein the first seal section and the second seal section are configured to follow a contour of the seal flange and/or of a seal attached to the seal flange. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a filter assembly comprising: a filter housing configured to receive at least one of the interior room air filter module, wherein the filter housing comprises a first seal section and a second seal section, wherein the first seal section and the second seal section are configured to follow a contour of the seal flange and/or of a seal attached to the seal flange in order to enhance filter module performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Stiehler ([0027]-[0029] and [0031]).
As regarding claim 17, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the filter housing comprises two housing parts, wherein the seal flange and/or the seal is axially compressed between the two housing parts when the interior room air filter module is arranged as intended in the filter housing (Luley – [0061]).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et al (US 20170128870; hereinafter Schmitt) in view of Luley et al (US 20150273985; hereinafter Luley) and Stiehler et al (US 20210275955; hereinafter Stiehler), as applied supra, and further in view of DE 102013218537 (hereinafter DE ‘537).
As regarding claim 18, Schmitt as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Schmitt as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the filter assembly is designed for a filtration according to category 4 according to DIN EN 15695-1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the filter assembly is designed for a filtration according to category 4 according to DIN EN 15695-1 in order to enhance filter module performance, since it was known in the art as shown in DE ‘537 ([0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights