ABOVEDETAILED 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 December 5, 2025 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 42, “evaluates” (line 13) should be – evaluating --; “discards” (line 14) should be – discarding --. 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, 21, 25, 26, 50, and 53 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 (32) associated with the filter element (30) (Figs. 2, 3), the data storage element (32) comprising operational program data (32, 32 is an operational program data since identifies a proper filter for proper operation, Abstract, lines 5-6; paragraph 0034, lines 6-7) in the form of an object code (identification tag 32, Abstract, lines 5-6, is construed as an object code since identification tag 32 identifies a proper filter, thus, the ID tag 32 can be interpreted as an object code, paragraph 0034, lines 7-9).
It is noted that the limitation of the operational program data is in the form of any of compiled code, compiled code modules, compiled code libraries, binary code libraries, assembly code is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alterative form.
However, Surdick et al. does not disclose the operational program data comprising at least one of:
an algorithm definition; and
an operating software update.
Ebrom et al. discloses 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 … experienced by the appliance … and/or software to reconfigure the software architecture, paragraph 0009). Ebrom et al. is construed to disclose an operational software update because it discloses software to reconfigure the software architecture, paragraph 0009) in the filter assembly (paragraph 0009).
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 as suggested by Ebrom et al. for the purpose of reconfiguring the software architecture.
Regarding claim 1, Surdick et al. further discloses the filter element (30) is removably disposed within a filer housing (20) (paragraph 0024, lines 3-6).
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 reconfiguring the software architecture.
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 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.
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 … experienced by the appliance … and/or software to reconfigure the software architecture, paragraph 0009). Ebrom et al. is construed to disclose an algorithm definition because it discloses the software to reconfigure the software architecture, paragraph 0009), where the software defines an algorithm.
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 algorithm definition as suggested by Ebrom et al. for the purpose of reconfiguring the software architecture.
Regarding claim 25, Surdick et al. does not disclose 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.
Ebrom et al. discloses the algorithm definition comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of a regeneration event recommendation algorithm definition (implied by algorithm to reconfigure the software architecture, paragraph 0009, where the algorithm sequences perform events).
It is noted that 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 filtration performance calculation or tracking algorithm definition
is an optional limitation, since the since the algorithm definition is recited in a Markush format.
Regarding claim 26, 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 reconfiguring the software architecture.
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).
Regarding claim 53, Surdick et al. does not disclose the algorithm definition comprising a filtration performance algorithm definition.
Ebrom et al. discloses an algorithm for adjusting/defining a filtration performance (paragraph 0387, lines 13-17). The algorithm implies a definition (instructions) of the algorithm.
The limitation of 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; and
is an optional limitation since 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 algorithm definition as suggested by Ebrom et al. for the purpose of reconfiguring the software architecture.
Claims 42, 44-46, and 52 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 claims 1 and 21.
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
evaluates a date associated with the operational program data;
discards 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.
Dhingra et al. discloses evaluates 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).
While Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. and Dhingra et al. does not expressly disclose discards 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would know discard the outdated filter.
It is noted that the data in the outdated filter can be discarded by discarding the outdated filter.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to discard 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.
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. Further, it would have been obvious to discard the operational program data by discarding the outdated filter when the date indicates the operational program data is less recent than existing operational program data installed on the reader device.
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”.
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 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 51 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 McDonald et al. (US 2019/0213462).
Regarding claim 51, Surdick et al. as modified by Ebrom et al. discloses the claim limitations as discussed above except the operational program data is digitally signed using a manufacturer-specific private key.
McDonald et al. discloses the operational program data (tag data) is digitally signed (encrypted) using a manufacturer-specific private key (cryptographic key) (paragraph 0021, lines 16-18).
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 digitally signing the operational program data as disclosed by McDonald et al. for the purpose of securing the operational program data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 5, 2025 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. However, upon consideration of amended claim 42, a new claim objection is made as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicants argue with respect to claim 1, “[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.”
Examiner’s position is that the identification tag (32) of Surdick teaches an operational program data because it identifies a filter (Abstract, lines 5-6) for proper operation (paragraph 0034, lines 6-7). The operation program data as required by claim 1 is in the form of any of compiled code, compiled code modules, compiled code libraries, binary code libraries, object code, and assembly code. Surdick teaches the operational program data is in the form of an object code (identification tag 32 identifies a proper filter, thus, the ID tag 32 can be interpreted as an object code, paragraph 0034, lines 7-9).
Applicants further argue “[c]onversely, the published application at paragraph [0039] describes operational program data as functional pieces of code:”
Examiner’s position is that instant paragraph 0039 merely discloses examples, but not a definition of the operational program data.
It is noted that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claims are not read into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
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, object code, and assembly code" as required by claim 1.”
Examiner’s position is that Surdick discloses a data storage element (32) associated with the filter element (30) (Figs. 2, 3). As discussed above, Surdick teaches the operational program data is in the form of an object code (identification tag 32 identifies a proper filter, thus, the ID tag can be interpreted as an object code, paragraph 0034, lines 7-9).
Applicants further argue “Ebrom fails to cure the deficiencies of Surdick. Ebrom (U.S. Publ. App. No. 2010/0106265) discloses a filter assembly. However, there is no indication that the alleged software update is stored on a data storage element associated with the filter element as required by claim 1. In fact, paragraph [0007] of Ebrom discloses that the software architecture is stored in the filter holder (rather than with the filter element)”.
Examiner’s position is that the claim does not recite the software architecture is stored in the filter element. Rather, the claim recites a data storage element associated with the filter element. Surdick discloses a data storage element (32) associated with the filter element (30) (Figs. 2, 3), the data storage element (32) comprising operational program data (32, 32 is an operational program data since identifies a proper filter for proper operation, Abstract, lines 5-6; paragraph 0034, lines 6-7). Ebrom is relied upon to disclose that operational program data (software in memory, paragraph 0009, lines 1-5) comprises at least one of:
an operating software update (a memory device containing additional cycles of operation … experienced by the appliance … and/or software to reconfigure the software architecture, paragraph 0009).
Nevertheless, the filter assembly of Ebrom can read on the filter element. Ebrom discloses “[t]he 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” (paragraph 0009). Ebrom further discloses “[t]he filter assembly includes at least one replaceable filter mounted in a filter holder. The filter holder has at least one control board having software architecture configured for communication on a network including other control boards or clients” (paragraph 0039). Since the filter holder is part of the filter assembly, the software architecture is stored in the filter assembly. Thus, Ebrom discloses an operating software update stored on a data storage element associated with the filter element as required by claim 1.
Applicants further argue “Applicant has amended claim 1 to further distinguish the filter element from the filter housing. Currently amended claim 1 requires "wherein the filter element is removably disposed within a filter housing."
Examiner’s position, as discussed above, is that Surdick et al. discloses the filter element (30) is removably disposed within a filer housing (20) (paragraph 0024, lines 3-6).
Applicants further argue “[a]s the filter holder cannot include the filter element, Ebrom fails to teach or suggest at least "a data storage element associated with the filter element as required by claim 1.”
Examiner’s position is that Surdick discloses a data storage element (32) associated with the filter element (30) (Figs. 2, 3).
Ebrom is relied upon to disclose that operational program data (software in memory, paragraph 0009, lines 1-5) comprises at least one of:
an operating software update (a memory device containing additional cycles of operation … experienced by the appliance … and/or software to reconfigure the software architecture, paragraph 0009).
Nevertheless, Ebrom discloses “the controller … can update filter-related parameters in the memory” (paragraph 0384). Thus, regardless where the memory/data storage is located, Ebrom discloses "a data storage element associated with the filter element”.
Applicants further argue with respect to claim 21, “Surdick and Ebrom both fail to teach or suggest at least "a data storage element associated with the filter element, the data storage element comprising operational program data; the operational program data comprising an algorithm definition" as required by claim 21. … Those skilled in the art understand that an algorithm is a set of step-by-step instructions to solve a problem or complete a task. A data storage element having an algorithm definition is not described by paragraph [0009] (or anywhere else in the disclosure) of Ebrom.”
Examiner’s position is that Surdick et al. discloses the operational program data comprising an algorithm definition (Ebrom et al. is construed to disclose an algorithm definition because it discloses the software to reconfigure the software architecture, paragraph 0009), where the reconfiguration software defines an algorithm). Fu et al. (CN 102752207) discloses a reconfiguration software comprising an algorithm (paragraph 0052). The reconfiguration software of Fu et al. defines its algorithm.
Applicants further argue with respect to claim 42, “[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 Dhingra discloses determining whether or not a filter element is genuine (paragraph 0053, lines 14-21). This verifies a proper filter and thus, a proper filter operation. Therefore, the filter data stored in the RFIP tag (paragraph 0053, lines 14-17) indicates the operational program data. The data is sent to a reader (module 902). The module performs the proper filter evaluation based on the sent data (includes manufacturing date) and the expected data (paragraph 0053, lines 18-21). Accordingly, Dhingra discloses “evaluates a date associated with the operational program data”.
Applicants further argue “[w]hile one of skill in the art may choose not to install outdated software, the prior art provides no disclosure of a reader device of a filtration system being configured to selectively install or discard operational program data based on the date.”
Examiner’s position is that the claim does not recite selectively install operational program data based on the date. Dhingra discloses the data in the RFID of the filter includes a filter manufacturing date (paragraph 0053, lines 15-16). The data (includes a filter manufacturing date) is sent to a module 902 (paragraph 0053, line 18). Dhingra discloses comparing the sent data (includes a filter manufacturing date) to an expected data to determine whether the filter is acceptable (paragraph 0053, lines 18-21). It is possible if the filter is outdated, the filter is not acceptable. One of ordinary skill in the art would discard the filter. It is noted that the data in the outdated filter can be discarded by discarding the outdated filter. Thus, it would have been obvious to discard 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.
Applicant’s remaining arguments and amendments have been considered but are traversed in view of the grounds of rejection and discussions above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 February 24, 2026