DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claims 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raether et al. US 2012/0011815 (hereafter Raether) and further in view of Osendorf et al. US 2015/0101299 (hereafter Osendorf)
Regarding claim 13, Raether teaches a tubesheet (620 in Fig 46) comprising: a substantially planar sheet of material having a length and a width (as shown in Fig 46) and defining a series of filter openings (621) across the length and width of the sheet of material, wherein each of the filter openings in the series of filter openings extends through the sheet of material in an axial direction and has an oblong profile orthogonal to the axial direction (as shown in Fig 46, ¶187-190).
Raether does not teach wherein the sheet of material defines a projection extending into each of the filter openings and a recess extending out from each of the filter openings, wherein the projection and recess are axially aligned, and wherein the projection and recess define an inner perimetric sealing surface.
Osendorf (in Fig 104 embodiment) teaches a sheet (sheet comprising filter opening 1870) wherein the sheet of material defines a projection (1872) extending into each of the filter openings and a recess (1873) extending out from each of the filter openings, wherein the projection and recess are axially aligned, and wherein the projection and recess define an inner perimetric sealing surface (1871). Osendorf teaches where the projection and recesses form a radial seal (¶517-524) which is releaseable (¶399) and where the seal is one of two seals (¶368). Further, the seal prevents rotation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter openings (621) of Raether by incorporating the projections (1872) and recesses (1873) of Osendorf in order to define a radial seal (¶517-524), be releasable (¶399), and prevent rotation.
Regarding claim 14, Raether in view of Osendorf teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Raether does not teach wherein each of the filter openings defines a plurality of projections (1872) and a plurality of recesses (1873) in axial alignment, wherein the projections alternate with the recesses about a portion of each filter opening (as shown in Figs 104-105).
Osendorf (in Fig 104 embodiment) teaches wherein the filter opening defines a plurality of projections and a plurality of recesses in axial alignment, wherein the projections alternate with the recesses about a portion of each filter opening (as shown in Figs 104-105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter openings (621) of Raether by incorporating the projections (1872) and recesses (1873) of Osendorf in order to define a radial seal (¶517-524), be releasable (¶399), and prevent rotation (¶65).
The modification would have resulted in wherein each of the filter openings defines a plurality of projections and a plurality of recesses in axial alignment, wherein the projections alternate with the recesses about a portion of each filter opening.
Regarding claim 15, Raether in view of Osendorf teaches all the limitations of claim 14.
Raether does not teach wherein the plurality of projections and plurality of recesses form undulations extending along a curve.
Osendorf (in Fig 104 embodiment) teaches wherein the plurality of projections and plurality of recesses form undulations extending along a curve (as shown in Figs 104-105)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter openings (621) of Raether by incorporating the projections (1872) and recesses (1873) of Osendorf in order to define a radial seal (¶517-524), be releasable (¶399), and prevent rotation (¶65).
Regarding claim 17, Raether in view of Osendorf teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Raether further teaches wherein a profile of each filter opening defines a first elongate side, a second elongate side, a first end and a second end (as shown in Fig 46).
Raether does not teach the projection extends out from the filter opening from the first elongate side
The combination of claim 13 further teaches the projection extends out from the filter opening from the first elongate side because the recesses and projections of Osendorf would extend around the entirety of the oblong profile of the Raether filter openings.
Regarding claim 18, Raether in view of Osendorf teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
Raether does not teach wherein the recess extends into each filter opening on the second elongate side.
The combination of claim 17 further teaches wherein the recess extends into each filter opening on the second elongate side because the recesses and projections of Osendorf would extend around the entirety of the oblong profile of the Raether filter openings.
Regarding claim 19, Raether in view of Osendorf teaches all the limitations of claim 17.
Raether (Fig 46) teaches wherein the profile of each filter opening is symmetrical (symmetric about the line between the midpoints of the two long sides; symmetric about the line between the midpoints of the two short sides; symmetric about the plane at the midpoint of the tubesheet’s thickness).
Osendorf (Figs 104-105) also teaches wherein the profile of each filter opening is symmetrical (symmetric about multiple lines, each line bisecting the opening and having an endpoint at peak/trough of one projection and/or recess; symmetric about the plane at the midpoint of the opening’s thickness).
The combination of claim 17 further teaches wherein the profile of each filter opening is symmetrical because the recesses and projections of Osendorf would extend around the entirety of the oblong profile of the Raether filter openings.
Regarding claim 20, Raether in view of Osendorf teaches all the limitations of claim 13. Raether further teaches wherein a first filter opening defined in the tubesheet has a first longitudinal axis and a second filter opening defined in the tubesheet has a second longitudinal axis, and the first longitudinal axis and the second longitudinal axis are 10 degrees to 90 degrees apart (as shown in Fig 46 where the axes are rotated to cover the surface around tubesheet 620).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raether in view of Osendorf as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Clements US 2010/0101195 (hereafter Clements).
Regarding claim 16, Raether in view of Osendorf teaches all the limitations of claim 13.
Raether does not teach wherein the sheet of material comprises a sheet of metal.
Clements teaches a filter comprising a tube sheet (44) made of a suitable material such as sheet metal (¶22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube sheet (620) by making the tubesheet of metal (¶22) as a matter of obvious selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07) for instance because of metal’s strength and air impermeability.
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Arguments filed 30 Jun. 2026:
Applicant argues that although Examiner cited the Fig 104 embodiment of Osendorf, because certain reference numerals are present in Figs 106-107 and not in Fig 104 that Examiner likely intended to reference the embodiment of Fig 106.
Examiner disagrees. Examiner references the Osendorf Fig 104 embodiment but references features which are shown and are present in the Fig 104 embodiment yet are not numerically labeled in the Fig 104 embodiment. The features labeled numerically in other Osendorf figures (for instance feature 1870 in Fig 106) are clearly present in the Fig 104 embodiment based on Osendorf disclosure, however then are not shown and/or label.
Similarly in Applicant’s disclosure, not each and every feature is numerically referenced in each and every figure. For instance, Applicant’s closure 120 is shown in the Fig 1 embodiment while no corresponding feature is shown in Fig 6 even though the closure would be present in the Fig 6 embodiment.
Applicant argues that Osendorf does not teaches the sheet of material as claimed.
Examiner agrees. The primary reference Raether teaches a sheet of material (620 in Fig 46) but does not teach the filter openings have the structure claimed. Osendorf teaches a sheet of material with a filter opening (1870) that comprises the lobes and recesses. The combination modifies the filter openings (621) of Raether which have a smooth elongated edge to have the shape of the Raether filter opening which has the projection and recesses. The modification would define a radial seal, be releasable, and prevent rotation.
Applicant argues that the filter openings of Raether and Osendorf serve different functions.
Examiner disagrees. Examiner agrees that the Raether filter openings receive filter element as argued by applicant. The Osendorf filter openings also receive a filter element, as best shown in Figs 33, 36 and described in Osendorf ¶517-523.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not have looked to Osendorf because the disclosure does not relate to filter cartridges or flow apertures.
Examiner disagrees. The term “filter” occurs over 400 times in the Osendorf description and Fig 104 depicts a filter cartridge. Thus, Osendorf does related to filter cartriges. Device 1850 in Fig 106 is similar to the device which would be used with the filter cartridge of Fig 104, which the difference being the shape of the filter opening 1870 being elongated to hold the filter cartridge in Fig 104. Feature 1870 in Fig 106 (i.e. the filter opening) is a flow aperture.
Applicant argues that the rotation prevention is not taught by Osendrof and even if taught would not be obvious to modify because the filter opening of Raether is elongated.
Examiner disagrees. The Osendorf Figs 104-106 show a structure which one of ordinary skill would understand would prevent rotation by the interlocking nature of the recesses/projections and further describes the rotations prevention in ¶323, ¶327-328. The modification would have been obvious because the rotation prevention via the projections/recesses would have a different effect than the rotation prevention via the elongated nature of the Raether filter opening.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights