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 § 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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "the cap". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 12 provides antecedent basis for the cap, but would not provide antecedent basis for the septum.
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.
Claims 1 – 9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 4122241 to Fuerst et al. (hereinafter referred to as Fuerst).
In regard to claims 1 and 2, Fuerst discloses a filter as shown in the figures. The filter is capable of being used for a vent opening of a container. The filter includes a housing (3) and a filter element (1, 2). As discussed in paragraphs [0003] and [0004], the filter element and housing are integrated by an injection molding process. The filter of Fuerst has the same structure as a filter formed by a process in which a first part of the housing is formed by injection molding, after which a solid filter element and the first part of the housing are placed in a mold such that a circumferential edge portion of the solid filter element and the first part of the housing are adjacent to each other along a filling region and material is injected against the solid filter element and the first part of the housing at the filling region, from which material a second part of the housing is formed after curing, hence forming the housing from the first and second parts of the housing and the filter element from the solid filter element. The filter element (1, 2) of Fuerst is not shown to be rectangular or square. As discussed in paragraph [0008], the filter can be manufactured in various shapes. There is no evidence a rectangular or square shape is critical.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuerst to form the filter element in a rectangular or square shape given this shape fits the desired application. Further, it has been held that a particular shape of a structural feature or object is matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant, see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
In regard to claim 3, as shown in the figures, the housing (3) can be considered to be provided with a flange that extends downwardly from the outside of the filter element (1, 2).
In regard to claims 4 and 5, as discussed above, the shape of the filter element in Fuerst is not critical. Fuerst does not show a filter where the housing, and thus the flange, has a rectangular shape with rounded corners. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuerst to form the housing and flange in a rectangular shape with rounded corners given this shape fits the desired application
In regard to claim 6, as shown in the figures of Fuerst, the housing (3) can be considered to have a front wall at a distance from the filter element (1, 2). The filter element (1, 2) includes edges embedded in the housing (3). Thus, the front wall includes an opening that has a cross-sectional area which is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the filter element.
In regard to claims 7 – 9, as shown in the figures of Fuerst, ribs extend from a central hub in a radial direction of the opening and project from the front wall towards the filter element to support the filter element. The ribs can be considered to extend from a circumferential edge of the opening towards its center. The ribs can be considered to extend from a location at a distance from the opening.
In regard to claim 16, the filter element (1, 2) can be considered to be a flat filter element.
In regard to claim 17, Fuerst discloses a filter as shown in the figures. The filter is capable of being used for a vent opening of a container. The filter includes a filter element (1, 2) and a housing (3). The housing (3) includes a portion on each side of the filter element. The housing can be considered to include a first part and second part, wherein a circumferential edge portion of the filter element on a first side is in contact with the first part and the second part is integrally joined to the first part about the circumferential edge portion of the first part and in contact with a second side of the filter element that is opposite the first side. As discussed above, Fuerst does not specifically disclose a rectangular filter element. As discussed in paragraph [0008], the filter can be manufactured in various shapes. There is no evidence a rectangular or square shape is critical.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuerst to form the filter element in a rectangular or square shape given this shape fits the desired application. Further, it has been held that a particular shape of a structural feature or object is matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant, see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 – 13 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 10, there is no teaching or suggestion in Fuerst for end portions of the ribs, which are located next to the opening and face the filter element, to have rounded corners.
In regard to claim 11, there is no teaching or suggestion in Fuerst for the filter to be provided with an elastic self-sealing septum at the opening which allows a needle to pass through the elastic self- sealing septum so as to take a sample between the septum and the filter element.
In regard to claim 12, there is no teaching or suggestion in Fuerst for the filter to have an opening that is closed by a releasable cap. Claims 13 and 15 depend from claim 12 and would be allowable for at least the same reason as claim 12.
In regard to claim 18, Fuerst is considered to represent the closest prior art. As discussed above, Fuerst discloses similar filter with a housing formed by injection molding. As discussed in paragraph [0005], the housing is designed to be formed in one operation with a mold formed to ensure the filter element surface is covered during plastic injection. There is no teaching or suggestion for forming the filter using a methos comprising: forming a first part of the housing by injection molding; after forming the first part, placing a rectangular solid filter element and the first part of the housing in a mold such that a circumferential edge portion of the solid filter element and the first part of the housing are adjacent to each other along a filling region; and injecting material against the solid filter element and the first part of the housing at the filling region from which material a second part of the housing is formed after curing, hence forming the housing from the first and second parts of the housing and the filter element from the solid filter element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773