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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites a raised structure, which the examiner is interpreting as “intermediate surface 330” as shown in the published instant disclosure (hereinafter “Spec.”) [0037] and Fig. 3. Claim 14 recites the claimed “inner surface” which comprising the claimed “second recessed surface 320”, and it is therefore understood that the claimed inner surface has a larger diameter compared to the claimed “raised structure 330”. The limitation of “a raised structure surrounding …the inner surface” therefore lacks written support.
Claim 27 lacks written description for the same reason as claim 21 because it recites the same limitation.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–6, 14–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaufmann et al., US 2014/0223868 A1 (“Kaufmann”) in view of Scott et al., US 2008/0190082 A1 (“Scott”).
Regarding claim 1:
Kaufmann discloses that a cover (Kaufmann’s cover 110, Kaufmann Fig. 3, [0036]) for a filter assembly (100 of Kaufmann, Fig. 3, [0036]), the cover comprising:
a first surface (as shown in Kaufmann Fig. 3, where label 118 points) comprising:
a first recessed surface (Kaufmann’s follower contour 118, Kaufmann Fig. 3, [0036]) configured to engage with a first end (54 of Kaufmann shown in Fig. 4) of a first element (Kaufmann’s secondary element 28, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0039]) of the filter assembly, and
a handle (where label 106 points in Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0038]) configured to apply a rotational force to the cover; and
a second surface (interior surface of Kaufmann’s cover 110, Kaufmann Fig. 4), opposite the first surface, comprising:
a second recessed surface (Kaufmann’s inner cover contour 114, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]), and
wherein, when the first recessed surface (118 of Kaufmann) is engaged with the first end (54 of Kaufmann) of the first element (28 of Kaufmann) and based on rotation of the cover via the handle (where label 106 points in Kaufmann Fig. 4), the cover (110 of Kaufmann) is configured to install the first element in an opening of the filter assembly and to remove the first element from the opening of the filter assembly (see Fig. 6 and 7, [0042]–[0043]), and
wherein, when the second recessed surface (114 of Kaufmann) is engaged with the second end (Kaufmann’s second terminal disc 18, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]) of the second element (Kaufmann’s filter element 10, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]).
Kaufmann does not disclose a first protruding surface, within the second recessed surface, configured to engage with a second end of a second element of the filter assembly. Kaufmann does not disclose and based on rotation of the cover via the handle, the cover is configured to install the second element in the opening of the filter assembly over the first element and to remove the second element from the filter assembly.
In the analogous art of air filter service covers, Scott discloses a service cover 20 for a filter assembly 1, Scott Figs. 1–2, [0101] and [0177]. Similar to Kaufmann, Scott’s cover 20 comprising a second surface (interior surface) engages with a second end of a second filter 30, Scott Fig. 2, [0185]. Additionally, Scott discloses a second recessed surface (Scott’s interior of shield 37, Scott Fig. 5, [0185]) and a first protruding surface (Scott’s projection 191, Scott Fig. 5, [0189]) within the second recessed surface, configured to engage with a second end (receiver 185 on 58 of Scott as shown in Scott Fig. 4) of Scott’s second element 30 of the filter assembly 1, Scott Fig. 4, [0187]. Scott also discloses that based on rotation of the cover 20, the cover is configured to install the second element in the opening of the filter assembly over the first element and to remove the second element from the filter assembly (Scott discloses during assembly and use, projection 191 and receiver 185 are shaped to engage upon rotation and inhibit a sufficient relative rotational movement between cartridge 30 and a remainder of air cleaner 25 during use, Scott Fig. 4, [0189], Scott also discloses cartridge 30 need to be rotated during installation so that portions 142 would align over surface 151 of holder 150 to ensure appropriate compression of the gasket material 0 to form a seal, Scott Fig. 10, [0170]). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kaufmann’s interior surface to look like Scott’s cover 20 interior surface to prevent rotational of Kaufmann’s filter 10 during use, and ensure a good seal between Kaufmann’s filter 10 and its housing during use. With such modification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would use Kaufmann’s handle for rotation to install modified Kaufmann’s both filters.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Kaufmann discloses that the cover of claim 1, wherein the first surface (where follower contour 118 locates, Kaufmann Fig. 4) is an outer surface of the cover (as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein the second surface is an inner surface of the cover (the same way as shown in Scott Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Kaufmann discloses that the cover of claim 1, wherein a shape of an outer perimeter of the first recessed surface (118 of Kaufmann) corresponds to a shape of a protruding surface 56 of the first end of the first element 28, and wherein the first recessed surface (118 of , Kaufmann) is configured to engage with the protruding surface 56 of the first end (54 of Kaufmann) of the first element 28, Kaufmann Figs. 5–6, [0039].
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Kaufmann discloses that the cover of claim 1, wherein a shape of an outer perimeter of the second recessed surface corresponds to a shape of a protruding surface of the second end of the second element (as best shown in Scott Fig. 3, where the second recessed surface is circular and accommodate a shape of a protruding surface of the sconed end 58, which is also circular, Scott Fig. 3), and wherein the second recessed surface is configured to engage with the protruding surface of the second end of the second element (as shown in Fig. 3 of Scott).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Kaufmann discloses that the cover of claim 1, wherein the second recessed surface is configured to prevent a rotational movement of the second element relative to the cover when the second recessed surface engages with the second end of the second element (When modified Kaufmann’s second recessed surface in engaged with the second end of the second element, Scott’s elements 191 and 185 engages with each other as shown in Figs. 4–5, preventing rotational movement of the second element relative to the cover, Scott Figs. 4–5, [0187]–[0188]).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Kaufmann discloses that the cover of claim 1, wherein the first protruding surface (191 of Scott) is configured to engage with a recessed surface (185 of Scott) of the second end (58 of Scott) of the second element (Scott Fig. 4, [0188]).
Regarding claim 14:
Kaufmann discloses that a system (Kaufmann’s system as shown in Fig. 4) comprising:
a filter assembly (Kaufmann’s filter element 10 and secondary element 28, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0039]) and comprising a first element (28 of Kaufmann, Id.) and a second element (10 of Kaufmann); and
a cover (Kaufmann’s cover 110, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0039]) comprising:
an outer surface (top surface of cover 110 in Kaufmann Fig. 4) comprising:
a first recessed surface (Kaufmann’s follower contour 118, Kaufmann Fig. 6, [0039]) configured to engage with a first end (Kaufmann’s end face 54, Kaufmann Fig. 6, [0039]) of the first element (28 of Kaufmann, Kaufmann Fig. 6), and
a handle (as shown in Fig. 6) configured to apply a rotational force to the cover,
an inner surface (Kaufmann’s bottom surface of cover 110 as shown in Fig. 4 of Kaufmann) comprising:
a second recessed surface (Kaufmann’s contour 114, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]), and
wherein a first length of an outer perimeter of the second recessed surface exceeds a second length of an outer perimeter of the first recessed surface (Kaufmann discloses a first length of an outer perimeter of the second recessed surface, which is a circular perimeter of the circular contour 114 being larger than a second length of an outer perimeter of the first recessed surface which is an outer perimeter of Kaufmann’s contour 118 because Kaufmann’s contour 118 is located radially inwardly in Kaufmann’s contour 114 as shown in Fig. 4, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]),
wherein, when the first recessed surface (118 of Kaufmann) is engaged with the first end of the first element and based on rotation of the cover via the handle (Kaufmann Fig. 6–7, [0043]), the cover is configured to remove the first element (28 of Kaufmann) from the filter assembly (Kaufmann Figs. 6–7, [0043]), and
wherein, when the second recessed surface (114 of Kaufmann) is engaged with the second end (Kaufmann’s second end disk 18, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]) of the second element (10 of Kaufmann) and based on rotation of the cover via the handle, the cover is configured to remove the second element from the filter assembly.
Kaufmann does not disclose a first protruding surface, within the second recessed surface, configured to engage with a second end of the second element. Kaufmann also does not disclose that based on rotation of the cover via the handle, the cover is configured to remove the second element from the filter assembly.
In the analogous art of air filter service covers, Scott discloses a service cover 20 for a filter assembly 1, Scott Figs. 1–2, [0101] and [0177]. Similar to Kaufmann, Scott’s cover 20 comprising a second surface (interior surface) engages with a second end of a second filter 30, Scott Fig. 2, [0185]. Additionally, Scott discloses a second recessed surface (Scott’s interior of its shield 37, which accommodates Scott’s ends 58, Scott Figs. 4–5, [0120] and [0142]) and a first protruding surface (Scott’s projection 191, Scott Fig. 5, [0189]) within the second recessed surface, configured to engage with a second end (receiver 185 on Scott’s end 58 as shown in Scott Fig. 4) of Scott’s second element 30 of the filter assembly 1, Scott Fig. 4, [0187]. Scott also discloses that based on rotation of the cover 20, the cover is configured to remove the second element from the filter assembly (Scott discloses during assembly and use, projection 191 and receiver 185 are shaped to engage upon rotation and inhibit a sufficient relative rotational movement between cartridge 30 and a remainder of air cleaner 25 during use, Scott Fig. 4, [0189], Scott also discloses cartridge 30 need to be rotated during installation so that portions 142 would align over surface 151 of holder 150 to ensure appropriate compression of the gasket material 0 to form a seal, Scott Fig. 10, [0170]). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kaufmann’s interior surface to look like Scott’s cover 20 interior surface to prevent rotational of Kaufmann’s filter 10 during use, and ensure a good seal between Kaufmann’s filter 10 and its housing during use. With such modification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would use Kaufmann’s handle for rotation to install modified Kaufmann’s both filters.
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Kaufmann discloses that the system of claim 14, wherein a shape of the outer perimeter of the first recessed surface (118 of Kaufmann) corresponds to a shape of a protruding surface 56 of the first end of the first element (28 of Kaufmann, as best shown in Fig. 6, Kaufmann Fig. 6, [0042]).
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Kaufmann discloses that the system of claim 14, wherein a shape of the outer perimeter of the second recessed surface (Scott’s interior of shield 37 as shown Fig. 5, Scott Fig. 5) corresponds to a shape of a protruding surface (Scott’s outer protruding part of end cap 93, Scott Fig. 4, [0142], as clearly shown in Fig 4, a shape of the outer perimeter of second recesses surface matches a shape of protruding surface with both being circular) of the second end of the second element (modified Kaufmann’s filter similar to that shown in Fig. 4 of Scott).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaufmann in view of Scott as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Coulonvaux et al., US 2014/0325945 A1 (“Coulonvaux”).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Kaufmann does not disclose that the cover of claim 1, wherein the cover 110 is configured to cause the second element 10 to prevent an axial movement of the first element 28 within the second element.
However, Coulonvaux discloses a first element 156 comprising a central cone extension 196 and a second element 154 with a central bump 254. Coulonvaux’s Figs. 17, 20–21, [0056] and [0062]. Coulonvaux discloses central bump 254 is constructed to receive the central cone extension 196 when the first element 154 is fully inserted within housing interior 230, and the contact between central cone extension 196 and central bump 254 help hold the safety filter element 156 in place. Coulonvaux’s Figs. 17, 20–21, [0056] and [0062]. Coulonvaux discloses its service cover 174 comprising a reverse cone 286 that receives central bump 254, which is designed to guide, support and push the safety element 156 in place. Coulonvaux Fig. 21 and 24, [0064]. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to include Coulonvaux’s design in Kaufmann to add an additional layer of stability to Kaufmann’s system against malfunction due to vibration.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kaufmann in view of Scott as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tanaka et al., US 2019/0054410 A1 (“Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Kaufmann discloses that the system of claim 14, wherein a shape, of the outer perimeter of the first recessed surface, is a polygon (Kaufmann discloses its follower contour 118 could be a polygon, Kaufmann [0010]).
Modified Kaufmann does not disclose that wherein the shape, of the outer perimeter of the second recessed surface, is a polygon.
However, the second recessed surface is mapped to Scott’s circular shape accommodating Scott’s ends 58, Scott Fig. 4, [0117]. Additionally, Scott discloses depressions 121 configured to provide for preferred rotational indexing, Scott Fig. 4, [0260].
Additionally, in the analogous art of air filters, Tanaka discloses that a cross-sectional shape of filter assembly 2 could be other than a circular shape, for example a polygonal shape, such as hexagonal shape, and which would require the end cap to also formed into a similar shape, Tanaka [0080]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Scott’s endcap 58 to be polygonal/hexagonal shaped as disclosed by Tanaka, a polygonal shape is capable of providing a preferred rotational indexing. And the proposed modification would provide a advantageous lever action compared to the Scott’s original depression 121 because a hexagonal shape has a larger rotational interaction area compared to the depression 121. With such modification, the outer perimeter of the second recessed surface would be a polygon.
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Kaufmann does not disclose that the system of claim 14, wherein the second recessed surface is configured to prevent a rotational movement of the second element relative to the cover when the second recessed surface engages with the second end of the second element.
However, as discussed in claim 17, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Scott’s endcap 58 to be polygonal/hexagonal shaped as disclosed by Tanaka, a polygonal shape is capable of providing a preferred rotational indexing. A polygonal shaped second recessed surface is capable of preventing a rotational movement of the second element relative to the cover when the second recessed surface engages with the second end of the second element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21–28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 21:
Modified Kaufmann does not disclose that the system of claim 14, further comprising: a raised structure surrounding and extending from the inner surface.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Kaufmann for such limitation because none of the prior art shows or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Regarding claim 22:
Kaufmann in view of Scott and Tanaka would be the closest reference.
Kaufmann discloses that a cover (110 of Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]) for a filter assembly (Kaufmann’s filter system 100, Id.), the cover comprising:
a first surface (top surface of Kaufmann’s cover 110, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]) comprising a first recessed surface (Kaufmann’s follower contour 118, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0039]) configured to engage with a first end (Kaufmann’s end face 54, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0039]) of a first element (Kaufmann’s secondary element 28, Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0039]) of the filter assembly (100 of Kaufmann, Fig. 4, [0037]); and
a second surface (bottom surface of Kaufmann’s cover 110 as shown in Fig. 4 of Kaufmann Fig. 4, [0037]), opposite the first surface, comprising:
a second recessed surface (see annotated Fig. 4 of Kaufmann below),
a protruding outer perimeter (see annotated Fig. 4 of Kaufmann below), extending on and around the second recessed surface as shown in annotated Fig. 4), and
wherein, when the first recessed surface (118 of Kaufmann) is engaged with the first end of the first element (28 of Kaufmann), the cover (110 of Kaufmann) is configured to install the first element in an opening of the filter assembly and to remove the first element from the opening of the filter assembly (Kaufmann Figs. 5–6, [0042]).
Kaufmann does not disclose a protruding surface, within the second recessed surface, configured to engage with a second end of a second element of the filter assembly.
In the analogous art of air filter service covers, Scott discloses a service cover 20 for a filter assembly 1, Scott Figs. 1–2, [0101] and [0177]. Similar to Kaufmann, Scott’s cover 20 comprising a second surface (interior surface) engages with a second end of a second filter 30, Scott Fig. 2, [0185]. Additionally, Scott discloses a second recessed surface (interior of Kaufmann’s shield 37, Scott Fig. 5, [0185]) and a protruding outer perimeter (Kaufmann’s shield 37, Scott Fig. 5, [0185]) extending on and around the second recessed surface (See Scott Fig. 5, [0185]). Additionally, Scott discloses a protruding surface (Scott’s projection 191, Scott, Fig. 5, [0188]) within the second recessed surface, configured to engage with a second end (58 of Scott as shown in Scott Fig. 4) of Scott’s second element 30 of the filter assembly 1, Scott Figs. 4–5, [0185] and [0187]. Scott also discloses that based on rotation of the cover 20, the cover is configured to install the second element in the opening of the filter assembly over the first element and to remove the second element from the filter assembly (Scott discloses during assembly and use, projection 191 and receiver 185 are shaped to engage upon rotation and inhibit a sufficient relative rotational movement between cartridge 30 and a remainder of air cleaner 25 during use, Scott Fig. 4, [0189], Scott also discloses cartridge 30 need to be rotated during installation so that portions 142 would align over surface 151 of holder 150 to ensure appropriate compression of the gasket material 0 to form a seal, Scott Fig. 10, [0170]). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kaufmann’s interior surface to look like Scott’s cover 20 interior surface to prevent rotational of Kaufmann’s filter 10 during use, and ensure a good seal between Kaufmann’s filter 10 and its housing during use. With such modification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would use Kaufmann’s handle for rotation to install modified Kaufmann’s both filters.
PNG
media_image1.png
791
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the proposed modification above does not disclose that the protruding outer perimeter and the first recessed surface have a same polygon shape.
While Tanaka discloses that a cross-sectional shape of filter assembly 2 could be other than a circular shape, for example a polygonal shape, Tanaka [0080]. It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing have been obvious to further modify Kaufmann such that the protruding outer perimeter and the first recessed surface have a same polygon shape because none of the prior art teaches or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Claims 23–28 would be allowable because they depend on claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The examiner withdraws the current claim objection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 112(a) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection. However, new ground of rejection is made, please see details above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 112(b) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection. However, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Scott. Please see details above.
New Claim
New claims would be allowable except for claim 27 for lack of written description.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights