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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species of fig. 4;
Species of fig. 8
Species of fig. 9
Species of fig. 10
Species of fig. 11
Species of fig. 12
The species are independent or distinct because the species comprises mutually exclusive structural characteristics. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 1 is generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because one or more of the following reason(s) apply:
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Kelly McGlashan on 02/26/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of species of fig. 12, claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Figure 12 reads on all of the claims, therefore, none of the claims have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second filter fluid passageway" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hauk et al. (US 2019/0083913A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hauk teaches a fluid delivery system (refer system of fig. 1) comprising:
a primary fluid passageway that extends between component of the fluid delivery system (refer fig. 4 indicating fluid passageway from inlet 30 to outlet 32); and
a filter (26), wherein the filter includes a filter housing (refer fig. 4 indicating plurality of housing parts 34, 38, 36) that defines a first filter fluid passageway (leading to 36) that intersects the primary fluid passageway and is configured to receive a first portion of fluid that passes through the primary fluid passageway (refer fig. 4, [0040]), the first filter fluid passageway having a first inlet end (through openings 54 of cover unit 52) that intersects and fluidly communicates with the primary fluid passageway (refer fig. 4), and a first blind end (bottom of part 36 is closed) disposed at a location that is spaced apart from the first inlet end.
Regarding claim 2, Hauk teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Hauk further teaches that the first filter fluid passageway has a surface that defines trap openings (refer openings 54). The limitation “each trap opening is configured to allow passage of particles therethrough under force of gravity” is reciting a functional limitation without imparting additional structure that differentiates the structure disclosed by Hauk. "[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).
Regarding claim 3, Hauk teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Hauk further teaches that the first filter fluid passageway defines a floor (refer 52) corresponding to the lowermost portion of the first filter fluid passageway with respect to the direction of the force of gravity of the earth, and the floor has trap openings (54) configured to allow passage of particles therethrough under force of gravity.
Regarding claim 4, Hauk teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Hauk further teaches that the filter housing comprises a vacancy (56) that underlies the trap openings, the vacancy configured to receive and retain particles that pass through the trap openings (refer fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Hauk teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Hauk further teaches that the first filter fluid passageway has a uniform width from the first inlet end to the first blind end (refer fig. 4, the collection chamber has uniform width).
Regarding claim 8, Hauk teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Hauk further teaches that the first filter fluid passageway (through plate 52) is perpendicular to the primary fluid passageway (ref fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 6-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauk et al. (US 2019/0083913A1).
Regarding claims 6-7, Hauk teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Hauk does not teach that the first filter fluid passageway has a non-uniform width from the first inlet end to the first blind end, or wherein a width of the first fluid passageway increases from the first inlet end to the first blind end. However, absent of showing criticality with respect to shape of the first filter fluid passageway, changing shape of the collection chamber 56 (first filter fluid passageway) of Hauk would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill 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). And further that the difference in shape cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04.I. Aesthetic Design Changes).
Regarding claim 10, Hauk teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Fig. 4 indicates that the first filter fluid passageway has a first passageway length corresponding to a distance between the first inlet end (through openings 54 of plate 52) and the first blind end (bottom wall of housing 36) and a first passageway width (diameter of the housing 36) corresponding to a dimension of the first filter fluid passageway in a direction perpendicular to the first passageway length and to a direction of the force of gravity. Hauk 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).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauk et al. (US 2019/0083913A1), in view of Cowley et al. (US 2020/0139275A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hauk teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Hauk 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 Hauk 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.
Claim(s) 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauk et al. (US 2019/0083913A1), in view of Al-Gouhi et al. (US 2020/0155973A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hauk teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Hauk does not teach that the filter housing defines a second filter fluid passageway that intersects the primary fluid passageway and is configured to receive a first portion of fluid that passes through the primary fluid passageway, and the second filter fluid passageway includes a second inlet end that intersects and fluidly communicates with the primary fluid passageway, and a second blind end disposed at a location spaced apart from the second inlet end.
Al-Gouhi teaches a fluid delivery system (refer fig. 1) comprising a plurality of trap stations (102a, 102b, 102c) for removal and collection of solids from fluid (refer abstract, [004], [0034]). Al-Gouhi discloses multiple trap stations increase quantity of solids trapped in the trap stations (refer [0036]).
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 Hauk to provide the filter housing defining a second filter fluid passageway that intersects the primary fluid passageway and is configured to receive a first portion of fluid that passes through the primary fluid passageway, and the second filter fluid passageway including a second inlet end that intersects and fluidly communicates with the primary fluid passageway, and a second blind end disposed at a location spaced apart from the second inlet end to enable increase in removal quantity of contaminants from the fluid as taught by Al-Gouhi.
Regarding claim 12, modified Hauk teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Hauk disclosing providing trap openings (refer 54) at first filter fluid passageway that allows passage of particles therethrough under force of gravity (Refer fig. 4, fig. 5). As indicated in the rejection of claim 11 above, the system comprises a plurality of filter passageways. It would have been obvious to provide same/similar configuration for additional filter fluid passageway in the modified system of Hauk to prevent contaminant particles from leaving the filter fluid passageways as taught by Hauk.
Regarding claim 13, modified Hauk teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi discloses that 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 fig. 1 indicating traps 102a-c are placed one after another in fluid flow direction).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hauk teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Modified Hauk 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).
Regarding claims 15-16, modified Hauk teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Hauk discloses that the first fluid passageway has uniform width from first inlet end to the first blind end (refer collection chamber 56 having uniform diameter). Al-Gouhi discloses collection chambers/traps having varying dimension (refer fig. 2a). Selecting shape of the first/second filter fluid passageway would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill 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 17, modified Hauk teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi discloses that the plurality of traps (102a-b-c) are provided on same side of the primary fluid passageway (refer fig. 1).
claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauk et al. (US 2019/0083913A1), in view of Al-Gouhi et al. (US 2020/0155973A1) and Phillips (US 6183633B1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hauk teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Al-Gouhi discloses that the plurality of traps (102a-b-c) are provided on same side of the primary fluid passageway (refer fig. 1). Modified Hauk 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 Hauk and 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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauk et al. (US 2019/0083913A1), in view of Al-Gouhi et al. (US 2020/0155973A1) and Cowley et al. (US 2020/0139275A1).
Regarding claim 19, Hauk teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Hauk does not teach that the filter housing defines a second filter fluid passageway.
Al-Gouhi teaches a fluid delivery system (refer fig. 1) comprising a plurality of trap stations (102a, 102b, 102c) for removal and collection of solids from fluid (refer abstract, [004], [0034]). Al-Gouhi discloses multiple trap stations increase quantity of solids trapped in the trap stations (refer [0036]).
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 Hauk to provide the filter housing defining a second filter fluid passageway to enable increase in removal quantity of contaminants from the fluid as taught by Al-Gouhi.
Regarding the limitation “the other of the first first filter fluid passageway and 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 modified Hauk 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.
Conclusion
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 1777
Prosecution Insights