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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites a “shortened structural ring”. It is unclear to what other structure the ring is being compared to be considered “shortened”. For examination purposes the shortened structural ring is assumed to extend a shorter distance from the lower outer surface of the filter body than the extended structural ring.
Claim 9 is rejected as depending from claim 5.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. CN 113028100 in view of Yoshino et al. US 2014/0001113.
Claim 1, Lin teaches a replacement filter cartridge comprising: a hollow filter body (see below), having an open upper portion having an annular edge and a partially enclosed bottom portion with a fluid egress orifice (52) therein, a filter element (5) disposed within the hollow filter body, a filter element cover (at 51) configured to cover and secure the filter element, the filter element cover including depressions (51), the depressions form openings such that fluid can flow into the openings, through the filter element and out of the filter body through the fluid egress orifice (fig. 1-2, 8, 10). Lin does not teach the upper annular edge having a series of castellations or the depressions in the outer peripheral edge.
Lin teaches the housing (43) in which the filter cartridge is placed has castellations (contact bumps, see below) that contact the filter cartridge to allow fluid to flow to the inlet of the cartridge (paragraph spanning pg. 11-12). Providing the castellations on the filter cartridge would have been an obvious rearrangement of the parts taught by Lin such that the castellations are located on the cartridge rather than the housing so ensure proper spacing of the cartridge from the housing to allow fluid flow. Shifting the position of an element is unpatentable if shifting the position of the element would not modify the operation of the device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (1950).
Lin teaches depressions in the element cover that form fluid flow openings but does not teach the depressions in an outer peripheral edge forming openings between an inner peripheral surface of the filter body.
Yoshino teaches a filter cartridge comprising a filter element (51) with a filter element cover (60) to secure a filter element, the filter element cover including depressions (64) in an outer peripheral edge, the depressions form openings between the depressions and an inner peripheral surface of a filter body (11) (fig. 1-4). Providing depressions in an outer peripheral edge of a filter element cover is known in the art, as demonstrated by Yoshino, and would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art as a way to provide fluid to flow between the filter element cover and the filter body such that the fluid can reach the filter element (par 33).
PNG
media_image1.png
804
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 3, Lin further teaches the filter body has a cylindrical shape and an outer side of the filter body is smooth (fig. 1); and the castellations of Lin would be capable of engaging a tab on an inner upper surface of a filter housing (fig. 8).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. CN 113028100 in view of Yoshino et al. US 2014/0001113 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tanner et al. US 9,004,290 and applicant’s admitted prior art (aapa) (fig. 1-4 of the instant application).
Lin further teaches an extended structural ring surrounding the egress orifice but does not teach a lower outer surface of the bottom portion of the filter body includes a plurality of radial ribs or a shortened structural ring.
Tanner teaches a filter cartridge comprising: a hollow filter body (131) having an partially enclosed bottom portion with a fluid egress orifice (133) therein, a lower outer surface of the bottom portion of the filter body includes a plurality of radial ribs, the lower surface includes a single extended structural ring (at 133) surrounding the egress orifice and a shortened structure ring, that extends a shorter distance from the lower outer surface than the extended structural ring, that surrounds the extended structural ring (fig. 2, see below). Aapa also clearly shows a plurality of radial ribs with two structural rings (fig. 1-4 of instant application). The recited structure of the lower outer surface of the filter body is known in the art as demonstrated by Tanner (for claims 4-5 and 9) and aapa (for claim 4). The claims appear to be a substitution of the known structures of the filter housing of Tanner for those of Lin. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. CN 113028100 in view of Yoshino et al. US 2014/0001113 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fritze US 2002/0017497.
Lin teaches a filter element but does not teach what kind of filter element.
Fritze teaches a filter cartridge comprising a filter element (188) disposed within a filter body (154), a wrap (186) surrounding the filter element, the filter element comprising a carbon block (par 60) and wrap comprises a fabric sleeve (par 59) (fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the filter element of Fritze because activated carbon block is a well-known water filter material that improves the taste of the water and removes odors by removing chemicals like chlorine and heavy metals and the wrap acts as a prefilter to extend the life of the carbon filter and remove oocysts such as Ghirardia (par 59).
Conclusion
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