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 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 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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes (US 8,635,984) in view of Jainek (US 8,057,687).
In regards to claim 1:
Ardes teaches an oil filter housing system (1) comprising: a housing body defining: an integral coolant supply passage including an integral coolant supply passage inlet; an integral coolant volute including an integral coolant volute inlet; an oil cooler cavity (Shown below in annotated Figure 6) configured to house an oil cooler (HE); a first integral oil flow passage including a first integral oil flow passage outlet (the outlet being at the end of the passage, wherein this is mislabeled in the Figure by Ardes as an unfiltered outlet but is recited as the unfiltered oil inlet in the Figure description Col 2 Lines 35-37); a second integral oil flow passage including a second integral oil flow passage inlet (Not shown but is the passage downstream of the oil cooler, wherein the inlet for this passage is immediately downstream of the oil cooler); a third integral oil flow passage (Not shown but is the passage downstream of the oil filter) including a third integral oil flow passage outlet (Shown below in annotated Figure 6), a fourth integral oil flow passage fluidly connected with the second integral flow passage; and an angled oil filter interface coupled to the housing body and configured to receive an oil filter (the angle can be seen in Figure 5) such that the fourth integral oil flow passage is in fluid providing communication with the oil filter via the angled oil filter interface (wherein this is the passage that surrounds the filter body, wherein the oil flows from the second integral oil passage to the fourth integral oil passage surrounding the oil filter that subsequently enters the filter from an exterior of the filter and travels inward through the filter).
Jainek shows interior passages that lead from an oil inlet (oil travels from 10 through passage 11) to an oil cooler (3) and to an oil filter (2) and from the filter (2) to a drain passage (9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application for Ardes to show the interior passages, wherein the oil cooler and oil filter require passages to allow oil to flow from one to another and then to a drain as taught by Jainek.
PNG
media_image1.png
1305
986
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 of Ardes
PNG
media_image2.png
1244
871
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 of Ardes
In regards to claim 3:
Ardes teaches comprising a coolant inlet fluidly connected with the integral coolant supply passage (Shown above in annotated Figure 8 of Ardes).
In regards to claim 4:
Ardes teaches the angled oil filter interface is integrated with the housing body and is disposed along a plane; and teaches the third integral oil flow passage defines a center axis and is configured such that the center axis is not orthogonal to the plane (Figure 6 shows the third integral oil flow passage and Figure 5 shows the incline that the oil filter has, an annotated Figure 5 below shows the axes not being orthogonal to one another).
PNG
media_image3.png
1180
942
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 of Ardes
In regards to claim 6:
Ardes teaches the housing body further defines at least one valve cavity configured to receive a valve (TV).
In regards to claim 8:
Ardes teaches comprising a support rib integrated with the housing body, and wherein the housing body further defines a pocket, the support rib positioned within the pocket.
In regards to claim 11:
Ardes teaches an oil filtration system comprising: the oil filter housing system of claim 1; and one or more attachments coupled to the oil filter housing system (Filter attachment is shown in Figure 8).
In regards to claim 12:
Ardes teaches the one or more attachments comprises an oil filter (Filter is shown in Figure 8).
PNG
media_image4.png
1230
947
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Ardes
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes in view of Jainek and further in view of Robert et al (US 5,566,781 hereinafter “Robert”).
In regards to claim 2:
Ardes does not teach an oil flow conduit fluidly connected with the first integral oil flow passage.
Robert teaches an oil flow conduit (71) fluidly connected with a first integral oil flow passage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the housing of Ardes to have an oil flow conduit fluidly connected to the first integral passage as taught by Robert in order to connect a flow of oil to the inlet.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes in view of Jainek and further in view of Ostein et al (US 8,925,196 hereinafter “Ostein”).
In regards to claim 7:
Ardes does not teach the housing body further defining: a first valve cavity and a second valve cavity each configured to receive a pressure regulating valve; and a third valve cavity configured to receive a pressure regulating bypass valve.
Ostein teaches a first valve cavity and a second valve cavity each configured to receive a pressure regulating valve (valves 30 and 36) and a third valve cavity configured to receive a pressure regulating bypass valve (34) (Cavities are shown in Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the housing body of Ardes to have the pressure regulating and pressure regulating bypass valves as taught by Ostein in order to regulate the pressure inside of the housing and to allow access for the fluid to bypass (Col 2, Line 46 – Col 3, Line 61). It is known in the art for fluid systems to work under pressure and that pressure needs to be maintained, and the system further requires the pressure to not exceed pressure thresholds. Bypass valves are known in the art to bypass a specific function, wherein Ostein teaches a filter bypass valve, wherein the filter when bypassed will not be subjected to pressurized oil.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes in view of Jainek and further in view of Fujiki et al (JP 2003148161A hereinafter “Fujiki”).
In regards to claim 9:
Ardes does not teach an idler pulley mounting interface coupled to the housing body and configured to receive an idler pulley.
Fujiki teaches an idler pulley (23) coupled to a housing body (48) and configured to receive an idler pulley.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the housing of Ardes to have an idler pulley mounting interface to receive an idler pulley as taught by Fujiki in order to provide the functions of the idler pulley, such as aligning and guiding the drive belt of an engine.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes in view of Jainek and further in view of Jainek (US 2013/0153475 hereinafter “Jainek ‘475”).
In regards to claim 10:
Ardes does not teach an oil thermostat mounting interface coupled to the housing body and configured to receive an oil thermostat.
Jainek ‘475 teaches an oil thermostat mounting interface (26) coupled to a housing and configured to receive an oil thermostat (24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the housing of Ardes to have an oil thermostat mounting interface and configured to receive an oil thermostat as taught by Jainek ‘475 in order to provide control a flow of oil towards a bypass passage based on an oil temperature (Paragraph [0002] of Jainek ‘475).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes in view of Jainek and further in view of Gerber et al (US 5,520,801 hereinafter “Gerber”).
In regards to claim 13:
Ardes teaches the angled oil filter interface is integrated with the housing body and is disposed along a plane but does not teach the third integral oil flow passage defines a center axis and is configured such that the center axis is orthogonal to the plane.
Gerber teaches a third integral passage (15) having a center axis that is orthogonal to a plane of an oil filter interface (Shown in Figure 1 of Gerber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the third integral oil flow passage of Ardes to be orthogonal to the plane of the oil filter interface as taught by Gerber in order to have the oil drain at a desired location that is orthogonal to the oil filter.
Claims 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes in view of Patel (US 4,426,965).
In regards to claim 14:
Ardes teaches an engine system, comprising: an oil filter housing system as claimed in claim 1, a coolant pump (WP) fluidly coupled to the housing body; an oil cooler (HE) fluidly coupled to the housing body; and an oil filter fluidly coupled to the angled oil interface (Filter is shown in Figure 8 of Ardes).
Ardes does not teach a turbocharger fluidly coupled to the housing body.
Patel teaches a turbocharger fluidly coupled to a housing body (Col 8, Line 61 – Col 9, Line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the engine system of Ardes to have a turbocharger fluidly coupled to the housing body as taught by Patel in order to provide forced induction to the engine, wherein the turbocharger uses oil to regulate the temperature of the turbocharger, and wherein the oil used requires cooling and filtering.
In regards to claim 16:
Ardes teaches the oil filter housing system comprises a coolant inlet fluidly connected with the integral coolant supply passage, and wherein the coolant inlet is fluidly coupled to the housing body (Shown above in annotated Figure 8 of Ardes).
In regards to claim 18:
Ardes teaches the integral coolant volute comprises a passage or channel and possesses a curvature corresponding to a curvature in a body or passage of the coolant pump.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardes and Patel and further in view of Robert.
In regards to claim 15:
Ardes does not teach the oil filter housing system comprises an oil flow conduit fluidly connected with the first integral oil flow passage, and wherein the oil flow conduit is fluidly coupled to the housing body.
Robert teaches an oil flow conduit (71) fluidly connected with a first integral oil flow passage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the housing of Ardes to have an oil flow conduit fluidly connected to the first integral passage as taught by Robert in order to connect a flow of oil to the inlet.
In regards to claim 17:
Ardes does not teach the housing body defining an oil supply plumbing connector, the oil supply plumbing connector configured to connect to an oil supply plumbing when the oil filter housing system is installed within the engine system.
Roberts teaches an oil supply plumping connector and an oil supply plumbing (71) to connect a filter housing to an engine system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the housing body of Ardes to have an oil supply plumbing connector and oil supply plumbing as taught by Roberts in order to provide a passage for the oil to travel in and a connector to connect and disconnect. Supply plumbing, often referred to as conduits or pipes are known in the art for fluids, and they are often met at connection points with a connector to secure the plumbing, this is often done with threads and a locking bolt as shown in Roberts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the independent claim to recite a fourth integral passage that is in fluid providing communication with the oil filter via the angled oil filter interface. Examiner does not agree this puts the application in consideration for allowance. The prior art teaches an oil filter housing having an oil cooler and an oil filter, wherein the oil filter housing receives oil, exchanges heat with the oil, filters the oil, and discharges the oil. Wherein passages will exist between each, and furthermore with no structural language limiting the passage, all of the passages can exist in a single passage, for example, a single passage can have an infinite number of passages such as the entry passage, the midsection passage, the exit passage, all being part of one fluid passage. The prior art teaches an oil filter housing that receives oil, this receiving passage is the first passage that directs the oil to the oil cooler, the oil that leaves the oil cooler is the second passage, the oil flows towards the oil filter and the passage at the oil filter inlet is the fourth passage, the oil then flows inside of the oil filter and exits the oil filter to a third passage, the third passage discharges the oil from the housing. Although additional weight has been given to the independent claim in regards to the function and placement of these passages, the claim only recites four integral oil flow passages that have an inlet or outlet, with the “fourth” integral passage in fluid providing communication with the oil filter via the angled oil filter interface. It is the position of the Examiner that all oil flow passages upstream of the oil filter are in fluid providing communication with the oil filter via the angled oil filter interface, wherein the oil filter is provided oil from the oil filter interface, and all oil provided to the oil filter interface must enter the housing initially and flow through each upstream passage. Furthermore, for the oil filter interface, the claim does not recite what the angle of the interface is or in relation to, wherein all oil filter interfaces are at an angle and can be rotated as such when installing the housing within a system such as in an engine bay, and although additional weight has been given in regards to the oil filter interface being at an angle, it is understood that any orientation would satisfy this limitation wherein a housing having a zero degree angle can be manipulated by a user to be rotated a number of degrees when installing, such that the angle is now a non-zero angle relative to a flat ground surface. Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Wilmink et al (US 2008/0006229), Langenfeld et al (US 11,421,578), Lin et al (US 12,059,642), Le et al (US 12,078,090), Gruner et al (US 2007/0175434), and Kiemlen et al (US 2010/0000708) show an oil filter housing having an oil cooler having a plurality of passages from the inlet of oil to the oil filter housing, to the oil filter, to the oil cooler, and out of the oil filter housing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights