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 § 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.
Claims 31–35, 37, 39 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ardes, DE 20 2014 104 029 U11.
Regarding claim 31, Ardes teaches a filter 1 for connection to a device 6. See Ardes Fig. 22, p. 13. The filter 1 reads on the claimed “filter cartridge for connection to a connector.” The device 6 is the “connector2.”
The filter 1 comprises a housing 3, which reads on the “housing.” See Ardes Fig. 22, p. 7.
The filter 1 also comprises a hollow cylindrical filter material body 40 disposed within the housing 3, which reads on the claimed “extension of filtration media disposed within the housing.” See Ardes Fig. 22, p. 13.
The filter 1 also comprises a supporting body 46 that axially lines the inside of the filter material body 40. See Ardes Fig. 22, p. 13. The supporting body 46 reads on the claimed “axial liner supporting the filtration media.”
The filter 1 further comprises an “end cap” which is the structure at the lower end of the filter 1 including lower end disc 42, legs 44, seal carrier 45. See Ardes Fig. 22, ps. 13–14. The “end cap” is connected to the support body 46, as claimed. Id. The sidewall formed by the legs 44 and seal carrier 45 reads on the “sidewall defining a central opening.” Note that the “central opening” is the opening inside of legs 44 and seal carrier 45 leading to the filter body 40, as seen in Fig. 22.
The filter 1 also comprises a seal 31 supported by the seal carrier 45 of the “end cap.” See Ardes Fig. 22, p. 14.
The filter 1 also comprises a threads 33 and thread breaks 34, which read on the “connection arrangement.” See Ardes Fig. 22, p. 13. The threads 33 are for connection to the device 6, as claimed. The threads 33 form part of the “end cap central opening” (the opening inside of the legs 44 and seal carrier 45) because the opening is inside of the threads 33, as seen in Fig. 22. The threads 33 (the “plurality of threaded segments”) are interrupted by the thread breaks 34, as claimed. Id. The thread breaks 34 read on the “radially outwardly protruding circumferential lobes defining non-interfering segments” because the thread breaks 34 form lobes circumferentially spaced along the peripheral wall 30 of the housing 3, while the thread breaks 34 do not interfere with the threads 33 (as they are breaks). Id. The thread breaks 34 are “oriented beyond a circumference defined by a major diameter” of the threads 33, because the lobes formed by the thread breaks 34 includes structure on the outer surface of peripheral wall 30 whereas the maximum outer diameter of the threads 33 is on the inner surface of peripheral wall 30, as seen in Fig. 22. The thread breaks 34 are “distributed along the end cap side wall,” because the thread breaks 34 contact the legs 44 with the legs 44 are part of the “end cap side wall.” Id. at Fig. 22, p. 13. The “major diameter” of the threads 33 is the outer diameter of the threads 33, as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
1050
1559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 32, Ardes teaches that the seal carrier 45 of the “end cap” is a “flange extending radially from the sidewall,” as seen in Fig. 22. The seal 31 is supported by the seal carrier 45.
Regarding claim 33, Ardes teaches that the threads 33 are presented on a radially inward side of the “end cap sidewall” because the threads 33 are radially inside of the legs 44 and seal carrier 45, which form the “end cap sidewall,” as seen in Fig. 22.
Regarding claim 34, Ardes teaches that the “end cap” can be made from plastic, which is a polymeric material, as claimed. See Ardes p. 14 (“The filter described above 1…plastic, expediently be made as a molded injection molded parts”).
Regarding claim 35, Ardes teaches that the seal 31 includes an “axially facing sealing surface,” as claimed, which is the lower surface of the seal 31, seen in Fig. 22.
Regarding claim 37, Ardes teaches that the threads 33 are arranged so as to present rotational symmetry, as seen in Fig. 22.
Regarding claim 39, Ardes teaches that the threads 33 include a plurality of axially spaced threaded portions, as seen in Fig. 22.
Regarding claim 58, Ardes teaches that the “connection arrangement” has the thread breaks 34 (an “unthreaded portion”) between the plurality of threads 33 (the “plurality of threaded segments”). See Ardes Fig. 22, p. 13. The “connection arrangement” also has a “distal end,” which is the bottom of the threads 33, as seen in Fig. 24.
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.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes, DE 20 2014 104 029 U1 in view of Thomas et al., US 2006/0196156 A1.
Regarding claim 36, Ardes teaches the limitations of claim 31, as explained above.
Ardes differs from claim 36 because it is silent as to the material used to construct the seal 31. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the seal 31 is manufactured from a rubber or polyurethane material, as claimed.
But the filter 1 of Ardes can be used as an oil filter that can be spun onto filter head, with the seal providing a seal for the filter 1 against the filter head after it is spun on. See Ardes p. 3.
With this in mind, Thomas teaches a spin on oil filter comprising a rubber gasket 32 that is used to seal the filter against the filter head. See Thomas Fig. 1, [0006].
It would have been obvious to manufacture the seal 31 of Ardes from rubber, because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 40, 56 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes, DE 20 2014 104 029 U1 in view of Vercammen, US 2014/0217001 A1.
Regarding claim 40, Ardes teaches the limitations of claim 31, as explained above.
Ardes differs from claim 40 because it is silent as to the “connection arrangement” being arranged so as to present no rotational symmetry, as claimed, because the thread breaks 34 and thread breaks 34 are even spaced around the circumference of the filter 1, as seen in Fig. 22.
But Ardes teaches that its filter 1 can be used to filter oil. With this in mind, Vercammen teaches a filter element 10 that can be used to filter oil comprising a connection arrangement of threaded portions 48 separated by slots 42. See Vercammen Fig. 1, [0064]–[0066]. The slots 42 can be provided in either an equal or an unequal manner. Id. at [0071]. The unequal configuration is beneficial because it provides for a single correct orientation when installing the filter element. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the thread breaks 34 and thread breaks 34 to be provided in an unequal manner so that there is a single correct orientation for installing the filter 1 of Ardes. With this modification, the “connection arrangement” of Ardes would be arranged so as to present no rotational symmetry, due to the unequal spacing of the threads 33 and thread breaks 34.
Regarding claim 56, Ardes teaches the limitations of claim 55, as explained above.
Ardes differs from claim 56 because it is silent as to the threads 33 being arranged so as to present no rotational symmetry, as claimed.
But it would have been obvious for the thread breaks 34 to be provided in an unequal manner so that there is a single correct orientation for installing the filter 1 of Ardes, as explained in the rejection of claim 40 above. With this modification, the threads 33 and thread breaks 34 (the “plurality of threaded segments and the plurality of circumferential lobes”) would be arranged so as to present no rotational symmetry.
Regarding claim 57, Ardes teaches the limitations of claim 31, as explained above.
Ardes differs from claim 57 because it is silent as to the filter 1 comprising a lock feature for retaining the filter 1 on the device 6.
But Vercammen teaches a filter element 10 that can be used to filter oil, where the filter element 10 comprises slots 42 that separate threaded portions 48 (similar to how the legs 44 of Ardes separate the threads 33). See Vercammen Fig. 4, [0074]–[0075]. The circumferential surface feature on the flat surfaces of the slots 42 match studs 146 on the filter head 110 that the filter element 10 is connected to, forming a “lock feature.” Id. It would have been obvious for the device 6 of Ardes to comprise studs that match with flat surfaces on the legs 44, in order to assist in connecting the filter 1 to the device 6. This structure would read on the claimed “lock feature for retaining the filter cartridge onto the connector.”
Claims 61 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes, DE 20 2014 104 029 U1 in view of Golan, US 5,972,213.
Regarding claims 61 and 62, Ardes teaches the limitations of claim 31, as explained above.
Ardes differs from claims 61 and 62 because it is silent as to the outer surface of the filter 1 having a graphical indicator (arrows and/or lock shaped symbols) to aid a user in correctly aligning the filter cartridge in a rotation orientation prior to insertion.
But Golan teaches a filter comprising a housing 50 that has flow direction arrows 84 to indicate the proper direction of fluid flow. The arrows are beneficial because they allow a user to visualize the proper orientation of the filter when it is installed within the system.
It would have been obvious to provide flow direction arrows on the filter 1 of Ardes to allow a user to visualize the proper direction of fluid flow when installing the filter 1. With this modification, the arrows would read on the claimed “graphical indicator to aid a user in correctly aligning the filter cartridge in a rotational orientation prior to insertion” (claim 61) wherein “the graphical indicator includes one or both of arrows and lock shaped symbols” (claim 62).
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes, DE 20 2014 104 029 U1 in view of Rampen et al., US 2009/0321340 A1.
Regarding claim 65, Ardes teaches the limitations of claim 31, as explained above.
Ardes differs from claim 65 because it is silent as to the “end cap” (the structure at the lower end of the filter 1 including lower end disc 42, legs 44, seal carrier 45) including a flexible finger for engaging with a corresponding rib on the device 6 (the “connector”) to form a snap-fit lock connection between the “end cap” and the device 6.
But Rampen teaches a filter cartridge 1 that is detachably connected to a filter head assembly 2. See Rampen Fig. 1, [0027]. Similar to Ardes, the filter cartridge 1 of Rampen comprises a retainer 12 (threads) on the side of an end structure of the filter cartridge 1 that engage with threads in the filter head assembly 2. Id. at Fig. 4, [0030]. The filter cartridge 1 also comprises detents 17 on the top of the end structure of the filter cartridge, which are flexible fingers that engage with locking tab actuators 16 in the head assembly 2, to create a snap fit. Id. at Fig. 4, [0034]–[0035]. This mechanism is beneficial to enhance engagement between the filter cartridge 1 and the filter head assembly 2 to more securely hold the filter cartridge 1 within the filter head assembly 2. Id. at [0035].
It would have been obvious to modify the “end cap” of Ardes to include the detents 17 of Rampen (such as on the lower end disc 42 of Ardes) to engage with locking tab actuators 16 on the device 6 to enhance engagement between the filter 1 and the device 6 to more securely hold the filter 1 within the device 6. With this modification, the detents 17 read on the “flexible fingers.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 59 and 60 are allowed. The claims are allowable for the reasons stated in the Non-Final Rejection dated February 11, 2025.
Claims 63 and 64 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.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 62 in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
The Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the new interpretation of Ardes, which no longer relies on Fig. 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 An original, untranslated copy of Ardes is in the record as the 41-page Foreign Reference dated February 11, 2205. A translation is in the record as the 19-page Foreign Reference dated February 11, 2025. This communicate cites the translation for text and the original copy for figures.
2 Note that the claimed “connector” is a non-positively recited structural element as the claim is to a “filter cartridge” instead of a system comprising the filter cartridge and the connector. Claim language describing the “connector” does not impart patentability to the claims, because a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. See MPEP 2115.