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 § 102 and/or §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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Barreteau et al. (US 8,888,885 B2) and Barreteau et al. (US 8,888,885 B2) in view of JEON SANG KI (KR 2006-0133937 A) hereinafter “Jeon”.
With regards to Claims 1-4 Barreteau teaches:
An end cap, part 14, which reads on applicant's claimed upper plate having a circular hole formed in the center of a circular plate. A lower end cap, part 16, which reads on applicant's claimed lower plate having a diameter smaller than the outer diameter of the upper plate but larger than the diameter of the hole. A filter media, part 12, which reads on applicant's claimed filter installed between the upper plate and the lower plate around a central opening, part 36, which reads on applicant's claimed through hole extending from the hole of the upper plate toward, but not through as seen in the drawings provided by applicant, the lower plate. The filter media is surrounded by a protection net formed in the shape of a net and extended from an outer circumference of the upper plate to an outer circumference of the lower plate to surround the filter as seen in Fig. 8 and 9 of Barreteau.
Barreteau teaches a variety of styles of such a filter including those seen in Figures 4, 5, 8, 9, 20c, 21c.
(Claim 2) The filter media, part 12, is installed inside the outer circumferential surface formed by connecting the outer circumference of the upper plate and the outer circumference of the lower plate. (See Barreteau Figure 5, 20c and 21c and Col. 7 lines 1-60, Col. 14 lines 1-20, and Col. 15 lines 32-60)
(Claim 3) The central opening, part 36, which reads on applicant's claimed through hole is formed in a shape in which the diameter, D1, of the hole of the upper plate is maintained in the same from the upper plate to the lower plate. (See Barreteau Fig. 9 and Col. 9 lines 25-50)
(Claim 4) The central opening, part 36, which reads on applicant's claimed through hole is formed in a shape in which the diameter, D1, of the hole of the upper plate gradually decreases from the upper plate to the lower plate. (See Barreteau Fig. 4, 5, and 21c and Col. 7 lines 1-60 and Col. 15 lines 32-60)
In the alternative:
Barreteau does not explicitly number or provide further details on the mesh seen in Figures 8 and 9. In figure 9 of Barreteau the mesh does not appear to extend to the end of the filter and all the way to the outer circumference of the lower end plate as it does in Figure 8. In consideration of the argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not find such a claim to be anticipated in that case, we shall consider the teachings of Jeon.
Jeon teaches:
A filter, part 100, which contains pleated filter media, part 20, contained within a filter screen, part 10. (See Jeon Abstract pg. 1, pg. 3 paragraph 6 and 7, and Fig. 5) Jeon teaches the filter media has a conical shape and the end plates have different diameters. (See Jeon Fig. 5) And the expandable metal mesh extends the entire distance from one end plate to the other end plate.
Jeon explicitly teaches surrounding a pleated filter material with an expanded metal mesh that extends from one end plate to another wherein the end plates are differing in relative size. Barreteau discloses the claimed invention except for Barreteau does not explicitly teach the metal mesh within the specification, although one such is displayed in the figures. Jeon teaches that it is known to utilize a metal mesh which extends from one end plate to another along a curved outer surface of a filter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the filters taught by Barreteau to include a metal mesh as taught by Jeon, since Jeon states at pg. 1 and pg. 3 that such a modification would provide structural support to the filter media. See MPEP 2144
Examiner’s note that in the instant case the preamble is not considered to contribute to the structure of the claims as the preamble is interpreted as reciting an intended purpose which is not considered to impart particular structure beyond that which is claimed after the preamble and the claimed invention after the preamble is a structurally complete invention without the preamble.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIT E ANBACHT whose telephone number is (571)272-9876. The examiner can normally be reached on M, T, R, F 11 am - 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9876.
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.
/BRIT E. ANBACHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
BRIT E. ANBACHT
Examiner
Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights