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 1,2, and 4 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 line 8 recites “two identical filter elements in parallel arrangement(twin filter elements)”. Examiner notes the limitations in parens(twin filter elements) are indefinite, wherein examiner is unsure if the limitations in parens are part of the scope of the claim. Examiner suggests restating the entire limitation to state “twin filter elements in parallel arrangement” to encompass the limitations in parens. Claims 2 and 4 depend on claim 1 and hence are also rejected.
Claim 1 lines 11-13 recites “a means for automated clogging detection, automated self-cleaning, automatically self-removing from the airflow path and automatically switching to the clean filter of the twin filter elements”. Examiner notes that the first stated limitation is worded as a 112 6th paragraph means plus function limitation, however examiner is unsure if the other limitations also follow a means plus function format. Examiner suggests amending claims 11-13 to provide a means plus function format for each limitation, specifically “a means for automated clogging detection, a means for automated self-cleaning, a means for automatically self-removing from the airflow path and a means for automatically switching to the clean filter of the twin filter elements”.
Claim 1 line 13 recites “the clean filter of the twin filter elements”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the clean filter of the twin filter elements” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 1 line 14 recites “the filter cleaning mechanism”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the filter cleaning mechanism” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 1 line 17-18 recites “once a filter element is clogged, it is taken off the filtration air flow pathway”. Examiner is unsure as to if “a filter element” is the same or different than “a single filter element”. Examiner suggests rewording the limitation to state “once the single filter element of the twin filter elements is clogged, the single filter element is taken off”.
Claim 1 lines 17-18 recites “the filtration air flow pathway”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the filtration air flow pathway” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 1 line 18 recites “the self-cleaning mechanism”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the self-cleaning mechanism” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 1 line 19 recites “the second twin filter element”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the second twin filter element” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 1 line 20 recites “the filter housing”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the filter housing” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 1 line 22 recites “passage of sufficient air volume”. Examiner respectfully submits the limitations “sufficient air volume” are not specifically defined in the specification, and someone of ordinary skill in the art would not clearly understand how to interpret “sufficient air volume”.
Claim 1 line 22 recites “the fans”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the fans” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 1 line 22 recites “sufficient airflow constantly”. Examiner respectfully submits the limitations “sufficient airflow constantly” are not specifically defined in the specification, and someone of ordinary skill in the art would not clearly understand how to interpret “sufficient airflow constantly”.
Claim 2 lines 1-2 recites “the means for automated self-cleaning”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the means for automated self-cleaning” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 lines 3-4 recites “the filters”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the filters” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 6 recites “the filters”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the filters” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 lines 7-8 recites “the filters”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the filters” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 8 recites “the first set of valves”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the first set of valves” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 lines 8-9 recites “both electric valves”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “both electric valves” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 10 recites “the sensor”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the sensor” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 11 recites “both valves”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “both valves” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 12 recites “both electric valve sets”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “both electric valve sets” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 12 recites “the air pathway”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the air pathway” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 13 recites “the clogged filter”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the clogged filter” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 13 recites “the filtration process”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the filtration process” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 14 recites “the clean air filter”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the clean air filter” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 lines 14-15 recites “the automated operation”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the automated operation” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 lines 16-17 recites “all electric parts”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “all electric parts” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 17 recites “the sensors”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the sensors” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 2 line 17 recites “the electric valves”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the electric valves” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 line 3 recites “the airflow path”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the airflow path” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 line 3 recites “the air pathway”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the air pathway” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 line 4 recites “a parallel twin filter”. Examiner is unsure as to if “a parallel twin filter” is the same or different than “a single filter element” stated in claim 1. Examiner suggests rewording the limitation to state “pathway to the single filter element”.
Claim 4 lines 4-5 recites “via a pressure control means”. Examiner is unsure if “a pressure control means” is the same or different than “pressure drop-activated sensors” of claim 2.
Claim 4 line 4 recites “of valves”. Examiner is unsure if “of valves” is the same or different than “a first set of electric valve” or a second set of electric valves”.
Claim 4 line 6 recites “a pressure sensor”. Examiner is unsure if “a pressure sensor” is the same or different than “pressure drop-activated sensors” of claim 2.
Claim 4 line 6 recites “the valves”. Examiner is unsure if “the valves” is the same or different than “a first set of electric valve” or a second set of electric valves”.
Claim 4 line 8 recites “the two faces of the filter”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the two faces of the filter” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 line 9 recites “the twin-filter pathway”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the twin-filter pathway” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 lines 9-10 recites “the clogged filter”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the clogged filter” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 line 10 recites “the twin-filter valves”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the twin-filter valves” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 line 11 recites “the twin-filter”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the twin-filter” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 line 12 recites “the valves”. Examiner is unsure if “the valves” is the same or different than “a first set of electric valve” or a second set of electric valves”.
Claim 4 line 13 recites “the clogged filter”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the clogged filter” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 lines 13-14 recites “the airflow pathway”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the airflow pathway” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 line 14 recites “the cleaning of the clogged filter”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the cleaning of the clogged filter” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 line 15 recites “the clogged filter”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the clogged filter” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 line 16 recites “the paralleled clean twin filter”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the paralleled clean twin filter” in previous claim limitations.
Claim 4 line 17 recites “the electric valves”. Examiner is unsure if “the electric valves” is the same or different than “a first set of electric valve” or a second set of electric valves”.
Claim 4 lines 17-18 recites “the pressure sensors”. Examiner is unsure if “the pressure sensors” is the same or different than “pressure drop-activated sensors” of claim 2.
Claim 4 line 18 recites “the said electric valves”. Examiner is unsure if “the said electric valves” is the same or different than “a first set of electric valve” or a second set of electric valves”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,2, and 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1 recites “An air purification system comprising a housing having an internally formed air stream flow path communicating between an inlet for incoming polluted air containing particulate material and an air outlet for emitting clean filtered air from which the particulate material has been removed, a collection system provided in the air stream flow path to collect the particulate material, said collection system comprising at least three stages of filters positioned in series in a gradient arrangement in filter pore size and each stage having two identical filter elements in parallel arrangement (twin filter elements), the said three stages of gradient arrangement comprising a first coarse filter set, a second medium filter set and a third fine filter set, each of the said twin filter elements incorporating a means for automated clogging detection, automated self- cleaning, automatically self-removing from the airflow path and automatically switching to the clean filter of the twin filter elements, a means for allowing filtering stages to ensure continuous airflow while the filter cleaning mechanism is being used and only a single filter element of the twin filter elements exposed to the air flow path within the housing and functioning at any time, wherein, in operation, once a filter element is clogged, it is taken off the filtration air flow pathway by triggering the self-cleaning mechanism and at the same time engaging the second twin filter element to take over the filtration process in that the passage of air through the filter housing is facilitated by a set of inline suction fans located downstream side of each filter stage of the air flow path where the passage of sufficient air volume through the fans is controlled by a pre-set airflow sensor connected to fans for automated adjustment of the air flow to ensure sufficient airflow constantly.”.
Radermacher et al(2022/0362691) in figures 1-3 teaches an air purification system including a filter module(3), the filter module including plurality of filter elements(2) provided in a parallel arrangement to an inlet air flow, wherein each filter element includes an airflow inlet(15) provided with a shut off valve(37) and an airflow outlet(16) provided with a shut off valve(38), wherein each filter module can be removed from an active air filtration operation by closing the shut off valve(37) and shut off valve(38), and wherein a cleaning operation is provided to the selected filter element by introducing a flushing medium through the selected filter element, while permitting a continuous filtration operation with active filter elements of the filter module(para 0020).
However Radermacher et al(2022/0362691) does not teach or suggest an air purification system comprising a housing having an internally formed air stream flow path communicating between an inlet for incoming polluted air containing particulate material and an air outlet for emitting clean filtered air from which the particulate material has been removed, a collection system provided in the air stream flow path to collect the particulate material, said collection system comprising at least three stages of filters positioned in series in a gradient arrangement in filter pore size and each stage having two identical filter elements in parallel arrangement (twin filter elements), the said three stages of gradient arrangement comprising a first coarse filter set, a second medium filter set and a third fine filter set, each of the said twin filter elements incorporating a means for automated clogging detection, automated self- cleaning, automatically self-removing from the airflow path and automatically switching to the clean filter of the twin filter elements, a means for allowing filtering stages to ensure continuous airflow while the filter cleaning mechanism is being used and only a single filter element of the twin filter elements exposed to the air flow path within the housing and functioning at any time, wherein, in operation, once a filter element is clogged, it is taken off the filtration air flow pathway by triggering the self-cleaning mechanism and at the same time engaging the second twin filter element to take over the filtration process in that the passage of air through the filter housing is facilitated by a set of inline suction fans located downstream side of each filter stage of the air flow path where the passage of sufficient air volume through the fans is controlled by a pre-set airflow sensor connected to fans for automated adjustment of the air flow to ensure sufficient airflow constantly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
September 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights