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 Status
Claims 1-20 and 22 have been cancelled.
Claims 21, 23-25 and 34-35 are rejected.
Claim 26-33 are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23-25 and 34-35 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsegood (US 2003/0116493).
With respect to claims 21, 24-25 and 34, Elsegood discloses a filter 88, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a housing having a body and a top portion, forming a fluid-tight seal with the body, as shown in Fig. 2, and a magnetic adapter 64 (protrusion) integral with or connected to the housing top portion and extending in an axial direction, as shown in Fig. 3; said protrusion 64 comprising ingress and egress fluid ports 86, 71, as shown in Fig. 2; a filter media disposed within the housing body and in fluid communication with said protrusion ingress and egress fluid ports 86, 71, as shown in Fig. 2; and a magnetic ring/array 204 disposed within or connected to the housing top portion protrusion 64 and oriented along a same axis in said axial direction, said magnetic ring/array 204 having a face presenting in said axial direction with respect to the housing body, as shown in Fig. 2.
Elsegood lacks a coded polymagnet or array of coded polymagnets comprising a face including a plurality of magnetic field emission sources having positions and polarities relating to a predefined spatial force function that corresponds to a predetermined alignment of the plurality of magnetic field emission sources; wherein the predefined spatial force function is a magnetic repulsion force; and wherein the predefined spatial force function is a magnetic shear force. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide a desired magnetic attachment, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired type of magnet according to a desired application.
With respect to claim 23, Elsegood discloses elements 400, 406, as shown in Fig. 4, and elements 82, 206, as shown in Fig. 5, which may be considered to be the claimed filter boss or lug extending radially outwards from the housing, as shown in Figs. 4-5. Elsegood lacks the filter boss or lug adapted for mechanically coupling with an alignment thread or channel of a removable locking cover or an alignment thread or channel of a sump of a mating filter manifold. However, this limitation is considered to be a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Elsegood teaches that the elements 400, 406, can be part of a transmission fluid line or a hydraulic fluid line (see paragraph 0037) and elements 82 and 206 coupled to element 68, as shown in Fig. 5. Therefore, it would be obvious that the elements 400, 406, 82, 206, are capable of coupling with another element such as, with an alignment thread or channel of a removable locking cover or an alignment thread or channel of a sump of a mating filter manifold, as claimed by applicant, since Elsegood teaches the claimed structure and therefore, it is inherent and/or obvious that it is capable of performing the intended use.
With respect to claim 35, Elsegood discloses wherein said ingress and egress fluid ports present radially outward from said protrusion 404, as shown in Fig. 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 23-25, 34-35, 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.
In response to applicant’s argument that Chandra lacks the new limitations added to claim 21: Elsegood teaches the new limitations of claim 21, as stated above.
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 MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773