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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 11-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-Gouhi et al. (US 2018/0154318A1).
Regarding claim 1, Al-Gouhi teaches a fluid delivery system (refer fig. 1A, 2, 3, 4) comprising: a primary fluid passageway (102 in fig. 1A) that extends between components of the fluid delivery system; and a filter having a filter housing (body/walls of the primary fluid passageway and sink 106) that defines a first filter fluid passageway (the passageway of sink 106) that intersects the primary fluid passageway (102) and is configured to receive a first portion of fluid that passes through the primary fluid passageway (refer fig. 1A), the first filter fluid passageway comprising: a first inlet end that intersects and fluidly communicates with the primary fluid passageway (1st inlet end having filter 108), and a first blind end (refer bottom portion of sink 106) disposed at a location that is spaced apart from the first inlet end, wherein: the primary fluid passageway extends linearly through the filter housing (refer fig. 1A indicating a linear passageway 102), the first filter fluid passageway defines a floor corresponding to a lowermost portion of the first filter fluid passageway with respect to the direction of the force of gravity, and the floor has trap openings configured to allow passage of particles therethrough under force of gravity (108 is perforated, refer [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi further teaches that the filter housing comprises a vacancy that underlies the trap openings, the vacancy configured to receive and retain particles that pass through the trap openings (refer space/vacancy below perforated floor 108).
Regarding claim 6, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi teaches that the first filter fluid passageway has a non-uniform width from the first inlet end to the first blind end (refer fig. 1A, fig. 2. Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi teaches that the first filter fluid passageway is perpendicular to the primary fluid passageway (refer fig. 1A).
Regarding claims 11-13, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi teaches (in fig. 7) that the system comprises a second filter fluid passageway similar to the first filter fluid passageway, wherein the second inlet end is downstream of the first inlet end with respect to a direction of fluid flow through the primary fluid passageway (refer 704a and 704b).
Regarding claim 17, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi teaches (in fig. 7) that the first filter fluid passageway intersects the primary fluid passageway at a first side of the primary fluid passageway, andthe second filter fluid passageway intersects the primary fluid passageway at the first side of the primary fluid passageway at a location downstream from the first filter fluid passageway with respect to the direction of fluid flow through the primary fluid passageway (refer 704a and 704b provided on same side of the primary fluid passageway).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Gouhi et al. (US 2018/0154318A1), in view of Hales (US 2015/0321199A1).
Regarding claim 5, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. In fig. 1A, 2 and 3, Al-Gouhi teaches different shapes of the first filter fluid passageway. Al-Gouhi does not teach that the first filter fluid passageway has a uniform width from the first inlet end to the first blind end.
Hales teaches a device to remove particles from a liquid comprising a primary fluid passageway (refer 22) and a first filter fluid passageway (23), wherein the first filter fluid passageway has a uniform width from a first inlet end to a first blind end (refer fig. 1).
Selecting shape of the first filter fluid passageway to be uniform in the system of Al-Gouhi would have been an obvious matter of design choice because Hales discloses that providing a uniform width of the first filter fluid passageway to trap particles from the fluid is known in the art. There is substantial case law addressing the changing of shapes of claimed elements. The court has held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is obvious engineering designs. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 15, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. In fig. 1A, 2 and 3, Al-Gouhi teaches different shapes of the first filter fluid passageway. Al-Gouhi does not teach that the first filter fluid passageway has a uniform width from the first inlet end to the first blind end.
Hales teaches a device to remove particles from a liquid comprising a primary fluid passageway (refer 22) and a first filter fluid passageway (23), wherein the first filter fluid passageway has a uniform width from a first inlet end to a first blind end (refer fig. 1).
Selecting shape of the first filter fluid passageway to be uniform in the system of Al-Gouhi would have been an obvious matter of design choice because Hales discloses that providing a uniform width of the first filter fluid passageway to trap particles from the fluid is known in the art. There is substantial case law addressing the changing of shapes of claimed elements. The court has held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is obvious engineering designs. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Gouhi et al. (US 2018/0154318A1), in view of Brown et al. (US 2013/0032549).
Regarding claim 7, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. In fig. 1A, 2 and 3, Al-Gouhi teaches different shapes of the first filter fluid passageway. Al-Gouhi does not that a width of the first filter fluid passageway increases from the first inlet end to the first blind end.
Brown teaches an apparatus for removing solid material from fluid (abstract), the apparatus comprising a primary fluid pathway (14), and a first filter fluid pathway (16), wherein the first filter fluid pathway 16 comprises a larger collection area (18) than inlet of the first filter fluid pathway (refer fig. 1).
Selecting shape of the first filter fluid passageway such that a width of the first filter fluid passageway increases from the first inlet end to the first blind end in the system of Al-Gouhi would have been an obvious matter of design choice because Brown discloses that providing a larger width of collection area for the first filter fluid passageway to trap particles from the fluid is known in the art. There is substantial case law addressing the changing of shapes of claimed elements. The court has held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is obvious engineering designs. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Gouhi et al. (US 2018/0154318A1), in view of Cowley et al. (US 2020/0139275A1).
Regarding claim 9, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi does not teach that the first filter fluid passageway is at a non-right angle to the primary fluid passageway.
Cowley teaches a fluid treatment device for a fluid delivery system (refer abstract, fig. 1), the device comprises a primary fluid passageway (Refer flow arrow 106), and a first filter fluid passageway provided at a non-right angle to the primary fluid passageway (refer filter 107 and housing that comprises the filter 107 provided at a non-right angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the system of Al-Gouhi to provide the first filter fluid passageway is at a non-right angle to the primary fluid passageway as disclosed by Cowley because such configuration is known in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include (that are applicable in this instance) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi does not teach that one of the the first or the second filter fluid passageway is at a non-right angle to the primary fluid passageway.
Cowley teaches a fluid treatment device for a fluid delivery system (refer abstract, fig. 1), the device comprises a primary fluid passageway (Refer flow arrow 106), and a filter fluid passageway provided at a non-right angle to the primary fluid passageway (refer filter 107 and housing that comprises the filter 107 provided at a non-right angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the system of Al-Gouhi to provide the second filter fluid passageway is at a non-right angle to the primary fluid passageway as disclosed by Cowley because such configuration is known in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include (that are applicable in this instance) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Gouhi et al. (US 2018/0154318A1).
Regarding claim 10, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. The first primary fluid passageway and the first filter fluid passageway of Al-Gouhi inherently has a diameter. In fig. 1A, 2 and 3, Al-Gouhi teaches different shapes of the first filter fluid passageway. Al-Gouhi does not disclose relative dimensions of the first passageway length or the first passageway width. However, selecting relative dimensions of the first passageway length and width would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the fluid being treated and contaminants being removed. 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. Also refer In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi does not teach relative dimensions of the primary passageway cross-sectional dimension and distance between the first inlet end and the second inlet end. However, selecting relative dimensions of the primary passageway cross-sectional dimension and distance between the first inlet end and the second inlet end would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the fluid being treated and contaminants being removed. 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. Also refer In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Gouhi et al. (US 2018/0154318A1), in view of Hales (US 20150321199A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2013/0032549).
Regarding claim 16, modified Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 15 as set forth above. In fig. 1A, 2 and 3, Al-Gouhi teaches different shapes of the first filter fluid passageway. Al-Gouhi does not that a width of the second filter fluid passageway increases from the first inlet end to the first blind end.
Brown teaches an apparatus for removing solid material from fluid (abstract), the apparatus comprising a primary fluid pathway (14), and a filter fluid pathway (16), wherein the filter fluid pathway 16 comprises a larger collection area (18) than inlet of the first filter fluid pathway (refer fig. 1).
Selecting shape of the second filter fluid passageway such that a width of the first filter fluid passageway increases from the first inlet end to the first blind end in the system of Al-Gouhi would have been an obvious matter of design choice because Brown discloses that providing a larger width of collection area for the filter fluid passageway to trap particles from the fluid is known in the art. There is substantial case law addressing the changing of shapes of claimed elements. The court has held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is obvious engineering designs. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Gouhi et al. (US 2018/0154318A1), in view of Phillips (US 6183633B1).
Al-Gouhi teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi does not teach that the second filter fluid passageway intersects the primary fluid passageway at a second side of the primary fluid passageway, wherein the second side is opposite the first side.
Phillips teaches a separator for separating material from a fluid (abstract), the separator comprises a primary fluid passageway (refer fluid flow direction arrow in fig. 2), and comprises a filter fluid passageway (collection chamber 4) that is provided on upper portion of the primary fluid passageway.
Selecting the filter fluid passageway location on the primary fluid passageway in the system of modified Hauk would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art because Al-Gouhi disclose providing filter fluid passageway to be on lower side of the primary fluid passageway and Phillips teaches the filter fluid passageway to be on upper side of the primary fluid passageway. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include (that are applicable in this instance) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
