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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because legal phraseology, i.e., “means”, on the penultimate line of the abstract, should be avoided in the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 10 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.
It is unclear as to what applicant intends to claim as the invention with respect to dependent claim 10, since although the claim appears to attempt to claim a combination of the filter element mounting device within an air blower system, there is no actual positive recitation of an air blower element being placed either upstream or downstream of the filter element to cause an air pressure differential across the filter element.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Barabas et al.
Barabas et al (Abstract; Figs. 1-4; col. 4, lines 42-68; col. 5, lines 1-63) disclose a mounting device for a filter element (20) comprising a fixed seat including a body (2) and a plurality of brackets (82) disposed on the body, the plurality of brackets being in one to one correspondence with a plurality of support portions (65, 70) which form the mounting structure to be connected to the first connection members (hook ends) of the brackets (claim 4). The reference further teaches a mounting seat that includes a mounting portion (50) having a fastener (55) disposed thereon, whereby the mounting portion is connected to the filter element (20) (claim 8). The mounting seat further includes a plurality of support portions (65, 70) that are circumferentially spaced apart, wherein the mounting portion (50) and the support portions (65, 70) form a mounting space within which the filter element (20) is mountable (claim 1). The device further includes a plurality of quick assembling assemblies providing second connection members (67, 73) that have one end connected to a corresponding support portion (65, 70) in the form of a snap and which cooperate with the hook ends of the first connection members (82) disposed on the fixed seat (claims 2 and 3).
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.
Claims 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barabas et al.
Barabas et al (Abstract; Figs. 1-4; col. 4, lines 42-68; col. 5, lines 1-63) as applied above substantially disclose applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 5, 9, and 10, except for the brackets (82) being detachably disposed on the body, as recited by instant claim 5; the plurality of support portions comprising at least three support portions, as recited by instant claim 9; and the filter mounting device being associated with an air blower, as recited by instant claim 10.
First, with regard to the air blower system, as broadly recited by instant claim 10, although the reference is silent as to the inclusion of a fan or blower within the overall device, the reference apparatus includes a dirty air inlet (10) upstream of the filter elements, and a clean air outlet (12) downstream of the filter elements, as well as a pressure gauge for measuring the pressure differential across the filter elements (see col. 3, lines 15-19). Air does not flow to and through the device without a necessary air moving means (fan or blower) either upstream or downstream of the filter elements. Therefore, even though the reference is silent as to the inclusion of an air blower, such is necessary and would have been recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art to have been an inherent and integral feature of the air flow filtering device. As such, it would have been at least entirely obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to include an air blower (or fan) in conjunction with the filter elements to provide a well known and well understood means for conveying the dirty airflow to and through the filter elements of the device.
With regard to the brackets being detachably disposed on the body, as recited by instant claim 5, although the reference appears to disclose the brackets (82) thereof as being fixedly attached to the body (2) of the fixed seat, one having ordinary skill in the art would have envisaged providing the brackets in a detachable manner, since such would facilitate the ease of replacement of a bent or damaged bracket during routine maintenance of the device.
Lastly, with respect to the plurality of support portions being numbered at least three support portions, as recited by instant claim 9, it is noted that the reference clearly teaches (col. 4, line 65 through col. 5, line 2) that the fixed latch means (65) and the adjustable latch means (70) combine to number “three”, and that the combination of latch means (65, 70) serve the same filter element locating and fastening function relative to the fixed seat of the device. As such, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the fixed latch means (65) to also be of an adjustable latch construction, if such were desired, since such would allow for uniform clamping pressure to be applied around the entire circumference of the filter element end relative to the fixed seat, in the event that the brackets on the fixed seat became non-uniform by the repeated replacement of the filter elements over the life of the filter device.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barabas et al taken together with Schuler.
Barabas et al (Abstract; Figs. 1-4; col. 4, lines 42-68; col. 5, lines 1-63) as applied above substantially disclose applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 6 and 7, except for the mounting portion having a first portion abutting an axial end of the filter element and a second portion extending axially from the first portion along a circumferential portion of the filter element and perpendicularly relative to the first portion and the body of the fixed seat.
Schuler (Figs. 3 and 4) discloses a filter element mounting device similar to that of Barabas et al, wherein the mounting portion abuts the axial end portion of the filter element, rather than gripping the circumferential surface of the filter element. Schuler further discloses a first portion (39) that abuts the axial end portion of the filter element positioned away from the fixed seat (35), with the second portion (37) extending perpendicularly relative to the first portion and abutting against a circumferential side surface of the filter element. It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the construction of the mounting portion of the Barabas et al mounting device relative to the supporting portions, such that the mounting portion would abut the axial end portion of the filter element rather than the circumferential side portion of the filter element, in view of Schuler, since such would eliminate the step of placing the mounting portion at a particular location along the sidewall of the filter element, thus making the filter replacement process simpler. Further, with regard to the surface of the filter element that the second portion of the mounting portion abuts (inner or outer circumferential surface of the filter element), it is noted that the instant claims do not limit such, and it should also be noted that the particular surface (inner or outer circumferential surface) that the axially extending portions would abut against would be dictated by the air flow direction relative to the filter element and/or the rigidity of the filter element in the circumferential direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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.
/C.S.B/9-19-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights