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 .
StatusClaims(s) 1-20, is/are filed on 12/9/2025 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 11-14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Crawford (US 7232035 B1).
[AltContent: textbox (Outer side surface of the end cap)]
[AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
690
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
475
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Second axial end)][AltContent: textbox (First axial end)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (First end)][AltContent: textbox (Second end)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
865
775
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Crawford teaches a filter cartridge comprising: a housing (12) including a first end (20), a second end (22) opposite to the first end (20), an inlet (36) disposed in the first end (20) of the housing (12), and an outlet (34);
a filter member (14) disposed within the housing (12), the filter member (14) configured to filter liquid flowing through the housing (12) from the inlet (36) to the outlet (34), the filter member (14) including a first axial end (14a) facing the first end (20) of the housing (12) and a second axial end (14b) facing the second end (22) of the housing (12); an endcap (21a) disposed between the first axial end (14a) of the filter member (14) and the inlet (36) in the housing (12),
the endcap (21a) including: an outer side (44) facing towards the first end (20) of the housing (12), and a plurality of fins (42) projecting from the outer side (44) of the endcap (21a), the plurality of fins (42) each extending in a curved shape along the outer side (44) of the endcap (21a), and the plurality of fins (42) configured to redirect the liquid flowing into the filter cartridge through the inlet (36) in the housing (12).
Regarding claim 2, Crawford teaches the plurality of fins (42) are configured to redirect the liquid flowing into the housing (12) through the inlet (36) to flow circumferentially and radially outward relative to a longitudinal axis (18) of the filter member (14), and the plurality of fins (42) configured to prevent the liquid from flowing in a direct radial outward direction along the endcap (21a).. (Column 2, lines 50-55: "a directional fluid insert having at least one fin... provided to cause the fluid entering the filter housing through at least one fluid inlet to swirl around the filter element.") Column 3, lines 30-35: "the fluid spirals around the filter element prior to passing therethrough... the fins are spaced from one another to provide slots therebetween, whereby when the fluid enters the first end of the filter housing, it passes through the slots between the fins and the fluid spirals around the filter element."
Regarding claim 3, Crawford teaches the plurality of fins (42) are configured to redirect the liquid flowing into the housing (12) through the inlet (36) to flow radially outward and one of clockwise or counter-clockwise relative to the axis (18) of the filter member (14) (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Crawford teaches one or more channels (slots between 42) are formed between the plurality of fins (42), the inlet (36) in the housing (12) fluidly connected to the filter member (14) via the channels (slots between 42). Column 3, lines 25-30: "the fins are spaced from one another to provide slots therebetween... the fluid enters the first end of the filter housing, it passes through the slots between the fins."
Regarding claim 5, Crawford teaches the first axial end (14a) of the filter member (14) is spaced apart from the housing (12) by the endcap (21a), and the outer side (44) of the endcap (21a) is spaced apart from the housing (12) by the fins (42). Column 2, lines 65-67: "a directional fluid insert... disposed between the first end of the filter element and the end plate... fins extend outwardly from the annular base plate."
Regarding claim 8, Crawford teaches the inlet (36) in the housing (12) faces towards the outer side (44) of the endcap (21a), the inlet (36) configured to direct the liquid to flow toward the outer side (44) of the endcap (21a).
Regarding claim 9, Crawford teaches the endcap (21a) has an inward side that abuts or is fused to the first axial end (14a) of the filter member (14), the inward side of the endcap (21a) being opposite to the outer side (44) of the endcap (21a).
Regarding claim 10, Crawford teaches wherein the fins extend end-to-end along the outer side of the endcap (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Crawford teaches radial openings (opening between 42 and 42 – figs. 6-7) are provided between ends of the fins, the liquid configured to be directed to flow out from between the first axial end of filter member and the first end of the housing through the radial openings (intended use).
Regarding claim 12, Crawford teaches wherein the fins extend side-by-side along the outer side of the endcap (figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 13, Crawford teaches the housing (12) defines an interior volume, the filter member (14) and the endcap (21a) being disposed in the interior volume of the housing (12).
Regarding claim 14, Crawford teaches a filter cartridge comprising: a housing (12) including a first end (20), a second end (22) opposite to the first end (20), an inlet (36) disposed in the first end (20) of the housing (12), and an outlet (34); a filter member (14) disposed within the housing (12), the filter member (14) configured to filter liquid flowing through the housing (12) from the inlet (36) to the outlet (34), the filter member (14) including a first axial end (14a) facing the first end (20) of the housing (12) and a second axial end (14b) facing the second end (22) of the housing (12); an endcap (21a) disposed between the first axial end (14a) of the filter member (14) and the inlet (36) in the housing (12), the endcap (21a) including: an outer side (44) facing towards the first end (20) of the housing (12), and a plurality of fins (42) projecting from the outer side (44) of the endcap (21a), the plurality of fins (42) each extending in a curved shape along the outer side (44) of the endcap (21a), and the plurality of fins (42) configured to redirect the liquid flowing into the filter cartridge through the inlet (36) in the housing (12). With the endcap (21a with insert 40) having inward side attached to filter member (14), outer side (44) facing housing, fins (42) curved and redirecting fluid.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection of claim 12.
Claim(s) 14-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Reynolds (US 7771595 B2).
PNG
media_image4.png
389
655
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
551
543
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Reynolds teaches an endcap (60) for a filter member (intended use) in a filter cartridge (intended use), the filter cartridge including a housing and the filter member disposed within the housing, the endcap comprising: an inward side (bottom portion of 60) configured to abut against or be fused to a first axial end of the filter member; an outer side (upper surface 69) configured to face towards a first end of the housing; and a plurality of fins (94a, 94b) projecting from the outer side of the endcap, the plurality of fins each extending in a curved shape along the outer side of the endcap, the plurality of fins configured to redirect the liquid flowing into the filter cartridge through an inlet in the housing (intended use) (C3/1-C5/50).
Regarding claim 15, Reynolds teaches wherein the endcap is configured to space apart the first axial end of the filter member from the housing, and the plurality of fins configured to space apart the outer side of the endcap from the housing (intended use – claim doesn’t positively require a housing).
Regarding claim 16, Reynolds teaches wherein the outer side is shaped to taper towards an inlet of the housing (see fig. 5, item 60 – the end cap 60 diminish or reduce in diameter toward top end and is larger in diameter at the bottom).
Regarding claim 18, Reynolds teaches wherein the fins extend end-to-end along the outer side of the endcap (multiple pairs of flow members extend circumferentially around the endcap from stanchions 90 to the central flange 74, forming continuous end-to-end coverage around the periphery – fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Reynolds teaches wherein radial openings (92 or 69) are provided between ends of the fins, the liquid configured to be directed to flow radially outward from between the first axial end of filter and the first end of the housing through the radial openings (intended use).
Regarding claim 20, Reynolds teaches the fins (94a, 94b) extend side-by-side along the outer side of the endcap (claim 13, fig. 4).
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fiacco (US 20020069626 A1).
PNG
media_image6.png
758
620
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Fiacco teaches an endcap for a filter member in a filter cartridge, the filter cartridge including a housing and the filter member disposed within the housing (intended use – filter is not positively recited), the endcap comprising: an inward side (19) configured to abut against or be fused to a first axial end of the filter member (intended use); an outer side (i.e. 24) configured to face towards the first end of the housing (intended use); and a plurality of fins (12) projecting from the outer side of the endcap, the plurality of fins each extending in a curved shape along the outer side of the endcap, the plurality of fins configured to redirect the liquid flowing into the filter cartridge through an inlet in the housing.
Regarding claim 15, Fiacco teaches wherein the endcap is configured to space apart the first axial end of the filter member from the housing, and the plurality of fins configured to space apart the outer side of the endcap from the housing (intended use).
Regarding claim 16, Fiacco teaches wherein the outer side is shaped to taper towards an inlet of the housing (intended use).
Regarding claim 17, Fiacco teaches wherein the outer side has a conical shape that tapers towards the inlet of the housing (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Fiacco teaches wherein the fins extend end-to-end along the outer side of the endcap (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Fiacco teaches wherein radial openings are provided between ends of the fins, the liquid configured to be directed to flow radially outward from between the first axial end of filter and the first end of the housing through the radial openings (intended use).
Regarding claim 20, Fiacco teaches the fins extend side-by-side along the outer side of the endcap (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 14-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 9463409 B2).
PNG
media_image7.png
388
537
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
344
424
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
576
463
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches an endcap (10) for a filter member in a filter cartridge (intended use), the filter cartridge including a housing and the filter member disposed within the housing (intended use – filter is not positively recited), the endcap comprising: an inward side (bottom side of 10) configured to abut against or be fused to a first axial end of the filter member (intended use); an outer side (top side of 10) configured to face towards the first end of the housing (intended use); and a plurality of fins (12) projecting from the outer side of the endcap, the plurality of fins each extending in a curved shape along the outer side of the endcap, the plurality of fins configured to redirect the liquid flowing into the filter cartridge through an inlet in the housing (intended use).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches wherein the endcap is configured to space apart the first axial end of the filter member from the housing, and the plurality of fins configured to space apart the outer side of the endcap from the housing (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches wherein the outer side is shaped to taper towards an inlet of the housing (intended use) (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Fiacco teaches wherein the outer side has a conical shape that tapers towards the inlet of the housing (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Fiacco teaches wherein the fins extend end-to-end along the outer side of the endcap (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Fiacco teaches the fins extend side-by-side along the outer side of the endcap (fig. 1).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford (US 7232035 B1).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Crawford teaches the base plate is annular, but not tapered. However, these designs are well-known see at least US 8197686 B2 ("Brizan"). The bottom end cap has a tapered or stepped structure to facilitate fluid flow toward the inlet (fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the tapered outer side of Brizan with the endcap of Crawford to improve fluid guidance and reduce turbulence at the inlet, as tapered surfaces are known to direct flow smoothly in filter systems. Brizan teaches the outer side (116 in Brizan) is shaped to taper towards the inlet (inlet of housing) of the housing.
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Crawford does not teach the outer side of the endcap has a conical shape that tapers towards the inlet of the housing. However, these designs are well-known see at least US 8197686 B2 ("Brizan"). Brizan teaches the end cap has a conical taper facing the inlet to direct fluid flow (fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated said teachings to improve fluid guidance and reduce turbulence at the inlet, as tapered surfaces are known to direct flow smoothly in filter systems. Brizan teaches the outer side (116 in Brizan) of the endcap has a conical shape that tapers towards the inlet of the housing.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reynolds (US 7771595 B2) in view of Puckett (US 5720788 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Reynolds does not teach that the outer side has a conical shape that tapers towards the inlet of the housing. However, this is nothing more than a design choice. Puckett teaches that the end cap (22) can be in the form of a conical shape (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a tapered end cap because the conical shape increases effective media surface area relative to a flat design and reduces axial removal force during change-out. When combined with Reynolds, the taper would provide enhanced liquid distribution towards the housing inlet, preventing media extrusion.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150144557 A1) in view of Fiacco (US 20020069626 A1).
PNG
media_image10.png
511
455
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Ly teaches discloses a purifier comprising: a housing (1) having a fluid inlet (5) and a fluid outlet (6) in fluid communication with the fluid inlet; a volume of ion-exchange resin (10) disposed within the housing downstream of the fluid inlet; a filtration member (12) disposed downstream of the volume of ion-exchange resin; and housing including first housing endcap and second housing endcap (13, 14) (see paragraphs [0046]-[0048]; figures 1-6). Ly does not teach comprising a plurality of fins.
However, this different feature is merely a means that can be easily modified or added by a person skilled in the art without the exercise of inventive skill over the disclosure of Fiacco considering that a multiplicity of fan blades are fixedly attached to or molded as a part of the lower surface of the circular plate, wherein the blades centrifugally accelerate air outwardly in all radial directions (see claims 1, 2; see paragraphs [0018]-[0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have obvious to have incorporated the teachings of Fiacco into Ly for the aforesaid advantages.
The additional features of claims 2-4 can be easily derived by a person skilled in the art without the exercise of inventive skill over the disclosure of Fiacco considering that a multiplicity of fan blades are fixedly attached to or molded as a part of the lower surface of the circular plate, wherein the blades centrifugally accelerate air outwardly in all radial directions (see claims 1, 2; see paragraphs [0018]-[0021])
Regarding claim 2, Ly teaches wherein the plurality of fins are configured to redirect the liquid flowing into the housing through the inlet to flow circumferentially and radially outward relative to a longitudinal axis of the filter member, and the plurality of fins configured to prevent the liquid from flowing in a direct radial outward direction along the endcap (intended use).
Regarding claim 3, Ly teaches wherein the plurality of fins are configured to redirect the liquid flowing into the housing through the inlet to flow radially outward and one of clockwise or counter-clockwise relative to the axis of the filter member (intended use).
Regarding claim 4, Fiacco teaches wherein one or more channels are formed between the plurality of fins, the inlet in the housing fluidly connected to the filter member via the channels (9) (see fig. 1).
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that Crawford fails to disclose a plurality of fins projecting from the outer side of the endcap, where the outer side is configured to face toward the first end of the housing, is not persuasive. Applicant contends that the directional fluid insert in Crawford projects from a "different, perpendicular side" rather than the claimed outer side (based on annotated Figures 5 and 6).
In Crawford, as shown from the annotated figures above. The end cap (21a) clearly has an outer side (top side). The outer side has plurality of fins (42) that extend axially and radially from the outer side (see fig. 6). The directional fluid insert (40) is positioned between the first axial end (14a) of the filter member and the end plate at the housing's first end (20a), which contains the inlet (36). The insert comprises an annular base ring (44) whose primary surface faces directly toward the inlet at the first end of the housing. The plurality of curved fins (42) are integrally formed with and project directly from this inlet-facing surface of the base ring. See Figures 5–7; the insert occupies the first axial end space (28), with the base ring (44) exposed to incoming flow from the inlet. This base ring (44) constitutes the outer side of the endcap assembly configured to face toward the first end of the housing, and the fins project from that outer side precisely as recited in independent claims 1 and 14. Similarly, Reynolds also teaches these details above.
The claim language requires only that the fins project from the outer side facing the first end; it does not specify exclusively axial projection or preclude the radial extension shown in Crawford. Applicant's annotated figures and assertion of a "perpendicular side" mischaracterize the geometry of the reference. The surface oriented toward the first end (inlet) is the outer side from which the fins emanate, enabling the claimed redirection of liquid flow. The instant application's own disclosure similarly describes fins projecting from the outer side facing the inlet (see, e.g., published application US 2024/0033662 A1, Figures 2, 3A, and 3B), without language excluding the radial arrangement in Crawford.
Applicant's argument that Fiacco fails to disclose fins projecting from the outer side of the endcap (as recited in amended claim 14) is not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Fiacco's fan blades "extend vertically downward from the lower surface" in a structurally different manner from the claimed configuration.
In Fiacco, the circular plate (14) includes a lower surface from which the curved blades (12) project vertically downward. This lower surface constitutes the outer side of the plate, which functions as the claimed endcap. The blades are fixedly attached to or molded as part of this outer side and redirect flow through their curved configuration. See, e.g., paragraphs describing the blades and Figures 1–2. When viewed as an endcap in a filter cartridge housing (as required by the intended-use language of claim 14), the structure meets the positive recitation that the outer side faces toward the housing first end/inlet with fins projecting therefrom. Moreover, the phrase ‘outer side configured to face towards a first end of the housing’ is merely intended use. Claim 14 is directed towards an endcap, there is no positive requirement of a filter cartridge or its housing.
The claim does not require any particular overall device context (e.g., a ceiling-fan air filter versus a liquid cartridge). Structural anticipation cannot be avoided merely by differences in field of use or intended function when the prior-art structure is capable of satisfying the claimed elements. The functional distinctions raised (centrifugal air acceleration versus liquid redirection) do not alter the structural correspondence. Claim 14 is therefore anticipated, and the dependent claims (15–20) remain rejected accordingly.
Applicant's assertion that Fiacco teaches away from the claimed invention (and thus precludes obviousness) is not persuasive. While Fiacco describes centrifugal acceleration "outwardly in all radial directions," the reference employs curved, canted blades that inherently impart a circumferential component to the flow. This is fully consistent with the claimed redirection to flow "circumferentially and radially outward" (claim 2) while preventing purely direct radial flow along the endcap. In order to provide a teaching away, the prior art must "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed...." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nothing in Fiacco criticizes, discourages, or discredits the use of curved fins for controlled flow distribution in a filter inlet. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to incorporate Fiacco's curved-fin structure into Ly's purifier to achieve improved flow uniformity around the ion-exchange resin and filtration member, as previously explained.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached on 571-271-0579. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777