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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2006/0213821), in view of Menon (US 4992170).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a water purifier filter cartridge of simple structure, comprising:
a filter cartridge cylinder (57),
a central tube (59) coaxial with the filter cartridge cylinder (57) being disposed in the filter cartridge cylinder (refer fig. 3);
a first cavity being formed in the central tube (permeate is collected in the central tube 59);
a filter cartridge body (56) and being disposed outside the central tube;
the filter cartridge body comprising an RO membrane (56);
the RO membrane being placed around the central tube (refer fig. 3);
several water holes communicating the first cavity with the RO membrane being formed on side wall of the central tube (permeate is collected in the tube 59 from the membrane, refer [0051]-[0052]; the tube 59 having holes is suggested and well known in the art because the tube 59 collets permeate from surrounding RO membrane);
a second cavity being formed between the RO membrane and the filter cartridge cylinder (Refer flow path 74 in fig. 3);
an upper end cover (63) being disposed at the top of the filter cartridge body, and a third cavity being formed between the upper end cover and the filter cartridge body (the cavity between 63 and filter cartridge collects concentrate); a first water gap (permeate outlet 52), a second water gap (feed water inlet 50) and a third water gap (concentrate outlet) being formed in the top of the filter cartridge cylinder (refer fig. 3); the first water gap communicating with the first cavity (for collection of permeate); the second water gap communicating with the second cavity (for supplying feed water); and the third water gap communicating with the third cavity (for collecting concentrate).
Choi does not teach providing a pre-filter around the RO filter.
Menon teaches a RO filter cartridge comprising: a filter cartridge cylinder (12), a central tube (72) coaxial with the filter cartridge cylinder (12) being disposed in the filter cartridge cylinder; RO membrane (32) arranged around the central tube (75), and a pre-filter (36) arranged around the RO membrane (32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the cartridge of Choi to include a pre-filter wound outside of RO membrane to provide pre-filtration as taught by Menon. Menon also teaches a lower end cover (refer support ring 38).
Regarding claim 2, modified Choi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Choi further teaches that a boss is disposed at the top of the filter cartridge cylinder, and the first water gap. the second water gap and the third water gap are formed in the boss (cap 63 in combination with connector 55 provides fluid pathways for water inlet, permeate outlet, and concentrate outlet).
Regarding claim 3, modified Choi teaches limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Choi further teaches that a first annular wall and a second annular wall coaxial with the filter cartridge cylinder are disposed in the boss (refer permeate outlet bore, feed inlet bore, and concentrate outlet bore in fig. 3), the upper portion of the central tube is inserted into the first annular wall, and a sealing ring is disposed between the first annular wall and the central tube (refer Fig.3 suggesting O-rings between central tube and permeate collector).
Regarding claim 4, modified Choi teaches limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Choi further teaches that the upper end cover comprises a third annular wall inserted into the second annular wall, and a sealing ring is disposed between the second annular wall and the third annular wall (fig. 3 of Choi suggest providing sealing rings between flow path 61 and cap 82, also suggest providing sealing ring between flow path 82a and 60).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2006/0213821), in view of Menon (US 4992170) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fritze (US 2011/0303543).
Regarding claim 5, modified Choi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Choi does not teach that a sealing cover is disposed at the bottom of the filter cartridge cylinder, and a lifting handle is disposed on the sealing cover.
Fritze teaches filter cartridge comprising a body (201), a filter members (210 and 211) arranged inside the cartridge body, a sealing cover (202) comprising lifting handle (endcap 202 has gripping means, refer [0078], [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the cartridge of modified Choi to provide a sealing cover comprising a lifting handle to enable a user to impart sufficient torque by hand to remove the cartridge from manifold receiver as taught by Fritze (refer [0078], [0079]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Choi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Choi does not teach that a welding cover is disposed at the top of the filter cartridge cylinder, and openings corresponding to the first water gap, the second water gap and the third water gap respectively are formed in the welding cover.
Fritze teaches filter cartridge comprising a body (201), a filter members (210 and 211) arranged inside the cartridge body, and a manifold receiver (300) providing fluid connections. Fritze teaches that connection of the manifold receiver 300 to fluid conduits is shown as a semi-permanent in this embodiment, but can be integral, welded, fused, pressed, or other quick-disconnectable or permanent means as desired (Refer [0084]).
Selection of type of cover to be welding cover in the cartridge of modified Choi would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art because Fritze discloses that selection of known connection type would have been obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2006/0213821), in view of Menon (US 4992170) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 1, applicant argued: “the components in Choi are not equivalent components or structure to that claimed in Applicant's application. Specifically, for example, the central tube (2) and first cavity (3) in Applicant's application are surrounded by the RO membrane ( 41 ). In Choi, the equivalent membrane (56) is the large cavity that is structured before the central tube (59).” And “In Fig. 13 of Choi, different filters are displayed side-by-side. Specifically, the osmosis membrane filter is depicted as a large cavity, and there is no indication that a central tube passes through this cavity in a structured way, unlike the filters beside this depiction. As such, Choi teaches away from the technology in Applicant's application.”
This is not found to be persuasive because [0066] discloses that “ the reverse osmosis membrane filter 56 filters various impurities of feed water, and the purified water is collected in the core type tube 59 installed at the center of the reverse osmosis membrane filter 56”. Such structure is also well known in the art where RO membrane surrounds a core tube.
Applicant further argued: “In Fig. 3 of Choi, the third path has an inbound and outbound path moving left to right. Specifically, the third path (62) in Choi is described as a passage switching guide (62), which is distinct from the outflow hole (52). (Choi, para. [0078]). As such, the third path cannot possibly be the concentrate outlet as described and is not equivalent technology to the third path claimed in Applicant's application.” This is not found to be persuasive because claim 1 recites “a third cavity being formed between the upper end cover and the filter cartridge body” which is taught by Choi (refer claim rejection above stating “an upper end cover (63) being disposed at the top of the filter cartridge body, and a third cavity being formed between the upper end cover and the filter cartridge body (the cavity between 63 and filter cartridge collects concentrate)”).
Applicant further argued: “In addition, there is no indication that a structure like the one in Choi would compatibly function with a pre-filter around the RO filter. Please refer back to Fig. 13 above. Choi describes different filters as external components from the device with an osmosis membrane filter. As such, Choi teaches away from a pre-filter membrane, as any other filter is allotted its own external component. The teachings in Choi would not be compatible with a second filter in any one particular filter housing.”. This is not found to be persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Choi discloses RO filter in which raw water is supplied to outer sides of RO membrane and permeate is collected from a central tube. A similar flow patter is present in Menon where flow from outer layers to inner layers to central collection tube.
Applicant further argued: “Menon teaches a pre-filtering section, but this section is distinct from the membrane (32) and is not equivalent to a pre-filtering membrane as claimed in independent claim 1”. This is not found to be persuasive because claim 1 claims the following structure with regard to the pre-filter: “the filter cartridge body comprising an RO membrane and a pre-filtering membrane”, and “the pre-filtering membrane being wound outside the RO membrane; a second cavity being formed between the pre-filtering membrane and the filter cartridge cylinder”. Choi in view of Menon teaches the claimed structure. Applicant’s argument fails to describe how the structure of combination of Choi and Menon different from the claimed pre-filter.
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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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 at (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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights