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 .
The amendment filed on June 11, 2026 has been considered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 11, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 41 and 56 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 41, after “reader device” (line 12), should insert -- ; --.
Claim 56, “ECU” (line 3) should be -- engine control unit (ECU) --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surdick et al. (WO 2017/192729) in view of Ebrom et al. (US 2010/0106265).
Regarding claim 1, Surdick et al. discloses a filter element (30) for a filtration system (10, Figs. 1, 3), the filter element (30) comprising:
a filter body (body of filter element 30, Fig. 2);
a filter media (media of filter 30, Fig. 2) disposed within the filter body (media of/in filter body of filter element 30) (Figs. 1, 2); and
a data storage element (NFC/RFID tag 32 stores ID data in memory) is loaded onto the filter element (30) (32 is on 30, Figs. 2, 3), the data storage element (32) comprising operational program data (tag 32 stores ID data, ID data is construed an operational program data since ID data identifies a proper filter for proper operation, Abstract, lines 5-6; paragraph 0034, lines 6-7),
wherein the filter element (30) is removably disposed within a filer housing (20) (paragraph 0024, lines 3-6).
Surdick et al. does not disclose the operational program data is in the form of any of compiled code, compiled code modules, compiled code libraries, binary code libraries, and assembly code, the operational program data comprising at least one of:
an algorithm definition; and
an operating software update.
Ebrom et al. discloses an operational program data is in the form of any of compiled code (paragraph 0107, lines 11-13).
The limitation of the operational program data is in the form of any of compiled code modules, compiled code libraries, binary code libraries, and assembly code is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Ebrom et al. further discloses the operational program data (software in memory, paragraph 0009, lines 1-5) comprising at least one of:
an operating software update (a memory device containing additional cycles of operation, updated cycle of operations … cycles of operation experienced by the appliance in the filter assembly, paragraph 0009, lines 1-5).
The limitation of the operational program data comprising at least one of an algorithm definition is an alternative limitation since the algorithm definition is recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. with an operating software update in the form of a compiled code as suggested by Ebrom et al. for the purpose of performing appliance cycles of operation.
Regarding claim 3, the algorithm definition comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of:
an end-of-life (EOL) prediction algorithm definition;
an economically optimal change interval prediction algorithm definition;
a regeneration event recommendation algorithm definition; and
a filtration performance calculation or tracking algorithm definition,
is an alternative limitation, since the since the algorithm definition is recited in the alternative form (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Surdick et al. does not disclose the operating software update comprising at least one of:
a reader device operating software update; and
an operating software update for a device other than a reader device.
Ebrom et al. discloses the operating software update comprising at least one of an operating software update for a device other than a reader device (a memory device containing additional cycles of operation … experienced by the appliance, paragraph 0009, lines 1-4).
The limitation of the operating software update comprising at least one of a reader device operating software update is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. with an operating software update as suggested by Ebrom et al. for the purpose of performing appliance cycles of operation.
Regarding claim 8, Surdick et al. does not disclose the data storage element comprising a filter element performance characteristic, the filter element performance characteristic parameter including at least one selected from the group consisting of:
filter element capacity information for model ID;
filter element terminal pressure drop for model ID;
filter element loading curve for model ID;
filter element loading coefficient for model ID;
typical fuel consumption rate for machine associate with filter element model ID; and
fuel usage penalty factor for increased filter element pressure drop for machine associated with filter element model ID.
Ebrom et al. discloses the data storage element comprising a filter element performance characteristic (filter capacity, paragraph 0384, line 13), the filter element performance characteristic parameter including at least one selected from the group consisting of:
filter element capacity information for model ID (determining capacity of filter for existing filter ID, paragraph 0384, lines 9-19).
The limitation of the filter element performance characteristic parameter including at least one selected from the group consisting of:
filter element terminal pressure drop for model ID;
filter element loading curve for model ID;
filter element loading coefficient for model ID;
typical fuel consumption rate for machine associate with filter element model ID; and
fuel usage penalty factor for increased filter element pressure drop for machine associated with filter element model ID,
is an optional limitation, since the filter element performance characteristic parameter is recited in a Markush format.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. with a filter element capacity information for existing filter ID as suggested by Ebrom et al. for the purpose of determining capacity of filter for existing filter ID.
Regarding claim 50, Surdick et al. discloses the data storage element (32) is disposed on the filter element (32 is disposed on 30 of 10, Fig. 2).
The limitation of the data storage element is disposed in the filter element is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surdick et al. in view of Ebrom et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holzmann et al. (US 2013/0015109).
Regarding claim 21, Surdick et al. discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Surdick et al. further discloses a reader device (52) external to the filter element (30) (Fig. 3) and in wired or wireless communication with the filter element (paragraph 0036).
However, Surdick et al. does not disclose the operational program data comprising an algorithm definition; the algorithm definition comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of:
an end-of-life (EOL) prediction algorithm definition; and
an economically optimal change interval prediction algorithm definition.
Ebrom et al. discloses operational program data (software in memory, paragraph 0009, lines 1-5) comprising an algorithm definition (a memory device containing additional cycles of operation, updated cycles of operations … cycles of operation experienced by the appliance, paragraph 0009, lines 1-5). Ebrom et al. is construed as disclosing an algorithm definition because it discloses the software to, e.g., update cycles of operation, paragraph 0009), where the software defines an algorithm.
Holzmann et al. discloses an algorithm definition comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of an end-of-life (EOL) prediction algorithm definition (paragraph 0078, lines 24-29).
The limitation of an algorithm definition comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of an economically optimal change interval prediction algorithm definition is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the Markush format.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. with an operational program data comprising an algorithm definition, the algorithm definition comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of an end-of-life (EOL) prediction algorithm definition as suggested by Ebrom et al. and Holzmann et al. for the purpose of predicting a filter life.
Regarding claim 26, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. and Holzmann et al. does not disclose the operating software update comprising at least one of:
a reader device operating software update; and
an operating software update for a device other than a reader device.
Ebrom et al. discloses the operating software update comprising at least one of an operating software update for a device other than a reader device (a memory device containing additional cycles of operation … experienced by the appliance, paragraph 0009, lines 1-4).
The limitation of the operating software update comprising at least one of a reader device operating software update is an alternative limitation since it is recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. as modified with an operating software update as suggested by Ebrom et al. for the purpose of reconfiguring the software architecture.
Claims 42, 44-46, 52, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surdick et al. in view of Ebrom et al. and Dhingra et al. (US 2017/0173505).
Regarding claim 42, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Surdick et al. further discloses installing the filter element (30) within a filter housing (20) (Figs. 1, 3), the filter housing (20) defining an interior volume (Fig. 1), the filter element (30) configured to fit within the interior volume of the filter housing (20) (Fig. 1), and
passing the operational program data (32) onto a reader device (52) (Fig. 3).
However, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. does not disclose
evaluating a date associated with the operational program data;
discarding the operational program data if the date indicates the operational program data is less recent than existing operational program data installed on the reader device;
installing the operational program data when the date indicates the operational program data is more recent than existing operational program data installed on the reader device.
Dhingra et al. discloses evaluating a date (manufacturing date, paragraph 0053, lines 15-16) associated with the operational program data (manufacturing date is stored as operational program data in the RFID tag, paragraph 0053, lines 14-17) (determines whether a filter is genuine based on comparing the RFID data with expected data, paragraph 0053, lines 12-21, where the RFID data (returned data) includes manufacturing date, paragraph 0053, lines 15-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. as modified with evaluating a date associated with the operational program data as disclosed by Dhingra et al. for the purpose of determining whether a filter is genuine.
It is further noted that in light of the specification (e.g., page 15, lines 10-18), “discarding the operational program data when the date indicates the operational program data is less recent than existing operational program data installed on the reader device; and installing the operational program data when the date indicates the operational program data is more recent than existing operational program data installed on the reader device” are interpreted as “discarding the operational program data [[when]] if the date indicates the operational program data is less recent than existing operational program data installed on the reader device; and installing the operational program data [[when]] if the date indicates the operational program data is more recent than existing operational program data installed on the reader device”. Thus, the limitations are construed as contingent limitations (see MPEP 2111.04).
The claims do not require “the date indicates the operational program data is less recent than existing operational program data installed on the reader device” or “the date indicates the operational program data is more recent than existing operational program data installed on the reader device”. Thus, the discarding/installing the operational program is/are not required.
Regrading claim 44, Surdick et al. discloses passing filter element intrinsic data (filter indicator) to the reader device (72).
Regrading claim 45, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. and Dhingra et al. does not disclose filter element intrinsic data is passed before the operational program data.
Ebrom et al. discloses filter element intrinsic data (paragraph 0015, lines 4-8). Ebrom et al. further discloses filter element intrinsic data is passed before the operational program data (filter unique identifier is communicated over the network so that the circuit can … affect the cycle of operation of an appliance when the filter is coupled to the appliance, paragraph 0013, lines 9-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pass the filter element intrinsic data (filter identification data) of Surdick et al. as modified as suggested by Ebrom et al. for the purpose of affecting the cycle of operation of an appliance when the filter is coupled to the appliance.
Regrading claim 46, Surdick et al. discloses the operational program data is passed onto a reader device (52) (Fig. 3). However, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. does not disclose the operational program data is not passed until specifically requested by the reader device.
Dhingra et al. discloses a passive RFID tag (paragraph 0064, lines 5-8). Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of Surdick et al. and Dhingra et al. to pass the operational program data when specifically requested by the reader device (52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. as modified with a passive RFID tag as disclosed by Dhingra et al. for the purpose of passing the operational program data when specifically requested by the reader device (52).
Regrading claim 52, Surdick et al. discloses filter element intrinsic data is transferred regardless of whether authentication is successful (filter indicator 50 is transferred to 72 before 72 can determine of a proper filter element is in place, paragraph 0037, lines 6-8).
The limitation of other types of data are withheld if authentication fails is a contingent limitation and is not required (see MPEP 2111.04) because claim 52 does not require the condition of “authentication fails”.
Regrading claim 56, Surdick et al. does not disclose evaluating the date associated with the operational program data comprises comparing the date associated with the operational program data to a date value provided by an ECU.
Dhingra et al. discloses evaluating the date associated with the operational program data comprises comparing the date associated with the operational program data to a date value provided by an ECU (module 902 comparing returned data to expected data, paragraph 0053, lines 19-21, where the returned data is from RFID tag, paragraph 0053, lines 16-18, and includes a manufacturing date, paragraph 0053, lines 15-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. as modified with comparing the date associated with the operational program data to a date value provided by an ECU
as disclosed by Dhingra et al. for the purpose of determining whether a filter is genuine.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surdick et al. in view of Ebrom et al. and Dhingra et al. as applied to claim and 42 above, and further in view of Milvert et al. (US 2013/0220900).
Regarding claim 47, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. and and Dhingra et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except passing extrinsic data to the reader device.
Milvert et al. passing extrinsic data to the reader device (16) (manufacturer data is stored in 14, paragraph 0013, lines 12-15; 16 reads from 14, paragraph 0014, lines 1-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. as modified with passing extrinsic data to a reader device as disclosed by Milvert et al. for the purpose of identifying the manufacture of the filter.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surdick et al. in view of Ebrom et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weidinger (US 2015/0145652).
Regarding claim 5, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. does not disclose a firmware update comprising at least one of a reader device firmware update comprising at least one of
a reader device firmware update; and
a firmware update for a device other than a reader device.
Weidinger discloses a firmware update (by accessing the configuration data and storing the new entry in the lookup table for the new RFID tag derivative to update a firmware, paragraph 0022, lines 15-18) comprising at least one of a reader device firmware update (paragraph 0022, lines 15-18).
The firmware update comprising at least one of a firmware update for a device other than a reader device is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. as modified with a firmware update as disclosed by Weidinger for the purpose of updating a reader device firmware.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surdick et al. in view of Ebrom et al. as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Milvert et al. (US 2013/0220900).
Regarding claim 9, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except the data storage element comprising extrinsic data, the extrinsic data comprising at least one of:
fuel cost per unit of fluid measure;
fuel formulation data;
environmental emissions regulation data;
cost of filter element;
labor cost to change filter element; and
date of extrinsic data revision.
Milvert et al. discloses a data storage element comprising extrinsic data (manufacturer data, paragraph 0013, lines 15-16), the extrinsic data comprising at least one of date of extrinsic data revision (manufacture date, paragraph 0013, lines 15-16).
The limitations of a data storage element comprising extrinsic data, the extrinsic data comprising at least one of:
fuel cost per unit of fluid measure;
fuel formulation data;
environmental emissions regulation data;
cost of filter element;
labor cost to change filter element; and
date of extrinsic data revision
are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. as modified with a data storage element comprising extrinsic data as disclosed by Milvert et al. for the purpose of providing a manufacture date.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surdick et al. in view of Ebrom et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Milvert et al. (US 2013/0220900) and McDonald et al. (US 2019/0213462).
Regarding claim 11, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except the data storage element further storing a public cryptographic key of the filter element manufacturer.
Surdick et al. discloses the data storage element further storing identification data (Abstract) while Milvert et al. discloses data storage element for storing manufacturer data (paragraph 0013, lines 12-15).
McDonald et al. discloses encrypting a portion of the product identification data with a cryptographic key (paragraph 0054, lines 17-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. as modified with a data storage element for storing a cryptographic key of product identification as suggested by Milvert et al. and McDonald et al. for the purpose of securely identifying a manufacturer.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surdick et al. in view of Ebrom et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Weidinger (US 2015/0145652).
Regarding claim 27, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. does not disclose a firmware update comprising at least one of a reader device firmware update comprising at least one of
a reader device firmware update; and
a firmware update for a device other than a reader device.
Weidinger discloses a firmware update (by accessing the configuration data and storing the new entry in the lookup table for the new RFID tag derivative to update a firmware, paragraph 0022, lines 15-18) comprising at least one of a reader device firmware update (paragraph 0022, lines 15-18).
The firmware update comprising at least one of a firmware update for a device other than a reader device is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. as modified with a firmware update as disclosed by Weidinger for the purpose of updating a reader device firmware.
Claim 54 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surdick et al. in view of Ebrom et al. and Dhingra et al. as applied to claim and 42 above, and further in view of Milvert et al., as applied to claim 47, and further in view of Swartz et al. (US 2019/0251506).
Regarding claim 54, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al., Dhingra et al., and Milvert et al. does not disclose the extrinsic data is marked with one or more
regions of validity.
Swartz et al. discloses extrinsic data is marked with one or more regions of validity (extrinsic (e.g., is an entity that entered the data for the data member historically enter valid data; is the data entered in a geographic region that historically enters
valid data for the type of data being considered …), paragraph 0065, lines 32-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Surdick et al. as modified with extrinsic data entered in a valid geographical region as suggested by closed by Swartz et al. for the purpose of determining whether the extrinsic data is considered for determining the type and amount of weighting to apply to members of a weighted class (paragraph 0065, lines 27-29) and for determining shipping volumes (paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 55, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al., Dhingra et al., and Milvert et al. does not disclose evaluating the one or more regions of validity associated with the extrinsic data.
It is further noted that in light of the specification (e.g., page 15, line 23- page 16, line 11), “rejecting the extrinsic data carried by the filter when the one or more regions of validity associated with the extrinsic data are not compatible with one or more regions of validity associated with the reader device”; and “accepting the extrinsic data carried by the filter when the one or more regions of validity associated with the extrinsic data are compatible with one or more regions of validity associated with the reader device” are interpreted as “rejecting the extrinsic data carried by the filter [[when]] if the one or more regions of validity associated with the extrinsic data are not compatible with one or more regions of validity associated with the reader device”; and “accepting the extrinsic data carried by the filter [[when]] if the one or more regions of validity associated with the extrinsic data are compatible with one or more regions of validity associated with the reader device”. Thus, the limitations are construed as contingent limitations (see MPEP 2111.04).
The claims do not require “the one or more regions of validity associated with the extrinsic data are not compatible with one or more regions of validity associated with the reader device” or “the one or more regions of validity associated with the extrinsic data are compatible with one or more regions of validity associated with the reader device”. Thus, the rejecting/accepting the extrinsic data carried by the filter is not required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 11, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 of claim 1, Applicants argue “[p]roviding a piece of filter identification data on an identification tag as taught by Surdick is not the same as storing operational program data on a data storage element as required by claim 1. While not made explicit by Surdick, filter identification data is generally a series of characters meant to identify a particular filter element or type of filter element. For example, Surdick at [0034] discloses that the identification tag (32) is intended to validate a particular filter element”.
Examiner’s position is that Surdick discloses a data storage element (NFC/RFID tag 32 stores ID data in memory), where the data storage element (32) comprising operational program data (tag 32 stores ID data, ID data is construed as an operational program data since ID data identifies a proper filter for proper operation, Abstract, lines 5-6; paragraph 0034, lines 6-7).
Applicants further argue “Surdick fails to teach or suggest at least "a data storage element associated with the filter element, the data storage element comprising operational program data in the form of any of compiled code, compiled code modules, compiled code libraries, binary code libraries, and assembly code" as required by claim 1.”
Examiner agrees that Surdick does not teach the operational program data in the form of any of compiled code, compiled code modules, compiled code libraries, binary code libraries, and assembly code”.
Applicants further argue “Ebrom fails to cure the deficiencies of Surdick. Ebrom (U.S. Publ. App. No. 2010/0106265) discloses a filter assembly. The Office Action at page 4 cites paragraph [0009] of Ebrom as disclosing "the operational program data comprising at least one of an algorithm definition; and an operating software update." Applicant respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The Cited paragraph of Ebrom discloses that:
The filter assembly also can include a memory device containing additional cycles of operation, updated cycles of operation, historical information relating to cycles of operation experienced by the appliance, and/or software to reconfigure the software architecture.
However, there is no indication that the alleged software update is stored on a data storage element loaded onto the filter element as required by claim 1.”
Examiner’s position is that Ebrom discloses the operational program data (software in memory, paragraph 0009, lines 1-5) comprising at least one of:
an operating software update (a memory device containing additional cycles of operation, updated cycle of operations … cycles of operation experienced by the appliance in the filter assembly (paragraph 0009, lines 1-5).
Even if Ebrom alone does not teach a data storage element is loaded onto the filter element, the rejection is not a 102 rejection and Surdick explicitly discloses a data storage element (NFC/RFID tag 32 stores ID data in memory) is loaded onto the filter element (30) (32 is on 30, Figs. 2, 3). The question is not whether Ebrom alone anticipates the claim language but what the combination of references teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill, the fact that Sturdick discloses a data storage element is loaded onto the filter element clearly render obvious the claim. “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 of claim 21, Applicants argue “Surdick and Ebrom both fail to teach or suggest at least "the algorithm definition comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of: an end-of-life (EOL) prediction algorithm definition; and an economically optimal change interval prediction algorithm definition" as required by claim 21.
Examiner’s position is that Holzmann et al. discloses an algorithm definition comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of: an end-of-life (EOL) prediction algorithm definition (paragraph 0078, lines 24-27). Please see the new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 of claim 21 discussed above.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 of claim 42, Applicants argue “[t]he cited passage of Dhingra pertains to determining whether or not a filter element is genuine and bears no relevance to evaluating the date associated with a set of data”.
Examiner’s position is that the passage discloses “the associated RFID antenna is structured to interrogate and gather data (e.g., a serial number, a filter identifier, a filter manufacturing date, etc.) from an RFID tag installed on the filter cartridge (if the filter cartridge has an RFID tag) and to send the data to the module 902. The module 902 determines whether the installed filter cartridge is genuine based on analyzing returned data (or absence thereof) and comparing the returned data to expected data”, where the returned data includes manufacturing data (paragraph 0053, lines 15-16).
Accordingly, Dhingra discloses “evaluating a date associated with the operational program data”.
Applicants further argue “Dhingra further fails to teach or suggest at least the following limitations of claim 42:
discarding the operational program data when the date indicates the operational program data is less recent than existing operational program data installed on the reader device; and
installing the operational program data when the date indicates the operational program data is more recent than existing operational program data installed on the reader device.”
Examiner’s position is that the limitations are contingent limitations as discussed above.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 discussed above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights