DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillingham USPA 2020/0230538 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Gillingham discloses a filter housing for a filter system for filtering a gaseous fluid (see figure 22), the filter housing comprising: a housing wall (figure 22: outer housing); an inlet opening for a fluid to be filtered arranged in the housing wall (figure 22: inlet 1323); an outlet opening for filtered fluid arranged in the housing wall (figure 22: outlet 1324); a receiving space arranged inside the housing wall and configured to receive at least one filter element (figure 22: filter 1320), wherein the at least one filter element is configured to separate a raw side from a clean side between the inlet opening and the outlet opening upon intended mounting of the at least one filter element in the filter housing (see figure 22); a first housing segment in which the inlet opening is provided (figure 22: segment 1323); a first inflow guard arranged at the first housing segment (figure 24: flap 2015), wherein the first inflow guard is spaced apart from the first housing segment in a radial direction of the filter housing and directed toward the receiving space, wherein the first inflow guard extends substantially only across the inlet opening (figure 24: 2006), wherein the first inflow guard is arranged at a circumferentially extending edge of the first housing segment (see figure 24: flange 2015).
Gillingham does not disclose that the first inflow guard is formed as one piece with the first housing segment. However, Gillingham does disclose the use of welding to connect components together. Since Gillingham does not disclose how the flap 2015 is connected to the housing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to weld them together, as generally taught by Gillingham, since this is a well-known connection method. In the case where the flap is welded to the housing, they would be considered to be “formed as one piece”. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have the flap and the housing formed as one piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (V-B).
Regarding claims 2-4, Gillingham discloses that the first inflow guard comprises a length comprising at most 1.5 times an axial extension of the inlet opening in the housing wall along a longitudinal axis of the filter housing, and wherein the first inflow guard extends at most across 160° of a circumference of the housing segment (flap 2015 in figure 25 covers less than 1.5 times an axial extension of the inlet opening and extend less than 160 degrees of a circumference of the housing element).
Regarding claim 9, Gillingham discloses an outlet socket arranged at the outlet opening and further comprising at least one receptacle for at least one purging device arranged at the outlet socket (figure 22: outlet socket at 1324; area under top of outlet can be considered a receptacle that could receive a purging device).
Regarding claim 10-13, Gillingham discloses a purging device configured for intermittent emission of a pressure surge of a purging medium from a clean side of the first filter element arranged in the receiving space to a raw side of the first filter element arranged in the receiving space (paragraph 6); a secondary filter element arranged at the clean side of the first filter element (figure 22: secondary filter 1321 is located at clean side of filter 1320).
Regarding claim 17, Gillingham discloses that the filter system is a self-cleaning engine intake air filter system (paragraphs 58 and 59).
Claims 5-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillingham USPA 2020/0230538 A1 in view of Munkel USPA 2008/0276583 A1.
Gillingham is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 5-8 and 14-16, Gillingham does not disclose an outlet socket arranged in a second housing segment and a second inflow guard covering the outlet socket toward the receiving space, wherein an axial length of the second inflow guard corresponds to at most three times an axial extension of the outlet socket in the housing wall along a longitudinal axis of the filter housing, wherein the axial length of the second inflow guard corresponds to at most twice the axial extension of the outlet socket in the housing wall along the longitudinal axis of the filter housing, or wherein the second inflow guard extends circumferentially in relation to an inner side of the housing wall. Munkel discloses a similar filter housing having an inflow guard covering the outlet socket, wherein the inflow guard extends circumferentially in relation to the inner side of the housing wall (see Munkel figure 3: section 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gillingham to include a second inflow guard covering the outlet socket toward the receiving space, wherein the inflow guard extends circumferentially in relation to the inner side of the housing wall, as disclosed by Munkel, for the purpose of directing the flow. Furthermore, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the exact length of the inflow guard is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal direction of flow. MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have overcome the 102 rejections. However, the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillingham USPA 2020/0230538 A1. The Examiner first notes that flange 2015 in figure 24 anticipates the claimed first inflow guard arranged at a circumferentially extending edge of the first housing segment. However, as pointed out by Applicant, Gillingham does not disclose that this flap is formed as one piece with the first housing segment. However, Gillingham does disclose the use of welding to connect components together. Since Gillingham does not disclose how the flap 2015 is connected to the housing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to weld them together, as generally taught by Gillingham, since this is a well-known connection method. In the case where the flap is welded to the housing, they would be considered to be “formed as one piece”. Even if the flap 2015 was of different flexibility from the housing, as argued by Applicant, it could still be welded to the housing. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have the flap and the housing formed as one piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (V-B).
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 CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights