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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/2/23 and 7/30/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The NPL are not in English.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation "the wall internal side" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the first wall internal side”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallerstorfer et al. US 2009/0242473 in view of Osendorf et al. US 8,864,866 and Powell US 2017/0119204.
Claim 22, Wallerstorfer teaches a filter cartridge including a filter housing (36) having a filter housing wall which separates a housing internal side from a housing external side, a filter inlet opening (34) which can be open to an external environment and guides fluid into the filter cartridge, a device for fluid conduction which comprises a filter chamber having a filter medium (paragraph 57) and terminates in a filter outlet opening (35) provided in an interior of the filter housing downstream of the filter inlet opening relative to a flow direction, wherein a filter connection element (32) having an annular filter port which has a filter fixing face (33) capable of connection of the filter cartridge to a tank fixing face, the filter fixing face comprises a first wall having a first wall external side and a first wall internal side configured to engage a tank fixing face, a circumference of the first wall has a variable radius in relation to a central axis of the annular filter port, the a annular filter port having an hexagonal or rectangular shape, the wall comprising a resilient material (paragraph 67) that forms an annular spring such that the first wall is capable of expanding in a radially outward direction relative to the central axis the filter fixing face comprises a second wall (at 35) positioned between the central axis and the first wall (fig. 1-17). Wallerstorfer does not teach the recited convexities and concavities or the second wall having a polygonal shape.
The recitation of the second wall having a polygonal shape is a recitation of a change of the shape of the wall. The configuration of the apparatus 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 is significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Osendorf teaches a filter cartridge comprising a filter connection element (923) having an annular filter port which has an annular filter fixing face capable of connection of the filter cartridge to a tank fixing face, the filter fixing face comprising a wall having a wall external side and a wall internal side configured to engage a tank fixing face, a circumference of the annular filter port has a variable radius in relation to a central axis of the annular filter port, so that each wall side of the wall internal side and the wall external side, comprises radial convexities and radial concavities having a round profile and the radial convexities and radial concavities form a wave shape along a circular line, wherein the wave shape is composed of an alternating sequence of convex circular segments forming the radial convexities and concave circle segments forming the radial concavities and the wall comprising a resilient material (col. 11, line 65 – col. 12, line 26, col. 13, line 49-57) that forms an annular spring such the wall is capable of resiliently expanding in a radially outward direction relative to a central axis (fig. 102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the profile of Osendorf because the profile provides for a secure, unique feel to the installer of the cartridge helping the installer tell that the cartridge is properly installed and fully sealed, is convenient as proper engagement occurs with relatively little cartridge rotation, is self-aligning and helps the service provider ensure that a proper cartridge for the system has been selected (col. 29, line 55 – col. 30, line 44). Osendorf teaches the wall being formed of a resilient material which will inherently have a spring effect. Additionally, Osendorf teaches the wall capable of forming a seal against a fixing face. One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that any seal formed between a resilient seal material, such as is Osendorf, and a fixing face will inherently be formed because of the “spring” effect of the resilient material against the fixing face. When a resilient material is pressed against a fixing face the resilient material will compress and provide a sealing effect by pushing against the fixing face thus providing the “spring” effect. Also, Wallerstorfer shows the seal being formed between the radial inner surface of the wall and a fixing face (fig. 11-17). Osendorf also teaches the seal may form a radially inwardly directed seal (col. 38, lines 33-36). The recited resilient material forming the annular spring is a recitation of how a seal would inherently be formed by the structures of both Wallerstorfer and Osendorf. Without some sort of a spring effect forming a sealing force between the seal wall and a fixing face no seal would be formed as would immediately be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallerstorfer et al. US 2009/0242473 in view of Osendorf et al. US 8,864,866 and Powell US 2017/0119204.
Claim 1, Wallerstorfer teaches a filter cartridge including a filter housing (36) having a filter housing wall which separates a housing internal side from a housing external side, a filter inlet opening (34) which can be open to an external environment and guides fluid into the filter cartridge, a device for fluid conduction which comprises a filter chamber having a filter medium (paragraph 57) and terminates in a filter outlet opening (35) provided in an interior of the filter housing downstream of the filter inlet opening relative to a flow direction, wherein a filter connection element (32) having an annular filter port which has a filter fixing face (33) capable of connection of the filter cartridge to a tank fixing face, the filter fixing face comprises a first wall having a first wall external side and a first wall internal side configured to engage a tank fixing face, a circumference of the first wall has a variable radius in relation to a central axis of the annular filter port, the a annular filter port having an hexagonal or rectangular shape, the wall comprising a resilient material (paragraph 67) that forms an annular spring such that the first wall is capable of expanding in a radially outward direction relative to the central axis the filter fixing face comprises a second wall (at 35) positioned between the central axis and the first wall, the second wall having a second wall internal side that faces the central axis (fig. 1-17). Wallerstorfer does not teach the recited convexities and concavities or the second wall having an external side that faces the first wall internal side.
Osendorf teaches a filter cartridge comprising a filter connection element (923) having an annular filter port which has an annular filter fixing face capable of connection of the filter cartridge to a tank fixing face, the filter fixing face comprising a wall having a wall external side and a wall internal side configured to engage a tank fixing face, a circumference of the annular filter port has a variable radius in relation to a central axis of the annular filter port, so that each wall side of the wall internal side and the wall external side, comprises radial convexities and radial concavities having a round profile and the radial convexities and radial concavities form a wave shape along a circular line, wherein the wave shape is composed of an alternating sequence of convex circular segments forming the radial convexities and concave circle segments forming the radial concavities and the wall comprising a resilient material (col. 11, line 65 – col. 12, line 26, col. 13, line 49-57) that forms an annular spring such the wall is capable of resiliently expanding in a radially outward direction relative to a central axis (fig. 102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the profile of Osendorf because the profile provides for a secure, unique feel to the installer of the cartridge helping the installer tell that the cartridge is properly installed and fully sealed, is convenient as proper engagement occurs with relatively little cartridge rotation, is self-aligning and helps the service provider ensure that a proper cartridge for the system has been selected (col. 29, line 55 – col. 30, line 44). Osendorf teaches the wall being formed of a resilient material which will inherently have a spring effect. Additionally, Osendorf teaches the wall capable of forming a seal against a fixing face. One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that any seal formed between a resilient seal material, such as is Osendorf, and a fixing face will inherently be formed because of the “spring” effect of the resilient material against the fixing face. When a resilient material is pressed against a fixing face the resilient material will compress and provide a sealing effect by pushing against the fixing face thus providing the “spring” effect. Also, Wallerstorfer shows the seal being formed between the radial inner surface of the wall and a fixing face (fig. 11-17). Osendorf also teaches the seal may form a radially inwardly directed seal (col. 38, lines 33-36). The recited resilient material forming the annular spring is a recitation of how a seal would inherently be formed by the structures of both Wallerstorfer and Osendorf. Without some sort of a spring effect forming a sealing force between the seal wall and a fixing face no seal would be formed as would immediately be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Powell teaches a filter cartridge including a filter housing (142) which separates a housing internal side form a housing external side, a filter inlet (154) opening and a filter outlet opening (216) downstream of the filter inlet and a filter connection element having an annular filter port which has a filter fixing face, the filter fixing face comprising a first wall (204) having a first wall external side and a first wall internal side configured to engage a tank fixing face, the first wall external side runs parallel to the first wall internal side, the filter fixing face comprises a second wall (230) positioned between the central axis and the first wall, the second wall having a second wall external side that faces the first wall internal side and a second wall internal side that faces the central axis (fig. 1-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the second wall of Powell because it provides a way to better effectuate a fluid tight seal between the filter cartridge and the first fitting (corresponding to the tank fixing face) (par 64).
Claims 2-3, Powell teaches the second wall is circular but does not teach a polygonal or hexagonal shape. The recitation of the second wall having a polygonal or hexagonal shape is a recitation of a change of the shape of the wall. The configuration of the apparatus 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 is significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Claims 16-17, Wallerstorfer further teaches the first wall external side and the first wall internal side, in relation to an operating position of the filter cartridge, tapers in the axial direction (paragraph 30) and the beveled first wall internal side has an inner filter fixing face (fig. 1-17).
Claim 19, Wallerstorfer further teaches a wall thickness between the first wall internal and external sides is substantially similar along an entirety of the filter fixing face as Wallerstorfer teaches a slight bevel (fig. 1-17). The recitation of the wall thickness between the internal and external sides of the wall being similar, or parallel, is a recitation of the shape of the wall. The configuration of the apparatus 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 is significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (1966). There is no indication in the specification as filed that indicates the shape of the wall is significant in any way.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 and 14, Osendorf further teaches the convexities and concavities are configured as rotationally symmetrical over the circumference (fig. 102); each concavity and convexity extends over a circumferential distance forming a similar angle as measured from the central axis (fig. 102); the concave and convex circle segments are connected tangentially at turning points at the transition between concave and convex curvatures (fig. 102); and an arc length of the convex circle segments is longer an arc length of the concave circle segments (fig. 102).
Claims 9-12, Osendorf teaches the convex and concave circle segments have a curvature of radius and provides an overlapping range for the concave and convex circle segments (col. 36, lines 44-52). One of ordinary skill would at once envisage an embodiment where the radius of curvature would be equal based on the overlapping ranges disclosed by Osendorf. Having the convex and concave circle segments with the same radius of curvature will inherently provide the circles centers located as claimed in claim 10, the relationship between the inner and outer envelope circle and the radius of the circle segments and the outer envelope circle as Osendorf teaches the same amount of convexities and concavities taught by applicant.
Claim 13, Wallerstorfer further teaches the wall thickness between the first wall internal and first wall external side is between 20-35% of the radius of an outer envelope circle (fig. 1-17).
Claim 14, Osendorf further teaches the turning points of the convex circle segments and turning points of the concave circle segments are closer to an inner envelope circle than to an outer envelope circle (fig. 102).
Claim 15, Wallerstorfer teaches the annular filter port is composed of the same material as the filter housing (paragraph 28) and that an additional seal material of an elastic material may be used between the structure (23) (paragraph 9). The use of a plastic material for the housing, and by extension for the annular filter port, would have been an obvious choice of material as it readily available, very commonly used in water filters and would be resistant to corrosion in an aqueous environment. The teaching of an elastic material for the additional seal of Wallerstorfer would indicate to one of ordinary skill the element (23) is not an elastic material and thus would be more dimensionally stable in comparison to the elastic material of the seal.
Claims 18 and 20, Powell further teaches the second wall external side runs parallel to the second wall internal side (fig. 1-8); and a guide structure (the open end of the second wall) capable of guiding and receiving a tank proximal centering element between the second wall and the central axis (fig. 1-8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Osendorf describes first seal member (923) that has fluted media (905) disposed on the internal portion of the first seal member. This is not what Osendorf describes. The endpiece (920), of which the first seal member (923) is a part, is disposed over an end of the media (905) which could block flow through outer perimeter portions of the media. Osendorf then teaches an end piece (90) which can be provided to support the endpiece away from end of the flutes of the media to prevent blockage of flow through the outer perimeter portions of the media (col. 56, lines 1-14). Thus, Osendorf does not teach the media is disposed on the internal portion of the seal member.
Conclusion
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 BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1778