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 § 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 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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. US 2007/0158263 in view of Lee US 2018/0065068, Zhang US 2018/0127294 and Bruggink et al. US 2010/0065484.
Claim 1, Brandt teaches a filter system comprising: a housing (100) having a channel (103, 104) formed adjacent a bottom thereof, the channel is capable of being connected to an inlet and outlet and the housing has a chamber (126) therein, the housing having a cavity formed at an upper end of the at least one chamber, a filter (102) removably received in the chamber, the filter being in communication with the channel, at the bottom thereof, the filter and an inner wall of the chamber defining an annulus therebetween in communication with the channel, the filter having an interior passageway (127) that opens to a filter media (123), an outer cap (130) affixed to the housing and covering an upper end of the at least one filter (fig. 1). The recitation of the filter media being disposed such that water flows from the channel and into the interior passageway and through the filter media and into the annulus is a recitation of how fluid flows through the apparatus (inside to out flow) and is a process that does not provide any further structural limitations to the apparatus. Brandt does not teach the outer cap affixed within the cavity.
Lee teaches a filter system comprising a housing (21) having a chamber within which a filter (22) is received, the housing having a cavity formed at an upper end of the chamber, and comprising an outer cap (412) releasably affixed within the cavity, the outer cap covering an upper end of the filter, the cavity having a plurality of ramps (which form the grooves 419) formed on an inner wall thereof so as to protrude radially inwardly from the inner wall of the cavity, the outer cap having a plurality of arms (410) protruding radially outwardly of an outer surface thereof, the plurality of arms being respectively slidable along the plurality of ramps such that a rotation of the outer cap causes the outer cap to be fixedly engaged within the cavity of the housing, the outer cap having a handle (416c and the portion in which 416c is seated) extending upwardly from an upper surface thereof, the handle adapted to be engaged by human hands to rotate the outer cap to engage the plurality of arms and ramps, the outer cap having at least one O-ring (418) extending circumferentially therearound and interposed in a sealing relationship between an exterior of the outer cap and an inner wall of the cavity, the filter has a top cap (124) affixed over an upper end thereof and a bottom cap (125) affixed over a lower end thereof, the channel having a receptacle (at 122) formed adjacent the bottom of the housing, the bottom cap of the filter being received in the receptacle, and the bottom cap having a tubular member extending downwardly therefrom, the tubular member being received in the receptacle, an exterior of the tubular member having an O-ring seal (128) thereon forming a seal between the receptacle and the tubular member (fig. 1-7). The outer cap, housing and cover member of Lee are all comparable structures to the outer cap and housing of Brandt and would have been an obvious substitution of one known element for another. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Additionally, the outer cap of Lee provides a closure that can be quickly and stably connected to the housing and provides for pressurizing and depressurizing the system (paragraph 24-25).
Brandt further teaches the receptacle has an area at an upper end that receives the tubular member into an interior of the receptacle but does not teach a funnel area.
The use of a funnel area at the upper end of a receptacle to receive a tubular member is a well-established technique in the art as demonstrated by Zhang, fig. 3 where 135 is received within 136, and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Brandt does not teach a handle hingedly mounted at the top of the filter. A hinged handle at the top of a filter is a known technique in the art as demonstrated by Bruggink, handle 27 at the top of filter 26 which is movable between an outwardly extending portion and a position laying flat against a surface of the top (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the handle of Bruggink as a way to facilitate handling of the filter element (paragraph 32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the bayonet type connector of Lee is used to cause the cover to connect to the plastic frame and does not attach to engage with the housing. As clearly shown in Lee, the plastic frame (413) is attached to the frame (12) and forms the top end of the housing and allows an outer cap (412) to seal the open end of the housing. The outer cap has a plurality of arms (410) which slide along the plurality of ramps (forming grooves 419) and bring the O-ring (418) into a liquid tight sealing relationship with an inner wall of the cavity of the housing as clearly seen in figures 2 and 6 and discussed in paragraphs 24-25. The limitations of the claim are taught by the prior art as detailed above and do not represent a patentable distinction over the prior art.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the radially sealing force obtained in an easy and automatic manner with a simple one quarter turn of the outer cap) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached on 571-270-3240. 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1778