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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 2179997641U), in view of Voigt (CN 108601998A).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a filter element for liquid filtration, comprising:
a ring filter medium (1), and a first end cap (2) and a second end cap (not shown in fig. 1 but it is implied that other end of the ring filter (1) is connected to a second end cap) connected to the ring filter medium, wherein the ring filter medium has a central cavity formed around a central axis thereof (refer central pipe 10 provided in the cavity); and
a ventilation assembly disposed in the central cavity and having a first ventilation hole (ventilation hole 7 is in communication with permeate) communicated to an exhaust pipeline from a clean side and a second ventilation hole (ventilation hole 5 is in communication with feed/retentate) communicated to the exhaust pipeline from a non-clean side.
Huang does not teach that the filter element comprises a ring seal comprising a first sealing portion and a second sealing portion which are hermetically connected to the second end cap and a housing assembly respectively, wherein an intercepting ring groove is formed at a joint between the first sealing portion and the second sealing portion.
Voigt teaches a filter element for liquid filtration (refer abstract), the filter element comprises a ring seal (54) comprising a first sealing portion and a second sealing portion (refer sealing inner and outer sealing lips 56 and 58) which are hermetically connected to the second end cap (50) and a housing assembly (refer portion 34 of housing assembly 12) respectively, wherein an intercepting ring groove is formed at a joint between the first sealing portion and the second sealing portion (refer fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the filter element of Huang to include a ring seal comprising a first sealing portion and a second sealing portion which are hermetically connected to the second end cap and a housing assembly respectively, wherein an intercepting ring groove is formed at a joint between the first sealing portion and the second sealing portion to improve sealing performance as taught by Voigt.
Regarding claim 2, modified Huang teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Huang discloses a filter element where a portion of the ventilation assembly is formed integral with first end cap. Refer end cap 2 having a tubular sleeve 2-1 extending upward and downward, wherein the downward extension is connected to an exhaust pipe 9. Refer In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.". Selecting whether to provide ventilation assembly as integral part of end cap or a separate assembly would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, modified Huang teaches limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Huang discloses that the first ventilation hole is formed in the tubular body (refer hole 7 in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Huang teaches limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Huang discloses that wherein a ventilation channel is formed at a joint between the tubular body and the connector (refer volume between holes 7 and 5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Huang teaches limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Huang discloses that the second ventilation hole (5) is formed in a cap (4) attached to the first end cap (2) (Refer fig. 1). Refer In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. Selecting whether to provide the second ventilation hole formed in the cap of Huang would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, modified Huang teaches limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Huang discloses that a middle of the first end cap axially protrudes outward to form an annular protrusion, the connector is hermetically connected to an inner wall of the annular protrusion, and the second ventilation hole is formed in the connector (refer connector 4 provided on axial protrusion from the first end cap 2 having second ventilation hole 5).
Regarding claim 7, modified Huang teaches limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Huang discloses a middle of the first end cap axially protrudes outward to form an annular protrusion, an inner sidewall of the annular protrusion axially extends inward to form a closed end, and the second ventilation hole is formed in the closed end (refer end cap 2 having annular protrusion forming the second ventilation hole 5).
Regarding claims 10-16, modified Huang teaches limitations of claims 1-7 as set forth above. Huang discloses a central tube 9 in communication with the ventilation assembly (refer fig. 1). Voigt discloses a housing 12 for filter element that is in communication with exhaust pipe (refer fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 2179997641U), in view of Voigt (CN 108601998A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Song (CN105089887A, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claim 8, modified Huang teaches limitations of claim 2 as set forth above. Huang further teaches a central tube 10 provided for collection of filtered liquid, around which filter medium is placed. Modified Huang does not teach that a flow guide plate distributed in a spiral shape is disposed on a peripheral edge of the central tube.
Song teaches a liquid filter comprising a membrane filter surrounding a core having spiral flow channel to enhance filtering effect (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the filter device of modified Huang to provide a flow guide plate distributed in a spiral shape is disposed on a peripheral edge of the central tube to improve filtering effect as taught by Song.
Regarding claim 17, modified Huang teaches limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Huang discloses a central tube 9 in communication with the ventilation assembly (refer fig. 1). Voigt discloses a housing 12 for filter element that is in communication with exhaust pipe (refer fig. 1).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 2179997641U), in view of Voigt (CN 108601998A), and Song (CN105089887A, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Merritt et al. (US 2021/0129056A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Huang teaches limitations of claim 8 as set forth above. Huang further teaches a buckle disposed on an end surface of the first end cap (refer raised portion near edges of the end plate 2). Hung does not disclose whether the buckle comprises threaded connection. However, providing threaded connection to join parts of a filter device is known in the art and disclosed by Merritt (refer fig. 2, [0009], [0013], [0030]). Providing a known type of threaded connection in the filter device of modified Huang would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include and apply here are: Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, modified Huang teaches limitations of claim 9 as set forth above. Huang discloses a central tube 9 in communication with the ventilation assembly (refer fig. 1). Voigt discloses a housing 12 for filter element that is in communication with exhaust pipe (refer fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights