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Claims 6-11, 13 and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/29/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of specie 1 in the reply filed on 1/29/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims are directed to a single inventive concept which is novel over the cited prior art to DE 102004046580. This is not found persuasive because the claims are not patentable as detailed in the rejection below and therefore are not directed to a single inventive concept.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/13/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The NPL and foreign documents are not in English.
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 1, 2, 5, 12, 14-15 and 18-20 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 1, line 3-4 recites, “…a raw side to a clean side of the fluid filter during operation of the fluid filter”. It is unclear if the fluid filter is being positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is directed to a filter cartridge for insertion in a filter housing of a fluid filter. Therefore, the fluid filter appears to be an intended use of the claimed filter cartridge. However, claim 1 appears to positively recite a raw and clean side of the fluid filter. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “a raw side to a clean side of the filter material”. Lines 7 and 20 are also assumed to recite “the filter material” instead of the fluid filter.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the radio housing-side module". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the housing-side radio module”.
Claim 5 depends from canceled claim 4 and therefore, the dependency of the claim is unclear. For examination purposes claim 5 is assumed to depend from claim 1.
Claim 12 recites, “a buoyant radio module”. The recited buoyant radio module is directed to a separate, nonelected specie. Therefore, it is unclear how a buoyant radio module would be incorporated into the claimed invention which expressly recites a filter cartridge side radio module.
The additional claims are rejected as depending from claim 1.
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, 2, 5, 12, 14-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. US 2017/0340996 in view of Kissner et al. DE 10 2004 046 580.
Claim 1, Jo teaches a filter cartridge comprising: a filter material (120) configured to filter a fluid flowing therethrough from a raw side to a clean side of the filter material, a filter cartridge side probe tip (134) configured to: move, during operation of the fluid filter, as a function of the pressure difference between the raw side and the clean side of the filter material, the pressure difference depending on a degree of contamination of the filter material; and communicate, to ascertain the degree of contamination of the filter material, with a housing side module (210) of a fluid filter, a distance to the housing side probe tip from the filter cartridge side probe tip varying upon movement of the filter cartridge side probe tip, and a bypass valve (131), wherein the filter cartridge side probe tip is arranged on the bypass valve, the bypass valve has a movable closure body (131) configured to move relative to a contact body, bearing a valve seat, of the bypass valve, as a function of the pressure difference between the raw side and the clean side of the filter material, the filter cartridge side probe tip being arranged on the closure body of the bypass valve, the closure body is configured to block a bypass line between the raw side and the clean side until the pressure difference between the raw side and the clean side reaches a differential pressure limit valve, and when the differential pressure limit value is reaches, the closure body then releases the bypass line so that at least a portion of the fluid to be filtered can pass from the raw side to the clean side without flowing through the filter material and the closure body is configured to move with increasing differential pressure below the differential pressure limit value without the bypass line being opened (fig. 1-5). Jo does not teach a filter cartridge side radio module but rather a probe tip.
Kissner teaches a filter cartridge comprising a filter material (2) with a clean and raw side, a filter cartridge side radio module (12) arranged on a bypass valve (7), the bypass valve movable is response to a pressure difference between the raw and clean side (fig. 1). Jo teaches the probe tip being used to measure a distance the bypass valve has moved based on a magnetic interaction with the probe tip (par 52). Kissner teaches the filter cartridge side radio module also being used to measure a distance the bypass valve has moved and that such modules are well-known in the art (pg. 2, par 4). The prior art clearly teaches the use of a radio module is a known option well within the technical grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 2, Kissner further teaches the filter cartridge side radio module is configured to transmit a radio signal (telemetry) by means of which a distance to the filter cartridge side module from a housing side radio module is determined (pg. 2, par 4).
Claim 5, Jo further teaches the closure body is arranged in a guide sleeve (132) configured to guide the closure body during a movement caused by differential pressure (fig. 1-5).
Claim 12, Kissner teaches a radio module but does not specifically teach a transponder or an RFID transponder. Transponders, such as RFID transponders, are well known telemetric devices and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14, Jo further teaches a filter housing (110) having a housing side sensor (210) and the filter cartridge as recited in claim 1 inserted into the housing, the filter cartridge side probe tip and the housing side sensor are configured to communicate with each other (fig. 1-5). Jo does not teach radio modules. As stated above, with respect to claim 1, Kissner teaches radio modules as known in the art and thus the use of a radio module in place of the probe tip and sensor of Jo would have been obvious for the same reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 15, Kissner further teaches the housing side radio module is configured to receive a radio signal from the filter cartridge side radio module by which a distance between the two modules can be determined (pg. 2, par 4).
Claim 18, Jo further teaches a filter system comprising a fluid filter, and an electronic data processing device (220), the fluid filter is configured according to claim 14, and the electronic data processing device is configured to determine a distance between the filter cartridge side probe tip and the housing side sensor (fig. 1-14).
Claims 19-20, Jo further teaches the electronic data processing device is configured to determine the distance between the probe tip and the sensor on the basis of a signal (fig. 1-14); and the electronic data processing device is configured to determine the contamination state of the filter material on the basis of the distance between the probe tip and the sensor (par 14).
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