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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/3/25.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimoto CN 213253359 in view of Jun Yoshino et al. US 2014/0001113.
Claim 1, Kamimoto teaches a filter cartridge (300) comprising: a filter body (314) having a first and second end and an inner peripheral surface, an end plug (310) disposed in the first end of the filter body, the end plug having an inner end extending into the filter body, an outer end and an outer peripheral surface wherein the end plug is configured to move axially away from the filter body in response to fluid pressure within the filter body (fig. 3, pg. 2, par 4 and 8, pg. 3, par 1, pg. 5, par 6). Kamimoto does not specifically teach a seal between the end plug and the filter body. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that a seal would be necessary between the end plug and the filter body to prevent fluid from leaking out of the cartridge and the only portion of the end plug in contact with the filter body is the outer peripheral surface in contact with the inner peripheral surface of the filter body (fig. 3).
Yoshino teaches a filter cartridge comprising: a filter body (10) having a first and second end and an inner peripheral surface, an end plug (20) disposed in the first end of the filter body, the end plug having an inner end extending into the filter body, an outer end and an outer peripheral surface, a peripheral seal (30) located between the outer peripheral surface of the end plug and the inner peripheral surface of the filter body, where the end plug is capable of moving axially away from the filter body (1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the seal arrangement of Yoshino as it assures adequate tightness of the closure of the open end of the housing by the lid (par 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2, Kamimoto further teaches a face seal (306) on an outer end surface of the end plug and surrounding a fluid port (304) located on the outer end surface of the end plug (fig. 3).
Claim 6, Yoshino further teaches two peripheral seals are provided between the outer peripheral surface of the end plug and the inner peripheral surface of the filter body (fig. 1-6).
Claim 3, Kamimoto further teaches the end plug is a first end plug, and further comprising: a second end plug (318) disposed in the second end of the filter body, the second end plug having an inner end extending into the filter body, an outer end and an outer peripheral surface, and a fluid port (322) formed in the outer end where the second end plug is configured to move axially away from the filter body in response to fluid pressure within the filter body (fig. 3, pg. 2, par 4 and 8, pg. 3, par 1, pg. 5, par 6, pg. 6, par 7, pg. 7, par 3). Kamimoto does not specifically teach a seal between the second end plug and the filter body. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that a seal would be necessary between the second end plug and the filter body to prevent fluid from leaking out of the cartridge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the seal of Yoshino for the same reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 4, Kamimoto further teaches the end plugs include a stepped portion disposed between a cap portion and an inner neck portion, the stepped portion having a larger diameter than that of the inner neck portion and a smaller diameter than that of the cap portion (fig. 3, see above).
Claim 5, Yoshino further teaches the end plug includes a stepped portion disposed between a cap portion and an inner neck portion, the stepped portion having a larger diameter than that of the inner neck portion and a smaller diameter than that of the cap portion, and a recess aligned with the stepped portion and disposed between the cap portion and the end plug and the respective end of the filter body, wherein the recess is capable of receiving a removal tool (fig. 6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimoto CN 213253359 in view of Jun Yoshino et al. US 2014/0001113 as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Stankowski et al. US 6,652,749.
Claim 7, Kamimoto in view of Yoshino teaches the cartridge of claim 2 but does not teach the end plug including a secondary face seal surrounding at least one secondary fluid port.
Providing a secondary port on an end plug is known as demonstrated by Stankowski (110, 110a, 110b) (fig. 6) to allow multiple connections and thereby multiple flows to and from the cartridge from a manifold. Additionally, Stankowski teaches each port would need to be surrounded by a seal. Providing a face seal is a common feature, as demonstrated by both Kamimoto and Stankowski (fig. 12) and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art as a way to form a proper seal around each port to prevent fluid leaks during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that any modification of Kamimoto in light of Yoshino to include a peripheral seal would result in the seal being located in the recess (316) as shown in applicant’s annotated figure in the remarks. However, modifying Kamimoto in light of Yoshino would not lead one of skill in the art to place the seal as stated by applicant. The seal of Yoshino is located between an outer peripheral surface of the plug and an inner peripheral surface of the filter body (fig. 6) in the exact same location shown in applicant’s figure 5. There is nothing the cited prior art that would lead one of ordinary skill to place the seal in the position stated by the applicant.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 4 are addressed in the body of the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 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.
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 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights