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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The claim term “designed” is interpreted as - - configured - -. See examples of claim 1 line(s) 12 “the filter unit is designed as a filter cartridge”.
Claim 1 line(s) 14 “the housing is designed to be closable by means of an automatic filter cartridge closure” is interpreted as “the housing is configured to be closable by
Claim 13 line(s) 11 “the inflow opening […] is made closable by means of an automatic collector closure” is interpreted as “the inflow opening […] is made closable by
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). See MPEP 6083.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 line(s) 4 sets forth the limitation “wherein filter material for at least partial removal of oil from the oil-water mixture, adsorption filter material” should be corrected to - - wherein a filter material for at least partial removal of oil from the oil-water mixture, said filter material comprising an adsorption filter material - -.
Claim 1 line(s) 9 sets forth the limitation “a outflow opening” should be corrected to - - [[a]] an outflow opening - -.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). See MPEP 6083.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “the removal of oil-containing components”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line(s) 13 sets forth the limitation “the outflow opening of the housing is designed to be closable by means of an automatic filter cartridge closure”, which should be corrected to - - the outflow opening of the housing is designed to be closable by
Claim 4 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “the filter-cartridge contact surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that claim 4 be dependent on claim 3.
Claim 7 line(s) 2-3 sets forth the limitation “the inner side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that claim 7 be dependent on claim 6.
Claim 7 line(s) 3 sets forth the limitation “the closing force”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that claim 7 be dependent on claim 6.
Claim 8 line(s) 6 sets forth the limitation “the outside”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 line(s) 3 sets forth the limitation “the flow channel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that claim 9 be dependent on claim 8.
Claim 11 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “the inflow channel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that claim 11 be dependent on claim 10.
Claim 11 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “the inflow channel has an inflow opening”. It is unclear whether “the inflow channel” of claim 11 line(s) 2 is the same or different from “the inflow channel” of claim 1 line(s) 8. If it is a different part, then please use a different identifier.
Claim 11 line(s) 3 sets forth the limitation “the initial entry”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “the removal of oil-containing constituents”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 line(s) 3 sets forth the limitation “the inflow side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 line(s) 3 sets forth the limitation “the introduction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 line(s) 5 sets forth the limitation “the transfer of the purified liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 line(s) 15-19 sets forth the limitation “wherein the automatic collector closure disconnects the manifold from an environment and from a closed state for closing a fluid connection between the manifold and the environment into an open The condition is designed to enable the outflow of the liquid purified in the upstream filter unit”. This limitation does not makes sense, because it appears to be a run-on sentence.
Claim 16 line(s) 2-3 sets forth the limitation “the inner side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that claim 16 be dependent on claim 15.
Claim 16 line(s) 3 sets forth the limitation “the clamping force”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that claim 16 be dependent on claim 15.
Claim 17 line(s) 6 sets forth the limitation “the outside”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-10,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by POSNER (US 5651887).
Regarding claim 1, POSNER teaches a filtration system and mount for beverage dispensers and automatic beverage brewing machines (title, Figs.) including
a filter unit comprises a housing (e.g. Fig. 1 #100) separating a filter interior from an environment,
wherein filter material (e.g. activated carbon; C3/L34) is arranged in the filter interior capable of removal of oil from the oil-water mixture, because of an adsorption filter material capable of the adsorption of dispersed oil,
wherein an inflow opening (Fig. 5 #170) is provided;
wherein the housing downstream of the filter material comprises an outflow opening (Fig. 5 #174);
wherein the filter unit is configured as a filter cartridge (C5/L20) capable of detachable connection to and disassembling from the device (via quick-disconnect couplers; abstract), and that the outflow opening of the housing is configured to be closable by an automatic filter cartridge closure (Fig. 1 #110; C5/L30-31,47-49),
wherein the automatic filter cartridge closure is configured to be moved from a closed state (at disconnect) to an open state (at connection; C6/L26-35).
Note that the limitations “oil”, “water”, “oil-water mixture”, “liquid” sets forth a method and/or the material worked on as an intended use of the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements and thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claims 2,5-7, POSNER teaches the automatic filter cartridge closure is capable of providing an opening/closing force directed onto an outer side/inner side of the automatic filter cartridge closure facing the environment/ filter interior, and, in the direction of the filter interior/ environment, moves the automatic filter cartridge closure between closed and open states (C6/L26-35; Fig. 3; the male projection #126 is forcibly pushed by female projection #146 against bias spring #127 and into an open position from a biased closed position).
Regarding claim 4, POSNER teaches a filter-cartridge contact surface (e.g. Fig. 3 #126) is formed on an outer side of the automatic filter cartridge closure facing the environment.
Regarding claims 8-9, POSNER teaches a flow channel (see e.g. Fig. 5 arrows showing flow through outlet #174) and a seal (O-ring, Fig. 3 #128).
Regarding claim 10, POSNER teaches:
the inflow opening (Fig. 5 #170) is at a top side of the filter cartridge; and
the outflow opening (Fig. 5 #174) is at a bottom side of the filter cartridge, and
an inflow channel is provided (Fig. 1 #101);
wherein the inflow channel is located above the inflow opening and is in fluid connection with the inflow opening; and
wherein the inflow channel further has a junction capable of conveying a part of the liquid to be purified forward into an adjacent filter cartridge (see Fig. 7; C5/L20-22).
Regarding claim 12, POSNER teaches:
the outflow opening (Fig. 5 #174) is at a bottom side of the filter cartridge; and
an opening plane is defined by the outflow opening, and that the housing at the bottom side has a projection (see e.g. Fig. 5 and 6 #100), configured as a circumferential edge, from the opening plane of the outflow opening (note that the top and bottom are similar; Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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) 11,13-17,19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over POSNER (US 5651887) in view of SELBIE (US 5194149).
Regarding claim 11, POSNER teaches:
the inflow channel has an inflow opening (manifold inlet); and
a junction opening (manifold outlet; Fig. 7).
POSNER does not specify the junction/manifold has a valve (closed state and open state). However, SELBIE teaches a filter cartridge manifold (title, Figs.) for connecting rows of cartridges in parallel using readily interchangeable manifold components, which have valves (e.g. wafer valves #241) for e.g. flow regulation (abstract). Note that the valve can be used at any point along the feed, treated feed or filtrate lines defined by the manifolds (C8/L49-51).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the device manifold of POSNER with a valve of SELBIE in order to provide for a flexible, modular device with fluid control. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of filtration. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claims 13, POSNER teaches a filtration system and mount for beverage dispensers and automatic beverage brewing machines (title, Figs.) including a base unit (e.g. outflow manifold of Fig. 7),
wherein an inflow opening is provided on the inflow side (inflow opening at the outflow manifold at the bottom of the filters of Fig. 7; see also Fig. 1 #110,102);
wherein a manifold (Fig. 1 #102) is provided;
wherein vertical tube (see POSNER annotated Fig. 7 below) is provided;
wherein the vertical tube is in fluid connection with the manifold and is provided with an outflow opening (fluid outlet at the bottom of Fig. 7);
wherein a filter “receptacle” is provided (the structure that receives the filter outlet; Fig. 7);
wherein the filter receptacle is used for detachable connection and re-disassembly of the upstream filter unit (see also Fig. 2 of the coupling) in the form of a filter cartridge according to claim 1 (see above); and
that the inflow opening is arranged in the area of the filter receptacle and is made closable by means of an automatic collector closure (Fig. 2 #111);
wherein the automatic collector closure is capable of disconnecting the manifold from an environment and from a closed state and open state.
Regarding the riser tube, it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the orientation of the outlet tube as a vertical riser or a downflow tube as a convenient engineering design choice not affecting the operation of the device.
POSNER Annotated Fig. 7
PNG
media_image1.png
534
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, POSNER teaches at least two filter receptacles are provided (Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 15-16,19, POSNER teaches the automatic collector closure is capable of directing an opening force in the direction of the manifold to move the closure from a closed state to an open state and includes a spring (Fig. 4 #142; C6/L26-35).
Regarding claim 17, POSNER teaches a flow channel (as fluid flows from the filter to the manifold).
Regarding claim 20, POSNER teaches a filtration system and mount for beverage dispensers and automatic beverage brewing machines (title, Figs.) including a base unit according to claim 13 (the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated by reference), wherein at least one filter unit is provided in the form of the filter cartridge (the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated by reference); and,
The automatic filter cartridge and collector closures are capable of being moved to the open state.
Regarding claim 21, POSNER teaches a plurality of the filter cartridges is provided (Fig. 7);
wherein the plurality of the filter cartridges is connected in parallel; and
the filter cartridges with their outflow openings each flow into the manifold as a common manifold of the oil-water separating device and this common manifold, in turn, flows into the riser/vertical tube as a common riser of the oil-water-separating device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,18 have allowable subject matter over the prior art of record.
MANN (DE DE202008004291) discloses a replaceable liquid filter with a closing device (title, Figs. see translation) comprising a housing (Fig. 1 #11), a filter material (Fig. 1 #4,9) for filtering oil in internal combustion engines; and automatic valves on an inlet and an outlet.
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~11:00~15:00.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights