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) 1-20, is/are filed on 5/6/2026 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are withdrawn, 16-20 is/are rejected.
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Herges (US 9180388 B2).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Seal surface)]
PNG
media_image1.png
948
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
905
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
914
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1067
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Herges discloses a filter element (33) for a filter system, comprising: a filter medium (33) formed to a hollow body (37) about a longitudinal axis; a first end disk (43) at a first end face and a second end disk (41) at an oppositely positioned second end face; a seal element (49) at the second end face; the first end disk comprising a first central opening (45), annular (51) about the first end face; the second end disk comprising a second central opening (45), annular about the second end face; wherein when installed, the seal is opposite an outlet and in direct contact with the seal of another filter element to form a seal interface -- outlet (9) / outflow space (7); the inter-element seal is at end caps (41/43). Note on "opposite an outlet": in Herges the clean cavity (37) connects to outlet (9) through support-plate passage (31) at one end, so the element-to-element seal sits at the end remote from the outlet connection (C4/5-C5-62, FIGS. 1-6).
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) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herges (US 9180388 B2) in view of Rampen (US 20050133433 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Herges discloses the filter element of claim 16 and further discloses a support pipe about which the filter medium is arranged (fluid-permeable support cylinder 59, over which filter cartridge 21 carrying filter medium 35 is received; FIG. 5). Herges does not disclose that the support pipe comprises the seal surface of the seal interface; in Herges the seal of the interface is carried by end caps 41/43 rather than by the support pipe.
Rampen, in the same field of endeavor (fluid filter cartridges), teaches a filter element (1) having a body of filtering media (2) with an opening (6), a cap (8) mounted at the media, and a cylindrical tube (7) extending into the hollow interior (5), wherein the cylindrical tube (7) carries the seal that closes the flow interface — specifically a radially inwardly directed flange (12) formed on the interior surface of tube (7) and a ring member (14) presenting the sealing face (15) (FIGS. 2–4). Rampen teaches that locating the seal on the tube in this manner forms and maintains "a seal of high integrity over a wide variety of pressure differentials" while permitting the element to be removed and replaced without impairing the seal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the seal surface of Herges' seal interface on the support pipe, as taught by Rampen, in order to obtain the high-integrity, pressure-tolerant, easily-serviceable seal expressly identified by Rampen.
Regarding claim 18, the combination further teaches that the support pipe comprises a radially inwardly projecting rim and that the seal surface of the seal interface is arranged at the radially inwardly projecting rim (Rampen: radially inwardly directed flange 12 formed on the interior surface of cylindrical tube 7, the flange 12 having an inwardly disposed edge 13 carrying ring member 14 whose interior face 15 forms the seal; FIGS. 2–4).
Regarding claim 19, Herges discloses a filter element (33) for a filter system (FIG. 1) comprising: a filter medium arranged as a single layer or many layers on the support pipe (filter medium 35, disclosed as multi-layered and surrounded by support fabric 39; FIG. 7); a circumferentially extending socket arranged at a first end face of the filter medium and projecting in an axial direction (axially projecting annular body 51 of end cap 43; FIG. 6); a cover arranged at the oppositely positioned second end face of the filter medium (end cap 41; FIG. 6); wherein the cover comprises a seal surface or a seal element (O-ring 49; FIGS. 6–7); and wherein, when the filter element is installed, the seal surface or seal element is in direct contact with a seal surface or seal element of another filter element to form a seal interface (adjacent end caps 41, 43 engage and seal to one another; FIGS. 4–5).
Herges discloses a support pipe (support cylinder 59), but that support cylinder is a component of the reusable basket (19) onto which the disposable filter element is received, rather than a component of the filter element itself as recited. Rampen teaches a filter element in which a cylindrical tube (7) is fixedly received within the media opening (6) as part of the cartridge and carries the seal (flange 12/ring member 14; FIGS. 2–4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Herges' filter element with an element-integral support pipe bearing the interface seal, as taught by Rampen, to achieve a self-contained, high-integrity seal at the element and to simplify handling during the element replacement that Herges emphasizes.
Regarding claim 20, Herges teaches that the cover comprises a circumferentially extending projection projecting in the axial direction away from the cover, wherein the circumferentially extending projection carries the seal element (Herges: funnel 47 extends circumferentially about cap opening 45 and projects axially from end cap 41, and O-ring 49 is carried on the inside of funnel 47; FIGS. 6–7).
***
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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, Vickie Kim 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