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 Status
Claims 1-19 are pending:
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Claims 16-19 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “a serious search burden does not exist even though the office action has identified different classification for Group I and Group II. Claims 17-19 are drawn to a filter cap, a component that will arise during the search of both classifications identified by the office action”.
This is not found persuasive because the subcombination of the filter cap required by claims 17-20 (non-elected group II) can be applied to a separate utility such as an oil separator or different separator; in other words, the scope of the subcombination is broader than the combination and requires a search using a different field of search or different classification areas.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/13/2026.
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 1-15 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. Dependent claims are hereby rejected due to dependency from claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “the heavier fluid components”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-7 recite “The filter system…”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the claim is further indefinite because it is unclear whether the filter system refers to the previously claimed passive filter assembly or a different system?
Claims 9-15 recite “The passive filter system…”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the claim is further indefinite because it is unclear whether the passive filter system refers to the previously claimed passive filter assembly or a different system?
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.
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 1-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torgerud (USPN 10,697,410) in view of Goodrich (US 2001/0042725).
Regarding claim 1, Torgerud teaches a passive filter (fuel filter 24a) assembly, comprising: a filter bowl (top cap 48 and lower 66) configured to enclose a filter element (filter element 44) therein, wherein the filter bowl is shaped to allow a bulk fluid to swirl therein (“a channel that gently guides the fuel flow into the flow pattern shown in FIG. 4, which is a downward spiral flow along the cylindrical sidewall 42”, see C4/L1-10); a fluid inlet (fuel inlet 26) in fluid communication with the filter bowl (see Fig. 4), wherein the fluid inlet is configured to cause the bulk fluid entering through the fluid inlet to swirl within the filter bowl to be centrifuged to separate one or more denser fluid components from the bulk fluid (“the fuel/water combination entering the fuel inlet in the upper portion of the fuel filter travels in a circular motion, which causes the water, which has a higher density than the fuel, to be pulled outward. As the mixture travels down the fuel filter in the spiral path shown in FIG. 4, the mixture enters a secondary, larger volume/low velocity stage of separation”, see C5/L5-24); a fluid outlet (fuel outlet 30) in fluid communication with the filter bowl downstream of the fluid inlet (see Fig. 4), the fluid outlet configured to receive a filtered flow downstream of a filter element (see Fig. 4)…
Torgerud does not teach a filter cap disposed gravitationally below the filter bowl and configured to receive the denser fluid components separated from the bulk fluid when the heavier fluid components fall into the filter cap.
In a related field of endeavor, Goodrich teaches a filter assembly (see ABS) comprising a filter cap (lower portion 304) disposed gravitationally below the filter bowl (the lower portion 304 is disposed below the upper unit 302, see Fig. 3) and configured to receive the denser fluid components separated from the bulk fluid when the heavier fluid components fall into the filter cap (“During the separation process, the diesel fuel, which is lighter than water, flows up and out of the filter, through the filter medium, 322…water…is housed within the lower water storage region 322, is defined by the concave plate 312 and the lower section 304 of the filter unit 300”, see ¶28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the inventio to modify the passive filter assembly of Torgerud by incorporating the filter cap of Goodrich because it provides the benefits of preventing re-entrainment of stored water (Goodrich, see ¶29).
Regarding claim 2, Torgerud and Goodrich teach the passive filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the filter bowl defines a filter element volume and a swirl volume outward of the filter element volume configured to allow the bulk fluid to swirl around the filter element (Torgerud, “a channel that gently guides the fuel flow into the flow pattern shown in FIG. 4, which is a downward spiral flow along the cylindrical sidewall 42”, see C4/L5-15 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Torgerud and Goodrich teach the passive filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the filter cap further includes a drain outlet at a bottom end of the filter cap for the removal of the denser fluid components (Torgerud, “the lower bowl 66 includes one or more removable drain plugs for draining the water”, see C4/L40-45) (Goodrich, water drainage valve 340).
Regarding claim 4, Torgerud and Goodrich teach the passive filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the fluid inlet is configured to cause the bulk fluid to enter through the fluid inlet into the filter bowl at an angle with respect to an outer edge of the filter bowl (Torgerud, “tangential flow geometry at the fuel inlet advantageously avoids direct spray of high velocity fuel/water mixture”, see C5/L10-20; the tangential inlet has an angle with respect to the housing).
Regarding claim 5, Torgerud and Goodrich teach the passive filter assembly of claim 1, wherein the fluid inlet is configured to cause the bulk fluid to enter through the fluid inlet into the filter bowl tangentially with respect to the outer edge of the filter bowl (Torgerud, “tangential flow geometry at the fuel inlet advantageously avoids direct spray of high velocity fuel/water mixture”, see C5/L10-20).
Regarding claim 6, Torgerud and Goodrich teach the filter system of claim 2, wherein the filter element volume and the swirl volume are configured to cause one or more denser fluid components to flow along an inner diameter of the filter bowl and less dense fluid to flow inwardly of the one or more denser fluid components (Torgerud, “the fuel/water combination entering the fuel inlet in the upper portion of the fuel filter travels in a circular motion, which causes the water, which has a higher density than the fuel, to be pulled outward…further water separation occurs when velocity and turbulence are reduced and gravitational forces enable the water to descend and collect in the lowest region of the fuel filter… the fuel filter advantageously allows the water, which is heavier than the fuel, to separate without impingement on the filtration process, as the fuel is pulled by the pump into the filter media”, see C5/L5-24).
Regarding claim 7, Torgerud and Goodrich teach the filter system of claim 6, wherein the filter element volume and the swirl volume are configured to cause the less dense fluid flows through the filter element and out through the fluid outlet (Torgerud, “the fuel/water combination entering the fuel inlet in the upper portion of the fuel filter travels in a circular motion, which causes the water, which has a higher density than the fuel, to be pulled outward…further water separation occurs when velocity and turbulence are reduced and gravitational forces enable the water to descend and collect in the lowest region of the fuel filter… the fuel filter advantageously allows the water, which is heavier than the fuel, to separate without impingement on the filtration process, as the fuel is pulled by the pump into the filter media”, see C5/L5-24).
Regarding claim 15, Torgerud and Goodrich teach the passive filter system of claim 1, further including a filter element centrally located within the filter bowl (Torgerud, see Fig. 4).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torgerud (USPN 10,697,410) in view of Goodrich (US 2001/0042725) and further in view of Harris (USPN 4,497,714).
Regarding claim 8, Torgerud and Goodrich teach the passive filter assembly of claim 3.
The combination does not teach that the filter cap further includes: a funnel operatively connected to the filter bowl, wherein the funnel is configured to guide the denser fluid components down towards a funnel opening; and a lower chamber fluidly connected to the funnel via the funnel opening and configured to receive the denser fluid components that flow into the funnel and through the funnel opening.
In a related field of endeavor, Harris teaches a fuel-water separator (see ABS) comprising a funnel (conical flange portion 110 together with tube 56 is a funnel structure) operatively connected to the filter bowl (see Fig. 1), wherein the funnel is configured to guide the denser fluid components down towards a funnel opening (implied, see Fig. 1); and a lower chamber fluidly connected to the funnel via the funnel opening (see Fig. 1) and configured to receive the denser fluid components that flow into the funnel and through the funnel opening (implied, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the inventio to modify the filter cap of Torgerud (as modified by Goodrich) by configuring as a funnel as disclosed by Harris because it is provides a seat or support for a shallow bottom and properly guides the liquid (Harris, see C4/L20-30).
Regarding claim 9, Torgerud, Goodrich and Harris teach the passive filter system of claim 8, wherein the lower chamber is in fluid communication with the drain outlet (Torgerud, see Fig. 4) (Goodrich, water drainage valve 340).
Regarding claim 10, Torgerud, Goodrich and Harris teach the passive filter element of claim 9, wherein when fluid flow is stopped, the denser fluid falls from an inner diameter and/or the swirl volume of the filter bowl down the funnel through the funnel opening and into the lower chamber.
Regarding claim 11, Torgerud, Goodrich and Harris teach the passive filter assembly of claim 10, further including a plug operatively associated with the drain outlet configured to prevent the denser fluid from leaking (Torgerud, “the lower bowl 66 includes one or more removable drain plugs for draining the water”, see C4/L40-45) (Goodrich, water drainage valve 340).
Regarding claim 12, Torgerud, Goodrich and Harris teach the passive filter system of claim 11, wherein the plug is removable to allow for removal of the denser fluid components from the lower chamber (Torgerud, “the lower bowl 66 includes one or more removable drain plugs for draining the water”, see C4/L40-45) (Goodrich, water drainage valve 340).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torgerud (USPN 10,697,410) in view of Goodrich (US 2001/0042725) and further in view of Koch (USPN 3,850,816).
Regarding claim 13, Torgerud and Goodrich teach the passive filter system of claim 1.
The combination does not teach that the fluid inlet includes a curved shape, wherein the curved shape of the fluid inlet is configured to impart rotational momentum on the bulk fluid to induce swirl.
In a related field of endeavor, Koch teaches a cyclone (see ABS) comprising the fluid inlet includes a curved shape (the inlet duct is curved, see C2/L45-55), wherein the curved shape of the fluid inlet is configured to impart rotational momentum on the bulk fluid to induce swirl (“the radius of curvature of the end of the inlet duct can be further reduced and the centrifugal force acting upon the solid or liquid particles can be increased still further”, see C5/L45-55; the centrifugal force causes a rotational momentum to induce a swirl).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the inventio to modify the fluid inlet of Torgerud to be a curved shape as disclosed by Koch because it causes a precompression of heavier substance within the inlet (Koch, see C2/L45-55).
Regarding claim 14, Torgerud, Goodrich and Winslow teach the passive filter system of claim 13, wherein the curved shape of the fluid inlet is scroll shaped (Winslow, see Fig. 2).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torgerud (USPN 10,697,410) in view of Goodrich (US 2001/0042725) in view of Koch (USPN 3,850,816) and further in view of Li (US 2023/0272749).
Regarding claim 16, Torgerud teaches a method for passively separating …fluid from incoming fluid, comprising:
providing fluid flow to a passive filter assembly…thereby creating a centrifuge such that the coked fluid remains along an inner diameter of a passive filter assembly (“the fuel/water combination entering the fuel inlet in the upper portion of the fuel filter travels in a circular motion, which causes the water, which has a higher density than the fuel, to be pulled outward. As the mixture travels down the fuel filter in the spiral path shown in FIG. 4, the mixture enters a secondary, larger volume/low velocity stage of separation”, see C5/L5-24), and
the cleaner less dense fluid flows towards a filter at the center of the passive filter assembly (“fuel outlet 30 extends along the center axis 40 and discharges fuel from the center of the filter element 44 and the center of the canister 34 to the downstream fuel line 32”, see C4/L5-20);
shutting the fluid flow so that the …fluid flows downward (“and internal ring wall 57 define a channel that gently guides the fuel flow into the flow pattern shown in FIG. 4, which is a downward spiral flow along the cylindrical sidewall 42”, see C4/L5-15; further it is implied in C4/L20-40 that the fluid flow is shut off prior to draining the fluid); and
draining the … fluid (“water needs to be drained from the lower bowl 66”, see C4/L35-45)… from the lower chamber.
Torgerud does not teach that (1) the fluid is a coked fluid, (2) providing the fluid flow at an angle and (3) a lower chamber of a filter cap.
In a related field of endeavor, Goodrich teaches a filter assembly (see ABS) comprising a filter cap (lower portion 304) disposed gravitationally below the filter bowl (the lower portion 304 is disposed below the upper unit 302, see Fig. 3) and configured to receive the denser fluid components separated from the bulk fluid when the heavier fluid components fall into the filter cap (“During the separation process, the diesel fuel, which is lighter than water, flows up and out of the filter, through the filter medium, 322…water…is housed within the lower water storage region 322, is defined by the concave plate 312 and the lower section 304 of the filter unit 300”, see ¶28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the inventio to modify the passive filter assembly of Torgerud by incorporating the filter cap of Goodrich because it provides the benefits of preventing re-entrainment of stored water (Goodrich, see ¶29).
In a related field of endeavor, Koch teaches a cyclone (see ABS) comprising the fluid inlet includes a curved shape (the inlet duct is curved, see C2/L45-55), wherein the curved shape of the fluid inlet is configured to impart rotational momentum on the bulk fluid to induce swirl (“the radius of curvature of the end of the inlet duct can be further reduced and the centrifugal force acting upon the solid or liquid particles can be increased still further”, see C5/L45-55; the centrifugal force causes a rotational momentum to induce a swirl).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the inventio to modify the fluid inlet of Torgerud to be at an angle as disclosed by Koch because it causes a precompression of heavier substance within the inlet (Koch, see C2/L45-55).
In a related field of endeavor, Li teaches fuel system having a coke filtration system (see ABS) comprising filtering a coked fluid (“a filtration system between a heat exchanger used to heat the fuel and the fuel nozzles to remove coke before the coke reaches the fuel nozzles”, see ¶20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the inventio to modify the fluid in the method of Torgerud by filtering a coked fluid as disclosed by Li because it achieves the predictable result of improving engine performance and efficiency (Li, see ABS).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights