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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, it appears that “movably” should be changed to “movable.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griffin et al. (4,954,252).
Griffin et al. ‘252 teach a filter drier with a uni-directional flow design, comprising an outer cylinder (11) with an inlet (16) pipe through an inlet cap (14), an outlet pipe (15) through an outlet cap (12), a filter assembly (22,31) in the outer cylinder, a filter assembly valve port (54), a bracket between the outlet cap and the filter assembly, and a one way valve (41) on the bracket and below the filter assembly and movable to open or close the valve port, wherein a pressure difference between a region above the valve port and below the valve port causes the valve to open for unidirectional communication between the inlet and the outlet (see figures, col. 2, line 57 to col. 3, line 44). A radial area of the valve port is greater than the radial area of the outlet pipe (see figure 1). The filter-drier is used in a heat pump or refrigerant system, which inherently includes a compressor with an inlet in communication with the device. The inlet side can be taken to be the top side because the device can function in any orientation, and the filter drier is capable of being used as a gas-liquid separator because there are physical barriers between the inlet and outlet.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. ‘252 in view of Lacey (2003/0141793 A1).
Griffin et al. ‘252 disclose all of the limitations of the claims except that the valve comprises a valve core movably arranged on the bracket and an elastic member on the bracket and matched with a side of the valve core that is away from the filter assembly. Lacey ‘793 discloses a refrigerant filter-drier comprising check-valves that include a core (366) movably arranged on a bracket (346) and an elastic member (362) on the bracket and matched with a side of the valve core that is away from a filter assembly (330) (see figure 11, paragraphs 56-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the valve of Griffin et al. ‘252 by using the valve design of Lacey ‘793 in order to provide a more robust structure made of all metallic parts that will resist break-down and corrosion during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9, 12-16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose fluid filter flow arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm.
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 Michener can be reached on 571-272-1424. 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.
/FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
fl