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 (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.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-15 and 19 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.
As regarding claim 1, the word "substantially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the word "substantially" is a required by the Applicant as part of the claimed invention or not.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-15 and 19 depend on claim 1; and hence are also rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ribeiro et al (US 20220145836; hereinafter Ribeiro).
As regarding claim 1, Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for a filter system (4a) for filtering a fluid, the filter system comprising: a filter housing (15) comprising a housing top part and a housing bottom part, wherein the housing top part and the housing bottom part extend along a housing axis; a filter pack configured to be arranged in the filter housing and configured to separate fluid-tightly a clean fluid side and a raw fluid side from each other in the filter housing; wherein the filter pack comprises a filter element comprising a hollow cylinder-type filter bellows (17) arranged about a longitudinal axis of the filter element; wherein the filter element comprises a first end face and a first end disk arranged at the first end face, wherein the first end face is substantially closed; wherein the filter element further comprises a second end disk arranged at a second end face, wherein the first end disk is positioned opposite the second end disk, and wherein the second end disk comprises a fluid passage for filtered fluid; a resonator comprising an end closed by a bottom, wherein the resonator is arranged in an interior of the filter pack such that the bottom is oriented toward the first end disk of the filter element (annotated fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also regarding claim 1, Ribeiro discloses wherein the first end disk of the filter element comprises an opening through which the resonator extends at least partially and is sealed relative to the opening of the first end disk (annotated fig. 4b).
PNG
media_image2.png
313
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As regarding claim 6, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the filter pack further comprises a central tube (20) arranged in the interior of the filter pack.
As regarding claim 8, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the central tube comprises an end (annotated fig. 5; no number) positioned opposite the first end face of the filter element.
As regarding claim 9, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the resonator (13) is arranged to be exchangeable from the clean fluid side (fig. 4b).
As regarding claim 10, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the filter pack further comprises a secondary element ([0049]) comprising a hollow cylinder-type filter bellows arranged about a longitudinal axis of the secondary element, wherein the secondary element is arranged inside the central tube of the filter element, wherein the resonator (13) at least in sections is arranged in an interior of the secondary element such that the bottom of the resonator is oriented toward the first end disk of the filter element.
As regarding claim 11, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the secondary element ([0049]) is arranged concentrically to the housing axis of the filter housing and wherein the resonator is arranged concentrically to the longitudinal axis of the secondary element (annotated fig. 5).
As regarding claim 19, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the resonator (13) comprises an open end positioned opposite the bottom, wherein the open end extends in a region of the second end disk of the filter element (annotated fig. 5).
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 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.
Claim(s) 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribeiro et al (US 20220145836; hereinafter Ribeiro) as applied supra.
As regarding claim 12, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the secondary element comprises an end disk comprising an opening, wherein the resonator extends at least partially through the opening of the end disk of the secondary element, wherein the opening of the end disk of the secondary element seals relative to the resonator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the secondary element comprises an end disk comprising an opening, wherein the resonator extends at least partially through the opening of the end disk of the secondary element, wherein the opening of the end disk of the secondary element seals relative to the resonator in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As regarding claim 15, Ribeiro as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the resonator (13) is pushed in from an end face of the secondary element into the opening of the end disk of the secondary element.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribeiro et al (US 20220145836; hereinafter Ribeiro) as applied supra, and further in view of Miller et al (US 6099606; hereinafter Miller).
As regarding claim 2, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention except for a seal device, wherein the resonator and the filter pack adjoin each other through the seal device. Miller teaches a seal device (fig. 7 - a seal for sealing two surfaces in an air filtration arrangements), wherein the resonator and the filter pack adjoin each other through the seal device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a seal device, wherein the resonator and the filter pack adjoin each other through the seal device as taught by Miller in order to uniform, self-energizing circumferential sealing between concentric filter elements, preventing bypass leakage while accommodating tolerances, misalignment, and pressure variations.
As regarding claim 4, Ribeiro as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the seal device is a seal structure (Miller – fig. 7) disposed at the first end disk of the filter element, wherein the seal structure surrounds the opening of the first end disk and seals relative to the resonator.
As regarding claim 5, Ribeiro as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the seal device is selected from the group consisting of a PUR seal, an O-ring seal, a 2K seal, and a labyrinth seal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the seal device is selected from the group consisting of a PUR seal, an O-ring seal, a 2K seal, and a labyrinth seal in order to enhance filter system performance, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As regarding claim 13, Ribeiro as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the end disk of the secondary element comprises a seal structure, wherein the seal structure surrounds the opening of the end disk of the secondary element and seals relative to the resonator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the end disk of the secondary element comprises a seal structure, wherein the seal structure surrounds the opening of the end disk of the secondary element and seals relative to the resonator in order to uniform, self-energizing circumferential sealing between concentric filter elements, preventing bypass leakage while accommodating tolerances, misalignment, and pressure variations, since it was known in the art as shown in Miller (fig. 7).
Claim 14 is likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claim 5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark argues that Ribeiro fails to disclose or teach wherein the first end disk of the filter element comprises an opening through which the resonator extends at least partially and is sealed relative to the opening of the first end disk.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Annotated fig. 4b (above) of Ribeiro clearly discloses or teaches wherein the first end disk of the filter element comprises an opening through which the resonator extends at least partially and is sealed relative to the opening (closed) of the first end disk.
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 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 DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights