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 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 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salon et al (US PGPub 2017/0197160 A1) in view of Pfluger et al (DE 10 2015 008 693 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Salon teaches filter systems with closure elements [Abs] where the closure element (10) has a connection section (24) in the form of a fastener for attaching to a mounting position [0053, Fig. 3] as well as a closure section (12) as a valve body, where the closure section includes a sealing element (32), (34) for engaging with a surface (38). Salon essentially differs from the instant claims in that Salon is silent to the two sections having offset longitudinal axes relative to each other.
However, Pfluger teaches a similar design of filter system which includes a closure element (58) for a drainage opening arranged such that the axis of the closure element (32) extends eccentrically to the axes of the filter element (20) [Abs]. The arrangement allows the closure element to be rotated towards the drain opening without requiring rotation of the filter element and allows for asymmetrical elements [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Salon to feature a closure element which has at least one section with an offset longitudinal axis because, as in Pfluger, this facilitates eccentric alignment, allows for rotation into place, and simplifies the requirements of the filter itself.
With respect to claim 2, as above in view of Pfluger, facilitating a rotatable connection would have been obvious.
With respect to claims 8-10, the end segment of Salon features a connection element complementary to a housing or the like, as above, and features an actuation element such as a spring. Further, it includes spring rests (18) of increased cross section [Fig. 3]; further, some embodiments feature explicit changes in diameter for the entire segment [Fig. 6]. See further MPEP 2144.04 IV.A; changes in size and proportion are obvious engineering choices for one of ordinary skill in the art, and so selecting an appropriate cross-sectional size for various sections represent obvious changes for one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 11, as above Salon teaches a housing which cooperates with the closure element as discussed above; as above, in view of Pfluger it would have been obvious to design a set of offset axes between the connection and sealing sections, and as such it would have been obvious to design correspondingly offset axes in the housing that cooperates with it.
With respect to claim 12, Salon configures the closure element and housing connection in a manner in which the sealing portion faces the interior of the housing, and the connection portion faces the outer structure of the housing [Fig. 2].
With respect to claim 13, the closure element of Salon includes spring rests (18) of increased cross section [Fig. 3] and therefore necessitates an increased diameter section for connection; further, some embodiments feature explicit changes in diameter for the entire segment [Fig. 6]. See further MPEP 2144.04 IV.A; changes in size and proportion are obvious engineering choices for one of ordinary skill in the art, and so selecting an appropriate cross-sectional size for various sections represent obvious changes for one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, Salon teaches a drain section with walls (220) which cooperate with the connecting section, and which lies outside of the seal section [0044, Fig. 2], as cooperating detachable features.
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Salon teaches a filter element with an end plate (114) and an engagement portion (222) extending circumferentially from a stub (220) as a fastening portion for engaging with the closure element discussed above [0044, Fig. 2], connecting to a drainage region of the filter element. Providing offset axes to correspond to the offset axes of the modified closure element would have been obvious in view of Pfluger as discussed above.
With respect to claim 18, as above Salon teaches a housing to correspond with the closure element in a detachable manner to provide a seal which can be opened or closed e.g. based on filter insertion, and teaches a filter element which engages a sealing portion of the closure element and actuates it to allow drainage or the like.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, Salon teaches a filter element with an end plate (114) and an engagement portion (222) extending circumferentially from a stub (220) as a fastening portion for engaging with the closure element discussed above [0044, Fig. 2], connecting to a drainage region of the filter element. Providing offset axes to correspond to the offset axes of the modified closure element would have been obvious in view of Pfluger as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is represented by Salon and Pfluger as discussed above. However, they do not teach or fairly suggest providing a two-part sealing section with two different seals spaced axially apart from each other and staggered radially relative to each other. While Pfluger teaches general arrangements involving staggered longitudinal axes e.g. to stagger a closure element from the broader filter axis, there is no teaching or suggestion of providing multiple longitudinal axial alignments for multiple seals in a seal section. The prior art alone or in combination does not teach such an arrangement of multiple staggered seals of this type for closure elements in filter systems, and would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the invention of claims 3-7. As such, claims 3-7 are free from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights