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Claims 5, 7 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/29/25.
In electing specie 1, where the outlet conduit is conical, inclined radially inward from an upstream end to a downstream end, the limitations of claim 5 do not read on the elected specie as claim 5 requires a cylindrical wall with a substantially uniform cross section. Therefore, claim 5 is also withdrawn. The examiner spoke with applicant’s attorney, Lily Ho on 10/9/25 to confirm that claim 5 is not elected and that claim 5 should be withdrawn.
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) 1-4, 6, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausen et al. US 5,753,120 in view of Ouweleen et al. WO2018/156489 (US 11,724,220 will be referenced as the US equivalent).
Claims 1-4, Clausen teaches a filter cartridge comprising: a filter housing (12) including an outer wall defining an internal volume, a filter element (30) positioned along a longitudinal axis of the filter cartridge within the internal volume, the filter element comprising: a filter media (70) and an end cap (72) coupled to a top end of the filter media, the end cap including a filter element outlet conduit (100) extending axially from an inner rim of the end cap away from the filter media and an end cap ledge (on 80) extending radially outwards from an outer periphery of the end cap, a first sealing member (84) disposed radially and at least partially on the end cap ledge, the first sealing member having an upper axially sealing surface and an opposite lower axial sealing surface capable of forming an axial seal in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis and a second sealing member (104) disposed on a radially outward surface of the first element outlet conduit, the second sealing member is configured to form a radial seal in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (fig. 3). Clausen does not teach the first sealing member disposed radially between the outer wall of the filter housing and the outer periphery of the end cap.
Ouweleen teaches a filter cartridge comprising: a filter housing (108) including an outer wall (108) defining an internal volume, a filter element (110) positioned along a longitudinal axis of the filter cartridge within the internal volume, the filter element comprising: a filter media (116) and an end cap (112) coupled to a top end of the filter media, the end cap including a filter element outlet conduit (at 124) extending axially from an inner rim of the end cap away from the filter media, and an end cap ledge (408) extending radially outwards from an outer periphery of the end cap, a first sealing member (122) disposed radially between the outer wall of the filter housing and the outer periphery of the end cap and at least partially on the end cap ledge, the first sealing member having an upper axial sealing surface and an opposite lower axial sealing surface configured to form an axial seal in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis, at least a first portion of the lower axial sealing surface sealing against the end cap, and a second sealing member (124) disposed at the filter element outlet conduit, a first housing ledge (306) defined on an inner surface of the outer wall of the filter housing proximate to the end cap ledge, the first sealing member disposed at least partially on the first housing ledge, at least a second portion of the lower axial sealing surface sealing against the filter housing, and the end cap and the filter housing forming a groove (formed by 304, 306, 406, 408) receiving the first seal member, the groove defined by the outer wall, the first housing ledge, the end cap ledge and the outer periphery of the end cap, a plurality of detents (at 308) formed on the inner surface of the filter housing below the first housing ledge, and a plurality of indents (at 410) formed on an outer peripheral surface of the end cap ledge, the plurality of indents formed at locations corresponding to the plurality of detents such that each of the plurality of detents is inserted into a corresponding indent of the plurality of indents when the filter element is disposed in the filter housing, and a second housing ledge (310) extending radially inwards form the inner surface of the filter housing below the first housing ledge, at least a portion of the end cap ledge being disposed on the second housing ledge when the filter element is disposed in the filter housing (fig. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the housing ledge and end cap ledge of Ouweleen because it allows a keying feature to prevent unauthorized filter elements to be used with the housing as well and prevents free rotation of the filter element with respect to the filter housing (col. 5, lines 24-34).
Claims 8 and 10, Clausen and Ouweleen further teaches the first sealing member has a rectangular cross section (Clausen, fig. 3; Ouweleen, fig. 1); and the end cap further comprises a plurality of openings (Clausen, 90; Ouweleen, 120) defined proximate to and radially inwards of the outer periphery of the end cap (Clausen, fig. 3, 5; Ouweleen, fig. 1-4).
Claim 6, Clausen in view of Ouweleen teaches the filter cartridge of claim 1 but does not teach the outlet conduit comprising a conical wall. The recitation of the outlet conduit having a conical wall that is inclined radially inward from an upstream to a downstream end is a recitation of the relative shape of the conduit. The configuration of the apparatus is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (1966). Paragraph 51 discusses the reasons for a conical outlet conduit. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the reduced insertion force is dependent not on the shape of the outlet conduit of the filter cartridge but rather on the conical shape of the head outlet conduit.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clausen et al. US 5,753,120 in view of Ouweleen et al. WO2018/156489 (US 11,724,220 will be referenced as the US equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ardes US 2018/0326328.
Clausen in view of Ouweleen teaches the cartridge of claim 1 but does not teach the recited plurality of protrusions.
Ardes teaches a filter cartridge comprising: a filter housing (2) defining an internal volume, a filter element (3) disposed within the internal volume, the filter element comprising: a filter media (30) and an end cap (31) coupled to a top end of the filter media, the top end positionable proximate to a filter head an end cap ledge (at 34) extending radially outwards from an outer periphery of the end cap, a first sealing member (33) disposed around the outer periphery of the end cap at least partially on the end cap ledge, wherein the first sealing member forms an axial seal between the end cap and the filter head when the filter cartridge is coupled to the filter head, the end cap further comprises a plurality of protrusions (35) formed on the outer periphery of the end cap axially upwards of the end cap ledge, the plurality of protrusions structured to secure the first sealing member to the outer periphery (fig. 1-7 and 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the protrusions of Ardes because they provide a reliable carrying along of the seal during removal of the housing and filter insert (par 44, 55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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