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 .
Status
Claims(s) 1-19, is/are filed on 1/11/2026 are currently pending. Claim(s) 11-16 is/are withdrawn without traverse, 1-10, 17-19 is/are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 recites: ‘The method of claim 17’ however, claim 17 is towards an apparatus (filter). The claim should be corrected ‘the filter of claim 17.’ Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dannenmaier (US 20070181488 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
1025
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1041
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Dannenmaier discloses a filter housing (101, 113, 114), comprising: a sleeve (101) including a first open end (top end), a second open end (bottom end), and an interior volume, the interior volume having an outer radial portion (i.e. outer portion of 102) and an inner radial portion (i.e. inner portion of 102); a first endcap (113) coupled to the first open end of the sleeve, the first endcap including a first plurality of ports (107, 106, 115, 116) that connect to the outer radial portion and the inner radial portion of the interior volume of the sleeve; and a second endcap (114) coupled to the second open end of the sleeve, the second endcap including a second plurality of ports (110, 111, 128, 126) that connect to the outer radial portion and the inner radial portion of the interior volume of the sleeve, wherein at least one of the first endcap and the second endcap is removably coupled to the sleeve (the reference does not teach the endcaps are unitary with the sleeve, rather they are bonded together separately – therefore they are considered removable/separable [0065, 0071]), and the filter housing is configured to enclose a filter member (intended use – filter member not required) in the sleeve between the first endcap and the second endcap [0059-0072].
Regarding claim 2, Dannenmaier teaches wherein the first plurality of ports includes an outer port (106) that extends to the outer radial portion of the interior volume of the sleeve and an inner port (116) that extends to the inner radial portion of the interior volume of the sleeve, and the second plurality of ports (110) includes an outer port that extends to the outer radial portion of the interior volume of the sleeve and an inner port (128) that extends to the inner radial portion of the interior volume of the sleeve.
Regarding claim 3, Dannenmaier teaches wherein the first endcap including one or more auxiliary ports that respectively extend through the first endcap to one of the inner port and the outer port in the first endcap (figs. 3, 9).
Regarding claim 4, Dannenmaier teaches further comprising: a first fluid pathway extending from a first port in the first plurality of ports to a first port in the second plurality of ports, the first fluid pathway configured to extend through the filter member, and a second fluid pathway extending from the first port in the first plurality of ports to a second port in the first plurality of ports, the second fluid pathway configured to extend through the filter member (intended use).
Regarding claim 5, Dannenmaier teaches further comprising: a third fluid pathway that extends from the first port in the first plurality of ports to a second port in the second plurality of ports, the third fluid pathway configured to not pass through the filter member (intended use).
Regarding claim 6, Dannenmaier teaches wherein the first endcap includes an end (i.e. bottom portion of 124) that faces the first open end of the sleeve, each port in the first plurality of ports having a respective opening (i.e. openings for each port) in the end of the first endcap, and the second endcap includes an end (i.e. the same portion described above but at the end of 114) that faces the second open end of the sleeve, each port in the second plurality of ports having a respective opening (i.e. openings for each port) in the end of the second endcap (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Dannenmaier teaches wherein the sleeve has a tubular shape (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Dannenmaier teaches wherein a longitudinal axis of the sleeve and a longitudinal axis of the filter member are coaxial (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Dannenmaier teaches wherein the outer radial portion (i.e. the outer radial portion around 102) has a tubular shape (would be tubular) that encircles the inner radial portion (the inner radial portion of 102), and the filter housing is configured to dispose the filter member in the interior volume of the sleeve between the outer radial portion and the inner radial portion of the interior volume (intended use) (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 17, Dannenmaier teaches filter, comprising: a filter member (2 or 102); and a filter housing enclosing the filter member, the filter housing including: a filter housing (101, 113, 114), comprising: a sleeve (101) including a first open end (top end), a second open end (bottom end), and an interior volume, the interior volume having an outer radial portion (i.e. outer portion of 102) and an inner radial portion (i.e. inner portion of 102); a first endcap (113) coupled to the first open end of the sleeve, the first endcap including a first plurality of ports (107, 106, 115, 116) that connect to the outer radial portion and the inner radial portion of the interior volume of the sleeve; and a second endcap (114) coupled to the second open end of the sleeve, the second endcap including a second plurality of ports (110, 111, 128, 126) that connect to the outer radial portion and the inner radial portion of the interior volume of the sleeve, wherein at least one of the first endcap and the second endcap is removably coupled to the sleeve (the reference does not teach the endcaps are unitary with the sleeve, rather they are bonded together separately – therefore they are considered removable/separable [0065, 0071]), and the filter housing is configured to enclose a filter member in the sleeve between the first endcap and the second endcap [0059-0072].
Regarding claim 18, Dannenmaier teaches wherein the filter member is configured to filter liquid and to be replaceable from the housing (the reference does not teach the endcaps are unitary with the sleeve, rather they are bonded together separately – therefore they are considered removable/separable [0065, 0071]).
Regarding claim 19, Dannenmaier teaches wherein the sleeve has a tubular shape (fig. 9), and a longitudinal axis of the sleeve and a longitudinal axis of the filter member are coaxial (fig. 9).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenmaier (US 20070181488 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Dannenmaier does not teach wherein sleeve has an axial length that extends from the first end of the sleeve to the second end of the sleeve, and the axial length of the sleeve being less than 40 inches. Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the axial length of the sleeve to be less than 40 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component and these are known standard sizing that enable to be fit in small and tight spaces (see at least US 5401399 A, C5/30-40). A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights