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 .
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, 9-11, 13, 16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widenhoefer et al. US 5,362,390.
Claims 1 and 13, Widenhoefer teaches an assembly comprising: a liquid circuit (30), a liquid filter (20) detachably arranged at the liquid circuit, the liquid filter comprising a filter (22) separating a raw side of the liquid filter from a clean side of the liquid filter, an outlet opening (29b) arranged at the clean side of the liquid filter, and a stop valve (25) arranged downstream of the filter at the clean side of the liquid filter, wherein the stop valve closes the outlet opening in an unmounted state of the liquid filter, wherein the liquid circuit comprises a discharge socket (31) configured to connect to the clean side of the liquid filter through the outlet opening, wherein the stop valve of the liquid filter is configured to be actuated and opening mechanically by the discharge socket of the liquid circuit in a mounted state of the liquid filter and the liquid filter further comprises a pressure controlled nonreturn device (28) configured to open under a predetermined pressure difference and to be closed in the unmounted state of the liquid filter (fig. 1-6). Widenhoefer does not teach the filter being a filter bellow. Filter bellows or a pleated filter is very common in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a filter bellow or pleated filter provides additional area to the filter in a compact space. Applicant did not traverse the official notice of a filter bellow being a common feature in the art and therefore a filter bellows is viewed as admitted prior art.
Claims 9-11, 16 and 18-19, Widenhoefer further teaches the liquid filter comprises a center axis and is of axial symmetry in relation to the center axis and the stop valve is arranged coaxially to the center axis of the liquid filter (fig. 1-6); a thread closure (29b) configured to mount the liquid filter at the liquid circuit (fig. 1-6); an end disk framing the filter and wherein the stop valve is arranged inside the filter and the end disk framing the filter (fig. 1-2); and an end disk framing the filter and the stop valve is arranged inside the filter and extends at least partially part the end disk framing the filter in a direction along a center axis of the liquid filter (fig. 1-6).
Claim(s) 2, 4-8, 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widenhoefer et al. US 5,362,390 in view of Sakraschinsky et al. US 8,852,431.
Claim 2, Widenhoefer further teaches the stop valve comprises a stop element (43) closing the outlet opening in the unmounted state of the liquid filter, the stop element comprises a wall (fig. 1-6) but does not teach a cutout formed in the wall.
Sakraschinsky teaches a liquid filter comprising a filter (11) comprising a filter (27) arranged between a raw side of the liquid filter and a clean side of the liquid filter, an outlet opening (37) arranged at the clean side of the liquid filter, a stop valve (45) arranged downstream of the filter bellows, the stop valve closes the outlet opening in an unmounted state of the liquid filter, the stop valve is configured to be opened mechanically by a discharge socket of a liquid circuit (1) in a mounted state of the liquid filter, wherein the stop valve comprises a stop element closing the outlet opening in the unmounted state of the liquid filter, the stop element comprises a wall and at least one cutout (between 67) formed in the wall, wherein the at least one cutout forms a passage to the outlet opening in the mounted state of the liquid filter (fig. 1-4). The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element, the stop valve of Sakraschinsky, for another, the stop valve of Widenhoefer, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Each stop valve performs the same function in the same way with the same results.
Claims 4, 7-8, Sakraschinsky further teaches the stop valve comprises a tensioning element (43) pushing the stop element in the unmounted state of the liquid filter against a valve seat (35) of the stop valve (fig. 1-4); the stop valve further comprises a support element (41) and a spring element (43), the spring element has a first end supported at the support element and has a second end supported at the stop element, and wherein the stop element is locked captively at the support element (fig. 1-4); the support element forms at least partially an end disk (35) framing the filter (fig. 1-4)
Claim 6, Widenhoefer further teaches a valve seat of the stop valve comprises a shaped seal (44), and a stop element rests axially seal tightly at the shaped seal in the unmounted state of the liquid filter. Providing a seal element to provide a liquid tight seal in the unmounted state would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to prevent fluid from leaking or spilling from the filter when the filter is removed.
Claim 12, Widenhoefer teaches the filter of claim 11 wherein the stop valve comprises a support element but does not teach the support element forming at least partially the end disk framing the filter.
Sakraschinsky further teaches a support element forms at least partially an end disk (35) framing the filter (fig. 1-4). Providing a support element for a stop valve as part of an end disk is known in the art as demonstrate by Sakraschinsky and is a recitation of making at least a portion of the stop valve and the end disk an integral unit. [T]he use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice; In re Larson 144 USPQ 23 1952.
Claims 5 and 14, Sakraschinsky further teaches the stop valve of the liquid filter comprises a valve seat and a stop element comprises a projection (67) projecting past the valve seat of the stop valve in a direction along a center axis of the liquid filter, wherein the projection rests at a radial seal ring (39) of the liquid filter in the unmounted state, wherein the radial seal ring separates the clean side of the liquid filter from a raw side of the liquid filter in the mounted state at the liquid circuit, wherein the discharge socket rests seal tightly at the radial seal ring in the mounted state of the filter at the liquid circuit (fig. 1-4). Sakraschinsky does not teach the projection rests seal tightly at the radial seal ring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the projection rest seal tightly as this would help prevent the risk of residual amount of fluid leaking from the filter housing when the housing is replaced leading to contamination in the environment which is what Sakraschinsky is concerned with (col. 1, lines 25-35).
Claim 15, Sakraschinsky further teaches the stop valve of the filter comprises a valve seat comprising a shaped seal (39) and a stop element (at 67), the stop element rests radially at the shaped seal in the unmounted state, wherein the discharge socket seal tightly rests at the shaped seal in the mounted state of the liquid filter at the liquid circuit (fig. 1-4). Sakraschinsky does not teach the stop element rests seal tightly at the shaped seal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the stop element rest seal tightly as this would help prevent the risk of residual amount of fluid leaking from the filter housing when the housing is replaced leading to contamination in the environment which is what Sakraschinsky is concerned with (col. 1, lines 25-35).
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widenhoefer et al. US 5,362,390 in view of Dunsch et al. DE 10 2017 204 403.
Widenhoefer teaches as obvious the filter and assembly of claims 1 and 13 where the stop valve comprises a stop element (43) and a support element (41) (fig. 1-6). Widenhoefer does not teach the stop element comprises at least one spring clip.
Dunsch teaches a stop valve (6) comprising a stop element (see below) and a support element (see below) and the stop element comprises at least one spring clip (see below) configured to engage the support element and to attach the stop element captively but movably at the support element (fig. 1). The recited type of stop element and support element are known types of elements in the art as demonstrated by Dunsch and would have been an obvious substitution of one stop element and support element for another. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 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
Prosecution Insights