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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9, 12, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carrion et al (US 20170144128; hereinafter Carrion).
As regarding claim 1, Carrion discloses the claimed invention for a round filter element ([0034]-[0037], [0049]-[0057]) for filtration of a gaseous fluid, the round filter element comprising: a particle filter medium body (100, 400) configured as a hollow body for particle filtration of the gaseous fluid; a noxious gas filter medium body (300) 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 (figs. 3B and 5A; no number); a first common end plate (1001) 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 (1002) 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; wherein the particle filter medium body is a filter bellows and wherein the noxious gas filter medium body is a filter bellows ([0004], [0007]).
As regarding claim 2, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention for at least one gas-permeable media layer (10, 20, 30, or 200) arranged at a wall side of the particle filter medium body or arranged at a wall side of the noxious gas filter medium body.
As regarding claim 3, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one gas-permeable media layer (200) is arranged between the particle filter medium body and the noxious gas filter medium body.
As regarding claim 5, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one gas-permeable media layer extends across at least half (figs. 4A-4B and 6A-6B) a height of the noxious gas filter medium body.
As regarding claim 6, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one gas-permeable media layer extends across at least two thirds (figs. 4A-4B and 6A-6B) of the height of the noxious gas filter medium body.
As regarding claim 9, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention for a gas-permeable support element (10, 20, 30) arranged at a wall side of the particle filter medium body or arranged at a wall side of the noxious gas filter medium body.
As regarding claim 12, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention for 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 (fig. 1).
As regarding claim 16, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention for wherein 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 (fig. 1).
As regarding claim 19, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention for the filter device comprising: a round filter element; and an openable filter housing configured to receive the round filter element (figs. 1, 6A-6B, and 7).
As regarding claim 20, the phrase of “configured for use in a fuel cell” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunsinger (US 20090230052).
As regarding claim 1, Hunsinger discloses the claimed invention for a round filter element ([0005], [0019]-[0023]) for filtration of a gaseous fluid, the round filter element comprising: a particle filter medium body (110, 112) configured as a hollow body for particle filtration of the gaseous fluid; a noxious gas filter medium body (120) 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 (figs. 1-2; no number); a first common end plate (106) 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 (106) 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; wherein the particle filter medium body is a filter bellows and wherein the noxious gas filter medium body is a filter bellows ([0020], [0022]).
As regarding claim 2, Hunsinger discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Hunsinger discloses the claimed invention for at least one gas-permeable media layer (102, 104, 114) arranged at a wall side of the particle filter medium body or arranged at a wall side of the noxious gas filter medium body.
As regarding claim 3, Hunsinger discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Hunsinger discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one gas-permeable media layer (114) is arranged between the particle filter medium body and the noxious gas filter medium body.
As regarding claim 4, Hunsinger discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Hunsinger discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one gas-permeable media layer (102) is arranged at an outflow side of the noxious gas filter medium body.
As regarding claim 5, Hunsinger discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Hunsinger discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one gas-permeable media layer extends across at least half (figs. 1-2) a height of the noxious gas filter medium body. Alternatively, since the instant specification is silent to critical and unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to provide the at least one gas-permeable media layer extends across at least half a height of the noxious gas filter medium body in order to enhance filter element performance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (or dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As regarding claim 7, Hunsinger discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Hunsinger discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one gas-permeable media layer includes a first media layer (114) arranged between the particle filter medium body and the noxious gas filter medium body and further includes a second media layer (102) arranged at an outflow side of the noxious gas filter medium body.
As regarding claim 8, Hunsinger discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Hunsinger discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first media layer (114) comprises a first degree of separation and the second media layer (102) comprises a second degree of separation, wherein the first degree of separation is lower than the second degree of separation.
Examiner notes that the term ‘degree of separation’ would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as referring to the particle separation efficiency (filtration efficiency) of the respective filter media. In the field of filtration, “degree of separation” is a well-recognized performance characteristic indicating the proportion of particles removed by a filter medium under specified test conditions. Thus, the recited limitation merely defines a relative filtration performance of the two media layers. The prior art discloses a first filter media layer and a second filter media layer having different filtration efficiencies, wherein the upstream layer is coarser and the downstream layer is finer. A coarser filter medium inherently has a lower particle separation efficiency than a finer filter medium. Accordingly, the prior art teaches of inherently possesses a first media layer having a lower degree of separation than the second media layer.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrion et al (US 20170144128; hereinafter Carrion).
As regarding claim 10, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention for wherein the particle filter medium body is arranged downstream of the noxious gas filter medium body in a flow direction of the gaseous fluid (fig. 6A), wherein the gas-permeable support element (10, 20, 30) is arranged at the wall side of the particle filter medium body, and wherein the wall side of the particle filter medium body is an outflow side ([0061]).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the wall side of the particle filter medium body is an outflow side in order to enhance filter element efficiency, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As regarding claim 11, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention for wherein the noxious gas filter medium body is arranged downstream of the particle filter medium body in a flow direction of the gaseous fluid (fig. 6A), wherein the gas-permeable support element is arranged at the wall side of the noxious gas filter medium body, and wherein the wall side of the noxious gas filter medium body is an outflow side.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the wall side of the noxious gas filter medium body is an outflow side in order to enhance filter element efficiency, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As regarding claim 13, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention except for at least one gas-permeable media layer arranged at the wall side of the particle filter medium body or arranged at the wall side of the noxious gas filter medium body, wherein the at least one gas-permeable media layer is fixedly connected to the gas-permeable support element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide at least one gas-permeable media layer arranged at the wall side of the particle filter medium body or arranged at the wall side of the noxious gas filter medium body, wherein the at least one gas-permeable media layer is fixedly connected to the gas-permeable support element in order to enhance filter element performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As regarding claim 17, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention for wherein 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 (fig. 1). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein 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 in order to enhance filter element performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrion et al (US 20170144128; hereinafter Carrion), as applied supra, and further in view of Unger et al (US 20160067648; hereinafter Unger).
As regarding claim 14, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention except for a seal carrier, wherein the gas-permeable support element is connected to the seal carrier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention was made to provide a seal carrier, wherein the gas-permeable support element is connected to the seal carrier in order to provide sealing element, since it was known in the art as shown in Unger ([0020], [0040], [0060]-[0069]).
As regarding claim 15, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the gas-permeable support element and the seal carrier are configured together as one piece. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the gas-permeable support element and the seal carrier are configured together as one piece in order to ease of manufacturing, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Claim 18 is likewise rejected with similar reasons set forth with respect to claim 14 above.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrion et al (US 20170144128; hereinafter Carrion), as applied supra, and further in view of Traver (US 20030096152).
As regarding claim 20, Carrion discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Carrion discloses the claimed invention except for configured for use in a fuel cell. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide configured for use in a fuel cell in order to enhance filtration device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Traver (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights