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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the limitations “a/the third filter grid” and “a/the fourth filter grid” recited in claims 7 and 8. In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitations are also address in section 112 below.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Par [0032]: “the pre-filter”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7, "each of the first and the second filter elements…includes";
Claim 1 line 10, "the respective first and second grids";
Claim 2 line 1, “further charging”;
Claim 5 line 1, “through a pre-filter”;
Claim 9 line 4, “first electrically conductive grid [[that]] is connected”; and
Claim 10 line 2, “micro[[-]]biostasis” for consistency with the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The specification varies first and second labels associated with the ground/grounded and charged grids. The variation, i.e., first and second, is not interpreted as an inconsistency because the disclosure provides the same electrical relationships—one grounded grid and one charged grid with a filter therebetween each of the two distinct grid types. In the previous description, the roles of the grids and filter are consistent, and therefore, the ordinal labels can be reversed. The label “first” is not interpreted as the upstream grid throughout the description. This interpretation is related to the relative limitations recited in claims 2 and 9.
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 1-10 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 the limitation "high energy electric fields" in line 9. The term "high energy" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term "high energy" is not defined by the claim language. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What determines “high energy” the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the first filter grid" and "the second grid" in lines 1 and 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. Claim 1 recites "a respective first grid and a second grid" in line 8. Reconcile the limitations of claim 2 with the properly related antecedent basis for the limitations recited in claim 1. The limitations are interpreted as the second grid and the first grid in subsequent dependent claims. Also see claim 4 line 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a first filter element” in line 2. Is the limitation distinct from or the same as the limitation “a first filter element” in claim 1 at line 6?
Claim 4 recites “further comprising electrically connecting the first filter grid of a first filter element when the first filter element is attached to the first portion of the V-Bank filter.” The claim language fails to identify what facilitates electrically connecting the first filter grid of a first filter element (i.e., electrically connecting the first filter grid of a first filter element to what?). The metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitations “a/the third filter grid” and “a/the fourth filter grid.” The specification discloses “…different sets of filter elements connected in a serial configuration” (see par [0032]) but is silent for the limitations “a/the third filter grid” and “a/the fourth filter grid.” For precision on the record, clarify whether the limitations “a/the third filter grid” and “a/the fourth filter grid” refer to the disclosure “…different sets of filter elements connected in a serial configuration” or not.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a high energy" in line 8. Similar to claim 1, the term "high energy" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term "high energy" is not defined by the claim language. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What determines “high energy” the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claims 2-8 and 10 are indefinite for depending from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaisinghani (US 20040074387 A1).
Jaisinghani is relied upon as the closest prior art. Citations found in the prior art to Jaisinghani are provided below in parentheses. Regarding the method claims below, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. See MPEP § 2112.02(I).
Claim 1. A method for filtering air in a V-Bank filter (par [0074]), the method comprising:
receiving a first portion of the air through one or more voids of a shield (ground electrode 7; pars [0070], [0076],[0085], [0088]-[0090]) of a first portion of the V-Bank filter (pars [0055], [0068]);
ionizing particles in the first portion of the air based on an electric field produced by a first electrical conductor (pars [0057], [0070], [0073], [0076], [0078], [0117]; Fig. 5) that receives a voltage from a voltage source (high voltage cable 11; par [0101]);
capturing the particles in filter media of a first filter element and a second filter element of the first portion of the V-Bank filter (pars [0024]-[0026], [0071], [0112]), wherein each of the first and the second filter element include a respective first grid and a second grid (par [0055]); and
exposing the particles captured in the filter media to high energy electric fields between each of the respective first and second grid of the first filter element and the second filter element when the first electrical conductor receives the voltage from the voltage source (pars [0042], [0057]-[0058], [0101]).
Claim 2 (as interpreted). The method of claim 1, charging the second
Claim 3. The method of claim 1, further comprising electrically grounding an exterior of the V-Bank filter (pars [0094], [0108]).
Claim 4 (as interpreted). The method of claim 3, further comprising electrically connecting the first
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the first portion of the air though a pre-filter before the first portion of the air is received through the first portion of the V-Bank filter (pars [0088], [0101]).
Claim 6. The method of claim 5, further comprising ionizing particles in the first portion of the air based with an electric field that ionizes one or more particles before or as they enter the pre-filter (Figs. 6, 12 ; pars [0088], [0101]).
Claim 9. A filter element of a V-Bank filter (par [0074]), the filter element comprising: filter media (filter medium 1) that captures particles after the particles have been ionized (pars [0074]-[0077]); a first electrically conductive grid attached to a first side of the filter media (par [0076]), wherein the first electrically conductive grid that is connected to a ground reference potential when the filter element is installed in the V-Bank filter (par [0077]); and a second electrically conductive grid attached to a second side of the filter media (pars [0076]-[0077]), wherein the second electrically conductive grid is charged to a potential when the filter element is installed in the V-Bank filter and trapped particles are exposed to a high energy based on the charged potential being different than the ground reference potential (par [0077]).
Claim 10. The filter element of claim 9, wherein a trapped micro-organism is exposed to the high energy creating micro-biostasis in the filter element (pars [0076]-[0077]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaisinghani.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Jaisinghani discloses the pre-filter (pars [0088], [0101]) and disclose a plurality of grid filters with filter material disposed therebetween. Jaisinghani does not appear to disclose said pre-filter explicitly as a third filter grid, a fourth filter grid, and filter material disposed between the third and the fourth filter grid. The limitations “a third filter grid, a fourth filter grid, and filter material disposed between the third and the fourth filter grid” is considered duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to duplicate the filter grids and filter material disposed therebetween as claimed since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In the instant case this is obviously beneficial because of overloading and further protection. See MPEP § § 2144.04(VI‐B).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art is relied upon as indicated above. Jaisinghani discloses a charging filter grid connect to a voltage and a filter grid at ground potential connected to a ground potential (par [0068]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to envisage the two grids as claimed since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In the instant case this is obviously beneficial to have the arrangement in high bacterial load conditions to ensure efficacy. See MPEP § § 2144.04(VI‐B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. Also, see the prior art examples provided below in response to this correspondence. Examples follow:
US 5403383 A: downstream ground electrode 306, ionizing wires 310, composite filter material 314, prefilter 334; Figs. 3A-3F.
US 20060150816 A1: Figs. 6-10, 12-21; V-pack filter assembly 31; filter grids 4, 5; filter medium 1, 16, 17, and prefilter 45; par [0099].
US 3999964 A: col.3, ll. 3-9; Figs. 1-5.
US 6294004 B1: electrostatic V-bank air filter; a pair of perforated electrically conductive enclosure plates 40 pivotally mounted to the side panels 18 in parallel relationship with the top plates 26 and bottom plates 28 form a pair of rectangular enclosures for respectively supporting an electrostatic filter pad 4; Figs. 1-11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (EST).
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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 September 30, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
