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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“Figure 7” on page 4, line 30 should be replaced with --Figure 6--.
“The first flange 66” on page 5, lines 30-31, should be replaced with --The first cap nut 68--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the third conduit 108, as stated on page 7, line 20 of applicant’s specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6, 11 and 13 are rejected.
Claims 7-10 and 14 are objected.
Claim 12 is allowed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: a transitional phrase, for example, --comprising of-- or --consisting of-- is missing after “filtration assembly” in line 1 (see MPEP 2111.03).
Claim 11: “such that first conduit” in line 4 should be replaced with --such that the first conduit--.
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 14 has not been further treated on the merits.
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) 1-6, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frees et al. (US 4,759,842) [hereinafter Frees] in view of Porter (US 5,505,844).
With respect to claim 1, Frees discloses a filter device 10, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a casing 12 (housing) defining a filtering space 28 (interior space), as shown in Fig. 1, the housing 12 being cylindrical and having a first end, the first end being open such that a tubular filter 30 is positionable within the interior space 28, as shown in Fig. 1; an endwall 16 (endcap) selectively attachable to the housing 12 for sealingly closing the first end, as shown in Fig. 1; a spring 70 (biaser) attached to a magnet 66 (inner face) of the endcap 16, as shown in Figs, 1 and 5; a pusher plate 48 (plug) attached to the biaser 70 distal from the endcap 16, as shown in Fig. 1, the plug 48 being configured for insertion into a first terminus of the tubular filter 30 upon attachment of the endcap 16 to the housing 12, as shown in Fig. 1, such that the first terminus is plugged and a second terminus of the tubular filter 30 is sealingly engaged to a second end of the housing 12, as shown in Figs. 1 and 6; an adaptor 82 (first connector) attached to the endcap 16 and being configured for attaching to a line end 78 (first conduit) in fluidic communication with the interior space 28, as shown in Fig. 1; and an adaptor 82 (second connector) attached to the second end of the housing 12 and being configured for attaching to a line end 76 (second conduit) extending to an engine, such that an internal space of the tubular filter 30 is in fluidic communication with the engine, such that liquid pumped from the engine passes through the tubular filter 30 prior to entering the engine (see col. 4, lines 3-14).
Frees lacks the first conduit extending from a primary filtration device, such that the primary filtration device is in fluidic communication with the interior space; and the second conduit extending to a pool, such that an internal space of the tubular filter is in fluidic communication with the pool, such that water pumped from the pool through the primary filtration device passes through the tubular filter prior to reentering the pool.
Porter discloses a swimming pool system, as shown in Fig. 1, having a backwash filtering system 60 having a first conduit 62 extending from a filter 30 (primary filtration device), such that the primary filtration device 30 is in fluidic communication with an interior space of the backwash filtering system 60, as shown in Fig. 1; and a second conduit 64 extending to a pool 10, such that an internal space of the backwash filtering system 60 is in fluidic communication with the pool 10, such that water pumped from the pool through the primary filtration device 30 passes through the backwash filtering system 60 prior to reentering the pool 10, as shown in Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the filter device disclosed by Frees in a pool system having a primary filtration device, as taught by Porter, in order to further remove contaminants from pool water and improve the filtration. It would be obvious to use the filter of Frees since Frees teaches that the filter relates to liquid filters (see col. 1, lines 6-8). Furthermore, these limitations are a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Frees teaches all the claimed structure and therefore, it would be obvious that it is capable of performed the intended use, i.e., being used in a pool system.
With respect to claim 2, Frees discloses the end cap 16 coupled to the first end of the housing 12, as shown in Fig. 1. Frees as modified by Porter lacks the specific type of connection, i.e., the housing being externally threaded adjacent to the first end; and the endcap being internally threaded, such that the endcap is threadedly couplable to the first end of the housing. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in order to secure the end cap to the housing, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired connection according to a desired application, and a threaded connection is common in the art.
With respect to claim 3, Frees discloses wherein the biaser 70 comprises a spring, as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 4, Frees discloses wherein the endcap 16 has a recess 68 extending into the inner face 66 of the endcap 16 for receiving a first endpoint of the spring 70, as shown in Figs. 1 and 5.
With respect to claim 5, Frees discloses a cap indent extending into the inner face of the endcap 16; and a cap gasket 22 positioned in the cap indent, such that the cap gasket 22 is compressed between the endcap 16 and the first end of the housing 12 upon attachment of the endcap 16 to the housing 12, as shown in Figs. 1 and 5. Frees as modified by Porter lacks the specific type of attachment, i.e., threaded attachment. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in order to secure the end cap to the housing, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired connection according to a desired application, and a threaded connection is common in the art.
With respect to claim 6, Frees discloses a stop flange attached to and extending radially from the plug 48, wherein the stop flange is configured to abut the first terminus of the tubular filter 30, as shown in Fig. 3; and a cylinder 54 attached to and extending from the plug 48, such that the cylinder 54 is insertable into a second endpoint of the spring 70, as shown in Figs. 1 and 3.
With respect to claim 11, Frees as modified by Porter discloses a valve 40 (splitter valve) configured to be inserted into the first conduit 62 between the first end of the housing 60 and the primary filtration device 30, as shown in Fig. 1 of Porter, such that first conduit 62 is attached to an inlet and one of the outlets of a pair of outlets of the splitter valve 40, as shown in Fig. 1 of Porter; and a third conduit 14 attached to and extending from the other of the outlets of the pair of outlets, as shown in Fig. 1 of Porter. Frees as modified by Porter lacks such that the pool can be drained through the third conduit upon opening of the other of the outlets. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since one of ordinary skill would recognize to use the other outlet for a desired application, and connecting a conduit to a drain is within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill.
With respect to claim 13, Frees as modified by Porter discloses the method steps of: positioning a tubular filter 30 within the interior space 28 defined by the housing 12, as shown in Fig. 1 of Frees; attaching the endcap 16 to the housing 12 to sealingly close the first end so that the biaser 70 inserts the plug 48 into the first terminus of the tubular filter 30 and so that the second terminus of the tubular filter 30 is sealingly engaged to the second end of the housing 12, as shown in Fig. 1 of Frees; attaching the first connector 82 to a first conduit 78 extending from a primary filtration device 30, such that the primary filtration device 30 is in fluidic communication with the interior space, as shown in Fig. 1 of Porter; attaching the second connector 82 to a second conduit 76 extending to a pool 10, such that an internal space of the tubular filter is in fluidic communication with the pool 10, as shown in Fig. 1 of Porter; and engaging a pump 20 so that water from the pool 10 is pumped through the primary filtration device 30 and through the tubular filter prior to reentering the pool 10, as shown in Fig. 1 of Porter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed.
Claims 7-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 7 and 12 would be/is allowed because the prior art of record does not show or suggest wherein the first connector comprises: a first pipe attached to and extending from the endcap, the first pipe being externally threaded distal from the endcap; a first O-ring positioned in a first indent positioned in a terminus of the first pipe distal from the endcap; a first connecting pipe selectively couplable to the first conduit; a first flange attached to and extending radially from the first connecting pipe; and a first cap nut into which the first connecting pipe is insertable, such that the first flange sealingly engages the first O-ring upon threaded coupling of the first cap nut to the first pipe, such that the first conduit is in fluidic communication with the interior space, in combination with any remaining limitations in the claims. Frees and Porter lack these limitations and it would have not been obvious to modify because there is no reason or suggestion to do so and the filters would not operate as intended.
Claims 8-10 would be allowed due to their dependency on claim 7.
Conclusion
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, In Suk C Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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