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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Read et al., EP 0, 676, 228 A1 (“Read”) in view of GB ’922, GB 1499922 A (“GB ’922”).
Regarding claim 5:
Read discloses an air filter (Read’s air filter 10) including a filter element 30,
a cylindrical filter housing 12 with an unfiltered air inlet 14 and a filtered air outlet 16 (Read Fig. 2, p. 3, ll. 14–15),
wherein the filtered air outlet 16 is arranged concentrically at a first end face of filter housing (end 54 of Read’s housing 12; Read Fig. 2, p. 3, ll. 14–15),
wherein an extension tube 38 projects into the interior of the filter housing 12 and the filter element 30 at the filtered air outlet 16 comprises a first end plate (Read’s disc 46) which can be fitted onto the extension tube 38 in a fitted state (as shown in FIG. 2, Read discloses that its first end plate 46 and the extension tube 38 are connected together at 48 in a sealed manner. Read Fig. 2, p. 3, ll. 40–44),
wherein the first end plate 46 is made of plastic (Read discloses its disc portion 46 is made of rigid plastic, Read Fig. 2, p. 3, ll. 45–46).
PNG
media_image1.png
810
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Read does not disclose that the first end plate 46 comprises a sealing lip which is integrally formed thereon and projects radially inwardly, and in the fitted state, the sealing lip bears against the extension tube. Read also does not disclose that the first end plate 46 comprises a second sealing lip which is integrally formed thereon and projects radially outward and, in the fitted state, the second sealing lip bears against a separation tube.
Similar to Read, GB ’922 discloses a filter cartridge as shown in Fig. 8. GB ’922 discloses its filter cartridge comprises a first end plate 13 with a sealing lip 33, which is integrally formed with the first end plate 13 and projects radially inwardly. GB ’922 Fig. 8, p. 3, ll. 66–69. Additionally, GB ’922 discloses that the first end plate 13 comprises a second sealing lip 34 which is integrally formed on the first end plate 13 and projects radially outward. GB ’922 Fig. 8, ll. 66–69. GB ’922 discloses its sealing lips 33 and 34 makes it possible to obtain excellent sealing-tightness with a surface on which they come to bear, whilst exerting a minimum force in the radial direction, and thus allowing a very wide tolerance on the diametral dimensions. GB ’922 Fig. 8, ll. 69–79. It would have been obvious to replace Read’s first end plate 46 with Read’s first end plate 13 for the benefits disclosed above. With such modification, modified Read would have a first sealing lip 33 bears against the extension tube 38 as shown in Read’s location 48. Read Fig. 2, p. 3, ll. 40–44 and GB ’922 Fig. 8. Modified Read would also have a second sealing lip 34 bears against a separation tube (see annotation in Fig. 2 above). Read annotated Fig. 2 above.
PNG
media_image2.png
243
431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 6–8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read in view of GB ’922 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Behrendt et al., US 5,167,683 A (“Behrendt”).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Read does not disclose that an air filter according to claim 5, wherein a support ring is arranged on a radially outer surface of the filter element 30 for radially fixing the filter element in the filter housing.
Similar to modified Read, Behrendt discloses an air filter element 32 located inside a housing 27 and 34. Behrendt Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 31–47. Behrendt discloses a support ring 40 that is arranged on a radially outer surface of the filter element 30 for radially fixing the filter element 32 in the filter housing 27, 34. Behrendt Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 56–59. Behrendt discloses the engagement between annular groove 38, 39 and support ring 40 assures that the filter assumes a correct axial position when it is installed, i.e., improper insertion of the filter will result in the cover element cannot be mate and fastened with the filter housing. Behrendt Fig. 2, col. 5, ll. 9–15. It would have been obvious for modified Read to include Behrendt’s support ring 40 to assure a correct axial position when it is installed and correct mate and fastening of Read’s cover element 20.
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed in claim 6, it would have been obvious for modified Read to include Behrendt’s support ring 40 to assure a correct axial position when it is installed and correct mate and fastening of Read’s cover element 20. With such modification, modified Read’s support ring 40 would be axially fixing the filter element in the filter housing, because Behrendt’s support ring 40 is received in groove 38, and 39, which means when engaged, Behrendt’s support ring would be moved axially or radially due to the “C” shaped groove, and therefore, the modification proposed in claim 6 radially and axially fixing the filter element to the housing.
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Read discloses that an air filter according to claim 6, wherein the support ring 40 is formed integrally (Behrendt’s support ring 40 is fastened to its end plate) with a second end plate (Read’s plate member 34) which is arranged at the end of the filter element 30 opposite the first end plate 13 of GB ’922 (Behrendt’s support 40 engages with grooves 38, 39 located on a housing cover, and it would function the same way in modified Read. Read’s cover is located proximate second end plate 34). Behrendt Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 56–58.
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Read discloses that an air filter according to claim 7, wherein the support ring is formed integrally with a second end plate 34 of Read, which is arranged at the end of the filter element opposite the first end plate 13 of GB ’922 (this limitation has been address in claim 8).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 112(a) and (b)
The examiner drops the current rejections because the applicant has amended the claims to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The applicant argues that the proposed rejection would not result in the claimed invention, because GB ’922 does not include a first sealing lip that projects radially inwardly to engage an attachment tube and a second sealing lip that projects radially outwardly to engagement a separation tube. Applicant Rem. dated Jul. 29, 2025. The applicant argues that GB ’922 instead discloses double lips from each end plate that engage one or the other of the casing of the device and the cover, but not both. The applicant also argues that GB ’922’s engagement occurs at alternative and/or opposite ends of the filter cartridge, engage both the over and casing by extending inwardly and outwardly. The applicant argues that there is nothing is GB ’922 that suggest sealing lips extending in both direction at one end to inwardly engage a separation tube and inwardly engage an extension tube. Applicant Rem. ps. 5–6. The applicant argues that the combination with read would not result in the specifically claimed invention as it would lack an endplate with sealing lips extending both inwardly and outwards to seal to two different structures. Applicant Rem. p. 6.
The examiner does not agree. First of all, the claim does not require that “sealing lips extending in both direction at one end to inwardly engage a separation tube and inwardly engage an extension tube sealing lips.” Additionally, as discussed in the rejection above, GB ’922’s Fig. 8 clearly shows an end cap comprising sealing lips extending in both directions. Further, the examiner reminds the applicant that the current rejection is based on a combination of Read and GB ’922. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. MPEP 2145(IV).
The applicant argues that the proposed combination is improper because Read specifically teaches its end plate should made from metal or rigid plastic, with only a separate O-ring used if sealing is desired. The applicant argues that Read counsels against the use of sealing members between the filter and the housing as proposed by the examiner, because Read teaches in [0020] that there is a direct seal between the filter element 30 and the clean air conduit 50 which avoid the requirement for any seals between the filter element and the housing. Applicant Rem. p. 6. The applicant argues the proposed amendment teaches away from Read. Id.
The examiner does not agree. The current rejection relies on Read’s embodiment of Fig. 2, not Fig. 3. Read discloses two different embodiments, and only Read’s embodiment of Fig. 3 uses O-ring, and the current rejection is not relied upon on Fig. 3. Additionally, Read discloses “The neck and/or disc portion (40 or 46) may be made of metal or rigid plastics materials depending on strength and other requirements.” Read p. 3, ll. 45–46. Read does not state that its end plate “should” made from metal or rigid plastic. Additionally, Read states “it is not necessary to provide a rigid sealing surface on the inner face of the end 54 to the housing or, indeed, at any other point within the housing.” Read, p. 3, ll. 54–57. The examiner is therefore interpreting the term “not necessary” as being “optional.” Therefore, Read does not teach away from having a seal against its separation tube as annotated in Read’s Fig. 2 above. Furthermore, Read states “A skirt 44 is integrally formed with the peripheral edge of the disc portion 40 to enhance the sealing effect,” which supports the proposed rejection because Read discloses a motivation of enhancing sealing effect at the location pointed at label 44, where the skirt 44 is shown as bearing against the separation tube.
Applicant’s argument is therefore, not persuasive.
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776