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 Status
Claims 1-6, 9-11 and 24-29 are rejected.
Claims 7-8, 18-23 and 30 are withdrawn.
Claims 12-17 have been cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
New added claim 30 includes limitations drawn to Species H, as shown in Fig. 14, which is a non-elected species. Accordingly, claim 30 has been withdrawn from further consideration because it is drawn to a non-elected species.
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) 1-3, 6 and 9-11 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bautz et al. (US 2018/0161703) [hereinafter Bautz].
With respect to claim 1, Bautz discloses filter device, as shown in Fig. 5, having: a filter housing 25 comprising a section 47 (engagement member), as shown in Fig. 5; a filter element 1, as shown in Fig. 5, comprising: a media pack comprising filter media 7 that is configured to filter a fluid passing therethrough, as shown in Fig. 5; and an end cap 3 coupled to the media pack and including a sealing ring 17 (sealing member) engageable with the engagement member 47, as shown in Fig. 5, wherein an overall shape of the sealing member 3, along a plane oriented perpendicular to a central axis of the filter element 1, is formed in a Reuleaux shape, as shown in Fig. 2 (see paragraph 0024).
With respect to claim 2, Bautz discloses wherein the sealing member 17 has an odd number of edges that have an approximately equal radius, as shown in Fig. 2.
With respect to claim 3, Bautz discloses wherein a distance between two parallel lines positioned on opposing sides of the sealing member 17 and engaging a boundary of the sealing member 17 is approximately equal in any position along the boundary of the sealing member 17, as shown in Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 6, Bautz discloses wherein the sealing member 17 defines a central opening that is formed in the Reuleaux shape, as shown in Fig. 2.
With respect to claim 9, Bautz discloses wherein the end cap 3 includes a base and an extension piece 23 that extends axially away from the base, as shown in Fig. 2, the sealing member 17 coupled to the extension piece 23, as shown in Fig. 2.
With respect to claim 10, Bautz discloses wherein the extension piece 23 is formed in the Reuleaux shape, as shown in Fig. 2.
With respect to claim 11, Bautz discloses wherein the Reuleaux shape has an approximately constant cross-sectional width, as shown in Fig. 2.
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) 4-5 and 24-29 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bautz (US 2018/0161703).
With respect to claim 4, Bautz discloses wherein the sealing member 17 includes curved edges at each vertex of the Reuleaux shape and side edges between each curved edge, as shown in Fig. 3. Bautz lacks wherein a ratio between a radius of at least one of the curved edges and a radius of at least one of the side edges is within a range between approximately 0 and 0.5. However, the specific range claimed by applicant, i.e., between approximately 0 and 0.5, is considered to be nothing more than a choice of engineering skill, choice or design that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious during routine experimentation based among other things, on desired accuracy, since the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (FED. Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
With respect to claim 5, Bautz discloses wherein the sealing member 17 defines a central opening, as shown in Fig. 2. Bautz lacks wherein a cross-section through the sealing member, along a radial reference plane that extends through a central axis of the central opening is formed in the Reuleaux shape. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the courts have held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claim 24, Bautz lacks wherein the sealing member forms a five-sided Reuleaux shape having five curved edges and five vertices. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the courts have held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claim 25, Bautz discloses wherein a width of the five-sided Reuleaux shape is greater than a width of an opening in the end cap 3, as shown in Fig. 2.
With respect to claim 26, Bautz discloses a sealing member 17, as shown in Fig. 2. Bautz lacks the specific shape of the sealing member, i.e., square cut gasket. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the courts have held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claim 27, Bautz lacks wherein the sealing member comprises a gasket having a Reuleaux-shaped cross-section. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the courts have held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claim 28, Bautz discloses wherein the sealing member comprises a gasket 17, and wherein the overall shape of the gasket is a Reuleaux shape, as shown in Fig. 2. Bautz lacks wherein a cross-sectional shape of the gasket is the same Reuleaux shape. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the courts have held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claim 29, Bautz discloses wherein the sealing member comprises a gasket 17 having a Reuleaux shape, as shown in Fig. 2. Bautz lacks wherein a cross-sectional shape of the gasket has a different number of sides than the overall shape of the gasket. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the courts have held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 6, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the end cap 3 of Bautz lacks an overall shape of the sealing member having a Reuleaux shape: Bautz teaches the sealing member 17 having an overall shape formed in a Reuleaux shape, as shown in Fig. 2.
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 MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Benjamin 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773