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 Interpretation
The phrase of “for an airfield generator” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
In this view, the “airfield generator” is neither claimed nor affirmatively recited in the claims of the present invention.
Therefore, the at least claim 2 has been interpreted as follows:
“A filter comprising: an elongate body extending from a proximal end to a terminal end opposite the proximal end, the body comprising a polygonal shape having sides and vertices, the sides extending from the proximal end to the terminal end between the vertices of the polygonal shape, the body further comprising a longitudinal length between the proximal end and the terminal end; a first end opening at the proximal end of the body; a second end opening at the terminal end of the body; one or more filters on the sides of the body, wherein the one or more filters extend along at least a portion of the length of the body; and wherein the body is configured to draw-in air through the first end opening and through the second end opening and to exhaust the drawn-in air out of the body through the one or more filtering portions on the sides of the body, wherein the one or more filtering portions are configured to filter the air passing through the one or more filtering portions.”
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.
Claim(s) 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ke et al (US 20170328590; hereinafter Ke).
As regarding claim 2, Ke discloses the claimed invention for a filter for an airfield generator, the filter comprising: an elongate body (annotated fig. 4) extending from a proximal end to a terminal end opposite the proximal end, the body comprising a polygonal shape having sides and vertices, the sides extending from the proximal end to the terminal end between the vertices of the polygonal shape, the body further comprising a longitudinal length between the proximal end and the terminal end; a first end opening at the proximal end of the body; a second end opening at the terminal end of the body; one or more filters on the sides of the body, wherein the one or more filters extend along at least a portion of the length of the body; and wherein the body is configured to draw-in air through the first end opening and through the second end opening and to exhaust the drawn-in air out of the body through the one or more filtering portions on the sides of the body, wherein the one or more filtering portions are configured to filter the air passing through the one or more filtering portions (annotated fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As regarding claim 3, Ke discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ke discloses the claimed invention for wherein the one or more filtering portions each comprise an opening in the sides of the body and a filter material (416a-c) positioned over the opening.
As regarding claim 4, Ke discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ke discloses the claimed invention for the filter material (416c-a of fig. 5A-5C) is configured to expand radially outward through the one or more filter openings when air flows through the filter material.
As regarding claim 5, Ke discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ke discloses the claimed invention for wherein the filter (annotated fig. 4) is configured to be inserted into an internal cavity of the airfield generator (see claim interpretation above) so air enters the first end opening and the second end opening through inlets of the internal cavity of the airfield generator.
As regarding claim 6, Ke discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ke discloses the claimed invention for wherein the filter (annotated fig. 4) is configured to reduce vortices in the internal cavity of the airfield generator.
Examiner notes that the limitations of “configured to reduce vortices”, which pertains to the mode of operating a disclosed filter. However, it is well established that neither the mode of operating a disclosed device nor the material or article being processed imposes further limit an apparatus claim.
As regarding claim 7, Ke discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ke discloses the claimed invention for wherein the body comprises a triangular shape (annotated fig. 4).
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) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ke et al (US 20170328590; hereinafter Ke).
As regarding claim 8, Ke discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ke discloses the claimed invention except for each of the sides comprises a plurality of filter portions. 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 each of the sides comprises a plurality of filter portions in order to enhance filter performance, 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, Ke discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ke discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a first side of the body comprises a different number of filtering portions than a second side of the body. Nevertheless, providing the first side with a number of filtering portions different from the second side would have been obvious design choice to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to enhance filter performance.
As regarding claim 10, Ke discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ke discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the filter comprises a filter rating of at least MERV 13. 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 comprises a filter rating of at least MERV 13 in order to provide a surface enhanced filter assembly, since it was known in the art as shown in Mashburn et al (US 20220297039; hereinafter Mashburn; [0074]).
As regarding claim 11, Ke discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ke discloses the claimed invention except for a combination comprising the filter and an airfield generator comprising a first air intake and a second air intake, the airfield generator configured to receive the filter such that air is drawn into the first end opening through the first air intake and into the second end opening through the second air intake. 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 combination comprising the filter and an airfield generator comprising a first air intake and a second air intake, the airfield generator configured to receive the filter such that air is drawn into the first end opening through the first air intake and into the second end opening through the second air intake in order to enhance airfield generator, since it was known in the art as shown in Miller (US 20160001212; [0018], [0053]-[0055] and fig. 13).
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, Bobbly 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773