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 . 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.
DETAILED NON-FINAL ACTION
This is the initial Office Action (OA), on the merits, based on the 18/488,296 application filed on October 17, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-8 are examined, on the merits, in this Office action. The examined claims are directed to an apparatus.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on March 18, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Immel et al. (US20220001307; Immel).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6 and 7, Immel discloses a filter for a fluid system (Abstract, figs. 1-12) comprising:
a filter housing 104 ([0023], [0030]);
a filter medium 102 at least partially within the filter housing and including a center tube 206 defining a first fluid passage ([0023], [0024]);
a filter cap component 208 coupled to the filter housing and including an outer peripheral surface, and an inner peripheral surface forming a central opening defining a center axis, and a fluid distribution wall extending radially outward of the inner peripheral surface and including therein a plurality of fluid openings extending from an incoming wall surface to an outgoing wall surface ([0026]-[0029], Fig. 1);
a fitting (central portion of base 102) positioned within the central opening and forming a second fluid passage fluidly connected to the first fluid passage ([0024], Fig. 1); and
a seal 300, 302 including an annular central body positioned within the fitting, and a valving skirt contacting the outgoing wall surface at an anti-drain back sealing location ([0021], [0041], [0042], mentioning sealing redundancy and compressibility or deformability) radially outward of the plurality of fluid openings and being deformable away from the outgoing wall surface to permit fluid flow through the plurality of fluid openings ([0021]-[0023], [0032], [0037]-[0044], Figs. 1-2, where the sealing redundancy acts as a valving skirt and anti-drain back location).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claim 2: The seal contacts the center tube at a static sealing location that is radially inward of the anti-drain back sealing location ([0037]-[0044], Figs. 1, 2); Claim 6. The valving skirt includes an outer peripheral surface, and a clearance is defined radially between the outer peripheral surface and the filter cap component ([0004]-[0006], [0042]); and Claim 7: The seal is one-piece and formed uniformly of a non-metallic material ([0056]).
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.
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 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 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. The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. MPEP §2137.01.
Claims 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Immel et al. (US20220001307), as applied to claim 1 and 2 above, in view of Anton et al. (US20160298796, Anton).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 8, Immel discloses the filter of claim 2 except wherein the outer peripheral surface includes first threads, and further comprising a shroud having an inner peripheral surface including second threads, and wherein the seal contacts the shroud at a second static sealing location.
Anton discloses an apparatus and method for mechanically attached connections of conduits may include a conduit gripping member, a drive member, and a seal member (Abstract). One can use the disclosed invention(s) to connect a conduit end to any fluid member, such as but not limited to, another conduit end, a coupling component or member, a flow control member such as a valve, regulator, filter and so on ([0025]). Anton teaches threaded connections, such as where a first coupling component 12 may be realized in the form of a female threaded nut, and the second coupling component may be realized in the form of a male threaded body ([0033]-[0035]). Also, a face seal member 40 may include an optional cylindrical extension 92 that extends rearward of the conduit gripping member 34, and shrouds about the conduit gripping member 34 and a portion of the drive member 36 ([0050], [0057]). Further, the seal surfaces may include recesses that help to align beads of the seal element 48 during assembly and tightening ([0038]). the seal element 48 may be realized in the form of a face seal gasket of conventional or special design, or as another alternative as shown, have a generally flat, thin washer-like body 54 with an annular sealing bead 56, 58 on either side and facing their respective face seal surfaces 46, 32 ([0043]).
When the claimed invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include appropriately located threads, a shroud and projections, as recited, as traditional design elements in a filtration system where the threads facilitate connections and the shroud facilitate protection.
Additional Disclosure Included: Claim 4: The seal includes a bead upon the annular central body contacting the shroud at the second static sealing location (claim 3 analysis); Claim 5: The annular central body includes a cylindrical projection extending from the valving skirt, and the bead projects radially outward of the annular central body (claim 1 analysis and figs. 1-2); and Claim 8: The non-metallic material includes a rubber material having a shore D hardness from 65 to 75 (Immel, [0056], [0085; where urethane is a type of rubber and where a shore D hardness of 65 to 75 is fully encompassed by Immel’s suggested range of 20 to 95 shore A range, with sufficient specificity at its upper end to be prima facie obvious; alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely experiment with different hardness ranges to determine a suitable and useful product).
Conclusion
Examiner recommends that Applicant carefully review each identified reference and all objections/rejections before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the pertinent objections/rejections and the prior art. With respect to the patentability analysis, Examiner has attempted to claim map to one or more of the most suitable structures or portions of a reference. However, with respect to all OAs, Examiner notes that citations to specific pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, figures or reference numerals, in any prior art or evidentiary reference, and any interpretation of such references, 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 disclosed and/or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. The use of publications and patents as references is not limited to what one or more applicant/inventor/patentee describes as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. MPEP §2123.
Examiner further recommends that for any substantive claim amendments made in response to this Office Action, or to otherwise advance prosecution, or for any remarks concerning support for added subject matter or claim priority, that Applicant include either a pinpoint citation to the original Specification (i.e. page and/or paragraph and/or line number and/or figure number) to indicate where Applicant is drawing support for such amendment or remarks, or a clear explanation indicating why the particular limitation is implicit or inherent to the original disclosure.
Electronic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or an earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hayden Brewster whose telephone number is (571) 270-1065. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9 AM - 4 PM.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, Applicant may send a communication, via e-mail or fax. Examiner’s direct fax number is: (571) 270-2065. Examiner's official e-mail address is: "Hayden.Brewster@uspto.gov." However, since e-mail communication may not be secure, Examiner will not respond to a substantive e-mail unless Applicant’s communication is in accordance with the provisions of MPEP §502.03 & related sections that discuss the required Authorization for Internet Communication (AIC). Nonetheless, all substantive communications will be made of record in Applicant’s file.
To facilitate the Internet communication authorization process, Applicant may file an appropriate letter, or may complete the USPTO SB439 fillable form available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf, preferably in advance of any substantive e-mail communication. Since one may use an electronic signature with this particular form, Applicant is encouraged to file this form via the Office’s system for electronic filing of patent correspondence (i.e., the electronic filing system (Patent Center)). Otherwise, a handwritten signature is required. In addition to Patent Center, Applicant can submit their Internet authorization request via US Postal Service, USPTO Customer Service Window, or Central Fax. Examiner can also provide a one-time oral authorization, but this will only apply to video conferencing. It is improper to request Internet Authorization via e-mail.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and via 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) form available at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice, or Applicant may call Examiner, if preferable. Applicant can access a general list of patent application forms at either https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012 (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms (applications filed before September 16, 2012). Note that the language in an AIR form is not a substitute for the requirements of an AIC, where appropriate. The mere filing of an Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (PTOL-413A) or a Letter Requesting Interview with Examiner, in EFS-Web, may not apprise Examiner of such a request in a timely manner.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, Applicant may reach Examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie at 571-270-3240. The central 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.
/HAYDEN BREWSTER/Examiner, AU 1779
Prosecution Insights