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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 2 Species 2 drawn to Claims 12-18 and 21-22 in the reply filed on 30 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19, 20 and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 June 2026.
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.
Claim 16 and all dependent claims 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 16 recites the limitation "the fain" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination this is interpreted as a typographical error and intended to refer to “a fan” as established in line 4 of Claim 16.
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) 12-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (US 2019/0046911) in view of Holm et al. (US 2020/0171420).
With regards to Claim 12:
Deshpande teaches:
A rotating filter cartridge, part 500, comprising a filter media, part 506, which reads on applicant's claimed filter media which is part of a crankcase ventilation system which reads on applicant's claimed rotating crankcase ventilation filter element. A first endcap, part 502, which reads on applicant's claimed first endcap positioned on a filter media first end, a second endcap, part 504, which reads on applicant's claimed second endcap positioned on a filter media second end. The first and second endcaps are coupled to each other and define an internal volume within which the filer media, part 506, is disposed. The second endcap, part 504, comprises a projection, part 508, which reads on applicant's claimed axial seal member extending from a surface of the second endcap towards the filter media and forming an axial seal with the filter media which projects substantially parallel to a direction of axial fluid flow entering the filter media. (See Deshpande Fig. 5A and 5B and paragraphs 36-39)
Deshpande doesn’t explicitly state:
A housing having an inlet that receives a fluid and an outlet.
Holm teaches:
A crankcase ventilation system, part 100, comprising a rotating coalescer element, part 106, within a housing, part 102, having an inlet, part 104, and an outlet, part 108.
Deshpande discloses the claimed invention except for while Deshpande discloses that the filter cartridge may be part of a crankcase ventilation system, Deshpande does not teach what such a system comprises and does not explicitly teach a housing surrounding the filter element which has an inlet and an outlet. Holm teaches that it is known to utilize a rotating coalescer element which reads on applicant's claimed filter media within a crankcase ventilation system comprising a housing, part 102, having an inlet and an outlet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the filter cartridge of Deshpande within a crankcase ventilation system as taught by Holm, since Hom states at Paragraph 77 that such a modification would allow the system to receive crankcase blowby gases to be filtered. See MPEP 2144
With regards to Claim 13 Deshpande teaches:
The first endcap, part 502, comprises a first endcap main body and a circumferential lip and outer body, part 808, which are integral with each other which reads on applicant's claimed first sidewall extending axially from an outer periphery of the first endcap main body towards the second endcap. The second endcap comprises a circumferential lip, part 112, which reads on applicant's claimed second sidewall extending from an outer periphery of the second endcap towards the first endcap and contacting a proximate end of the first sidewall. (See Deshpande Fig. 1, 8, and 12 and Paragraphs 27-28, 40)
With regards to Claim 14 Deshpande teaches:
The second circumferential lip, part 112, of the second endcap, part 104/504, which reads on applicant's claimed second sidewall comprises a gap between the sidewall and the radially outer surface of the filter media. (See Deshpande paragraph 28 and Fig. 5C and 8)
With regards to Claim 15 Deshpande teaches:
The projection, part 508, is located proximate to and radially inward of the second sidewall (See Deshpande Fig. 5A-5C and paragraphs 36-40)
With regards to Claim 16 Deshpande teaches:
Vanes, parts 1306, which reads on applicant's claimed fan disposed around a periphery of the first endcap main body comprising slots, which reads on applicant's claimed plurality of radial flow channels, and vanes between the slots. The arrangement pumps air from the flow channels. (See Deshpande Paragraph 46 and Fig. 12 and 13A-13C)
With regards to Claim 17 Deshpande teaches:
The second endcap has a central hole through which the air enters the filter and then flows through the media and out through the vanes to an outlet of the system. (See Deshpande Paragraph 27 and Fig. 12)
With regards to Claim 18 Deshpande teaches:
The first endcap comprises pockets, parts 1308, which reads on applicant's claimed first coupling portion, the second endcap comprises mating projections 1404, of the second endcap which reads on applicant's claimed second coupling portion. The first endcap further comprises fastener openings part 1304, the second endcap comprises fastener openings, 1402, which are aligned and define a throughhole through which a fastener which reads on applicant's claimed coupling member which extends through the throughhole and couples the first endcap to the second endcap. (See Deshpande paragraph 46-47)
With regards to Claim 21 Deshpande teaches:
The projection, part 508, has a triangular shape with a sharp tip that contacts the filter media. (See Deshpande Fig. 5A-5C and Paragraphs 36-39)
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (US 2019/0046911) in view of Holm et al. (US 2020/0171420) as applied above in the rejection of Claim 12 further in view of Whittier et al. (US 2012/0055126).
With regards to Claim 22:
The second endcap, part 504, comprises a projection, part 508, which reads on applicant's claimed axial seal member extending from a surface of the second endcap towards the filter media and forming an axial seal with the filter media which projects substantially parallel to a direction of axial fluid flow entering the filter media. (See Deshpande Fig. 5A and 5B and paragraphs 36-39)
Deshpande in view of Holm does not explicitly teach:
How far into the filter media the projection or pin, part 508, extends which reads on applicant's claimed axial interference.
Deshpande discloses a pin is inserted a small way into the filter material and does not visibly deflect the material as it is sharp which anticipates applicant’s claimed range of axial interference of 0.0 to 0.8 mm. In the alternative Deshpande renders the claimed range obvious as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the range disclosed by Deshpande as discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further in cases where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside of prior art ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05
Whittier teaches:
A sealing gasket, part 60 and 62, which create a flat axial seal against the filter cartridge, part 28, filter media, part 46, which reads on applicant's claimed filter media with an axial interference of 0.0 mm to 0.8 mm.
Deshpande in view of Holm discloses the claimed invention except for the pin extends into the filter media by an unknown amount. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a flat/non-penetrating axial seal such as the sealing gasket, part 60, of Whittier which teaches that it is known to utilize an axial seal which does not penetrate into the filter media. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the axial seal of Deshpande to not penetrate into the filter media as taught by Whittier, since Whittier states at paragraph 27 that such a modification would provide adequate sealing between the endcap and the filter material. See MPEP 2144
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIT E ANBACHT whose telephone number is (571)272-9876. The examiner can normally be reached on M, T, R, F 11 am - 4 pm.
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 571-273-9876.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BRIT E. ANBACHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
BRIT E. ANBACHT
Examiner
Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights