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 § 102/103
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 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 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, 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by Titel et al (US PGPub 2020/0289961 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Titel et al in view of Shelnutt et al (US 9,795,065 B2).
Examiner notes that intended use language in apparatus claims is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (MPEP 2114.II). Whether a filtration assembly is employed for use with a liquid cooling system is directed to the intended use and does not distinguish structurally absent clarification of the required limitations.
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 15, Titel teaches a filtration assembly as well as a method of using such an assembly which includes an inlet (101), filtered fluid outlet (103), drain outlets (105), and first and second flow paths which include first and second filters (107), (114), first and second entry valves (109), (116), first and second exit valves (113), (120), and a controller (122). The filters may be canister filters [0055]. Titel teaches that the system and method of use generally employ a differential pressure sensor to measure pressure differential across the filters and, at a given time, trigger a change in the state of the filter i.e. cease filtration and initiate a purge [0051]. Further, at least in some cases, this includes shutting the entry and exit valves e.g. to allow servicing when conditions indicate this may be required [0069-0070].
As above, Titel refers collectively to system elements as a differential pressure sensor which is consistent with the claim limitations; given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the system and process of use of Titel may be considered as anticipating the claimed invention.
However, Titel does teach that this differential pressure sensor may be implemented in specific embodiments using upstream and downstream sensors (126), (127) [0066-0067] to provide signals to the controller to generate a differential pressure value. If this is not considered sufficient to anticipate a differential pressure sensor within the meaning of the instant claimed invention, then alternatively see Shelnutt, which teaches liquid cooling systems [Abs] with filter elements therein, and teaches that a differential pressure sensor (376) may be provided to measure a pressure drop across filters to indicate a clog [Col. 15 lines 25-31]. See MPEP 2143 I.B; a simple substitution of one known pressure differential measuring system for another, i.e. a differential sensor vs. a set of sensors providing a differential measurement, both known to be useful for the same purpose i.e. for indicating a filter performance in a liquid system, represents an obvious engineering choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. If the components taught by Titel are not themselves sufficient to represent a differential pressure sensor then, at minimum, the use of such a sensor would have been an obvious substitution for achieving the same purpose which is known in the art as in Shelnutt.
PNG
media_image1.png
654
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 3 and 4, as above the flow lines include drain ports and associated valves.
With respect to claim 5, as above, the flow lines include third valves downstream of the filters i.e. the exit valves as discussed above.
With respect to claim 6, the system may have a control panel from which the user may direct system operations e.g. by defining setpoints or activation times [0051], including conditions which trigger shutting of all valves for servicing or the like [0069].
With respect to claim 8, Titel teaches that the user interface may have lights to indicate status, including e.g. a green light to indicate that the system is operational and running. This would indicate that the relevant valves are open (e.g. during a normal filtration mode) or, alternatively, would render obvious the use of an indicator that the system is in a particular operational state such as normal filtration, purging, etc.
With respect to claim 9, Titel illustrates embodiments using a common set of sensors for both lines, but teaches that the system may alternatively use separate sets of sensors for each of the filter flow paths such that the use of separate first and second differential pressure sensors is taught or at minimum obvious (alone or in view of Shelnutt, as discussed above) [0066].
With respect to claim 12, as above Titel teaches that the system may trigger a servicing state under certain conditions in which entry and exit valves are closed (as well as drain valves).
Claims 2, 7, 10, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titel et al (or Titel et al in view of Shelnutt et al) in view of Merket (US 4,556,486 A).
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 18, Titel teaches as above but is silent to the presence of bleed valves on the lines e.g. on the first and second filters.
However, Merket teaches water circulation systems which include sets of filters in parallel [Abs] and teaches providing vents on the filter units which allow for pressure equalization with the atmosphere during draining and washing and the like but which may be sealed during normal use [Col. 6 lines 14-31], and further to facilitate purging of air when refilling the system to initiate filtration after servicing or the like [Col. 7 lines 18-25]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide vent or bleed valves on the filters and related flow paths of the system of Titel for the same purpose i.e. to allow for equalization and purging during relevant filling and draining operations.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Titel teaches that the operation of a filter after servicing can be re-initiated by a user indicating the appropriate state on a control panel [0071] which would satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of an integration signal. Titel is silent to an operation of bleeding from the line e.g. by opening the entry valve and a bleed valve but leaving the exit valve closed until a time has elapsed.
However, as discussed above, Merket teaches similar units containing filters in parallel, in which filters may be taken offline for servicing, and teaches that upon restarting, the filters may be purged by opening the inlet to a partial degree, purging air by filling the filter, and then only after purging will the exit valves be opened to allow normal flow [Col. 7 lines 18-25]. It would have been obvious to implement a similar set of operations in the system of Titel to allow for purging of air when bringing a filter back online, as in Merket.
Claims 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titel et al (or Titel et al in view of Shelnutt et al) in view of Rejniak et al (US PGPub 2017/0284115 A1).
With respect to claims 13 and 16, Titel teaches as above that the system may have a user interface with user defined parameters for operational states and, further, that the system may initiate a service state i.e. with all valves shut based on particular conditions. Titel is silent to the use of a particular button on the interface to initiate the service state.
However, Rejniak teaches a self-cleaning filter system [Abs] which has a user control panel, and teaches that while the system may automatically initiate various operational states such as a cleaning cycle, such states can also be manually initiated by a user on the control panel via a suitable button or equivalent interface [0059]. Further, the system may include various indicator lights which match the system status e.g. indicating a started cleaning cycle, indicating required service, etc. [0060, Fig. 10A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interface taught by Titel to include features as described by Rejniak including the ability to manually initiate certain functions, and specific indicator lights for particular states e.g. cleaning, pump state, and the like, in order to gain the benefit of providing more robust user control of the system and providing more detailed information to the user.
With respect to claim 20, Titel provides a user interface as part of the controller structure, which is secured via a frame to one of the filters (whether a filter is a first or second filter is an arbitrary distinction at least within the context of the system of Titel) [Fig. 6]; or, at minimum, the structure taught by Titel renders such a configuration obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titel et al (or Titel et al in view of Shelnutt et al) in view of Rejniak et al, further in view of Merket.
See the rejections of claims 8 and 16 above. In view of Rejniak, providing an interface with specific controls to initiate specific cycles such as system restart after servicing, and providing suitable visual indicator to indicate specific states (e.g. starting, operational, cleaning, etc.) would have been obvious. And in view of Merket, providing an air purge during the start, in which an exit valve is closed but an entry valve is open at least partially, and air is pushed out through a purge valve, would have been obvious to drive air out of the system upon refilling.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titel et al (or Titel et al in view of Shelnutt et al) in view of Rejniak et al, further in view of Choi (US PGPub 2020/0208333 A1).
Titel teaches as above, including canister filters, but does not specify the use of a clamp or related structural details.
However, Choi teaches a reusable filter canister and housing for treatment systems [Abs] and teaches that the filter, frame, and cover may be secured together via a clamp which holds the filter tightly in place for use but allows removal for cleaning and replacement [0009].
Because Titel does not particularly limit the details of the filter, it would have been obvious to look to the art for useful details and to employ features such as the clamps taught by Choi to secure the filter element to a frame or housing in a manner that allows for it to be secured in use but easily removed for maintenance, as in Choi.
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