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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 18 and 20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Original species directed to “the cartridge engagement wall and the lug engagement wall ….orthogonal to the axis”
Claims 18 and 20 introduce “the cartridge engagement wall is oblique to the axis”
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 18 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 6-21 remain pending in the application, claims 18 and 20 being withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3//2026 have been fully considered.
The prior art rejections are no longer applied to the instant claims due to the amended language
of claim 1 regarding engagement/disengagement configurations.
Note:
Applicant’s Remarks p 3 ¶1 states “Moreover, the filtration assembly of amended claim 1 exclusively uses relative rotation for disengagement. The interpenetrating retention undercuts are designed so that axial insertion causes the blocking groups to flex and snap into place, with the tooth and lug interpenetrating. (See paragraphs [0042] and [0074] of the specification.) Axial pulling cannot disengage them due to the interpenetrating undercuts. (See paragraph [0074] of the specification.) Only rotational motion between the filter cartridge and the auxiliary device causing sliding of the separate ramp edges causes radial flexing to release the interpenetrating undercuts. (See paragraphs [0051], [0052] and [0074] of the specification.)”
Examiner notes the differences in statements seem to hinge on applied action versus resulting in actions dependent on the applied action to the contribution to engagement and disengagement.
Engagement:
Applying axial rotation may be the exclusive catalyst to cause radial flexure, but the radial flexure is a pivotal action for disengagement.
It would seem that if radial flexure action was removed from the system, the engagement could not occur. Excluding radial flexure action is not supported in the written description. Please see 112(a) written description rejection below.
Disengagement:
Applying relative rotation may be the exclusive catalyst to cause radial flexure, but the radial flexure is a pivotal action for disengagement.
It would seem that if radial flexure action was removed from the system, the disengagement could not occur. Excluding radial flexure action is not supported in the written description. Please see 112(a) written description rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-3, 6-17, 19, and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites:
“an engagement/disengagement device comprising cartridge members comprised in the filtering cartridge and device members comprised in the auxiliary device, respectively shaped to be configurable in an engagement configuration by an exclusively reciprocal axial action between the filtering cartridge and the auxiliary device along the axis and in a disengagement configuration by an exclusively reciprocal rotation action between the filtering cartridge and the auxiliary device”
There is no support for axial action and rotation action being the only actions involved to attain engagement and disengagement configurations, respectively. Please see Examiner’s Suggestions for a discussion of language supported by the Specification.
Specification supports the following:
A) Regarding engagement
[0040]: “In accordance with the present invention, in the engagement configuration, the tooth 42 is housed in a snap-fit manner in the respective housing region 52 specially shaped.”
[0041]: “In accordance with the present invention, in the engagement configuration, the lug 53 is housed in the undercut 43.”
[0042]: “This engagement results in the elastic flexing of the blocking group 40 in a radial direction and therefore in the axial snap-fit insertion of the cartridge members 4 into the device members 5”
There are at least three required actions between the filtering cartridge and the auxiliary device to achieve engagement configuration (of a structure):
Tooth 42 in the housing region 52 via a snap-fit manner (indicates radial flexure action of cartridge)
Lug 53 in undercut 43 resulting in elastic flexing of cartridge’s blocking group, a non-reciprocal, radial action of the cartridge
Insertion of the cartridge member 4 into the device member 5, a reciprocal axial action between cartridge and device
[00102]: “Advantageously, in fact, the engagement operations between the filtering cartridge and the auxiliary device involve a single step of mutual axial insertion.”
In this embodiment, there seems to be only one exclusive step required for engagement operation (a method)
It seems that exclusively reciprocal axial operation enables the required action of elastic flexing, wherein the elastic flexing motion is what inserts each tooth, and inserting the tooth results in the engagement configuration with the related housing region.
[0021] In other words, the engagement/disengagement means 3 are not mutually engageable by means of operations other than a movement in the axial direction.
[0022] In some preferred embodiments, these operations require, upstream or downstream, further approaching or moving away operations (in the axial direction and/or in the rotary direction) required for the complete execution of the engagement/disengagement operations.
The claimed invention seems intended to align with the embodiment of [0021] to the exclusion of the embodiment underlined in [0022].
Examiner’s Suggestions Regarding Engagement:
Examiner suggests clarifying the intended embodiment. If intended to align with [0021]:
Examiner suggests that if the overall engagement of cartridge to device hinges on radial flexure action, there may other phrasing other than “action” that would be better supported as the exclusive operation of engagement via axial force to result in the claimed configuration, such as:
“mutual axial insertion” (see [00102]) and/ or (particularly in combination with)
“not mutually engageable by means of operations other than a movement in the axial direction” (see [0021]).
This language also overcomes the previous prior art rejection
B) Regarding disengagement
[0052]: “In particular, the remaining edge is thus suitable to slide (during the rotary disengagement operations) on said ramp, causing the elastic flexing of the blocking group 40 in a radial direction, freeing each tooth 42 from the related housing region 52”
The rotary action capability enables the action of elastic flexing, wherein the elastic flexing frees each tooth, freeing the tooth resulting in a disengaged configuration from the related housing region.
[0054]: “in the mutual engagement between the cartridge edge 48 and the device edge 58, the respective blocking group 40 elastically flexes in a radial direction so that the tooth 42 leaves the respective housing region 52”
The action of radial elastic flexing freeing the tooth from the related housing region establishes a disengagement configuration.
[00103]: “Advantageously, in fact, the disengagement operations between the filtering cartridge and the auxiliary device involve a single step of mutual rotation.”
In this embodiment, there seems to be only one exclusive step required for engagement operation (a method)
It seems that mutual rotation operation enables the required action of elastic flexing, wherein the elastic flexing motion is what removes each tooth, and removing the tooth results in the disengagement configuration with the related housing region.
[0021] Furthermore, the engagement/disengagement means 3 are not mutually disengageable by means of operations other than a movement in the rotational direction.
[0022] In some preferred embodiments, these operations require, upstream or downstream, further approaching or moving away operations (in the axial direction and/or in the rotary direction) required for the complete execution of the engagement/disengagement operations.
The claimed invention seems intended to align with the embodiment of [0021] to the exclusion of the embodiment underlined in [0022].
Examiner’s Suggestions Regarding Disengagement:
Examiner suggests clarifying the intended embodiment. If intended to align with [0021]:
Examiner suggests that if the overall engagement of cartridge to device hinges on radial flexure action, there may other phrasing other than “action” that would be better supported as the exclusive operation of engagement via axial force to result in the claimed configuration, such as:
“mutual rotation” (see [00103]) and/ or (particularly in combination with)
“not mutually disengageable by means of operations other than a movement in the rotational direction” (see [0021]).
This language overcomes the previous prior art rejection
Claims 2, 3, 6-17, 19, and 21 depend on Claim 1 and do not resolve the new matter, so are also rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an engagement/disengagement device comprising cartridge members comprised in the filtering cartridge and device members comprised in the auxiliary device, respectively shaped to be configurable in an engagement configuration by an exclusively reciprocal axial action between the filtering cartridge and the auxiliary device along the axis and in a disengagement configuration by an exclusively reciprocal rotation action between the filtering cartridge and the auxiliary device about the axis; … wherein the cartridge members comprise at least two blocking groups, each of the blocking groups comprising a stem and at least one tooth …wherein the device members comprise at least one housing region and a lug; wherein, in the engagement configuration, the tooth is housed in a snap-fit manner in the respective housing region… wherein in mutual engagement between the first cartridge edge and the device edges the respective blocking group is configured to flex elastically in a radial direction… during the exclusively reciprocal rotation action so that the tooth leaves disengages the respective housing region”
“an exclusively reciprocal action” is in conflict with “housed in a snap-fit manner”, whose required action for said engaged configuration is not an exclusively reciprocal action nor is it an exclusively axial action.
“configured to flex elastically in a radial direction… during the exclusively reciprocal rotation action” flexing elastically is an action other than exclusively reciprocal rotation action.
Note:
“action” is a broad term which encompasses “way or manner of moving”, “the process or state of acting or of being active”, “something done or performed; act; deed”.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/action
Elastic flexure is a way or manner of moving, a process or state of acting or being active, and something done or performed; act.
See 112(a) discussion of Specification-supported language other than “action” that suggests distinguishing actions taken from actions caused.
Claims 2, 3, 6-17, 19, and 21 depend on Claim 1 and are also rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20100089805-A1 teaches a snap-fit auxiliary device disengaged via rotation.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARRIAH ELLINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ben Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
MARRIAH ELLINGTON
Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773