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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/19/2024 and 04/08/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claim 11 is objected to because the step numbering in the wherein clause is inconsistent. The claim recites steps “(i), (ii), (iii) and (ii)”, repeating “(ii)” for the final step.
It is respectfully suggested to amend the final repeated “(ii)” to “(iv)” for clarity. See MPEP 608.01(m).
(ii) Claim 11 is objected to because the term “older” has a typographical error. It is respectfully suggested to amend the term “older arm” to “holder arm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 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 regard(s) as the invention.
(i) Claim 15 recites the phrase “using a two-handed operation to unlock the holding plate comprises rotating two licking handles to an unlocked position”. Since claim 13 recites the same claim limitation, therefore claim 15 does not add further limitation to claim 13 as required by 35 U.S.C. 112 (d). See MPEP 608.01(n).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Bryan et al., (US 9,242,193 B2, hereinafter as “Bryan”) in view of Banks et al., (US 2012/0060454 A1, hereinafter as “Banks”).
Regarding claim 1, Bryan teaches filter holder comprising a base for supporting the filter holder on a work surface, a tilting mechanism attached to the base, and a holder arm attached to the tilting mechanism at a tilt axis (Abstract).
Bryan discloses filter holder comprising:
a base 104 for supporting the filter holder 100 on a work surface W (Fig. 1, col. 4, line 66 thru col., 5 line 1);
a tilting mechanism 110 attached to the base 104 (Fig. 1, col. 4, line 66 thru col., 5 line 3); and
a holder arm 120 attached to the tilting mechanism 110 at a tilt axis 112, the holder arm 120 comprising (Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 57-67; col. 10, lines 43- 67):
(a) a base end 122 and a distal end 124,
(b) a compression plate 130 proximate the base end 122,
(c) a holding plate 140 proximate the distal end 124,
(d) front 126 and rear 128 support bars extending from the base end 122 to the distal end 124, at least one of the support bars comprising a plurality of plate positioning grooves 129 distributed along its length, and
(e) a locking mechanism 142 that is co-movable along the front and rear support bars 126,128 and lockable into a plate positioning groove 129 on one or both of the front and rear support bars 126,128 to lock the holding plate 140 into a position on the holder arm 120 (Fig. 1, col. 10, lines 43- 67);
wherein the holder arm 120 is tiltable about the tilt axis 112 to a service position wherein the holder arm is oriented orthogonal to the work surface and an ergonomic loading position wherein the holder arm 120 is oriented parallel to the work surface (Fig. 1, col. 7, line 52 thru col. 8, line 2).
But Bryan does not disclose the locking mechanism comprising a left-hand
locking assembly and a right-hand locking assembly and requiring two-handed operation to change the locking mechanism between locked and unlocked positions.
However, Banks teaches a filter holding frame 10 having multiple cam-lock levers for
retaining filter panels, wherein the cam-lock levers 36 include handle portions 38 and cam portions 40 rotatable (i.e., left-hand or right-hand) between open (unlock) and clamping (lock) positions (Fig. 5, ¶ [0023-0024]). Banks discloses opposed cam-lock levers 36 located on different sides/corners of a filter holding frame 10, each having handle-actuated cam lock for clamping a filter panel (Fig. 5, ¶ [0023-0024]).
Bryan and Banks are analogous arts because both are directed to filtration apparatus employing filter holders or filter holding frames for receiving, retaining, compressing, and serving filter elements. Both references address the common engineering problem of securely retaining filter components within a support structure while permitting installation, removal, and maintenance through manually operable locking mechanisms.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bryan’s locking mechanism to include opposed-left-hand and right-hand handle operated cam lock assemblies as taught by Banks because Banks’ opposed cam-lock levels provide secure filter retention and manual locked/unlocked operation, and reduced unintended release in a filter holding frame for the two-handed operation requirement (Banks: ¶¶ [0031-0032].
In regard to claim 2, Banks discloses the filter holder of claim 1 wherein the locking mechanism uses spring clip method (¶ [0003]).
In regard to claim 4, Banks discloses a filter holding frame 10 having multiple cam-lock levers for retaining filter panels, wherein the cam-lock levers 36 include handle portions 38 and cam portions 40 rotatable (i.e., left-hand or right-hand) between open (unlock) and clamping (lock) positions (Fig. 5, ¶ [0023-0024]). Banks discloses opposed cam-lock levers 36 located on different sides/corners of a filter holding frame 10, each having handle-actuated cam lock for clamping a filter panel (Fig. 5, ¶ [0023-0024]). ([0023-0024]), which meets the recited limitation, wherein the left-hand and the right-hand locking assemblies both comprise a handle and a bearing/cam lock assembly.
In regard to claim 8, Bryan discloses filter compression adjustment 134 coupled to compression plate 130 and configured to adjacent compression plate 130 to apply compressive force to filter capsule stack 250 (Fig. 1, col. 11 lines 1-7).
In regard to claim 9, Bryan discloses the filter holder may be mobile and that the base may include casters (col. 2, lines 55-56).
In regard to claim 10, Bryan discloses a filter system comprising a filter holder 100 and filter capsule stack 250 loaded onto the holder arm 120 (Fig. 4, col. 5, lines 44-48)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Bryan, in view of Banks, and further in view of Guyomard et al (US 2017/0028327 A1, hereinafter as “Guyomard”).
In regard to claim 3, Bryan discloses the filter holder of claim 1, including a holding plate 140 lockable into plate-positioning grooves 129 (Fig. 1, col. 10, lines 54-60). But Bryan does not disclose automatic locking when the holder arm tilts from the ergonomic loading position to the service position.
However, Guyomard teaches and discloses a filtration assembly 1 with a locking/unlocking system 5, actuator 6 (i.e., a mechanical component in an automated system), locking element 7 (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0061-0069]), and corresponding rim 41, groove 42 retention structure, including snapping/friction (20 snapping tabs, Fig. 7, ¶ [0082]) holding means for retaining locking systems in locked or unlocked position (¶¶ [0061, 0082]).
Guyomard is analogous art to Bryan because it is directed to filtration assemblies employing locking members that engage retaining structures to secure filter components during operation and servicing, making it reasonably pertinent to the same problem of improving the locking mechanism of a filter holder to provide reliable retention and prevent unintended movement.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bryan’s holding-plate lock with Goyumard’s automatic/snap-type groove-retention feature because automatic retention of a filtration locking member reduces unintended movement during service and maintenance (Guyomard: ¶ [0016]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Bryan in view of Banks, further in view of Magestro (US 2015/0197127 A1, hereinafter as “Magestro”)
In regard to claim 5, Bryan discloses a tilting mechanism 110 including gear box 111, tilt shaft and hand crank 114 operable to holder arm 120 between service and ergonomic loading positions (Fig. 1, col. 7, line 52 thru col. 8, line 2).
But Bryan does not disclose a removable crank handle and hex hub beneath the removal crank handle.
However, Magestro teaches and discloses a crank 60 having an elongated shaft 62, handle 56, and keyed opening 66 configured to engage a drive end 34/adapter 30 (Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0034-0037]), wherein the drive member may be a hex end, and the crank 60 may be removable for storage and compactness (Fig. 1, ¶¶ [0034-0037]).
Magestro is analogous art to Bryan because it is reasonably pertinent to the specific mechanical problem addressed by the claimed invention, namely providing a manually operable tilting mechanism using a removable crank and drive interface to selectively reposition a supported structure. Bryan teaches a manually actuated tilting filter holder, while Magestro teaches a removable crank and keyed (i.e., hexed) drive interface for manually transmitting torque to reposition a mechanical support mechanism. Because both references address manual actuation of a tilting or positioning mechanism through a removable crank-drive connection, a person in the art would have considered Magestro when seeking to improve the manual tilting mechanism of Bryan.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bryan’s hand crank with Magestro’s removable crank-hex-drive coupling because a removable-hex-drive crank provides a compact, serviceable, and controlled manual torque input for a positioning/tilting mechanism (Magestro: ¶ [0009]).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Bryan in view of Banks.
Regarding claim 11, Bryan discloses a method of operating a filter holder (col. 2, line 66 thru col. 3, line 6) comprising:
tilting a holder arm to an ergonomic loading position wherein the holder arm is in a generally horizontal orientation (col. 3, lines 1-6);
loading a filter capsule stack onto the holder arm (col. 3, lines 1-6); and
tilting the holder arm about a tilt axis to a service position wherein the holder arm is in a generally vertical orientation (col. 3, lines 1-6);
wherein compressing the filter capsule stack between a compression plate and the holding plate and locking the holding plate to prevent it from sliding (col. 3, lines 7-18).
But Bryan does not disclose loading a filter capsule stack onto the holder arm comprises: using a two-handed operation to unlock a holding plate.
However, Banks teaches filters stacked in tandem within frame, and clamped by a pair of cam lock levers oriented at ninety degrees relative to each other (¶ [0017]). Banks discloses opposed handle-operated cam lock levers in a filter holding frame, the levers being rotatable (i.e., two-handed) between open (unlock) and clamping (lock) positions (¶ [0023-0024]).
Bryan and Banks are analogous arts because both are directed to filtration apparatus employing filter holders or filter holding frames for receiving, retaining, compressing, and serving filter elements. Both references address the common engineering problem of securely retaining filter components within a support structure while permitting installation, removal, and maintenance through manually operable locking mechanisms.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bryan’s operating method to unlock opposed left-hand and right-hand locking assemblies using a two-handed operation as taught by Banks because opposed manual-cam lock levers provide secure filter retention and controlled locking of a filtered holding frame (Banks: ¶¶ [0031-0032])
In regard to claim 12, Bryan discloses locking bar 142 lockable into plate-positioning groove 129 on one or both front/rear support bars 126, 128 (Fig. 1, col. 10, lines 54-67).
In regard to claim 13, Banks discloses rotating handle-operated cam locks between open and clamping positions (¶ [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious that the two-handed operation to unlock the holding plate comprises rotating two locking handles to an unlocked position.
In regard to claim 14, Bryan discloses tilting the holder arm 120 between ergonomic loading and service positions and loading/unloading a filter capsule stack (Fig. 1, col. 7, line 52 thru col. 8, line 2). Banks discloses rotating opposed locking handles between locked and unlocked positions ((¶ [0004]). It would have been obvious to tilt the holder arm from the service position back to the ergonomic loading position as taught by Bryan, use the two-handed operation to unlock the holding plate, and unload the filter capsule stack as taught by Banks because these are predictable reverse steps of loading, locking, and placing the Bryan filter holder into service (Bryan: col. 7, lines 27-33).
In regard to claim 15, Banks discloses rotating handle-operated cam-lock levers to an open/unlocked position (¶ [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious that the two-handed operation to unlock the holding plate comprises rotating two locking handles to an unlocked position.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
A thorough search for the pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 6 and 7. The concept of a filter holder comprising a tilting mechanism to tilt the holder arm about the tilt axis, the tilting mechanism comprising a stepper motor (claim 6); wherein the stepper motor has a lithium-ion battery power source (claim 7) is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is Bryan, which discloses a tilting mechanism 110 comprising gear box 111, tilt shaft 113 and hand crank 114 operable to tilt holder arm 120 to a service position and an ergonomic loading position (Fig. 1, col. 4, line 55 thru col. 5 line 37; col. 9, lines 25-34). Bryan further states that the tilting mechanism could comprise a motor to be hydraulically operated (col. 9, lines 25-34). However, Bryan does not teach or suggest that the tilting mechanism comprises a stepper motor. Banks discloses a cam-lock levers 36 for retaining the filters in a filter holding frame, including handle portion 38 and cam head 40 movable between open ad clamped positions (Fig.5, ¶¶ [0023-0024]), but Banks does not teach a stepper-motor tilting mechanism. Guyomard teaches filtration locking/retention structure (¶¶ [0061-0069]), and Magestro teaches removable crank actuation (¶¶ [0034-0037]), but neither teaches a stepper motor for tilting the claimed filter holder. The prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest the filter holder of claim 6, wherein the tilting mechanism comprises a stepper motor.
Another pertinent prior art is Reed et al., (US 8,756,753 B2, hereinafter as “Reed”), which discloses lithium-based battery pack for powering vacuum-cleaner motors and also mentions that different motor types may include a stepper motor (Abstract; col. 18, lines 9-18); however, the disclosed motor is for suction/cleaning operation, not for tilting a filter holder arm or positioning a filter capsule stack. Reed also is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed tiltable filter capsule holder and is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of motorizing the tilting mechanism of a filter holder used to load, compress, lock, and service filter capsule stacks.
Claim 7 depends from Claim 6, which is allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any 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 Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights