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 § 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) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carrion (US20170144128A1).
Claim 1: Carrion teaches a round filter element for filtration of a gaseous fluid (Figure 1 shows a round filter element and [0007] teaches this is removing contaminants from process air.), the round filter element comprising: a particle filter medium body configured as a hollow body for particle filtration of the gaseous fluid; a noxious gas filter medium body configured as a hollow body for noxious gas filtration, wherein the noxious gas filter medium body is separate from the particle filter medium body and is arranged concentrically in relation to the particle filter medium body; wherein the particle filter medium body and the noxious gas filter medium body surround an inwardly positioned flow chamber (The figures show there are multiple different filters in concentric orientation. Figure 5a shows there is 100, 200, 300, and 400. These are all concentric to each other and therefore they would read upon these limitations. The limitation of the filter being configured for specific usage is considered to be intended usage. [0028]-[0030] teaches that the filters can be for particle and vapor. [0028] teaches the use of HEPA and ULPA filters. [0044]-[0046] teaches that the filter 300 can contain activated carbon, zeolites, and/or activated alumina. This would read upon a noxious gas filter.); a first common end plate flow-tightly covering a first end face of the particle filter medium body and a first end face of the noxious gas filter medium body; a second common end plate flow-tightly covering a second end face of the particle filter medium body and a second end face of the noxious gas filter medium body ([0034] and figure 1 teaches there is a first endcap 1001 and second endcap 1002 which are bonded to the bottom end 501 and top end 502 of the filter unit 500.); a gas-permeable support element arranged at a wall side of the particle filter medium body or at a wall side of the noxious gas filter medium body; wherein the gas-permeable support element projects into a material of at least one of the first and second common end plates and is fixedly connected to the at least one of the first and second common end plates ([0061] and figure 1 teaches there are support sections 10, 20, and 30. These are taught to be perforated media or mesh which would be gas permeable. It also teaches that they are bonded to the endcaps. The figures show that the endcaps have an overhang which comes up the outside of the support.).
Claim 2: Carrion teaches the gas-permeable support element projects into the material of the first common end plate and into the material of the second common end plate and is fixedly connected to the first common end plate and to the second common end plate ([0061] teaches they are bonded into both endcaps.).
Claim 3: Carrion teaches the first common end plate and the second common end plate each are a cast component, wherein sections of the gas-permeable support element are enclosed in the material of the first common end plate and in the material of the second common end plate ([0057] teaches that the endcaps can be bonded to the filter unit, and that the bonding material can be a phenolic resin.).
Claim 4: Carrion teaches the at least one of the first and second common end plates to which the gas-permeable support element is fixedly connected is a cast component, wherein a section of the gas-permeable support element is enclosed in the material of the at least one of the first and second common end plates ([0057] teaches that the endcaps can be bonded to the filter unit, and that the bonding material can be a phenolic resin.).
Claim 6: Carrion teaches the particle filter medium body is inwardly arranged and immediately adjoins the inwardly positioned flow chamber, and wherein the noxious gas filter medium body is positioned outwardly and surrounds the inwardly positioned particle filter medium body (Figure 5a teaches the particle filter medium 400 and the noxious gas filter can be 200, 300, or 100.).
Claim 7: Carrion teaches the particle filter medium body is a filter bellows or wherein the noxious gas filter medium body is a filter bellows (See the pleated filters in the figures.).
Claim 9: Carrion teaches at least one gas-permeable media layer arranged at the particle filter medium body or at the noxious gas filter medium body (Figure 5a shows the support outside of the pleated filter.).
Claim 10: Carrion teaches the at least one gas-permeable media layer is arranged between the particle filter medium body and the noxious gas filter medium body (Figure 1 shows that the support 20 is between the filter 100 and 200/300.).
Claim 11: Carrion teaches the at least one gas-permeable media layer is arranged at a clean side of the noxious gas filter medium body (The fluid flows out from the middle as indicated by the arrow 602. The support 30 can be seen to be past the outlet of the gas filer, which would be the clean side of the filter.).
Claim 12: Carrion teaches a seal carrier, wherein the gas-permeable support element is connected to the seal carrier (Figure 1 shows that the end cap has another section 1001A. This would read upon a seal carrier.).
Claim 13: Carrion teaches the gas-permeable support element and the seal carrier are configured together as one piece ([0061] teaches that each of the parts are bonded and therefore read upon the limitation.).
Claim 16: Carrion teaches a round filter element according to claim 1; and an openable filter housing configured to receive the round filter element (Figure 6a and 6b show the housing configured to receive the filter 1000.).
Claim 17: The limitation of “for use in a fuel cell” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrion in view of Engel (US4720292).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrion in view of Tschantz (US20040099253A1).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrion in view of Craig (US4634458).
Rejection in view of Carrion and Engel
Claim 5: Carrion does not explicitly teach support legs, wherein the support legs are arranged at and laterally project away from the first common end plate, or wherein the support legs are arranged at and laterally project away from the second common end plate. Carrion teaches in figure 6a the filter being inserted into a housing.
Engel teaches a round air filter in figures 1-2. Claim 2 teaches that the end cap has a plurality of projections that extend away in order to help with engaging with the housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have support legs or projections as taught by Engel in the device of Carrion as Engel teaches the benefit of being able to help align the filter when it is inside the housing.
Rejection in view of Carrion and Tschantz
Claim 8: Carrion teaches the particle filter medium body is a filter bellows (See the pleated filters in the figures. This corresponds to the HEPA and ULPA filters.) Carrion does not explicitly state the noxious gas filter medium body is a filter bellows. Carrion teaches in [0045] that the noxious gas filter can be any suitable configuration known in the art. Tschantz teaches in [0007] that existing adsorbent technologies include activated carbon with pleated beds for reducing emission. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a filter bellows for the noxious gas filter medium body of Carrion as Tschantz teaches that pleated carbon filters are known in the art and Carrion teaches that any suitable filter configuration can be used.
Rejection in view of Carrion and Craig
Claim 14: Carrion does not explicitly state at least one of the particle filter medium body and the noxious gas filter medium body is a multi-part filter medium body comprising at least two partial bodies connected to each other at axial end faces thereof. Craig teaches a double filter for gas that contains three filters linked together to form concentric filters (Figures 3 and 6 show the concentric filters 60 and 62 each having three partial bodies attached together.). Craig teaches in column 6 lines 59-68 that having the partial filters would allow for the filter to be serviced without adversely affecting efficient operation of the filter when reused. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to a multipart filter medium body as taught by Craig in the device of Carrion as Craig teaches the benefits of being able to remove parts to clean and service without affecting the operation of the filter.
Claim 15: Craig teaches a seal carrier, wherein the multi-part filter medium body is outwardly positioned, wherein the seal carrier is provided between the at least two partial bodies (Figure 3 shows the seal carriers and seals 64 that are between the filter bodies.).
Carrion and Craig do not explicitly teach that the seal carrier projects radially outwardly past the at least two partial bodies, wherein the seal carrier carries a seal element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the seal carrier in a desired location along with the seal depending on the placement of the device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20200197842, 20160296867, 20160115917, 20100263339, 20100146917, 6152996, 5772738.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 06/22/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights