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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 18635743 filed 4/15/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation “within powerplant” (l. 5) is believed to be in error for - - within the powerplant - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6-15, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Treyz 20090229231.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Treyz teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-7) for a powerplant (capable of use with a powerplant), comprising:
a fluid filter assembly (as follows) including a filter housing (3) and a filter element (4) disposed in an internal cavity of the filter housing (see Fig. 2);
the filter housing extending axially along an axis (dashed line) between a housing first end (end of 3 opposite to 11) and a housing second end (end of 3 at 11), the filter housing including a mount (as follows) and a sidewall (sidewall of 3), the mount connected to the sidewall, and the mount including a flange (23), an attachment (extends from 23 and includes portion of threaded section of 3) and a pilot (unthreaded portion at end of 3 in combination with remainder of threaded portion that is not part of the attachment);
the flange projecting radially out from the sidewall and the attachment to a flange distal outer end (23 projects radially out from the sidewall of 3 and the attachment to a distal outer end of 23);
the attachment extending axially between the flange and the pilot (attachment extends between the flange and the pilot discussed above), and the attachment configured with an external threaded section (portion of threaded portion of 3 is part of the attachment discussed above); and
the pilot projecting axially out from the attachment to the housing first end (pilot discussed above projects axially out from the attachment discussed above to first end of 3), the pilot comprising a cylindrical external surface located radially inboard of the external threaded section (cylindrical surface of pilot discussed above, which includes the end of 3 beyond the threads, this cylindrical surface being radially inboard of the threads on 3), and an axial length of the pilot greater than an axial length of the attachment (the lengths of the pilot and attachment discussed above can be defined such that the axial length of the pilot is greater than the axial length of the attachment).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Treyz further teaches the axial length of the pilot is equal to or greater than one and one-half times the axial length of the attachment (the lengths of the pilot and attachment discussed for claim 1 above can be defined such that the axial length of the pilot is greater than the axial length of the attachment).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Treyz further teaches the axial length of the pilot is between one and one-quarter times the axial length of the attachment and two times the axial length of the attachment (the lengths of the pilot and attachment discussed for claim 1 above can be defined such that the axial length of the pilot is greater than the axial length of the attachment).
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, Treyz further teaches an axial length of the cylindrical external surface is greater than an axial length of the external threaded section (the lengths of the pilot and attachment discussed above can be defined such that the axial length of the cylindrical external surface is greater than the axial length of the external threaded section – which is the threaded portion of the attachment discussed for claim 1 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Treyz further teaches an axial length of the mount is less than an axial length of the sidewall (the axial length of the mount discussed for claim 1 above is clearly much less than the axial length of the sidewall of 3).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Treyz further teaches the filter element is disposed completely within the internal cavity of the filter housing (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Treyz further teaches the mount axially overlaps and is spaced radially outboard from the filter element (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Treyz further teaches the filter housing further includes an endwall connected to the sidewall at the second housing end (endwall of 3 at end adjacent to 11); and the internal cavity of the filter housing projects axially into the filter housing from the housing first end, along the mount and the sidewall, to the endwall (internal cavity extends from the housing first end discussed for claim 1, along the mount and sidewall of 3, to the endwall adjacent to 11).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Treyz further teaches the filter housing further includes a wrenching feature configured with the endwall (protrusion at the endwall along the dashed axis could be used to screw 3 into place, and thus meets the claimed “wrenching feature”).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Treyz further teaches the filter housing further includes a wrenching feature configured with the flange (teeth along 23 could be used to enhance grip on 3 while screwing it into place, and thus meet the claimed “wrenching feature”).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Treyz further teaches the filter element comprises a tubular filter element (see Fig. 2, 4 is tubular).
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Treyz further teaches a powerplant component (1/21 could be a component of a powerplant) including a first aperture (wider aperture at 22), a second aperture (narrower aperture which bottoms out at 28), an internal threaded section (22) and a cylindrical internal surface (internal surface of second aperture discussed above is cylindrical), the first aperture projecting axially into the powerplant component from a side of the powerplant component (first aperture projects into 1/21 from a side at which 3 enters), along the internal threaded section, to the second aperture (see Fig. 3), and the second aperture projecting axially within powerplant component out from the first aperture along the cylindrical internal surface (see Fig. 3); the flange abutted axially against the side of the powerplant component (see Fig. 4); the external threaded section mated with the internal threaded section to secure the filter housing to the powerplant component (see Fig. 4); and the cylindrical internal surface axially overlapping and radially next to the cylindrical external surface (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Treyz further teaches the first aperture comprises a counterbore (first aperture discussed for claim 13 is a counterbore); and the second aperture comprises a bore (second aperture discussed for claim 13 is a bore).
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, Treyz further teaches the first aperture comprises a bore (first aperture discussed for claim 13 above is a bore); and the second aperture comprises an annular slot (second aperture discussed for claim 13 above, in combination with projection portion of valve member 24, forms an annular slot into which 3 is inserted, see Fig. 4).
Regarding Independent Claim 18, Treyz teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-7) for a powerplant (capable of use with a powerplant), comprising:
a fluid filter assembly (as follows) including a filter element (4) and a filter housing (3);
the filter element arranged within an internal cavity of the filter housing (4 is within internal cavity of 3) and axially recessed from a housing open end along an axis (4 is axially recessed from open end of 3 along dashed line axis);
the filter housing extending axially between the housing open end and a housing closed end (3 extends between the open end to a closed end adjacent to 11), the filter housing including a mount (as follows) and a sidewall (sidewall of 3), the mount connected to the sidewall, and the mount including a flange (23), an attachment (extends from 23 and includes portion of threaded section of 3) and a pilot (unthreaded portion at end of 3 in combination with remainder of threaded portion that is not part of the attachment);
the flange projecting radially out to a flange distal outer end located radially outboard from the sidewall and the attachment (23 projects radially out from the sidewall of 3 and the attachment to a distal outer end of 23);
the attachment extending axially between the flange and the pilot (attachment extends between the flange and the pilot discussed above), and the attachment configured with an external threaded section (portion of threaded portion of 3 is part of the attachment discussed above); and
the pilot projecting axially out from the attachment to the housing open end (pilot discussed above projects axially out from the attachment discussed above to the open end of 3), the pilot comprising a cylindrical external surface located radially inboard of the external threaded section (cylindrical surface of pilot discussed above, which includes the end of 3 beyond the threads, this cylindrical surface being radially inboard of the threads on 3).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treyz, as discussed for claim 1 above.
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Treyz teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Treyz further shows an axial length of the mount comparable to a diameter of the internal cavity of the filter housing where the diameter of the internal cavity of the filter housing is measured at a location axially along the mount (axial length of mount discussed for claim 1 above appears substantially similar to, if not slightly less than or more than, the diameter of 3 at the mount). The drawings are not indicated as being to scale; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would grasp the general proportions of the device such that the mount is not clearly substantially larger than the diameter of the internal cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Treyz’s apparatus such that the axial length of the mount is less than a diameter of the internal cavity of the filter housing where the diameter of the internal cavity of the filter housing is measured at a location axially along the mount given that the only difference between Treyz’s apparatus and the claim is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the apparatus and a device having the relative dimensions claimed by Applicant would not perform differently than Treyz’s apparatus. 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. 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). See MPEP 2144.04 IV (A).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treyz, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Diekmeyer 20080089759.
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Treyz teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 13, and Treyz further teaches a gap extends radially between the cylindrical internal surface and the cylindrical external surface (3 is not connected to 1/21 via an interference fit but is screwed on and thus a gap is inherent); and an internal thread play between the external threaded section and the internal threaded section exists (no interference fit between 1/21 and 3 thus some amount of internal thread play will be present).
Treyz fails to expressly teach the radial height of the gap is less than the internal thread play.
Diekmeyer teaches a screwed connection (Fig. 4) for a filter (para. [0003]) in which a gap extends radially between the cylindrical internal surface and the cylindrical external surface (gap Sr2); and a radial height of the gap is less than an internal thread play (Sa) between the external threaded section and the internal threaded section (range of Sr2 includes values lower than values in range of Sa; paras. [0058] & [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Treyz’s apparatus such that the radial height of the gap is less than the internal thread play between the external threaded section and the internal threaded section, as taught by Diekmeyer, in order to prevent jamming or seizing (Diekmeyer; para. [0041]) and to better distribute loads to all thread flights (Diekmeyer; para. [0033], discussing the embodiment of Fig. 4 from para. [0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, a ratio of the axial length of the pilot to a radial height of the gap is greater than a ratio of the axial length of the attachment to an internal thread play between the external threaded section and the internal threaded section.
Regarding Independent Claim 19, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, a ratio of an axial length of the pilot to a radial height of the gap is greater than a ratio of an axial length of the attachment to an internal thread play between the external threaded section and the internal threaded section.
The closest prior art is Treyz, as discussed for claims 1 & 13 above, and Diekmeyer 20080089759. While Treyz necessarily includes a gap as claimed in claims 16 and 19 as well as internal thread play, Treyz is silent concerning the recited ratios. Diekmeyer teaches (Fig. 4) enlarging an axial clearance (Sa) to prevent jamming or seizing (para. [0041]). There is no consideration of this axial clearance (the internal thread play) as part of a ratio of an axial length of the attachment to the internal thread play relative to the ratio of the axial length of the pilot to the radial height of the gap in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights