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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejection using the same references.
On pages 8-11 of the Remarks section, as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant argues that the previous prior art rejection does not disclose the amendments made to independent Claims 1 or 3. Specifically, Applicant argues that previous anticipatory reference Hirata, JP2007319781 A, (“Machine Translation of JP2007319781 A”, published 2007, 61 total pages), does not disclose the added limitation “an axial direction of the cylindrical body the adhesion portion is located no farther than 25% of a height of the cylindrical body from an axial center of the cylindrical body”. The Examiner notes that a different reference, previous secondary reference Hirata et al., (“Hirata 2”, US 2006/0112559), discloses this limitation instead, in combination with Hirata, as demonstrated in the prior art rejection section below. Thus, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments here moot.
On pages 12-15, Applicant argues that previous primary reference Hirata, JP2007319781 A, (“Machine Translation of JP2007319781 A”, published 2007, 61 total pages), and secondary reference Hirata et al., (“Hirata 2”, US 2006/0112559), do not disclose the added limitation “the terminal end portion of the element wire being drawn into an inner surface side of the cylindrical body via either one of axial end portions of the cylindrical body and adhered to at least a part of an innermost layer which is located innermost in the radial direction among the plurality of layers or adhered to a part of either one of the axial end portions of the cylindrical body”. The Examiner notes that a different reference, previous secondary reference Hirata, (“Hirata 3”, US 2007/0169454), discloses this limitation instead, in combination with Hirata and Hirata 2, as demonstrated in the prior art rejection section below. Thus, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments here moot.
The Examiner has also withdrawn the previous objections due to the amendments made to the Specification, and accepts these amendments.
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) 3 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata, JP2007319781 A, (“Machine Translation of JP2007319781 A”, published 2007, 61 total pages), in view of Hirata et al., (“Hirata 2”, US 2006/0112559).
Regarding Claims 3 & 8, Hirata discloses a winding filter not subjected to sintering, (See paragraph [0011]), the winding filter comprising a cylindrical body including a stitch by overlapping at least one element wire forming a plurality of layers in a radial direction, (Filtration Member 1, See Figure 2, See paragraph [0012], [0031], [0032]), wherein a terminal end portion of the element wire of an outermost layer among the plurality of layers is joined at an adhesion portion by adhesion to a part of an adjacent layer adjacent to the outermost layer on a radially inner side, (Wire 10 of Filtration Member 1, See Figure 2, See paragraph [0034]), but does not disclose in an axial direction of the cylindrical body the adhesion portion is located no farther than 25% of a height of the cylindrical body from an axial center of the cylindrical body.
Hirata 2 discloses wherein in the axial direction of the cylindrical body, the adhesion portion is located no farther than 25% of the height of the cylindrical body from the axial center of the cylindrical body, (see annotated figure of Hirata 2 below in Figure 2a, the overall pixel length from top to bottom is 120 pixels (start point 150 pixels, end point 270 pixels), and the pixel location of the top intersection is 200 pixels, while the midpoint is 210 pixels. 10/120 or 1/12 is less than 1/4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the winding filter of Hirata by incorporating wherein in the axial direction of the cylindrical body, the adhesion portion is located no farther than 25% of the height of the cylindrical body from the axial center of the cylindrical body as in Hirata 2 so that “the mesh pattern or the winding density are set as desired…depending on different requirements for the filtering function”, (See paragraph [0023], Hirata 2), so the “bonding strength of a wire forming a mesh is improved with relatively low cost and relatively high efficiency”, (See paragraph [0006], Hirata 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
370
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 8: The winding filter according to claim 3, but does not disclose wherein in the axial direction of the cylindrical body, the adhesion portion is located no farther than 12.5% of the height of the cylindrical body from the axial center of the cylindrical body, (see annotated figure of Hirata 2 below in Figure 2a, the overall pixel length from top to bottom is 120 pixels (start point 150 pixels, end point 270 pixels), and the pixel location of the top intersection is 200 pixels, while the midpoint is 210 pixels. 10/120 is less than 1/8).
Claim(s) 1, 2 & 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata, JP2007319781 A, (“Machine Translation of JP2007319781 A”, published 2007, 61 total pages), in view of Hirata et al., (“Hirata 2”, US 2006/0112559), in further view of Hirata, (“Hirata 3”, US 2007/0169454).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4 & 6, Hirata discloses a winding filter not subjected to sintering, (See paragraph [0011]), the winding filter comprising- a cylindrical body including a stitch by overlapping at least one element wire forming a plurality of layers in a radial direction, (See paragraph [0012], [0031], [0032]), wherein a terminal end portion of the element wire of an outermost layer among the plurality of layers, (See paragraph [0034]), but does not disclose it being drawn into an inner surface side of the cylindrical body via either one of axial end portions of the cylindrical body and adhered to at least a part of an innermost layer which is located innermost in the radial direction among the plurality of layers, or adhered to a part of either one of the axial end portions of the cylindrical body, (optional), or that a joining strength of the terminal end portion is 5 N or more.
Hirata 2 discloses a joining strength of the terminal end portion is 5 N or more, (See paragraph [0044], Hirata 2; examples such as 9.61 or 16 N).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the winding filter of Hirata by incorporating a joining strength of the terminal end portion is 5 N or more as in Hirata 2 because “the level of the surface pressure (the contact surface pressure) between the bonding portions of the wire…is an important factor for determining the bonding strength”, (See paragraph [0041], Hirata 2), and “regardless of the relatively high pressure and high temperature caused by actuation of the airbag, the bonding portions…are maintained without loosening” ensuring “a relatively high bonding strength…with relatively low cost and improved efficiency”, (See paragraph [0047], Hirata 2).
Modified Hirata does not explicitly disclose the terminal end portion of the element wire being drawn into an inner surface side of the cylindrical body via either one of axial end portions of the cylindrical body and adhered to at least a part of an innermost layer which is located innermost in the radial direction among the plurality of layers or adhered to a part of either one of the axial end portions of the cylindrical body.
Hirata 3 discloses the terminal end portion of the element wire being drawn into an inner surface side of the cylindrical body via either one of axial end portions of the cylindrical body and adhered to at least a part of an innermost layer which is located innermost in the radial direction among the plurality of layers or adhered to a part of either one of the axial end portions of the cylindrical body, (See paragraph [0056] and See one of Figures 3-7 in which start or end point of wire 16 (A0) is welded in this pattern layer at top vertical (axial) end portion, and See paragraph [0032], Hirata 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the winding filter of modified Hirata by incorporating the terminal end portion of the element wire being drawn into an inner surface side of the cylindrical body via either one of axial end portions of the cylindrical body and adhered to at least a part of an innermost layer which is located innermost in the radial direction among the plurality of layers or adhered to a part of either one of the axial end portions of the cylindrical body as in Hirata 3 bin order to “provide a filtering member capable of preventing undulation from occurring on the outer circumferential surface thereof”, (See paragraph [0010], Hirata 3), and “the number of reference lines can be increased as compared with the conventional filter, so that the float of the wire…can be restrained from appearing on the outer circumferential surface, and hence the occurrence of undulation on the outer circumferential surface can be restrained”, (See paragraph [0057], Hirata 3), “in order to ensure the performance of [the] inflator”, (See paragraph [0009], Hirata 3).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The winding filter according to claim 1, wherein the terminal end portion is adhered to the at least the part of the innermost layer or the part of either one of the axial end portions by welding, and the joining strength of the terminal end portion is a welding strength, (See paragraph [0034], [0036], Hirata).
Claim 4: The winding filter according to any one of claim 1, wherein a corner portion of at least one end portion of both axial end portions of the cylindrical body is formed in a rounded shape as viewed from a side, (Wire 10 of Filtration Member 1 is wound in cylindrical shape, appears rounded as in Figure 2, See paragraph [0032], Hirata).
Claim 6: The winding filter according to claim 4, wherein the element wire in an end surface of the end portion formed in the rounded shape is disposed along a surface in a direction substantially perpendicular to an axial direction of the cylindrical body, (Fray-Preventing Sections 13 wrapped horizontally while Filtration Member 1 extends vertically, See Figures 2 & 5, See paragraph [0040]; Figure 5 is an extension of Figure 2, Hirata).
Claim 5: The winding filter according to claim 4, wherein the rounded shape is formed by at least two element wires being arranged in parallel, (See paragraphs [0045] & [0046], Hirata 3).
Claim 7: The winding filter according to claim 5, wherein the element wire in an end surface of the end portion formed in the rounded shape is disposed along a surface in a direction substantially perpendicular to an axial direction of the cylindrical body, (Fray-Preventing Sections 13 wrapped horizontally while Filtration Member 1 extends vertically, See Figures 2 & 5, See paragraph [0040], Hirata).
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 JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights