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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marciano et al (US 20160023143; hereinafter Marciano) in view of JP 2003210912 (hereinafter JP ‘912).
As regarding claim 1, Marciano discloses the claimed invention for a filter container system comprising: a filter cartridge (114) including a filter (132) for filtering a fluid, the filter having a flow path having cylindrical shape between a first opening at one end of the filter and a second opening at another end of the filter; a filter container (112) in which the filter cartridge is detachably set inside of the filter container ([0029], [0034]-[0036], fig. 4 and 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
497
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marciano does not disclose the filter container having an air-bleeding mechanism at an upper side of the filter container. JP ‘912 teaches the filter container having an air-bleeding mechanism (annotated fig. 2) at an upper side of the filter container ([0029]). Both Marciano and JP ‘912 are both directed to filter cartridge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the filter container having an air-bleeding mechanism at an upper side of the filter container as taught by JP ‘912 in order to appropriately vent gas accumulated in the filter vessel (112); in turn, enhance filter container system performance.
PNG
media_image2.png
450
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Marciano as modified discloses a partition (upper portion of filter 110 in fig. 4) contacting with the filter cartridge and the inside of the filter container, the partition causes a formation of an air-bleeding chamber (JP ‘912 - 53) communicating with an air-bleeding opening of the air-bleeding mechanism; and a pipe (142) extending in a vertical direction, to communicate with an inside of the filter cartridge, wherein the filter container has a set-in state in which the filter cartridge is set in the inside of the filter container, wherein in the set-in state, the pipe extends into the inside of the flow path to have a gap flow path (fig. 4; no number) between the inside of the flow path and the pipe (142) so that one end of the pipe reaches to the air-bleeding chamber, the partition contacts with the end of the filter, and the air-bleeding chamber fluidly communicate only with the gap flow path, the pipe and air-bleeding opening, wherein in the set-in state, the filter container system is configured to define a flow path is defined so that the fluid flows from an inlet (JP ‘912 - 21) of bottom of the filter container, the fluid flows into the gap flow path and reaches the air-bleeding chamber through the filter from an outer surface of the filter, and the fluid is discharged out through a discharge outlet (120; JP ‘912 - 33) of the bottom of the filter container through the pipe from the air-bleeding chamber.
As regarding claim 3, Marciano as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marciano as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the partition (upper portion of filter 110 in fig. 4) is configured to extend from an inside surface of the upper side of the filter container so that the formation of the air-bleeding chamber (JP ‘912 - 53) is caused by bringing an end of the partition into contact with the end of the filter cartridge.
As regarding claim 4, Marciano as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marciano as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the partition (upper portion of filter 110 in fig. 4) is configured to extend from an end of the filter cartridge so that the formation of the air-bleeding chamber (JP ‘912 - 53 in figs. 1-2) is caused by bringing an end of the partition into contact with an inside surface of the upper side of the filter container.
As regarding claim 5, Marciano as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marciano as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the pipe (311) is fixed onto (via 313 of fig. 11) the filter cartridge (314).
As regarding claim 6, Marciano as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Marciano as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the pipe is fixed onto the filter container (JP ‘912 - lower ‘portion’ that connects to components 57, 59, 61 and 63 in fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Marciano fails to disclose an air vent room at a turn-back portion and that JP '912 fails to disclose the claimed gap flow path and turn-back portion. However, this argument improperly attacks the references individually rather than the combination. The rejection relies on Marciano for the claimed filter cartridge, pipe, gap flow path, and resulting upward/downward flow configuration, and relies on JP '912 solely for teaching an air-bleeding chamber/opening at the upper portion of a filter container. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant further argues that the claimed turn-back portion naturally separates air from fluid and that neither reference teaches such operation. However, claim 1 does not recite any particular air-separation mechanism, "natural" separation process, or performance characteristic. Patentability cannot be predicated on unclaimed functional advantages. The rejection addresses the claimed structural limitations, which are met by the proposed combination.
Applicant's assertion that JP '912 cannot be properly incorporated into Marciano is unsupported. JP '912 merely teaches providing an air-bleeding chamber/opening at the upper portion of a filter housing to vent accumulated gas. Incorporating this known venting feature into Marciano's filter container would have been a straightforward modification that does not alter Marciano's basic filtration structure or principle of operation. No structural incompatibility or inoperability has been identified.
Applicant's argument that the references fail to teach an air vent room at a turn-back portion is likewise unpersuasive. Marciano already discloses a flow path in which fluid travels upward and then changes direction before entering the outlet pipe. When JP '912's upper air-bleeding chamber is incorporated into Marciano as proposed, the chamber would necessarily be located in the upper region where gas accumulates and where the flow changes direction, thereby satisfying the claimed arrangement.
Applicant's teaching-away argument is also not persuasive. Marciano's disclosure that gas may be discharged with the fluid does not criticize, discredit, or discourage the use of an air-bleeding chamber. At most, Marciano discloses an alternative gas-management approach. A reference does not teach away merely because it describes a different embodiment or preferred design. Nothing in Marciano suggests that venting accumulated gas through an upper air-bleeding chamber would be undesirable or inoperable.
Therefore, the combination of Marciano and JP '912 remains proper, and Applicant has not identified any claimed limitation that is absent from the combined teachings nor any technical reason why the proposed modification would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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 L. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights