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 Objections
Claim 62 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation of “exposed surfaces” in claim 62 should be “the exposed surfaces”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 51–54, 56–59, 61, 63, 66–69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al., US 2015/0101295 A1 (“Thompson”).
Regarding claim 51:
Thompson discloses an air filter cartridge (Thompson’s filter element 30, Fig. 2, [0047]) comprising:
a) filter media (Thompson’s filter media 71, Fig. 2, [0054]) extending along a longitudinal axis between opposite first and second ends (where Thompson’s upper and lower endcap 73 and 74 locates, Fig. 2, [0054]); and
b) a first end cap (Thompson’s first end cap 73, Fig. 2, [0054]) disposed at the media pack first end, the first end cap including:
i) a first component (Thompson’s sealing member 90, Fig. 3, [0057]) formed from a first material (Thompson’s sealing material made of resilient or flexible sealing material, Fig. 3, [0058]) and defining a radially inward facing seal surface (although Thompson discloses in its Fig. 3 an embodiment where seal member is located on the outside diameter of the end cap body 78, Fig. 3, [0058], Thompson discloses its seal could likewise be supported internally of the body 78, [0078]; It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Thompson to have a radially inwardly facing surface when the seal 90 is located internally), wherein at least a portion of the first component is deflectable in a radially outward direction (Thompson’s seal member 90 located internally of the body 78 would be deflectable in a radially outward direction to allow a compressed sealing surface, Thompson [0063]) ; and
ii) a second component (Thompson’s end cap 78 and keyway tabs 119, Fig. 3, [0066]) formed from a second material relatively harder than the first material (Thompson discloses its end cap could be formed from a hard, strong, chemically-resistant polymer, Fig. 3,, [0054]), the second component including an annular base portion (Thompson’s base 81, Fig. 3, [0055]) proximate the filter media first end (as shown in Fig. 3 of Thompson) and a plurality of circumferentially spaced stiffening members (Thompson’s tab 119 and body 78, Fig. 3, [0066] and [0055]) extending from the base portion (81 of Thompson) in an axial direction away from the filter media first end (as shown in Thompson Fig. 3), the circumferentially spaced stiffening members supporting the at least a portion of the first component against deflection in a radially outward direction (Thompson’s body 78 supports Thompson’s seal 90 against defection, Fig. 3, [0056]).
Regarding claim 52:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein the plurality of circumferentially spaced stiffening members (119, 78 of Thompson) extend beyond the filter media first end (as shown in Thompson Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 53:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein at least a portion of the annular base portion (81 of Thompson) of the second component is in direct contact with the media pack first end (as shown in Fig. 3, [0055]).
Regarding claim 54:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein the plurality of circumferentially spaced stiffening members (119, 78 of Thompson) extend to an exposed axial end that defines a distal end of the cartridge (as shown in Thompson Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 56:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein at least one of the first and second components is molded onto the filter media first end (noted here that the current invention is directed to an air filter cartridge, and the limitation of “molded onto” describes a process rather than an actual structure of the claimed invention, such limitation are given patentable weight only insofar as it affects the structure of the claimed air filter cartridge, and since Thompson is shown to have the same structure as claimed, and Thompson is interpreted to meet such limitation).
Regarding claim 57:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein one of the first component and the second component is overmolded onto the other of the first component and the second component (noted here that the current invention is directed to an air filter cartridge, and the limitation of “overmolded onto” describes a process rather than an actual structure of the claimed invention, such limitation are given patentable weight only insofar as it affects the structure of the claimed air filter cartridge, and since Thompson is shown to have the same structure as claimed, and Thompson is interpreted to meet such limitation; additionally Thompson discloses sealing member 90 could be formed unitarily with the end cap by incorporating the sealing material into the mold for end cap, which describes an “overmold” process, Thompson [0058]).
Regarding claim 58:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein the radially inward facing seal surface defines a radial innermost portion of the first component (Thompson’s Fig. 3 shows the embodiment where seal is located outside the endcap, and shown as an outermost portion of the seal, and It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the seal 90 to be a radial innermost portion when it is located inside the end cap, Thompson Fig. 3, [0058]).
Regarding claim 59:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein the plurality of circumferentially spaced stiffening members are located radially outward from an axial projection defined by the radially inward facing seal surface (119 and 78 of Thompson are located radially outward from seal 90 located internally of end cap, Thompson Fig. 3, [0058]).
Regarding claim 61:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein at least a portion of the first component has an exposed surface and at least a portion of the second component has an exposed surface (where label 86 and 119 points in Fig. 3 of Thompson, with the seal 90 located internal of endcap 73).
Regarding claim 63:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein the filter media is pleated media and arranged in a tubular shape to define an open interior volume (Thompson’s filter media 71 is pleated tubular with an open interior volume, Figs. 3–4, [0054]).
Regarding claim 66:
Thompson discloses an air filter cartridge (30 of Thompson Fig. 2, [0051]) comprising:
a) filter media (71 of Thompson Fig. 2, [0054]) extending along a longitudinal axis between opposite first and second ends (where 73 and 74 of Thompson locates, Fig. 2, [0054]); and
b) a first end cap (73 of Thompson, Fig. 2, [0054]) disposed at the media pack first end, the first end cap including:
i) a first component (seal 90, Thompson Fig. 3, [0057]) formed from a first material (Thom discloses as resilient or flexible sealing material, Fig. 3, [0058]) and defining a radially inward facing seal surface (while Thompson’s Fig. 3 shows a radially outward facing seal, Thompson discloses its seal 90 could be located internal of the body 78, Thompson Fig. 3, [0058]; it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Thompson internally located seal to have a radially inward facing seal surface), wherein at least a portion of the first component is deflectable in a radially outward direction (Thompson flexible seal would necessarily deflect outwardly in order to form a fluid tight seal, Thompson Fig. 3, [0067]); and
ii) a second component formed from a second material relatively harder than the first material (Thompson’s end cap material made of hard, strong, chemically-resistant polymer, Thompson Fig. 3, [0054]), the second component including an annular base portion (Thompson’s annular base 81, Thompson Fig. 3, [0054]) proximate the filter media first end and a plurality of circumferentially spaced stiffening members (Thompson’s body 78 and tab 119, Thompson Fig. 3, [0055] and [0066]) extending from the base portion in an axial direction away from the filter media first end to define an exposed distal end (where label 119 points, Thompson Fig. 3) of the air filter cartridge.
Regarding claim 67:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 66, wherein at least one of the first and second components is molded onto the filter media first end (noted here that the current invention is directed to an air filter cartridge, and the limitation of “molded onto” describes a process rather than an actual structure of the claimed invention, such limitation are given patentable weight only insofar as it affects the structure of the claimed air filter cartridge, and since Thompson is shown to have the same structure as claimed, and Thompson is interpreted to meet such limitation).
Regarding claim 68:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 66, wherein one of the first component and the second component is overmolded onto the other of the first component and the second component (noted here that the current invention is directed to an air filter cartridge, and the limitation of “overmolded onto” describes a process rather than an actual structure of the claimed invention, such limitation are given patentable weight only insofar as it affects the structure of the claimed air filter cartridge, and since Thompson is shown to have the same structure as claimed, and Thompson is interpreted to meet such limitation; additionally Thompson discloses sealing member 90 could be formed unitarily with the end cap by incorporating the sealing material into the mold for end cap, which describes an “overmold” process, Thompson [0058]).
Regarding claim 69:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 66, wherein the radially inward facing seal surface defines a radial innermost portion of the first component (Thompson’s Fig. 3 shows the embodiment where seal is located outside the endcap, and shown as an outermost portion of the seal, and It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the seal 90 to be a radial innermost portion when it is located inside the end cap, Thompson Fig. 3, [0058]).
Claims 55 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Burns et al., US 2012/0210688 A1 (“Burns”).
Regarding claim 55:
Thomspon does not disclose the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein at least a portion of the radially inward facing seal surface is recessed in a radial outward direction from another portion of the radially inward facing seal surface.
In the analogous art of O-ring seal for filter elements, Burns discloses a chevron-type ring seal 100, Burns Fig. 6B, [0083]. Burns’s ring seal 100 has a radially inwardly facing seal surface (where label 112, 108 points in Burns Fig. 6B) and recessed in a radial outward direction from another portion of the radially inward facing seal surface (108 is recessed radially outwardly, Burns Fig. 6B, [0083]). Burns discloses chevron-type annular seal 100 may be effective in high pressure application due to its ability to maintain the fluid-tight seal under increased pressure due to its configuration, Burns Fig. 6B, [0086]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Thompson’s regular O-ring with Burns Chevron-type o-ring for the benefits disclosed above.
Regarding claim 60:
Thompson does not disclose the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein at least a portion of the first component tapers at the axial location of the radially inward facing seal surface.
However, as discussed in claim 55, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Thompson’s regular O-ring with Burns Chevron-type o-ring for its ability to maintain the fluid-tight seal under increased pressure. With such modification, Thompson as modified would have a portion tapers at the axial location of the radially inward facing seal surface (see where Burns’s label 110 and 108 points).
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Suzuki, US 2016/0074797 A1 (“Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 64:
Thompson does not disclose the air filter cartridge of claim 51, wherein the first material is a polyurethane material.
However, in the analogous art of sealing materials, Suzuki discloses a sealing member for an air filter could be polyurethane, Suzuki [0028]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Thompson’s first material, which is a seal to be polyurethane is polyurethane is known in the art to be suitable as sealing material.
Claims 65 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Suzuki as applied to claim 64 above, and in further view of Fischer et al., US 2011/0061353 A1 (“Fischer”).
Regarding claim 65:
Modified Thompson does not disclose the air filter cartridge of claim 64, wherein the second material is one of an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene material or a polypropylene plastic material.
In the analogous art of endcap material for air filters, Fischer discloses an end cap made of ABS or PP, Fischer [0019]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Thompson’s end cap to be made of ABS or PP because Fischer discloses those materials have desired chemical and temperature resistance for end caps, Fischer [0019].
Regarding claim 70:
Thompson discloses the air filter cartridge of claim 66, wherein the filter media is pleated media and arranged in a tubular shape to define an open interior volume (Thompson’s filter media 71 is pleated tubular with an open interior volume, Figs. 3–4, [0054]).
Thompson does not disclose the first material is a polyurethane material and the second material is one of an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene material or a polypropylene plastic material.
However, in the analogous art of sealing materials, Suzuki discloses a sealing member for an air filter could be polyurethane, Suzuki [0028]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Thompson’s first material, which is a seal to be polyurethane is polyurethane is known in the art to be suitable as sealing material.
In the analogous art of endcap material for air filters, Fischer discloses an end cap made of ABS or PP, Fischer [0019]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Thompson’s end cap to be made of ABS or PP because Fischer discloses those materials have desired chemical and temperature resistance for end caps, Fischer [0019].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 62 is 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.
Regarding claim 62:
Thompson does not disclose the air filter cartridge of claim 61, wherein exposed surfaces of the at least a portion of the first and second components are radially outward facing exposed surfaces.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Thompson’s exposed surface of the first component to be radially outwardly facing exposed surface because Thompson’s seal 90 is located internally in the endcap, which does not have radially outward facing exposed surfaces. It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Thompson for such limitation because there is lack of motivation for such modification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Qianping He/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
