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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected because the term of “flow-tight separate connecting element” and “separately formed connecting element” are interchangeably used. Please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–3, 6–8, 10–11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al., US 6,099,606 A (“Miller”).
Regarding claim 1:
Miller discloses that a round filter element (Miller’s cylindrical filter assembly as shown in Fig. 2, Miller Fig. 2, col. 2, ll. 9–10 and ll. 24–28) for filtration of a gaseous fluid (see Miller col. 1, ll. 5–9), the round filter element comprising:
a particle filter medium body (Miller’s primary filter element 20, Miller Fig. 2, col. 5, ll. 32–33) configured as a hollow body for particle filtration of the gaseous fluid (see Miller Fig. 2);
a gas filter medium body (Miller’s safety element 19, Miller Fig. 2, col. 7, ll. 9–11) configured as a hollow body for gas filtration (see Miller Fig. 2), wherein the gas filter medium body (19 of Miller) is separate from the particle filter medium body (20 of Miller) and is arranged concentrically to the particle filter medium body (See Miller Fig. 2); and
a flow-tight separate connecting element (Miller’s air flow tube 33, Miller Fig. 1, col. 6, ll. 4–7);
wherein the particle filter medium body (20 of Miller) and the gas filter medium body (19 of Miller) surround an inwardly positioned flow chamber (Miller’s interior volume 60, Miller Fig. 2, col. 7, ll. 22–25);
wherein the particle filter medium body (20 of Miller) comprises oppositely positioned end faces with an annular end disk (Miller’s end cap 27, Miller Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 51–54) and a closed end disk (Miller’s end cap 26, Miller Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 51–54), respectively, on the oppositely positioned end faces (see Miller Fig. 1);
wherein the gas filter medium body (19 of Miller) comprises oppositely positioned end faces with an oppositely positioned end faces with an annular end disk (Miller’s end cap 56, Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 17–18) and a closed end disk (Miller’s end cap 57, Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 17–18), respectively, on the oppositely positioned end faces (see Miller Fig. 1);
wherein the flow-tight separate connection element (33 of Miller) engages the annular end disk (26 of Miller) of the particle filter medium body (20 of Miller) and the annular end disk (56 of Miller) of the gas filter medium body (19 of Miller) to produce a flow-tight connection (Miller discloses that for the filter to properly function, region 35 need to be substantially compressed, Miller Fig. 1, col. 6, ll. 45–48); and
wherein the separately formed connecting element (33 of Miller) engages the annular end disk (26 of Miller) of the particle filter medium body (20 of Miller), which protrudes radially outwards (as shown in Miller Fig. 1) and is formed in a ring-shaped circumferential form (Miller’s element 33 is ring-shaped in compliance with the cylindrical filter, Miller Fig 1), and which encompasses the annular end disk of the gas filter medium body (as shown in Fig. 1 of Miller).
Regarding claim 2:
Miller discloses that the round filter element according to claim 1, wherein the flow-tight separate connection element (33 of Miller) comprises a section projecting (part pointed by label 33 in Miller Fig. 1) into an intermediate space disposed between the particle filter medium body and the gas filter medium body and contacts laterally at least one of the annular end disk of the particle filter medium body and the annular end disk of the gas filter medium body (part of Miller pointed by label 33 is in touch with Miller’s both end discs 26 and 56 as clearly shown in Fig. 1 of Miller).
Regarding claim 3:
Miller discloses that the round filter element according to claim 1, wherein the flow-tight separate connection element (33 of Miller) comprises a section (portion pointed by label 33 in Fig. 1 of Miller) facing away from the particle filter medium body (20 of Miller) and resting laterally on the annular disk of the gas filter medium body (portion pointed by label 33 is resting laterally on annular disk 56 of Miller’s filter 19, Miller Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6:
Miller discloses the round filter element according to claim 1, wherein the gas filter medium body or the particle filter medium body is a filter bellows (Miller discloses its filter media 24 could be pleated, Miller Fig. 1, col. 11, ll. 24–25).
Regarding claim 7:
Miller discloses that the round filter element according to claim 1, wherein the gas filter medium body is a filter bellows and the particle filter medium body is a filter bellows (Miller discloses both its filter media 24 and 54 could be pleated, Miller Fig. 1, col. 11, ll. 22–43).
Regarding claim 8:
Miller discloses the round filter element according to claim 1, further comprising a media layer (Miller’s outer and inner liners 22, 23, Miller Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 31–37) arranged at a wall side of the particle filter medium body or arranged at a wall side of the gas filter medium body.
Regarding claim 10:
Miller discloses the round filter element according to claim 8, wherein the media layer (23 of Miller) is arranged between the particle filter medium body (20 of Miller) and the gas filter medium body (19 of Miller, see Miller Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 11:
Miller discloses the round filter element according to claim 8, wherein the media layer (22 of Miller) is arranged at an outer side of the particle filter medium body (20 of Miller, See Fig. 1 of Miller) or arranged at an outer side of the gas filter medium body.
Regarding claim 14:
Miller discloses the a filter device comprising:
the round filter element according to claim 1 (see mapping in claim 1 above); and
a filter housing (Miller’s housing body 17 and cover 15, Miller Fig. 1, col. 6, ll. 16–20) configured to receive the round filter element (see Miller Fig. 1).
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Miller as applied to claim 1 as applied above, and in further view of Mori et al., US 2004/0262217 A1 (“Mori”).
Regarding claim 9:
Miller does not disclose the round filter element according to claim 8, wherein the media layer is a nonwoven layer.
In the analogous art of concentrically arranged gas filter elements, Mori discloses a pleated filter structure (Mori’s polyurethane foam 2a, Mori Fig. 3, [0031]). Mori discloses a media layer (Mori’s filtering medium layer 2b which is made of nonwoven, Mori Fig. 3, abstract and [0041]) disposed between Mori’s polyurethane foam layer 2a and active carbon-containing layer 3, Mori Fig. 3, Abstract. Mori discloses its fiber is needle-punched and electrostatically charged by a heat process, which significantly improved in efficiency of collecting fine particles, Mori [0041]–[0042]. Miller discloses its inner and outer liner are preferable be selected of materials appropriately perforated or otherwise made porous so as not to substantially interfere with airflow through the arrangement; and (b) be of appropriate structural rigidity and strength to contain the media construction and provide the arrangement with sufficient axial strength for the use intended and to protect the media construction from damage, Miller Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 32–50. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Miller to use Mori’s media layer 2b as its outliner material because Mori’s outliner material meets the structure requirement and it is electrostatically charged, which would facilitate removing fine particles.
Claims 12–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Miller as applied to claim 1 as applied above, and in further view of Reed et al., US 5,141,637 A (“Reed”).
Regarding claim 12:
Miller does not disclose that the round filter element according to claim 1, wherein the particle filter medium body or the gas filter medium body is comprised of at least two partial bodies joined to each other in axial direction.
In the analogous art of gas filters, Reed discloses a filter comprised of at least two partial bodies joined to each other in axial direction, Reed Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 24–35. Reed discloses its design reduces the number of different lengths of filter units that need to be manufactured and kept in inventory, Reed, col. 1, ll. 29–33. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Reed’s stacked design in Miller for the purpose of increasing filtration area and for the benefits disclosed above. With such modification, both of modified Miller’s the particle filter medium body 20 and the gas filter medium body 19 would be comprised of at least two partial bodies joined to each other in axial direction, and therefore read on the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 13:
Miller does not disclose that the round filter element according to claim 1, wherein the particle filter medium body and the gas filter medium body each are comprised of at least two partial bodies joined to each other in axial direction.
In the analogous art of gas filters, Reed discloses a filter comprised of at least two partial bodies joined to each other in axial direction, Reed Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 24–35. Reed discloses its design reduces the number of different lengths of filter units that need to be manufactured and kept in inventory, Reed, col. 1, ll. 29–33. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Reed’s stacked design in Miller for the purpose of increasing filtration area and for the benefits disclosed above. With such modification, both of modified Miller’s the particle filter medium body and the harmful gas filter medium body would be comprised of at least two partial bodies joined to each other in axial direction, and therefore read on the claimed limitation.
Claims 15–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Miller.
Regarding claim 15:
While Miller does not disclose that the filter device according to claim 14, configured for use in or at a fuel cell, such limitation is directed to intended use, and the claimed fuel cell is not part of the structure of a filter device and therefore are not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 16:
While Miller does not disclose the round filter element according to claim 1, wherein the gas filter medium is configured to adsorb harmful gas, and wherein the harmful gas includes one or more of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and ammonia, such limitation is directed to “material worked upon”, material worked upon are not part of the positively recited structure of the claimed filter element, and therefore, they are not given patentable weight, MPEP 2115.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4–5 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:
Miller is the closet prior art.
Regarding claim 4:
Miller does not disclose the round filter element according to claim 3, wherein the section of the flow-tight separate connection element is a carrier of a seal element for support at a housing part.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Miller for such limitation because none of the prior art teaches or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Regarding claim 5:
Miller discloses the round filter element according to claim 1, further comprising a support grid (Miller’s inner liner 23, Miller Fig. 1) of the gas filter medium body (20 of Miller) or arranged at a wall side of the particle filter medium body.
Miller does not disclose the flow-tight separate connection element (33 of Miller) is connected to the support grid.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Miller for such limitation because there is a lack of motivation for Miller’s part 33 to touch Miller’s inner liner 23, which could cause potential damage to the liner 23 or even to the filter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights