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 § 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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites a top panel, bottom panel and a middle frame having mesh grid integrated to the frame which is the mini-pleated filter media where the top panel, bottom panel and middle frame are manufactured in a single mold in plastic polymer. However, the written description teaches a single molded top panel and bottom panel into which the middle frame is inserted (par 13, printed publication). The assembly comprises a frame having a single molded lower panel and another single molded top panel (par 15). The claim language would indicate that the top and bottom panels and the middle frame are all molded together as a single piece. However, the specification seems to teach that these elements could be separately molded and then connected together. Because the claims are interpreted in light of the teaching of the specification, it is unclear if the top panel, bottom panel and middle frame are molded together as a single piece or if each of these elements are separately molded and then combined together to form the assembly. Additionally, the claim recites the “mesh grid integrated to the frame which is the mini-pleated filter media”. However, the specification teaches that the mesh encloses the mini-pleated filter and prevents the filter from damage (par 35), pleated media is arranged in the assembly and is potted to the assembly (par 34), and the filter media is assembled in the main filter frame (par 45). Because the claims are interpreted in light of the teaching of the specification, it is unclear if the mesh grid is the mini-pleated filter media or if the mesh grid supports a mini-pleated filter media. For examination purposes the top and bottom panels and the middle frame are assumed to be molded as a single unitary structure which is configured to support/hold a mini-pleated filter media within the assembly.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the frame" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the middle frame”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mini-pleated filter media" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “which supports a mini-pleated filter media”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pleated filter media" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the mini-pleated filter media”.
The additional claims are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antony et al. US 2012/0067013.
Claims 1 and 7, Antony teaches a mini-pleat V cell filter assembly comprising: a top panel (60), a bottom panel (62) and a middle frame having mesh grid (66, 68) integrated to the middle frame which supports a mini-pleated filter media (22, 24), wherein the top panel, bottom panel and the middle frame are manufactured in a single mold (abstract, par 19) and the mini-pleated filter media having mini-pleated regions arranged in a V-bank orientation (fig. 3-11, par 21). Antony does not explicitly teach the assembly is a plastic polymer. In view of Antony teaching the assembly being molded, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that plastic is a very common material that is molded and that the type of assembly of Antony is commonly made of plastic. Therefore, using a plastic polymer to make the assembly would have been an obvious choice of material to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The plastic polymers of claim 7 are all very common polymers used in molding and filter assemblies and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 2 recites a physical property of the assembly. As disclosed by applicant, the increased burst strength of the claimed assembly is due to it being a single molded frame design (par 47). Antony likewise teaches the assembly being a single molded frame design and therefore the presumption would be that the assembly of Antony would have the same or similar burst strength.
Claim 3, Antony does not teach how much dust the assembly is able to hold. The amount of dust the assembly can hold will be dependent on the type of filter media used and the size of the assembly, a larger assembly being able to hold a larger amount of dust. Thus, the recitation of the amount of dust appears to be a recitation of optimizing the size of the assembly to hold a desired amount of dust. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Claim 4, Antony teaches the majority of the mesh is open (fig. 3-4) but does not teach a specific % of open surface area. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize % of open surface area as a result effective variable that would be optimized. Less open surface area would provide greater support and strength but would provide restriction to flow. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be led to optimize the open surface area to balance strength and support with resistance to flow. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Claim 5 recites the type of dust captured by the assembly, which is a recitation of material worked on by the apparatus and does not provide any further structural limitations to the apparatus itself.
Claim 6, Antony teaches the top and bottom panels have a wall thickness but do not teach a specific thickness. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the thickness of the panels as a result effective variable that would be optimized. A thicker panel will be stronger and stiffer but will add extra weight and cost to the assembly. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be led to optimize the thickness of the panels to balance strength and stiffness with weight and cost. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights