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 1-15, 17, 20, 23 and 26-27 are pending:
Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17, 20, 23 and 26-27 are rejected.
Claim 8 is objected to.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 21169534, filed on 04/20/2021.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites “except for their respective portions which correspond to the non-overlap region”; consider rephrasing to – except for of at least one of said first seal or second seal that which correspond to the non-overlap region – for clarity and consistency with other claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 26-27 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein said non overlap region is arranged asymmetrically with respect to said first perimeter and/or said second perimeter”; it is unclear what “and/or” is intended to convey?
Claim 26 recites “wherein one of said first seal and said second seal follows said filter media pack over an angular range of at least 180o but not completely”; claim 26 which depends from claim 1 requires a circumferential seal which extends around the entire filter (360o); therefore claim 26 is mutually inconsistent with the requirements of claim 1.
Claim 27 recites “wherein said non-overlap region corresponds to an angular range for which one of the first or second seals does not follow said filter media pack”; claim 26 which depends from claim 1 requires a circumferential seal which extends around the entire filter (360o); therefore claim 27 is mutually inconsistent with the requirements of claim 1.
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Govardhan (US 2020/0047105).
Regarding claim 1, Govardhan teaches a filter element (filter, see ABS) for the filtration of gaseous fluids, comprising:
a filter media pack (pleated filter media 220) having a longitudinal axis and a circumferential seal support structure (gasket 205) (the seals extend around the housing therefore are circumferential seals) sealingly coupled to a sidewall of said filter media pack, said seal support structure further comprising a first seal (seal feature 230) and a second seal (seal feature 232);
wherein axial projections of said first and said second seals along said longitudinal axis on a plane perpendicular to said longitudinal axis (see Fig. 17) define a first closed perimeter and a second closed perimeter (see Fig. 8), and wherein areas corresponding to said first and said second closed perimeters comprise a non-overlap region (corresponds to the area/gap between 230 and 232).
Regarding claim 2, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1, wherein the areas defined by said closed perimeters also comprise an overlap region (corresponds to the area surrounded by the seal 230).
Regarding claim 4, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1, wherein said non overlap region has no rotational symmetry (see Figs. 19 and 22-23 wherein spacing/gap has axisymmetric spacing),
Regarding claim 5, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1, wherein said non overlap region is arranged asymmetrically with respect to said first perimeter and/or said second perimeter (see Figs. 19 and 22-23 wherein spacing/gap has arranged asymmetrically).
Regarding claim 7, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1, wherein one of the first perimeter or the second perimeter fully encircles the other one of the first perimeter or the second perimeter seal (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 10, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1, wherein said first seal and said second seal are separate seals (see Figs. 13 and Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 11, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1, wherein each of said first seal and said second seal is arranged in a single plane, a first plane and a second plane, respectively (the embodiment shown in Fig. 26 show seals 330/332 arranged on a plane different from the plane seals 230/232).
Regarding claim 12, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1, wherein said first seal and said second seal follow one another along the circumference of the filter media pack (see Fig. 13 wherein the seals follow one another), except for their respective portions which correspond to the non-overlap region (see embodiment shown in Fig. 27).
Regarding claim 14, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1, wherein said seal support structure comprises a base sealingly coupled to a sidewall of said filter media pack and a flange radially extending from said base, said flange having an outer rim and defining a first side and an opposed second side of said flange respective to said longitudinal axis of said filter media pack, wherein said first and second seals are arranged on or adjacent to said flange (see annotated Fig. 14).
Annotated Fig. 14
PNG
media_image1.png
399
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1, wherein the areas defined by said perimeters have different shape (see Figs. 19-23 wherein each seal follows a different pattern which will have a different shape defined by the perimeter).
Regarding claim 20, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1, wherein said perimeters have a different centroid (the embodiment shown in Fig. 26 show seals with different centroid).
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dewachter (WO 1999/037386).
Regarding claim 1, Dewachter teaches a filter element (liquid separator and filter element, see ABS) for the filtration of gaseous fluids, comprising:
a filter media pack (filter material 19) having a longitudinal axis and a circumferential seal support structure (annular seals 29, 31) sealingly coupled to a sidewall of said filter media pack (see Fig. 2), said seal support structure further comprising a first seal (seal 29) and a second seal (seal 31);
wherein axial projections of said first and said second seals along said longitudinal axis on a plane perpendicular to said longitudinal axis define a first closed perimeter and a second closed perimeter (see Fig. 2), and wherein areas corresponding to said first and said second closed perimeters comprise a non-overlap region (the seals occupy distinct axial positions therefore do not overlap).
Regarding claim 15, Dewachter teaches a filter assembly (liquid separator and filter element, see ABS), comprising:
a housing (housing 1), said housing comprising a main housing portion (vessel 2) and a complementary housing portion (lid 3); and
a filter element according to claim 1 wherein said first seal (i.e. seal 29) forms a seal between said filter element and said complementary housing portion (see Fig. 2) and said second seal (i.e. seal 31) forms a seal between said filter element and said main housing portion (see Fig. 2).
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govardhan (US 2020/0047105).
Regarding claim 3, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1.
Govardhan does not teach wherein said non overlap region has a surface which comprises at least 10% of the smallest area of the areas defined by said closed perimeters but Govardhan does comprise a non overlap region which has a spacing and the spacing does not consume the entire enclosed area, therefore the non overlap region has a surface area is greater than zero and less the full area defined by the smallest closed perimeter, in other words, >0% but <100% which overlaps with the claimed range.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of >0% and <100% completely encompasses the claimed range of
≥
10%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1. Govardhan does not teach wherein the areas defined by said closed perimeters differ in surface area by at least 10% but Govardhan does comprise a non overlap region which has a spacing and the spacing does not consume the entire enclosed area, therefore the non overlap region has a surface area is greater than zero and less the full area defined by the smallest closed perimeter, in other words, >0% but <100% which overlaps with the claimed range.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of >0% and <100% completely encompasses the claimed range of
≥
10%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govardhan (US 2020/0047105) in view of Boroson (USPN 6,590,157).
Regarding claim 9, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1.
Govardhan does not teach a sealing structure for highly moisture-sensitive electronic device element comprising a seal support structure comprises one or more electronic devices in an area of said seal support structure corresponding to said non-overlap region.
In a related field of endeavor, Boroson teaches a sealing structure for highly moisture-sensitive electronic device element (see ABS) comprising a seal support structure (gap sealing material 122 and sealing material 20) comprises one or more electronic devices (highly moisture-sensitive electronic device 12) in an area of said seal support structure corresponding to said non-overlap region (gap region) (see Fig. 7I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter of Govardhan by incorporating an electronic device within the seal structure as disclosed by Boroson because it prevents premature device failure or premature degradation of device performance (Boroson, see C1/L5-15).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govardhan (US 2020/0047105) in view of Schrage (US 2019/0358575).
Regarding claim 13, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1.
Govardhan does not teach wherein a cross section of said filter media pack comprises convex and concave curves.
In a related field of endeavor, Schrage teaches a seal arrangement for filter element (see ABS) wherein a cross section of said filter media pack comprises convex and concave curve (concave region and convex region, see ¶165 and Fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter of Govardhan by configuring to have concave and convex regions as disclosed by Schrage because said configuration improves air flow through the filter (Schrage, see ¶45) and the filter of Govardhan is open to any shape and/or configuration (Govardhan, see ¶86).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govardhan (US 2020/0047105) in view of Walker (USPN 5,843,198).
Regarding claim 23, Govardhan teaches a filter element according to claim 1.
Govardhan does not teach wherein said first seal and said second seals comprise a TPE material.
In a related field of endeavor, Walker teaches an air filter (see ABS) comprising a seals comprise a TPE material (TPE material for the seals 38, see C4/L1-15).
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art one of ordinary skill in art before effective filing date of invention to modify the seal material of Govardhan with the TPE material of Walker because it is fabricated from a flexible, resilient material (Walker, see C4/L1-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 26-27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Govardhan and Dewachter, each teach a filter element according to claim 1.
Govardhan or Dewachter teach nor fairly suggests “wherein said seal support structure comprises at least one pass-through opening for gaseous fluids in an area of said seal support structure corresponding to said non-overlap region” as required by claim 8.
Govardhan or Dewachter teach nor fairly suggests “wherein one of said first seal and said second seal follows said filter media pack over an angular range of at least 180o but not completely” as required by claim 26.
Govardhan or Dewachter teach nor fairly suggests “wherein said non-overlap region corresponds to an angular range for which one of the first or second seals does not follow said filter media pack” as required by claim 27.
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