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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification is missing a cross-reference to the foreign application to which priority is claimed. See the section below for more details.
Content of Specification
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On Page 14, Lines 5-7, “the filter mesh 44 is improved thanks to the upstream surface 40a conical or truncated” is grammatically incorrect and should read “the filter mesh 44 is improved thanks to the upstream surface 40a being conical or truncated”.
On Page 15, Line 17, “support end 52a” should read “support end 52b”.
On Page 16, Line 20, “longitudinal ribs 46” should read “longitudinal ribs 48”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-17, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “said connector” in lines 5 and 11 and “the connector” in lines 5-6 and 8 should read “said tubular connector” and “the tubular connector”, respectively.
In Claim 1, “said inlet” is referenced twice in lines 6 and 7 of the claim and should read “said at least one cooling fluid inlet”.
In Claim 1, “said filter” in line 6, “this filter” in line 8, and “the filter” in lines 10 and 11 should read “said particulate filter”, “this particulate filter”, and “the particulate filter”, respectively.
In Claim 1, “said second end” in line 12 of the claim should read “said second closed longitudinal end”.
In Claim 1, “said first longitudinal end” in line 13 of the claim should read “said first open longitudinal end”.
In Claim 2, “the filter” in line 3 of the claim should read “the particulate filter”.
In Claim 4, “the first longitudinal end” in lines 1-2 of the claim should read “the first open longitudinal end”.
In Claim 4, “said second longitudinal end” in line 2 of the claim should read “said second closed longitudinal end”.
In Claim 5, “the filter” in line 4 of the claim should read “the particulate filter”.
In Claim 6, “the filter” in lines 1 and 4 of the claim should read “the particulate filter”.
In Claim 6, “this filtration wall” in line 3 of the claim should read “this frustoconical filtration wall”.
In Claim 6, “the second longitudinal end” in line 4 of the claim should read “the second closed longitudinal end”.
In Claim 7, “the filter” in line 2 of the claim should read “the particulate filter”.
In Claim 11, “the inlet of the connector” in line 3 of the claim should read “the at least one inlet of the connector”.
In Claim 11, “the connector” in line 3 of the claim should read “the tubular connector”.
In Claim 12, “the filter” in line 1 of the claim should read “the particulate filter”.
In Claim 12, “said connector” in line 2 of the claim should read “said tubular connector”.
In Claim 13, “the first longitudinal end” in lines 1-2 of the claim should read “the first open longitudinal end”
In Claim 13, “the connector” in line 3 of the claim should read “the tubular connector”.
In Claim 13, “the tab” in line 3 of the claim should read “the at least one fixing tab”.
In Claim 14, “the body” in lines 1-2 of the claim should read “the overmolded body”.
In claim 15, “the tabs” in line 2 of the claim should read “the at least one fixing tab”.
In Claim 16, “the filter” in line 1 of the claim should read “the particulate filter”.
In Claim 16, “the connector” in lines 2-3 of the claim should read “the tubular connector”.
In Claim 17, “the body” in line 2 of the claim should read “the overmolded body”.
In Claim 19, “the filter” in line 3 of the claim should read “the particulate filter”.
In Claim 20, “the filter” in line 1 of the claim should read “the particulate filter”.
In Claim 20, “the second longitudinal end” in line 2 of the claim should read “the second closed longitudinal end”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-21 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 1 recites the limitation "this cooling fluid" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “an outlet of this cooling fluid” to read “a cooling fluid outlet”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular for a cooling circuit" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-21 are also rejected because of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said conical or frustoconical surface" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing the dependence of claim 3 from claim 1 to claim 2 to remove the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 4 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “the first diameter being greater than the second diameter”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 1.5 times to four times greater than the second diameter” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “which represents between 2% and 20%”, and the claim also recites “and preferably between 5% and 10%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said annular rim" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-11 are also rejected because of their dependence upon claim 7.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "its" in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear to what “its” is referring to and so the claim is rendered indefinite. The Examiner will interpret “its” as referring to “the first longitudinal end”.
Claim 15 is also rejected because of its dependence upon claim 13.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the number of longitudinal ribs" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Longitudinal ribs have not been introduced in any of claims 1, 12, or 13, upon which claim 15 depends, and so any number of longitudinal ribs is not previously introduced.
Claim 17 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “the filter mesh and the body comprise a polymeric material”, and the claim also recites “advantageously identical and chosen for example from polyamides” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “the filter mesh comprises a textile”, and the claim also recites “preferably woven” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 19 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “the filter mesh has a filtration surface of between 60% and 95%”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 70% and 80%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the inlet" in line 2 of the claim. Applicant refers to the at least one cooling fluid inlet, which is on the tubular connector, as said inlet and then introduced another inlet for the filter. It is unclear to which inlet Applicant is referring.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "it" in line 1 of the claim. It is unclear to what “it” is referring to and so the claim is rendered indefinite. The Examiner will interpret “it” as referring to “The cooling circuit”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hinojosa Garcia et al, European Patent Application No. EP 4098345 A1 (hereinafter Hinojosa).
Regarding Claim 1, Hinojosa discloses a filter device (i.e., a filtration device) for a cooling medium in a cooling circuit of a fuel cell system in a vehicle (i.e., in particular for a cooling circuit, the filtration device comprising; Paragraphs 0001-0002)
that comprises a housing (Fig. 2, #4) that is shown as a pipe piece (i.e., a tubular connector comprising) with a first port (i.e., at least one cooling fluid inlet and; Fig. 2, #41) and a second port (i.e., at least an outlet of this cooling fluid; Fig. 2, #42; Paragraph 0045)
which has a support structure (Fig. 2, #1) and a filter medium (i.e., a particle filter; Fig. 2, #2) located inside the housing (i.e., mounted in said connector; Paragraphs 0031-0032), wherein the end frame (Fig. 2, #13) of the support structure is open and seen to be on the same side as the first port (i.e., and comprising a first open longitudinal end located on the side of said at least one inlet) and the support structure extends into the housing towards the end body (i.e., and a second closed longitudinal end located inside the connector; Fig. 2, #16) and the second port (i.e., and extending into the connector from said at least one inlet, said filter having a generally elongate shape; See marked up Fig. 2 below), wherein the filter medium is porous or perforated (i.e., this filter comprising a filter mesh) to match the interior space (Fig. 2, #10) of the support structure (i.e., extending along a longitudinal axis (X) of the filter; Paragraph 0041), wherein the support structure is injection molded (i.e., and an overmolded body; Paragraph 0016),
wherein the end frame is latched to housing (i.e., characterized in that the filter is removably mounted in said connector; Paragraph 0045), and wherein there is a flow body (i.e., a bottom wall; Fig. 2, #14) that is formed integrally with the end body and tapers towards the first end (Fig. 2, #11) and extends along the longitudinal axis (i.e., and in that said second end has a bottom wall which converges towards the longitudinal axis (X) and towards said first longitudinal end; Fig. 2, #L1; Paragraph 0040).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Hinojosa further discloses wherein the flow body can be conical in shape and shows in Fig. 2 that the apex of the flow body is centered on L1, the longitudinal axis (i.e., characterized in that the bottom wall comprises a conical surface which is located inside the filter and which has an apex centered on the longitudinal axis; Fig. 2, #14; Paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 4, Hinojosa further discloses that the support structure is conical in form (Paragraph 0012) and that the end body (i.e., said second longitudinal end; Fig. 2, #16) has a smaller diameter than the end frame (i.e., the first longitudinal end; Fig. 2, #13) relative to a radial direction extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (i.e., characterized in that the first longitudinal end has a first diameter and said second longitudinal end has a second diameter, the first diameter being greater than the second diameter; Paragraph 0035).
Regarding Claim 5, Hinojosa further discloses that the flow body (i.e., the bottom wall; Fig. 2, #14, 16) has an extension along the longitudinal axis in the interior space (Fig. 2, #10) which lies between 10 percent and 20 percent of an extension of the support structure (i.e., characterized in that the bottom wall has a longitudinal dimension along said longitudinal axis, which represents between 2% and 20%, and preferably between 5% and 10%, of a length of the filter along this longitudinal axis; Paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 14, Hinojosa further discloses that the support structure (i.e., characterized in that the body comprises) comprises at least two longitudinal struts (i.e., longitudinal ribs; Fig. 2, #17) and one or more transverse struts (i.e., and advantageously annular ribs; Fig. 2, #18; Paragraph 0033) wherein the support body can be made by injection molding (Paragraph 0016) and the support structure is produced by shaping it around the filter medium (i.e., overmolded onto the filter mesh and which extend around the longitudinal axis and are connected to said longitudinal ribs; Paragraph 0010).
Regarding Claim 20, Hinojosa further discloses that the end frame (i.e., the second longitudinal end; Fig. 2, #13) can be annular and defines a port (i.e., characterized in that the filter comprises an inlet opposite the second longitudinal end, the inlet having a rounded shape; Paragraph 0014).
Regarding Claim 21, Hinojosa further discloses that the filter device (i.e., characterized in that the cooling circuit comprises at least one filtration device according to claim 1; Fig. 1, #100) is used in a coolant circuit (i.e., The cooling circuit; Fig. 1, #220; Paragraph 0027) for a fuel cell which is known to be used in a vehicle for directly converting chemical energy to electrical energy (i.e., for an engine; Paragraph 0002).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinojosa Garcia et al, European Patent Application No. EP 4098345 A1 (hereinafter Hinojosa) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nodomi et al, US Patent Application No. US 20210001251 A1 (hereinafter Nodomi).
Regarding Claim 3, Hinojosa further teaches wherein the flow body can be conical in shape and shows in Fig. 2 that the apex of the flow body is centered on L1, the longitudinal axis (i.e., characterized in that said conical surface; Fig. 2, #14; Paragraph 0040).
Hinojosa does not teach characterized in that said conical or frustoconical surface has a generatrix forming an angle with the longitudinal axis of between 10° and 45°.
However, Nodomi teaches a bottom surface (Fig. 1, #14) formed by a generatrix of the bottom surface and a horizontal plane is approximately 60°, which means that the angle with the longitudinal axis is 30° (Paragraph 0037), for the purpose of guiding the fluid to the net-like body and avoiding the fluid from hitting the bottom surface and returning to the opening of the strainer (Paragraph 0011).
Nodomi is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a strainer for hydraulic oil for a construction machine (Paragraph 0003). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the filter device as taught by Hinojosa to have the bottom surface angle as taught by Nodomi because the bottom surface angle would better direct fluid towards the filter mesh.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinojosa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gardner et al, US Patent Application No. US 20110132817 A1 (hereinafter Gardner).
Regarding Claim 6, Hinojosa further teaches that the filter medium extends between the first and second end and tapers towards the second end, preferably conically (Paragraph 0010), which, as shown in marked up Fig. 2 below, is a frustoconical shape due to the end body (Fig. 2, #16) which can have a trapezoidal cross section (i.e., characterized in that the filter comprises a frustoconical filtration wall at which the filter mesh is located; Paragraph 0035).
PNG
media_image2.png
316
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hinojosa does not explicitly teach the bottom wall being connected to this filtration wall by an annular rim located at the second longitudinal end of the filter.
However, Gardner teaches wherein the strainer has an inverted inner cone (Fig. 1, #94) connected to the outer cone (Fig. 1, #92), shown that the inner cone connects at the widest area to the most narrow area of the outer cone at a circular rim (i.e., the bottom wall being connected to this filtration wall by an annular rim located at the second longitudinal end of the filter; See marked up Fig. 2 below), to structurally support the outer cone against crushing (Paragraph 0025).
PNG
media_image3.png
476
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gardner is analogous to the instant invention because it pertains to straining media in a pipeline (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the filter device as taught by Hinojosa with the annular rim as taught by Gardner because the annular rim would help prevent the filter device from crushing.
Regarding Claim 7, Hinojosa does not teach characterized in that the bottom wall defines, outside the filter, a recess which is centered on said longitudinal axis and which is surrounded by said annular rim.
However, Gardner teaches wherein the strainer has an inverted inner cone (Fig. 1, #94) connected to the outer cone (Fig. 1, #92), shown that the inner cone connects at the widest area to the most narrow area of the outer cone at a circular rim and that there is a recess there surrounded by the inner cone and annular rim (i.e., characterized in that the bottom wall defines, outside the filter, a recess which is centered on said longitudinal axis and which is surrounded by said annular rim; See marked up Fig. 2 below), to structurally support the outer cone against crushing (Paragraph 0025).
PNG
media_image4.png
476
752
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the filter device as taught by Hinojosa with the annular rim as taught by Gardner because the annular rim would help prevent the filter device from crushing.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “characterized in that the recess comprises at least one material injection point” is directed toward a product-by-process claim and is therefore not subject to patentability because the patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. 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 (In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2113(I)).
Regarding Claim 9, Gardner further teaches that the recess has a cone shape and the smaller diameter side of the cone is connected to the inner surface of the inverted cone shape, the tip of which is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (i.e., characterized in that the recess has a frustoconical surface, one end of which, having a smaller diameter, is connected to a surface substantially perpendicular to said longitudinal axis; See marked up Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
520
760
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Gardner further teaches that the greater diameter end of the recess is located at the annular rim connection (i.e., characterized in that an end of greater diameter of the frustoconical surface is connected to said annular rim; See marked up Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
478
762
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Hinojosa further teaches that the end frame (i.e., characterized in that the first longitudinal end; Fig. 2. #13) is annular (i.e., has an external annular shoulder; Paragraph 0034) and is connected to the inner circumference of the housing (Fig. 2, #4; Paragraph 0045) and shown to be resting on the housing (i.e., bearing axially on an annular edge of the at least one inlet of the connector; See marked up Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
333
690
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinojosa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hensinger, German Patent Application No. DE 102021206215 A1 (hereinafter Hensinger).
Regarding Claim 12, Hinojosa further teaches that the connection between the support structure and the housing can be done by latch, welding, or glue (Paragraph 0045).
Hinojosa does not teach characterized in that the filter is snap-fitted into said connector.
However, Hensinger teaches wherein the support structure (Fig. 1, #6) of the particle separator (Fig. 1, #5) can be connected to the filter housing (Fig. 1, #2) in the area of the media inlet (Fig. 1, #9a) by means of a snap connection (i.e., characterized in that the filter is snap-fitted into said connector; Fig. 1, #18; Paragraph 0038, Machine Translation) so that the particle separator can be held stably in its position after being inserted into the filter housing while being easily released again when the particle separator is to be removed from the inside of the housing (Paragraph 0018, Machine Translation).
Hensinger is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a particle filter for a cooling device for cooling a cooling medium for a fuel cell system (Paragraph 0001, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the filter connection as taught by Hinojosa to the snap connection as taught by Hensinger because the snap connection would hold the filter stably in place while also allowing the filter to be easily removed when needed.
Regarding Claim 13, Hensinger further teaches several locking hooks (i.e., at least one fixing tab; Fig. 4, #19) projecting from the outer circumference of the support structure (i.e., characterized in that the first longitudinal end has at its external periphery at least one fixing tab) which engage in complementary hook receptacles (i.e., at least one opening; Fig. 4, #20) formed on the filter housing (i.e., and the connector has at least one opening into which the at least one tab is snap-fitted; Paragraph 0038, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 15, Hensinger further teaches that the particle separator has stiffening ribs (Fig. 1, #15) equal in number and aligned with housing supporting ribs (Fig. 1, #12; Paragraph 0033, Machine Translation) wherein there are four housing supporting ribs (Figs. 1-3; Paragraph 0037, Machine Translation), there appear to be four snap connections as they are spaced 90 degrees from each other in Fig. 4, and two of these snap connections are shown to be in alignment with the stiffening ribs in Fig. 1 (i.e., characterized in that the number of tabs is equal to the number of longitudinal ribs and the tabs are axially aligned with the longitudinal ribs).
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinojosa.
Regarding Claim 16, Hinojosa further teaches in Fig. 2, marked up below, wherein the support structure extends significantly into the housing (Fig. 2, #1, 4).
Hinojosa does not explicitly teach a wherein the filtration device is characterized in that the filter has a length such that it extends over more than 80% of the length of the connector, but the length of the support structure taught by Hinojosa appears to be within the bounds of the 80% or greater length of the connector/housing. A prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to have selected filter length that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the length taught by Hinojosa.
PNG
media_image8.png
326
612
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Hinojosa further teaches that most of the surface of the filter device is the filter medium (Fig. 2, #2).
Hinojosa does not explicitly teach a wherein the filtration device is characterized in that the filter mesh has a filtration surface of between 60% and 95%, preferably between 70% and 80% of a total external surface of the filter, however, the filter medium of the support structure taught by Hinojosa appears to be within the bounds of the 60% and 95% of a total external surface of the filter device. A prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected filter mesh exposed surface area that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the filter mesh surface area taught by Hinojosa.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinojosa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chantome et al, International Patent Application No. WO 2022010658 A1 (hereinafter Chantome).
Regarding Claim 17, Hinojosa further discloses that the support structure is made from a plastic material (Paragraph 0016) and that the filter medium is porous or perforated (Paragraph 0041).
Hinojosa does not teach characterized in that the filter mesh comprises a polymeric material advantageously identical to the filter body and chosen for example from polyamides.
However, Chantome teaches that the filter material (Fig. 2, #234) may be a meshed polyamide (i.e., characterized in that the filter mesh comprises a polymeric material) and the frame may also be made from a polyamide (i.e., advantageously identical to the filter body and chosen for example from polyamides) for the purpose of selecting a membrane pore size according to required filtration parameters (Paragraph 0045).
Chantome is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a filter apparatus for a coolant system of a fuel cell for powering a vehicle (Paragraph 0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the filter medium as taught by Hinojosa to be the meshed polyamide as taught by Chantome because the meshed polyamide pore size can be selected to optimally filter particulates.
Regarding Claim 18, Hinojosa does not teach characterized in that the filter mesh comprises a textile, preferably woven.
However, Chantome teaches that the filter material (Fig. 2, #234) may be a meshed polyester (i.e., characterized in that the filter mesh comprises a textile) for the purpose of selecting a membrane pore size according to required filtration parameters (Paragraph 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the filter medium as taught by Hinojosa to be the meshed polyester as taught by Chantome because the meshed polyester pore size can be selected to optimally filter particulates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights