CTNF 18/670,840 CTNF 94427 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 1-15 are pending: Claims 1-15 are rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 5-6, 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Harms (USPN 4,559,138) . 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 Regarding claim 2 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 , 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms (USPN 4,559,138) in view of Rodriguez (CA 3 106 194) . Regarding claim 10 , Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 1. Harms does not teach that each of the strainer modules is produced via additive manufacturing. In a related field of endeavor, Rodriguez teaches a 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 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 10 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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 , 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms (USPN 4,559,138) in view of Parent (US 2016/0121247) . Regarding claim 11 , Harms teaches the basket strainer of claim 1. Harms does not teach that the polymer is PA2200. In a related field of endeavor, Parent teaches a closure for leaf filter (see ABS) comprising a polymer that is PA2200 (polyamide 12 (an alternative to EPDM) in the form of a woven or non-woven fabric, see ¶41). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the polymer material of Harms with the polyamide 12 material of Parent because it is the simple substitution of one known polymer material means with another known polyamide 12 material means because it has the benefit of being resilient, anti-scaling and process-resistant (Parents, see ¶8 and ¶41) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms (USPN 4,559,138) in view of in view of Keith (USPN 6,706,174) . Regarding claim 12 , 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms (USPN 4,559,138) in view of Vijlee (USPN 5,891,336) . Regarding claim 13 , 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 , Harms and Vijlee teach 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 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 Application/Control Number: 18/670,840 Page 2 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/670,840 Page 3 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/670,840 Page 4 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/670,840 Page 5 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/670,840 Page 6 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/670,840 Page 7 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/670,840 Page 8 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/670,840 Page 9 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/670,840 Page 10 Art Unit: 1773
Prosecution Insights