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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 and Claim 3 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite. The claims recite “a projection line in the longitudinal extension to an outer perimeter of the second end cap intersects the outer perimeter of the second end cap to the outer perimeter of the second end cap intersects the outer perimeter of the second end cap.” However, the claims fail to define what constitutes the “projection line”, how the “longitudinal extension” is determined. Accordingly, the scope of the claims is unclear, and the metes and bounds of claims 2 and 3 cannot be reasonably determined.
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 (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.
Claims 1,3,4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kori et al. (US 2013/0086877 A1), herein known as Kori.
Regarding Claim 1, Kori is directed to air filter cartridges and an air filter system ([0001]).
Kori discloses a filter element (Figs. 2A-2C; [0035]- [0040]). The filter element comprises a filter media body surrounding a hollow interior, the filter media body comprising a first end and an opposite second end (Figs. 2A-2B, [0033]), main filter element (26) having an open-end cap (38) and an opposite closed end cap (32). A first end cap (38) positioned on the first end of the filter media body, wherein the first end cap comprises a central air flow aperture to the hollow interior (Figs. 1, 2A; [0007]). A second end cap positioned on the second end of the filter media body, wherein the second end cap is a closed end cap (32) (Figs. 1, 2A-2C; [0007], [0030]- [0034]). wherein the second end cap (32) comprises four spaced-apart inner adapter projections, with four outer axial projections (44). wherein the spaced-apart inner adapter projections project in a direction of a central axis (A) of the filter element away from the first end cap (38) wherein the spaced-apart inner adapter projections are positioned in a circular arrangement surrounding a center of the second end cap. (Figs. 2A, 2C; [0006]- [0008], [0039]).
Kori also discloses secondary filter element (28) having an open-end cap and closed end cap (50) The closed end cap (50) comprises six inner projections (54) which extend axially form, the end cap (Figure 3A, 3B; [0041]- [0046]).
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 4, Kori discloses the lower end cap (32) of the main filter cartridge (26) includes a plurality of arcuate circular arc shaped projections (44), the projections (44) extending axially outwardly from the lower end cap (32). (Figs. 2A, 2C; [0039]).
Kori also discloses in the arc shaped or arcuate projections include projections having any radius, including an infinite radius (i.e. linear/straight line/uncurved projections) [0040].
Regarding Claims 7, Kori discloses the inner adapter projections are distributed equidistantly around the central axis as shown in (Fig. 2 C).
Regarding Claims 8, Kori discloses different pairs of the projections can have different gap spacings [0007]. Different gap spacing between adjacent projections necessarily means the projections are distributed non-equidistantly around the central axis.
Regarding Claim 9, Kori discloses the second end cap (32) comprises a plurality of spaced-apart outer adapter projections (44) positioned adjacent to an outer perimeter of the second end cap, wherein the outer adapter projections each project in a direction of the central axis (A) away from the first end cap. (Figs. 2A, 2C; [0039]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kori discloses an axial alignment ring arranged on the second end cap and positioned relative to the inner projections such that surrounds the inner projections and is radially spaced (Fig 2C; [0039]).
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 (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
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 2 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Kori et al. (US 2013/0086877 A1), herein known as Kori, as applied to the claims above, in view of Gieseke et al. (US 2009/0272085 A1), herein known as Gieseke.
Regarding Claim 2, Kori teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Kori does not explicitly teach that at least some inner adapter projections are configured as straight slabs with longitudinal extension where a projection line in that longitudinal extension intersects an outer perimeter.
Gieseke teaches a cylinder filter element (25) having a closed end cap (42) as well as an open-end cap (41) (Abstract; [0056]- [0059]). It discloses a plurality of straight projections (52) which are arranged on a virtual circle around the center of the end cap. The projections are angled so that a projection line in the longitudinal extension intersect the outer perimeter of the end cap (Figs 4-6; [0066]) to form a non-sealing, engagement with cover (9), during installation (Fig 10; [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the inner adapter projections of Kori to be configured as straight slabs with longitudinal extension where a projection line in that longitudinal extension intersects an outer perimeter, as taught by Gieseke in order to form a non-sealing, engagement with cover during installation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Kori et al. (US 2013/0086877 A1), herein known as Kori, as applied to the claims above, in view of Bradford (EP 0860189 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kori teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Kori does not explicitly teach that the inner adapter projections are hollow and have an open end in the axial direction away from the first end cap.
Bradford discloses the inner adapter projections are hollow (34) and comprise an open end (22) open in the axial direction away from the first end cap (Figs 3b; page 2, line 29) in order to secure the filter housing (10) to the filter head (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kori ’s inner projections to be hollow/open ended as taught by Bradford in order to secure the filter housing to the second end cap.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Kori et al. (US 2013/0086877 A1), herein known as Kori, as applied to the claims above, in view of Gohle (DE 10 2015 004 089 A1, machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Kori teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However, Kori is silent to the inner adapter projections have a conical shape tapering radially inwardly in the axial direction away from the first end cap.
Gohle discloses the inner adapter projections (24) and the outer adapter projections (26) have a conical shape tapering radially inwardly in the axial direction away from the first end cap (Figs 1, 2), in order to support the end plate (18) into the filter housing (108) (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kori ’s inner projections to have a conical shape tapering radially inwardly in the axial direction away from the first end cap as taught by Gohle in order to support the end cap into the filter housing.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Kori et al. (US 2013/0086877 A1), herein known as Kori, as applied to the claims above, in view of Gieseke et al. (US 6652614 B2), herein known as Gieseke.
Regarding claim 11, Kori teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Kori discloses the second end cap (32) comprises an axial alignment ring surrounding the inner adapter projections (Fig 2C; [0039]).
However, Kori is silent to the second end cap further comprises radial struts connecting the alignment ring to the outer adapter projections.
Gieseke teaches the end cap comprises radial struts (68) to increase strength (Figs 12, 13; Col.10 Lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to provide radial struts between the ring and the outer projections of Kori, as taught by Gieseke, as a known reinforcing technique to increase strength the end cap.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Kori et al. (US 2013/0086877 A1), herein known as Kori, in view of Gieseke et al. (US 6652614 B2), herein known as Gieseke.
Regarding claim 12, Kori teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Kori discloses the closed end cap (32) (Figs. 2A-2C; [0033]).
However, Kori is silent to backside of the second end cap comprises a support structure.
Gieseke teaches the inner surface of the closed end cap comprises a support structure including Central rim (55) and safety element engagement (56) to support the primary element (25) (Figs 10; Col.7 Lines 39-49).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kori ’s second end cap with Gieseke’s support structure to provide support to the end cap.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Kori et al. (US 2013/0086877 A1) herein known as Kori in view of Gannon et al. (US 2022/0249991 A1), herein known as Gannon and Gieseke et al. (US 6652614 B2), herein known as Gieseke.
Regarding claim 13, Kori teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Kori teaches the closed end cap and teaches a support tube (46) having air permeable walls formed by a network of spaced ribs, the ribs may also include cross members forming a grid like structure (Fig 1; [0042], [0043]).
However, Kori is silent to the support structure is a grid.
Gieseke teaches the inner surface of the closed end cap comprises a support structure including Central rim (55) and safety element engagement (56) to support the primary element (25) (Figs 10; Col.7 Lines 39-49).
Gannon teaches the grid support structure (24) (Figs 1D; [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kori ’s second end cap with Gannon’s grid support structure to provide support to the end cap.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Kori et al. (US 2013/0086877 A1), herein known as Kori, in view of Baseotto et al. (US 20130042588 A1), herein known as Baseotto.
Regarding Claims 14, 15, and 16, Kori teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Kori teaches A filter system (10) comprising: a housing comprising a first housing part (12) and a second housing part (12) (Figs 1; [0026]), wherein the first housing part comprises a fluid inlet (18) (Fig 1; [0028]) and further comprises a fluid outlet (20) [0029], wherein the second housing part comprises a receiver arrangement and is configured to close the housing. A filter element, wherein the filter element is operatively accommodated in the housing (Abstract); wherein the inner adapter projections (44) of the second end cap of the filter element project into the receiver arrangement of the second housing part, wherein the receiver arrangement supports the filter element at the second end cap [0006].
However, Kori is silent to the receiver arrangement of the second housing part is a serpentine receiving groove in an inner surface of the second housing part (Claims 14 and 15) and serpentine receiving groove is a continuous groove (Claims 14 and 16).
Baseotto discloses a filter system (1) comprising: a housing (2) comprising a first housing part (3) and a second housing part (Fig.1, [0051]), wherein the first housing part comprises a fluid inlet (15) (Fig.1, [0053]) and further comprises a fluid outlet (13) (Fig.1, [0062]), wherein the second housing part comprises a receiver arrangement (111) and is configured to close the housing (Fig7A; [0010], [126]-[128]) ; a filter element, wherein the filter element is operatively accommodated in the housing wherein the inner adapter projections of the second end cap of the filter element project into the receiver arrangement (111) of the second housing part, wherein the receiver arrangement supports the filter element at the second end cap (Abstract), where the receiver arrangement of the second housing part is a serpentine receiving groove (111) in an inner surface of the second housing part and serpentine receiving groove is a continuous groove (Fig7A; [0010], [0015], [126]-[128]). The projection/receiver arrangement inhibits both cantilevered motion and rotational motion of the filter element (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kori’s filter system to incorporate the receiver/projection engagement as taught by Baseotto where the receiver arrangement of the second housing part is a serpentine receiving groove in an inner surface of the second housing part (Claims 14 and 15) and serpentine receiving groove is a continuous groove (Claims 14 and 16) in order to inhibit both cantilevered motion and rotational motion of the filter element.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Kori et al. (US 2013/0086877 A1), herein known as Kori, in view of Baseotto et al. (US 20130042588 A1), herein known as Baseotto. as applied to the claims above, and in further view of Thomsen (US 4,904,382).
Regarding Claims 17, Kori teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Baseotto teaches the receiver arrangement supports the filter element at the second end cap (Abstract), where the receiver arrangement of the second housing part is a serpentine receiving groove (111) in an inner surface of the second housing part and serpentine receiving groove is a continuous groove (Fig7A; [0010], [0015], [126]-[128]). The projection/receiver arrangement inhibits both cantilevered motion and rotational motion of the filter element (Abstract).
However, modified Kori is silent to serpentine receiving groove is comprised of spaced-apart groove sections.
Thomsen teaches a bayonet-type coupling for a filter cartridge wherein bayonet lugs are received within a plurality of bayonet openings for ease of installation (Fig 7C, [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for modified Kori’s continuous serpentine receiving groove to comprise spaced-apart groove sections as taught by Thomsen for ease of installation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-6535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773