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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of invention III, claims 11-16 in the reply filed on May 22, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ardes (US 9,044,698 B2).
In regard to claim 11, Ardes discloses a filter for a fluid medium, in particular oil, water, fuel or air filter for an internal combustion engine (col. 1, lines 15-17). Ardes discloses the invention creates the possibility of providing locking/unlocking devices thereby preventing the installation of unsuitable filter inserts into the filter housing (col. 5, lines 54-61).
Ardes discloses a filter element (1, Fig. 4) for a filter system comprising (Figs. 1-4 shows a single embodiment with different stage of inserting a filter insert (3, Fig. 4) into a locking device (a safety assembly, 40, Fig. 4) thereby forming a completely inserted filter insert in a filter housing; col. 8, line 19 thru col. 16, line 12; Figs. 9-24 show detailed description of subcomponents of the filter system):
a center pipe (4, Fig. 4) having a longitudinal direction (a direction along a longitudinal axis of the center pipe 4) and being surrounded by a filter bellows (30, Fig. 4), the filter bellows comprising an end cap (31, 32, Fig. 4),
a section of a safety assembly (40, Fig. 4) with at least one unblocking element (33, Fig. 4) or at least one blocking element (41, Fig. 4) configured to cooperate with at least one blocking element (41, Fig. 4) or at least one unblocking element (33, Fig. 4) of a first section of the safety assembly (31’, Fig. 9), respectively (Fig. 5 and Fig. 7 show details of locking guide 41 and unlocking means 33), and
a sealing structure (36, Fig. 4) on an end region of the filter bellows (seal 36 located near the end cap 31, Fig. 4),
wherein the at least one blocking element (41, Fig. 4) and the at least one unblocking element (33, Fig. 4) are configured to provide access of the sealing structure (36, Fig. 4) of the filter element (3, Fig. 4) to a sealing area (an area enclosed by the sealing surface 26, Fig. 4 where the seal structure 36, Fig. 4 is located) of the safety assembly (40, Fig. 4) in the unblocking mode and to block access of the sealing structure (36, Fig. 4) of the filter element (1, Fig. 4) to the sealing area (an area enclosed by the sealing surface 26, Fig. 4 where the seal structure 36, Fig. 4 is located) of the safety assembly (40, Fig. 4) in a blocking mode when the sealing structure (36, Fig. 4) of the filter element (3, Fig. 4) is moved towards the sealing area (an area enclosed by the sealing surface 26, Fig. 4) of the safety assembly (40, Fig. 4). The locking/unlocking mechanism described in col. 8, line 19 thru col. 9, line 64 in conjunction with Figs. 1-4 anticipates the recitation about interaction of the at least one blocking element and the at least one unblocking element recited in claim 11.
Ardes discloses every limitation recited in claim 11.
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.
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.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes (US 9,044,698 B2).
Ardes discloses claimed invention recited in claim 10 as set forth above.
In regard to claim 12, Ardes discloses regarding the at least one blocking element (41, Fig. 4) and the at least one unblocking element (33, Fig. 4) as: The rib-shaped unlocking means 33, which, in the state according to FIG. 3, interact in particular in an unlocking manner with the cams 43 of the locking guides 41, can now be seen radially inwardly on the lower end disc 31 of the filter insert 3. The locking guides 41 are now in their released position, which is pivoted radially inside, in which the locking surfaces 41' are located radially inward of the lower edge 51' of the locking ring 5. A downward displacement of the locking ring 5 against the force of the spring 44 is thus enabled (col. 9, lines 18-29).
Choosing/designating the unblocking element (33, Fig. 4) in conjunction with the cams 43 as the recited “at least one unblocking element” and choosing/designating the blocking element (41, Fig. 4) and locking surface 41’ as the recited “at least one blocking element having an activation surface 41’, Fig. 5” is considered prima facie obvious because this simply involves selecting/designating known subcomponents in a filter insert/locking device having locking/unlocking mechanism. Moreover, claim 11 of which claim 12 depends on utilizes the transitional word “comprising”. Consequently, claim 12 does not exclude the additional subcomponent in the filter insert/locking device. The teachings of Ardes render the recitation of claim 12 prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 16, Ardes discloses various embodiments of locking/unlocking filter insert into locking device in Fig. 4, Fig. 8, and Figs. 15-24, wherein the locking components comprises spring (44, Fig. 5) and protruding lip in a circumferential direction (Fig. 6). Ardes discloses one embodiment of locking as: The locking ring 5 is now displaced into its inserted position and the guide nose 55 of the locking ring 5 is now in a position axially below the locked stage 45' as well as offset in peripheral direction to the locked stage 45'. The spring 44 is now compressed and is held in this state via the locking ring 5 by means of the filter insert 3 (col. 11, lines 22-27). Ardes discloses: By attaching a filter insert by means of suitable unlocking means, the latching of the locking ring or of the valve sleeve, respectively, with the stand pipe, is released, in that the locking tabs are pivoted radially outwardly. The locking ring is then displaced by means of the filter insert into valve open position and is held therein (col. 1, lines 56-61). The filter according to the invention can also encompass a further locking device so as to increase the safeguarding against the use of unsuitable third-party filter inserts, wherein the further locking device encompasses an end piece, which is guided on the stand pipe so as to be capable of being displaced, and locking guides, which form a part of the stand pipe or of the end piece and which can be moved in radial direction, in each case comprising a locking surface, which faces in axial direction, wherein the locking guides are prestressed by means of a force, which acts in locking direction and in each case lock the end piece in its pushed-out position against an axial insertion relative to the stand pipe by means of its locking surface, and wherein the locking guides can be moved directly in radial direction into their unlocked position by means of the unlocking means (col. 6, lines 50-66).
In light of teachings from Ardes, set forth above, the claimed feature of “the blocking element comprises at least one spring member comprising the activation surface and a radially protruding lip, and wherein the lip is retractable from its blocking position by pushing the activation surface in a radial direction” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize locking/unlocking mechanism for filter insert/locking device and utility taking into consideration the manufacturing principle of safeguarding against the installation of unsuitable filter inserts into the filter housing as Ardes discloses (col. 7, lines 1-2).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes (US 9,044,698 B2), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Grass et al. (US 9,731,235 B2, hereinafter “Grass”).
In regard to claim 13, Ardes does not explicitly disclose the feature of the at least one unblocking element comprises at least one cam arranged at the center pipe and pointing radially inwards.
However, Grass discloses a filter appliance including a filter housing and a ring filter element having an axis and being mountable in the filter housing (Abstract). In an embodiment shown in Figs. 1-12, Grass discloses the feature of the unblocking element comprises at least one cam (2, Fig. 1) arranged at the central tube through seal (20, Fig. 4) that is parallel to the longitudinal direction pointing radially inwards.
It is noted that both the Ardes and Grass references direct a filter for a fluid medium comprising a filter insert/locking device having locking/unlocking mechanism.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system for treating water in a filter element of Ardes to provide the feature of the unblocking element comprises at least one cam (2, Fig. 1) arranged at the central tube through seal (20, Fig. 4) that is parallel to the longitudinal direction pointing radially inwards as taught by Grass, because the claimed feature is a known, effective mechanism for filter insert/locking device having locking/unlocking mechanism as taught by Grass (Figs. 1-12; col. 5, line 25 thru col. 8, line 11).
In regard to claims 14 and 15, Grass discloses the feature of groove 19 (a coding counter element) and guide element 17 (a coding element) in Fig. 1 which meets the recited “a coding element configured to cooperate with a coding counter element arranged in the safety assembly”. Grass discloses the guide element 17 (a coding element) is formed as a protruding pin arranged at the center pipe pointing radially inward.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. 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.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights