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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 2/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baird (US 9,737,834) in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0139280).
Regarding claim 1, Baird teaches a filter element comprising a housing having a first end with an inlet and outlet (36a 36b) and a second end (18), and a locking protrusion (90) proximate the second end (Fig. 3a-3b and C5/43-C7/L62).
Baird fails to teach a handle at the second end. Park teaches that it is beneficial to provide a handle (23c) for water filters in order to allow a user to grip the filter and apply force thereto (Figs. 6-8 and [0064]). As such, it would have been obvious to provide a handle on the Baird filter in order to allow a user to grip the filter and apply force thereto.
It is noted that language detailing how the filter is acted upon by unclaimed elements is not given patentable weight. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). In this case, all structural elements are taught or rendered obvious and unclaimed elements are capable of providing the function claimed to the filter.
Regarding claims 2-3, as can be seen in Fig. 6 of Park, the handle (23c) is curved and at an oblique angle.
Regarding claim 4, as can be seen in Fig. 6 of Park, the handle can include a protrusion (23b).
Regarding claim 5, Baird teaches that the locking protrusion (90) is a beveled surface (Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches that the handle comprises an open annular interior (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Baird teaches a guide protrusion (92) provided on the side of the filter opposite the locking mechanism (Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 8, Baird teaches that guide rails/guide protrusions are provided but fails to teach the specific shape of the guide rails as claimed. It is submitted that the cut/shape (beveled) or length of the guide rails would have been an obvious matter to one skilled in the art (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon/referencing a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
It is noted that the specific functional language of the interaction between filter element and water filter compartment/guide structure displacing the handle/second end radially is not found in the prior art. While some prior art teaches a similar water filter compartment, guide structure, and second of end of the filter (Kruckenberg et al. (US 2011/0185762 (Fig. 5A-5F), the guide structure displaces the filter in an axial manner and not a radial manner as claimed. No prior art was found that would obviate the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777