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 Status
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 are pending:
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 are rejected.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed 09/09/2026 have been entered. Amendments to the claims overcome §102 rejections but not §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed on 06/16/2026.
Amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection under §103 using prior art of record and under §112.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 09/09/2026 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pgs. 5-6 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
Harms
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. @ 102 as being anticipated by Harms (US 4,559,138). To the extent this rejection may apply to the claims as amended, the rejection is respectfully traversed.
In the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that Harms discloses the entirety of claim 1. Specifically, Harms includes a hollow cylindrical filter containing several filter cartridges that each have a plastic perforated central tube wrapped in a filter medium. Each of the cartridges is arranged end to end with an open end at one end of the assembly. The filter medium surrounding the plastic perforated central tube is a fabric while the plastic perforated central tube is made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which notably has a temperature rating between 100- 1400F depending on operating pressure.
As mentioned above, claim 1 is amended to more clearly specify the material of each strainer module, the high temperature capabilities of the system, and that the strainer modules are additively manufactured. Specifically, claim 1 is amended to include that the polymer is a thermoplastic material such as polypropylene (PP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) or carbon-fiber (CF) reinforced thermoplastic filament, the basket strainer may reach up to 1 940F, and is produced via additive manufacturing.
As stated in MPEP 2131, "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). As Harms does not include the materials required by the amended claims at temperatures as high as 194°F and likewise is entirely silent to using additive manufacturing, Harms does not anticipate the amended claims. Thus, withdrawal of the present rejection is hereby respectfully requested.
This argument is persuasive in light of amendments therefore the previous §102 rejection has been withdrawn.
On pgs. 6-9 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Harms, Rodriguez
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harms in view of Rodriguez (CA 3106194). To the extent this rejection may apply to the claims as amended, the rejection is respectfully traversed.
As mentioned above, claim 1 was amended to include a specified list of materials, a higher temperature rating, and that the basket strainer is produced via additive manufacturing. The feature of the basket strainer being additively manufactured is incorporated from originally filed claim 10. The Examiner relies on Harms for the features of independent claim 1 and cites Rodriguez as providing a 3D printed filter. Rodriguez teaches 3D printed staged filtration media packs, though the materials discussed include PLA, co-polyesters, ABS, PE, Nylon, and PU. While the filter is clearly 3D printed in Rodriguez, the materials are different than those required by amended claim 1, and a maximum operating temperature is not disclosed.
In addition to Harms not mentioning additive manufacturing whatsoever, Applicant respectfully asserts that additive manufacturing cannot be applied to Harms' teachings for at least the following reasons. It is known in the art that PVC is not generally a material used for additive manufacturing due to off-gassing concerns. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to apply the additive manufacturing process from Rodriguez to Harms, as it would likely result in increased off-gassing in the production of the filter from Harms compared to the existing manufacturing process, which would be undesirable and unsafe. As such, the combination here exists a lack of motivation to combine the references in the manner proposed by the Examiner. Thus, Applicant submits that amended claim 1, which includes the subject matter of originally-filed claim 10, is patentable over Harms in view of Rodriguez. Withdrawal of the present rejection is hereby respectfully requested.
Harms, Friedmann
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harms in view of Friedmann (US 5,342,519). To the extent this rejection may apply to the claims as amended, the rejection is respectfully traversed.
For at least the reasons described above, Harms is unable to provide the features of amended claim 1, from which claims 4 and 7 depend. Friedmann teaches a fluid filter cartridge, though is primarily cited to provide for the internally threaded protrusion discussed in claims 4 and 7. Friedmann does not discuss a specific material, an operating temperature, or an additively manufactured filter. Thus, Applicant submits that amended claim 1, from which claims 4 and 7 depend, is patentable over Harms in view of Friedmann. Withdrawal of the present rejection is hereby respectfully requested.
Harms, Parent
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harms in view of Parent (US 2016/0121247). To the extent this rejection may apply to the claims as amended, the rejection is respectfully traversed.
For at least the reasons described above, Harms is unable to provide the features of amended claim 1, from which claim 11 depends. Parent teaches a leaf filter for alumina production. Parent uses PA2200 to construct the filter, though the materials, operating temperature, and additive manufacturing required by amended claim 1 are not mentioned. Thus, Applicant submits that amended claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, is patentable over Harms in view of Parent. Withdrawal of the present rejection is hereby respectfully requested.
Harms, Keith
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harms in view of Keith (US 6,706,174). To the extent this rejection may apply to the claims as amended, the rejection is respectfully traversed.
For at least the reasons described above, Harms is unable to provide the features of amended claim 1, from which claim 12 depends. Keith discloses a hot tub filter assembly using filter baskets at the heights required in claim 12. Keith uses a non-woven synthetic fabric rather than a material included in the list required by amended claim 1, and is silent to a maximum operating temperature or additive manufacturing, though a person of ordinary skill in the art can assume that the operating temperature would fall closer to that of a hot tub, below 110 F. Thus, Applicant submits that amended claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, is patentable over Harms in view of Keith. Withdrawal of the present rejection is hereby respectfully requested.
Harms, Vijlee
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Harms in view of Vijlee (US 5,891,336). To the extent this rejection may apply to the claims as amended, the rejection is respectfully traversed.
For at least the reasons described above, Harms is unable to provide the features of amended claim 1, from which claims 13 and 15 depend. Vijlee teaches a roller threaded filter bowl constructed of steel. Though a steel filter would likely be able to withstand high temperatures, the material is clearly different than those required by amended claim 1 and would not be additively manufactured. Thus, Applicant submits that amended claim 1, from which claims 13 and 15 depend, is patentable over Harms in view of Vijlee. Withdrawal of the present rejection is hereby respectfully requested.
This argument is not persuasive because the invention of claimed 1 is rendered obvious over the combination of Harms, Parent and Rodrigeuz. Applicant arguments against the references individually, however one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Harms (as modified by Parent) yields a filter module made of polypropylene, therefore Modified Harms which is the combination of Harms and Parent and further modified by Rodriguez yields a polypropylene filter module having a 3D printed structure. Rodriguez teaches that various plastics can be used such as nylon, PLA, co-polyester, ABS, PE but not limited to which means that Rodriguez contemplates that other types of plastics or polymers are also desirable therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have envisaged other well-known and conventional material suitable to produce a 3D filter structure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to “…a maximum operating temperature or additive manufacturing, though a person of ordinary skill in the art can assume that the operating temperature would fall closer to that of a hot tub, below 110 F” are not persuasive because arguments are not commensurate in scope. The claim does not require a specific operating temperature; the claim requires that the filter module material be constructed or configured such that “the stainer modules is capable of withstanding temperatures up to 194°F”. Parent teaches that the polymer material can be polypropylene and by evidence of Palmetto Industries; Palmetto Industries discloses that polypropylene has a melting point of 320°F and therefore would be capable of withstanding temperatures up to 194°F.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein each of the stainer modules is capable of withstanding temperatures up to 194°F”; the terms “withstanding” and “up to 194°F” are ambiguous and unclear thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. It is unclear if “up to” includes or excludes 194°F? It is unclear what the term “withstanding” means? Does this mean that the module merely survives without melting, or does it mean it must fully operate normally at that temperature? Applicant should clarify if “withstanding” means maintaining structural integrity or maintaining complete operational functionality.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms (USPN 4,559,138) in view of Parent (US US 2016/0121247) and further in view of Rodriguez (CA 3 106 194).
Regarding claim 1, Harms teaches a basket strainer (filter cartridge and connection, see ABS, Figs. 1-2 and 10) for removing solid particles from liquids, comprising:
strainer modules (cylindrical filter cartridges 20);
wherein each of the strainer modules is hollow and porous (a hollow cylindrical radially pleated filter medium, such as of a porous fabric sheet material, see C1/L15-25) ;
wherein each of the strainer modules is made of a polymer (the cartridge 20 includes nipples 40, porous pleated sheet 24, plastic tube 22 and end discs 30 which are all made of plastic, see C1/L15-25, C1/L48-60, C3/L25-30, C5/L30-40 and claim 6).
Fig. 10 of Harms shows “a first strainer module comprising a first main body, a first end, and a second end; a second strainer module comprising a second main body, a third end, and a fourth end; and a third strainer module comprising a third main body, a fifth end, and a sixth end; wherein the first strainer module is connected to the second strainer module at the second end of the first strainer module and the third end of the second strainer module; wherein the second strainer module is connected to the third strainer module at the fourth end of the second strainer module and the fifth end of the third strainer module”.
Annotated Fig. 10
PNG
media_image1.png
623
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Harms does not teach that the material is selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyether ether ketone, and carbon-fiber reinforced thermoplastic filament; wherein each of the stainer modules is capable of withstanding temperatures up to 194°F and is produced via additive manufacturing.
In a related field of endeavor, Parent teaches a closure for leaf filter (see ABS) comprising a polymer that is polypropylene (see ¶41). The polypropylene polymer material of Parent is inherently capable of withstanding temperatures up to 194°F, by evidence of Palmetto Industries; Palmetto Industries discloses that polypropylene has a melting point of 320°F and therefore would be capable of withstanding temperatures up to 194°F. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to the replace the filter polymer material of Harms with the polymer of polypropylene material of Parent because it is the simple substitution of one known polymer material means with another known polypropylene material means because it has the benefit of being resilient, anti-scaling and process-resistant (Parents, see ¶8 and ¶41).
In a related field of endeavor, Rodriguez teaches 3D printed staged filtration media packs (see ABS) comprising strainer modules is produced via additive manufacturing (media pack made from additive manufacturing process, see pg. 3, lines 25-29).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the strainer modules of Harms (as modified by Parent) to be produced via additive manufacturing process as disclosed by Rodriguez because it is applying a known manufacturing technique to a known filtration configuration for the benefit of a 3D printed design and allowing complex geometry to be used in the filter (Rodriguez, see pg. 1, lines 10-11).
Claim 1 is considered product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 1, wherein the first end of the first strainer module comprises an end cap (i.e. end disc 30).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 1, wherein the first strainer module further comprises an internally threaded protrusion (internally threaded socket 32) extending away from the second end of the first strainer module (see Figs. 1-2). With respect to the limitation, “extending away”, the end disc 30, as shown in Figs. 1-2, extends away from the cartridge 20 and the internal threaded socket 32 formed within end disc 30 therefore the internal threaded socket 32 extends away from the cartridge 20.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 1, wherein the second strainer module further comprises an externally threaded protrusion (outwardly threaded plastic nipple 40) extending away from the third end of the second strainer module (see Figs. 1-2). With respect to the limitation, “extending away”, the outwardly threaded nipple 40, as shown in Figs. 1-2, extends away from the cartridge 20 in order to connect to an adjacent/second strainer.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 1, wherein the second strainer module further comprises an internally threaded protrusion (internally threaded socket 32) extending away from the fourth end of the second strainer module (see Figs. 1-2). With respect to the limitation, “extending away”, the end disc 30, as shown in Figs. 1-2, extends away from the cartridge 20 and the internal threaded socket 32 formed within end disc 30 therefore the internal threaded socket 32 extends away from the cartridge 20.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 1, wherein an externally threaded protrusion (outwardly threaded plastic nipple 40) extends from the fifth end of the third strainer module (see Figs. 1-2). With respect to the limitation, “extending away”, the outwardly threaded nipple 40, as shown in Figs. 1-2, extends away from the cartridge 20 in order to connect to an adjacent/third strainer.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 1, wherein the sixth end of the third strainer module is open (see annotated Fig. 10 above).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 1, wherein a thread type for the internally and externally threaded protrusions is tapered (the angle of which bevel may be similar to that of the angle of the threads 33 in said socket 32, see C3/L40-47; “bevel” is interpreted to be similar to configuration to a taper or tapered-shaped based on C1/L25-30). Because Harms explicitly teaches tapered internally threads (from socket 32), the corresponding outwardly threaded nipple inherently has a tapered outward/external threads to create a seal/match with the socket, therefore the limitation is met.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms (USPN 4,559,138) in view of Friedmann (USPN 5,342,519).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Modified Harms teaches the basket strainer of claims 3 and 6.
Harms does not teach that the internally threaded protrusion of the first strainer module has an outer diameter larger than the outer diameter of the first main body of the first strainer module. wherein the internally threaded protrusion of the second strainer module has an outer diameter larger than the outer diameter of the second strainer module.
In a related field of endeavor, Friedmann teaches a fluid filter (see ABS) comprising an internally threaded protrusion (annular collar 30 has internal threads 32) of the filter module has an outer diameter larger than the outer diameter of the main body of the filter module (see Fig. 2 wherein the collar 30 has an outer diameter larger than the outer diameter of housing 20 of the filter cartridge 10).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the connecting means of the first and second strainer modules of Harms with the connecting means (collar 30) as disclosed by Friedmann because it facilitates a secure filter attachment when mounted and also provides a strong clamping force (Friedmann, see C4/L24-46).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms (USPN 4,559,138) in view of Parent (US US 2016/0121247) in view of Rodriguez (CA 3 106 194) and further in view of in view of Keith (USPN 6,706,174).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 1.
Harms does not teach that a height of each of the strainer modules is in a range of 8 to 12 inches.
In a related field of endeavor, Keith teaches a filter assembly (see ABS) comprising a filter basket having a height in a range of 8 to 12 inches (a height of about six inches to about 12 inches, see C3/L50-65; the prior art range completely encompasses the claimed range).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 6-12 inches completely encompasses the claimed range of 8-12 inches. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the strainer modules of Harms by adjusting the height in the range of 6-12 inches as disclosed by Keith because it is applying a known size to a known filter basket obviously resulting in achieving the predictable result of selecting a suitable size that can be adaptable for any filtration system/process with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms (USPN 4,559,138) in view of Parent (US US 2016/0121247) in view of Rodriguez (CA 3 106 194) and further in view of Vijlee (USPN 5,891,336).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 1.
Harms does not teach that a thread type for the internally and externally threaded protrusions is parallel.
In a related field of endeavor, Vijlee teaches a threaded filter bowl (see ABS) comprising a thread type is parallel (both the thread valleys 36 and thread peaks 38 include flat surfaces which are parallel to the wall 25 of the canister 8, see C3/L40-45).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the threads of Harms by adjusting the size of said threads and arranging to be parallel as disclosed by Vijlee because it is desirable to minimize the number of threads thereby requiring less threading and rotating during installation and removal (Vijlee, see C1/L45-55).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 13, wherein a thread size for the internally and externally threaded protrusions is less than or equal to 8 threads per inch (Vijlee, the plurality of threads 24 includes between 4-6 threads per inch, see C3/L20-30; the prior art range falls within the claimed range).
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 EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
