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, 3-21, is/are filed on 07/08/2026 are currently pending. Claim(s) 11-21 is/are withdrawn, 1, 3-10 is/are rejected.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, 3-7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Currier (US 7378019 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the Currier discloses a filter cap (vortex distributor 38; FIGS. 1–3) comprising: a conical shaped portion, where the conical shape is configured to distribute fluid over a surface of a filter membrane — body portion 40, which is "substantially conically shaped," and which is configured to distribute fluid over the filter media 32/34/36; the distributor 38 provides "distributing the fluid substantially evenly over the filter media" and "serve to swirl passing fluid onto the mechanical filtration media 32" (FIG. 1; Description) and at least one flow conduit (44) within the conical shape portion, wherein the flow conduit includes a vortex feature (46) configured to provide vortex flow within the filter cap (C3/5-65) — the vortex opening 44 and the channels defined between the vanes 46 upon body portion 40 constitute at least one flow conduit within the conical portion, and the vanes 46 constitute a vortex feature that provides vortex flow: the vanes 46 "swirl the in flowing fluid along the upper side 40B," and the component is expressly a "vortex distributor" having a "vortex opening 44" (FIGS. 2–3; Description); wherein the filter cap is configured to hold a filter membrane against a base in an inline filter assembly, where fluid passes from the filter cap through the filter membrane and out of the base — this limitation is directed to intended use and is entitled to patentable weight only to the extent it structurally distinguishes the claimed apparatus from the prior art (MPEP §§ 2111.02, 2114). The distributor 38 is supported within canister housing 12 "just below, and in close to, the filter media 32," and the assembly is plumbed inline via flow inlet 24 and flow outlet 26. The Currier structure is fully capable of holding a filter membrane against a base and passing fluid therethrough, and therefore meets the limitation. An apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what it does; where the prior art structure is capable of performing the recited function, it meets the claim (MPEP § 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 3, the Currier discloses that the vortex feature comprises one or more internal ridges (vanes 46) having an angle with respect to a plane perpendicular to the central axis of the filter cap. Vanes 46 rise from the conical body portion 40 and curve outwardly, and are therefore disposed at an angle to a plane perpendicular to the central axis. The claimed sub ranges collectively span from approximately 5°/10° to 85°/90° — i.e., substantially the entire range of acute to right angles — and the inclination of vanes 46 necessarily falls within that range.
Regarding claim 4, the Currier discloses that the vortex feature provides a helical structure (FIG. 3). Vanes 46 curve outwardly from vortex opening 44 while extending upwardly from body portion 40 (the vane height decreasing radially), such that the vanes define a rising, curving (helical) structure that swirls the fluid (FIGS. 2–3) (C3/40-65).
Regarding claim 5, Currier teaches wherein the flow conduit includes a recirculating structure (46), wherein the recirculating structure (i.e. channel 40, FIG. 2) comprises a channel located radially outward from the helical structure.
Regarding claim 6, Currier teaches wherein the flow conduit is capable of providing cross-flow across the membrane, and cross-flow increases the flow across the surface of the membrane relative to flow through the membrane (intended use).
Regarding claim 7, Currier teaches wherein the flow conduit includes a recirculating conduit (conduit that is capable of recirculating – i.e. the widened conduit below 44, FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the Currier discloses that the filter cap includes spiral-shaped guide vanes. Vanes 46 "surround and curve outwardly from the vortex opening 44" and "swirl the in-flowing fluid," and thus are curved/spiral-shaped guide vanes that direct and impart swirl to the fluid flow (FIGS. 2–3) (C3/40-65).
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) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currier (US 7378019 B1) in view of Hofmann (US 7141167 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Currier discloses the filter cap of claim 1, including a flow conduit within the conical body portion (40) (vortex opening 44 and the inter-vane channels defined by vanes 46), as set forth above. In the alternative rejection, Currier may not disclose that the flow conduit includes a recirculating conduit. Currier distributor is a single-pass, through-flow device. Hofmann, in the same field of endeavor (filtration devices for removing solids from a fluid at a filter membrane), teaches a flow arrangement in which the conduit includes a recirculating conduit. Specifically, the Hofmann discloses a supply channel (3) directing fluid onto a filter membrane (2), a gap (5) producing a crossflow tangential to the membrane surface, and a return channel (6) that "conveys the fluid emerging from the gap 5 back into the supply channel 3" (C3/15-50) The Hofmann describes this return channel (6) as producing "a circulation, i.e., a crossflow for cleaning the filter membrane and a return flow." Return channel (6) thus constitutes a recirculating conduit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow conduit of the Currier filter cap to include a recirculating conduit, as taught by the Hofmann, in order to continuously remove retained materials from, and thereby clean, the filter surface without interrupting the filtration process, so as to reduce fouling/clogging and prolong the service life of the filter media. The Currier itself recognizes the problem of media that "becomes heavily clogged," causing reduced or stopped flow, and expressly seeks to distribute flow to maintain filtering efficiency; incorporating the Hofmann's known recirculation-for-cleaning arrangement into the Currier distributor amounts to combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of reduced clogging and sustained flow as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Currier does not disclose a flow restriction feature as claimed. Hofmann discloses that the recirculating conduit (return channel 6) terminates in a pipe end (6′) that "protrude[s] into the supply channel 3," causing a "cross-sectional restriction," and further discloses a restriction (3′) (a "flow restrictor") whose narrowest point lies "in the vicinity of the outlet of the pipe ends 6′ of the return channel 6," optionally supplemented by inserts (spherical elements 9′) that "serve to reduce the flow cross section". Elements 6′/3′/9′ constitute a flow restriction feature associated with, and forming part of the outlet of, the recirculating conduit (6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the recirculating conduit of the modified Currier filter cap with such a flow restriction feature, for the reason taught by the Hofmann — namely, to generate the local pressure differential that drives the return (recirculating) flow. Hofmann teaches that the restriction "results in a higher flow velocity and consequently a pressure drop in this region," which "generates a suction effect" that promotes the return flow, thereby realizing recirculation without requiring additional pumping.
Regarding claim 9: The Currier/'167 combination renders obvious the filter cap of claim 8, wherein the flow restriction feature is a venturi contraction. The Hofmann describes its flow restriction (3′/6′) as a cross-sectional constriction that, in accordance with Bernoulli's equation and the continuity equation, increases flow velocity and decreases pressure — i.e., "the velocity increases and the pressure drops as the cross section decreases" — thereby generating a "suction effect" at the outlet of the return channel (6) (C4/10-125). A cross-sectional constriction that accelerates flow and reduces pressure to induce suction is, by definition, a venturi contraction.
***
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 arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing 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
Prosecution Insights