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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no search burden between Group I c. This is not found persuasive because, as noted in the restriction requirement claim 9, requires a hub, such that the apparatus can be used to practice another and materially different process engages with a hub and serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 13 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 13 recites the inner ring projection arrangement, claim 13 depends from claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, for the purposes of examination this claim is interpreted to depend from claim 12
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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vanderauwera (US 5,545,241).
With respect to claim 9, Vanderauwera teaches filter element 100 and housing 12 with a first section 14 and a second section 16 (a filter assembly, and an end arrangement, Figs. 1-4, C3/L10-67), inner cylinder 54 for fitting and aligning with the filter element (C3/L40-55, Fig. 4, a hub having a surrounding wall circumscribing an opening, the surrounding wall having a terminal axial surface), axially extending teeth 60 formed just inside the outer surface of the cylindrical portion 50 (a hub outer ring of circumferentially spaced projections, C3/L40-55, Fig. 4), first section 14 interpreted as a filter cartridge, filter element 100 and filter material 106, a filter media, first section 14, ridge 44 and serrated ring 40, alignment ring 62 is spaced just interior of the teeth 60 to form a seal with the ring 40 an end cap arrangement holding a seal member; the end cap arrangement nesting with the hub outer ring to rotationally secure the filter cartridge and the end arrangement (C4-C5, Figures 3, 4).
With respect to claim 10, the filter assembly of claim 9, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches ridge 44, absent clarification of structural differences, Vanderauwera’s ridge appears to satisfy the claim language, the filter cartridge end cap arrangement includes an outer ring projection arrangement nesting with the hub outer ring of circumferentially spaced projections, the outer ring projection arrangement of the filter cartridge being positioned to radially support the seal member.
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderauwera (US 5,545,241), in view of Engel (US PG Pub 2008/0041026).
With respect to claims 11 and 12, the filter assembly of claim 9, is taught above. Venderauwera teaches cylinder 54 with teeth 60 as discussed above, that mate with serrated ring 40 and alignment ring 62 is spaced just interior of the teeth 60 to form a seal with the ring 40, but does not teach an additional ring of teeth, however providing an additional inner ring would be a matter of engineering choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional alignment stability, examiner notes that the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. D.
Vanderauwera does not teach the seal between inner and outer rings.
Engel teaches a similar filter comprising a plurality of engagement projections (projections 25c, protrusions 25x, hub 55 and upward projections 55p, axial ring projection 77, which engage projections 91), and that projections press down into seal, and facilitate the sealing by ensuring that the seal does not slip in position relative to surface, it is desirable to ensure that the cartridge is secured rotationally, so that a tortional or tearing stress is not placed on the seal, inhibition of movement against twisting or other affects, is facilitated by the projections and depression of projections expands the axial them in a manner providing engagement with inner and outer side walls and facilitate stabilization (Figs. 4, 14, 15 0050-0126). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second ring of teeth or a hub inner ring of circumferentially spaced projections, the hub inner ring being radially spaced from and surrounded by the hub outer ring, the seal member is between the outer ring projection arrangement and inner ring projection arrangement to provide additional support and stability for alignment ring 62 so that an expansion of the alignment ring will facilitate forming a non-slip or interference fit together, for stabilization.
With respect to claim 13, the filter assembly of claim 12, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches serrated ring 40 intermeshes with teeth 60, as discussed above duplication of parts would be a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, and additionally, Engel provides motivation to include additional rings as discussed above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderauwera (US 5,545,241), in view of Sharma (US PG Pub 2013/0193055).
With respect to claim 14, the filter assembly of claim 13, is taught above. The taught combination does not teach the number of hub outer ring projections is different from the number of spaced outer cogs on the filter cartridge, however, the use of projections in filter connection arrangements as keys or encoding mechanisms is known in the art, such that changing the geometry and fit of the projections would be an obvious choice, including geometries where the number of projections would be different on each side depending on the geometry of the projections, as evidenced by Sharma, Sharma teaches an interlock device having a compression assembly and a fitting for a mating filter cartridge (abstract), and a variety of embodiments where the number of protrusions on the key can depend on the number of key pathways defined by a corresponding interlock device, or, the number of key pathways defined by an interlock device can depend on the number of protrusions on the key. Those having skill in the art will understand the innumerable configurations of the engagement structure of the filter cartridge and the corresponding structure of the interlock device (0087).
Claim(s) 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderauwera (US 5,545,241).
With respect to claim 15, the filter assembly of claim 9, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches filter material 106 is generally pleated material (C3/L64-39, Fig. 4, the filter media includes a cylindrical extension of pleated media surrounding an open filter interior and extending between a first end cap (102) and a second end cap (104)), Vanderauwera teaches the recited elements, while Vanderauwera teaches first section 14 and filter element 100 as separate components, examiner notes that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the end cap arrangement is an integral one-piece part of the first end cap, as a matter of engineering choice.
With respect to claim 16, the filter assembly of claim 15, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches the first end cap (102) has an aperture in communication with the open filter interior; (b) the end cap arrangement (first section 14, ridge 44) is on an axial portion of the first end cap and circumscribes the aperture; and (c) the opening in the hub is in communication with the aperture of the first end cap and the open filter interior (C4/L37-50, Fig. 3, 4).
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderauwera (US 5,545,241), in view of Reid (US 5,591,332).
With respect to claim 17, the filter assembly of claim 9 is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches a removable filter element 100 (removably holding a filter cartridge), Vanderauwera teaches a separate two separate housing sections and a removable filter element, while Vanderauwera’s first section 14 interpreted is interpreted above as a filter cartridge, the use of housings, with integral or separate cartridges, housings, and various connections means are obvious variations and known in the art. Vanderauwera teaches clasp type buckles provide a camming action to lock the two sections together and to provide a sealed connection, the clasps have a cam type locking arrangement, not a threaded connection, however the use of threaded, or different types of connection to secure sections of a filter are known in the art and a obvious engineering choice, in view of Reid, Reid teaches a filter assembly comprising a head 12 with a cavity 50 and a rim 50 with a step for engaging a seal 31, and a second step for engaging a second seal 32 (C4/L20-50), in an embodiment angled cap slots 170 prevent accidental counter-rotation of the filter cartridge (C7/L20-35), and an externally-threaded outer rim of the cap cooperates with the internal threads of the head to support the filter (C3/L42-50), a locking means is also provided between the head and filter cartridge lower outside portion providing a securing means for securing and supporting the filter cartridge, FIG. 2 shows the lower outside portion 58 being threaded to cooperate with a threaded filter cartridge 60, but, alternatively, a bayonet cam mechanism or other securing means may be used (C4/L21-49), a housing having a housing threaded section; and(b) the end arrangement having an end arrangement threaded section positioned to be connected to the housing threaded section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use threaded coupling as a obvious engineering alternative to Vanderauwera’s taught camming buckles as shown by Reid camming connections and threaded connection are known alternatives, the use threads instead of camming attachment is known in the art as shown by Reid and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
With respect to claim 18, the filter assembly of claim 17, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches clasps/buckles spaced proximate axially extending teeth 60, the combination of Vanderauwera and Reid teach intermeshed serrated/toothed rings and threaded connection as discussed above, the limitations of a distance D1 between a start of the housing threaded section and end tips of the projections; and is a distance D2 between a start of the end arrangement threaded section and end tips of the projections, would be inherent, with respect to the distanceD1 is greater than the distance D2, the specific positioning of the threading, would depend on the size/shape of the serrations/teeth and any overlap, such that the distances would be a matter of design choice to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure the serrations/teeth intermeshed fully and did not interfere with the threading, depending on the application, size/geometry of the serrations/teeth, and usage requirements.
Claim(s) 21-25, 27-31, 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderauwera (US 5,545,241), in view of Von Seggern (US PG Pub 2021/0379522).
With respect to claim 21, the filter assembly of claim 9, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches the filter cartridge includes a tubular media pack defining an open media interior, the tubular media pack having a first end and an opposite second end (Fig. 4). While Vanderauwera does not explicitly teach wherein the end cap arrangement is secured to the first end of the tubular media pack, absent clarification of criticality, the placement of the engaging mechasim on a filter or as part of a housing would be a matter of design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as shown by Von Seggern, Von Seggern teaches a filter cartridge having a contoured end member to angularly orient and/or axially orient the filter cartridge, and particularly a seal thereof, relative to a filter housing (abstract) where an contoured alignment member is mounted to a cylinder of filter media (Fig. 2, (0014-0016).
With respect to claim 22, the filter assembly of claim 21, is taught above. Vanderauwera and Von Seggern each teach the filter cartridge includes a central longitudinal axis centered within the tubular media pack and passing through the first end and the second end (Figs).
With respect to claim 23, the filter assembly of claim 21, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches alignment ring 62 and inner cylinder 54 extends outward from the end portion 52the seal member is secured to an axial portion of the end cap arrangement (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 24, the filter assembly of claim 21, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches the end cap arrangement includes a first plurality of cartridge projections extending in an axial direction from the end cap arrangement (serrations/teeth 42), the first plurality of cartridge projections being provided in a circumferential arrangement and alignment ring 62 spaced just interior of the teeth 60, located proximate a radial side of the seal member.
With respect to claim 25, the filter assembly of claim 24, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches alignment ring 62 spaced just interior of the teeth 60 to form a seal with the ring 40 and teeth 60 engage the teeth 42 as discussed above, such that the first plurality of cartridge projections circumscribes the seal member.
With respect to claim 27, the filter assembly of claim 24 is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches a two part housing, and that the inner cylinder 54 extends outward for fitting and aligning the filter and clasps cams which appear to draw the housing together, such that depending on the size of the projections the first plurality of cartridge projections would extend axially beyond the seal member, depending on the size of the projections and the camming of the clasps, absent evidence of criticality, the extension of the projections appears to be a matter of design choice, depending on the geometry of the serrations.
With respect to claim 28, the filter assembly of claim 24, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches complementary shaped teeth, and illustrates triangular teeth (Fig. 4, the first plurality of cartridge projections has one of a triangular shape, a trapezoidal shape, a rectangular shape with a flat end, a rectangular shape with a rounded end, a rectangular shape with a pointed end, and a curved shape).
With respect to claim 29, the filter assembly of claim 24, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches serrations, providing adjacent cartridge projections of the first plurality of cartridge projections are separated by receiver gaps.
With respect to claim 30, the filter assembly of claim 29, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches each cartridge projection of the first plurality of cartridge projections has a similar geometry, and wherein each receiver gap has a similar geometry (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 31, the filter assembly of claim 24, is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches a plurality of serrations/teeth, absent clarification of differences, Vanderauwera’s serrations comprise the circumferential arrangement includes a second plurality of cartridge projections.
With respect to claims 33 and 34, the filter assembly of claim 31 is taught above. Vanderauwera teaches a circumferential arrangement of serrations, depending on the size of the serrations and the diameter of the circumference, the peaks could be radially aligned or misaligned, absent evidence of criticalty the alignment of peaks would appear to be a matter of design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing peaks of the first plurality of cartridge projections are radially aligned with peaks of the second plurality of cartridge projections, or peaks of the first plurality of cartridge projections are radially misaligned with peaks of the second plurality of cartridge projections.
Claim(s) 26, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderauwera (US 5,545,241), in view of Von Seggern (US PG Pub 2021/0379522). in view of Engel (US PG Pub 2008/0041026).
With respect to claims 26 and 32, the filter assembly of claim 24/31, are taught above. Vanderauwera teaches alignment ring 62 spaced just interior of the teeth 60 to form a seal with the ring 40 and teeth 60 engage the teeth 42, Vanderauwera doe not teach the first plurality of cartridge projections is circumscribed by the seal member. Engel teaches a similar filter comprising a plurality of engagement projections (projections 25c, protrusions 25x, hub 55 and upward projections 55p, axial ring projection 77, which engage projections 91), and that projections press down into seal, and facilitate the sealing by ensuring that the seal does not slip in position relative to surface, it is desirable to ensure that the cartridge is secured rotationally, so that a tortional or tearing stress is not placed on the seal, inhibition of movement against twisting or other affects, is facilitated by the projections and depression of projections expands the axial them in a manner providing engagement with inner and outer side walls and facilitate stabilization (Figs. 4, 14, 15 0050-0126). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second ring of teeth such that the first plurality of cartridge projections is circumscribed by the seal member, the first plurality of cartridge projections circumscribes the seal member, and wherein the seal member circumscribes the second plurality of cartridge projections to provide additional support and stability for alignment ring 62 so that an expansion of the alignment ring will facilitate forming a non-slip or interference fit together, for stabilization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571 270-7872. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights