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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 4 and 7 be found allowable, respectively, claims 5 and 8, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75, respectively, as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutz et al. (US 6,117,320) [hereinafter Rutz].
With respect to claim 1, Rutz discloses a filter system 20, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a duplex filter system that includes a first housing 7 and a second housing 8 configured to filter a liquid, as shown in Fig. 1; and a lifting mechanism (lifting system) arranged to move filter cartridges 1, 2, (filter canisters) (see col. 5, lines 3-25).
Rutz does not disclose a heating housing arranged adjacent the duplex filter system; and the lifting system arranged to move filter canisters from the heating housing to one of the first or second housing. However, Rutz teaches that the housings 7 and 8 are conventionally heated (see col. 6, lines 30-33). Furthermore, Rutz teaches that the system has at least one, preferably two, filter housings (see col. 3, lines 52-56). This implies that there may be more than one housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a third heating housing, as claimed by applicant, in order to filter material, since Rutz suggests the provision of more than one housing (see col. 3, lines 52-56), said housing being heated (see col. 6, lines 30-33). Also, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose a desired placed to positioned the filter cartridges once they are move using the lifting system disclosed by Rutz, and to move the filter cartridges from the heating housing to one of the first of second housing, as claimed by applicant, in within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired location according to a desired application.
With respect to claim 2, Rutz discloses wherein the lifting system is arranged to remove filter canisters 1, 2, from the first housing 7 and the second housing 8 (see col. 5, lines 3-25).
With respect to claim 3, Rutz discloses wherein the first housing 7 and a second housing 8 are arranged vertically, as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to claims 4-5 and 7-8, Rutz discloses wherein the heating housing is arranged vertically, as shown in Fig. 1 (see col. 6, lines 30-33, housings may be heated).
With respect to claim 6, Rutz does not disclose wherein the first housing and a second housing are arranged horizontally. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the hosuings can be arranged horizontally during maintenance and since the courts have held that shifting the position of a particular element is unpatentable as long as the operation of the device is not modified (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773