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 .
StatusClaims(s) 1-19, is/are filed on 02/06/2024 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected.
The Non-Final Office Action previously Mailed on August 25, 2026, has been formally vacated due to a technical saving error, and a corrected Office Action is being issued concurrently herewith.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 18, wherein seal member comprises should be corrected to wherein the seal member comprises. 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ries (US 8419938 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
864
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
772
1069
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Ries teaches a filter cartridge (filter assembly 16; Fig. 1) comprising: a filter cartridge shell having a filter cartridge coupling surface (container/canister 14 having external threads 31 that threadingly engage the base), the filter cartridge shell defining a filter cartridge opening (outer wall 28 and end wall 30 of container 14 define an internal cavity that contains filter assembly 16); and a filter element configured to be contained within the filter cartridge opening (filter assembly 16 disposed within the internal cavity of container 14; Fig. 1), the filter element comprising: filter media (filter medium 34); a first endcap (first endcap 32) comprising: a first endcap flange interfacing with the filter media (ring-shaped first wall 46, a plate generally perpendicular to axis 18, seated against the end of filter medium 34; Figs. 1–2); a first endcap inner wall contiguous with the first endcap flange, projecting orthogonally from the first endcap flange (cylindrical third wall 50 disposed at the radially inner portion of first wall 46 and extending along the longitudinal axis; Figs. 1–2); a first endcap outer wall contiguous with the first endcap flange, projecting orthogonally from the first endcap flange and interfacing with the filter media (cylindrical second wall 48 disposed at the radially outer portion of first wall 46, extending along the longitudinal axis and covering/adjacent a portion of filter medium 34); and a seal member coupled to the first endcap and separated from the filter media by the first endcap (inner seal member 44, Figs. 1–2) (C10/18-C12/5).
Regarding claim 2, Ries teaches wherein: the first endcap further comprises: an inner seal member wall (68) extending from the first endcap flange away from the filter media; and an outer seal member wall (52) extending from the first endcap flange away from the filter media, the outer seal member wall and the inner seal member wall collectively defining a seal member aperture (space between 68 and 52); and the seal member comprises: a seal member base (bottom portion of 44) received within the seal member aperture and coupled to at least one of the inner seal member wall or the outer seal member wall; and a seal member head (top portion of 44, Fig. 5) contiguous with the seal member base and overlapping (i.e. formed by dovetails 88) at least one of the inner seal member wall or the outer seal member wall.
Regarding claim 3, Ries discloses the filter cartridge of claim 1, wherein the filter element further comprises a central tube (36) interfacing with the first endcap inner wall and the filter media, the central tube separating the first endcap inner wall from the filter media, the central tube comprising a plurality of central tube apertures (37) and defining a central tube opening (40).
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) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries (US 8419938 B2) in view of Smith (US 10046263 B2).
Regarding claims 4-7, Ries discloses the filter cartridge of claim 1 and further discloses that the first endcap includes structure projecting from the outer wall region toward the shell — namely a fifth wall 58 (ledge) and a fourth wall 54 whose second end seats within a groove 60 formed in the base, together with a plurality of arms 56 defining apertures 57. Ries thus teaches endcap projections supported by, and keyed to, the surrounding hardware – reading on claims 4 to 5.
Alternatively, Smith teaches, in an analogous replaceable filter cartridge: first and second lip sections (tabs 126) contiguous with the endcap outer periphery and supported on the shell's open-end edge (lever arms 504 resting above the open end of shell housing 110) — reading on claims 4 and 5; a lip projection (barb 306) extending from each lip section, received within a first/second edge recess (groove 128) of the shell, the interaction resisting relative movement/rotation of the endcap and shell — reading on claims 7 and 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have to provide Ries's endcap with Smith's lip sections and cooperating shell-edge recesses in order to axially support the element on the shell and to rotationally couple/retain the element to the shell during service (facilitating clean, single-piece removal).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries (US 8419938 B2) in view of Oelschlaegel (US 8741138 B2).
Regarding claims 10-11, Ries teaches the container "may include any conventional drain port … configured to facilitate draining of fluid from container 14" at the lower end of the container. Ries does not expressly disclose a drain plug selectively/threadedly received within a drain aperture at the lowermost point. Oelschlaegel teaches a drain assembly located in the lower end wall of a filter collection bowl for periodic removal of collected fluid/water. It is well-known that threaded drain plugs selectively received within a lowermost drain aperture of a filter housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Ries's conventional drain port as a threaded drain plug at the lowermost point of the container, as taught/suggested by Oelschlaegel and as conventional in the art, to provide a secure, reusable, fluid-tight, and selectively removable closure enabling draining before element service — reading on claims 10 and 11.
Claim(s) 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ries (US 8419938 B2) in view of Baker (US 20130032521 A1).
Regarding claims 12-13, Ries discloses a second endcap (second endcap 38) disposed adjacent the end wall of the container and supporting the media, engaging the second end of sleeve 36 (C5/11-45). Ries does not provide detailed inner/outer wall geometry for the second endcap. Baker teaches a second/lower endcap (14b) having a second endcap flange (body 34), a second endcap inner wall (inner circumferential lip 38), and a second endcap outer wall (outer circumferential lip 36) separated from the inner wall by the flange, with the filter media in confronting relation with the flange (media end 26 adjacent top surface 40). Wherein a second endcap outer wall is contiguous with the second endcap flange, the second endcap outer wall separated from the second endcap inner wall by the second endcap flange. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided Ries' second endcap 38 with the inner and outer circumferential walls of Baker in order to positively locate, cup, and bond the lower end of the media and align the element within the container — reading on claims 12 (flange + inner wall + media confronting flange) and 13 (outer wall separated from inner wall by flange).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Ries discloses that the seal member is molded to the endcap and anchored via recesses/dovetails (inner seal member 44 formed by injecting material that flows into second recesses 64; dovetails 88). Ries thus teaches molding the seal to an endcap projection with mechanical anchoring but does not expressly recite an overmolded seal on an endcap projection with bonding apertures and a barb profile.
Baker teaches an endcap projection (inner circumferential lip 56 / lower portion 56b) extending away from the media, onto which the seal member is overmolded ("integrally formed with (e.g., over-molded)") — reading on claim 14; wherein the endcap projection includes a barb profile via a barb/tang (56b) on the projection — reading on claim 16 (endcap projection includes a barb profile). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have overmold Ries's seal onto a barbed endcap projection with bonding apertures per Baker to eliminate any separate adhesive step and to mechanically lock the seal to the endcap (Baker teaching that separate attaching material "may be obviated"), yielding predictable, reliable seal retention.
Regarding claim 15 Ries teaches a plurality of endcap bonding apertures covered by the seal), recesses/cavities (62/64) into which seal material flows to key the seal, and Baker teaches barb/tang anchoring; providing bonding apertures/holes through/into which overmold material flows to mechanically key the seal is a well-known overmold-anchoring technique of which official notice is taken. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have to overmold Ries's seal onto a barbed endcap projection with bonding apertures per Baker to eliminate any separate adhesive step and to mechanically lock the seal to the endcap (Baker teaching that separate attaching material "may be obviated"), yielding predictable, reliable seal retention.
Regarding claim 17, Ries teaches seal member base including a flanged extension interfacing with the seal member aperture to retain the base therein: seal extensions (dovetails 88) received within endcap cavities 90 / second recesses 64 to retain the seal in the endcap, and Baker teaches a complementary barb/recess interlock. A flanged/dovetail extension on the seal base retained within the seal aperture is expressly taught by Ries's dovetails 88 and, alternatively, is an obvious mechanical-equivalent reversal of Baker's interlock. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have to configure the seal base with a flanged/dovetail extension to positively retain the seal in the aperture.
Regarding claim 18 Ries teaches the seal member comprising a plurality of deflectable seal member flanges): Ries and Baker each teach a resilient/deflectable seal (inner seal member 44; Baker sealing lip 74). Providing a plurality of deflectable sealing flanges/lips on a seal member is a conventional multi-lip sealing arrangement of which official notice is taken. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a plurality of deflectable seal flanges to improve sealing robustness and redundancy, yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 19, requires the first endcap to comprise a first endcap projection having a structurally integrated seal member and a seal member receiver configured to receive the seal member. Ries discloses a first endcap 32 carrying seal members that are molded integrally with the endcap (inner/outer seal members 42, 44 "integral with" the endcap) and further discloses recesses/cavities (62, 64, 90) that receive and retain seal material — i.e., a seal-receiving structure. Baker teaches a projection carrying a structurally integrated (overmolded/unitary) seal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Ries's endcap projection with both an integrally molded seal portion and a receiver seat for the seal, combining the integral-seal and seal-receiving teachings already present in Ries (and taught by Baker), to positively locate and retain the seal on a single projection.
***
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 571-271-0579. 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