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 § 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.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 includes the acronym “RFID” which has not been defined.
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) 10-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leinung DE102018113963 in view of Heer US 20180236398.
For claims 10 and 20 the Leinung reference discloses an air-treatment system for a utility vehicle (being for a utility vehicle is the intended use of the air treatment system), comprising at least one air-
treatment unit (figure 1 object 14) and at least one air-dryer cartridge (figure 1, object 12),
wherein the air-dryer cartridge has an identification element (figure 1, object 24) and the air-treatment unit has a counterpart for the identification element wherein (figures 1 and 2 object 18), in the assembled position, the identification element and the counterpart for the identification element are arranged substantially in a line-of-sight connection(figures 1 and 2 objects 18 and 24). The reference does not disclose the air-dryer cartridge detachably screwed onto the air treatment unit, the identification element on the outer side of the air-dryer cartridge or the air-dryer cartridge
and the base element are sealed with respect to one another by means of a radial seal.
The Heer reference discloses the air-dryer cartridge detachably screwed onto the air treatment unit (paragraph [0015]) and the air-dryer cartridge and the base element are sealed with respect to one another by means of a radial seal (figure 1 objects 21 and 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Leinung reference to include the air-dryer cartridge detachably screwed onto the air treatment unit (Heer paragraph [0015]) and the air-dryer cartridge and the base element are sealed with respect to one another by means of a radial seal (Heer figure 1 objects 21 and 23)so as to allow maintenance and replacement of the cartridge.
Further the Leinung reference discloses that the identification element is a part of the air dryer unit but does not explicitly stating that the identification element is on the outer side of the air dryer cartridge (figures 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Leinung reference to include the identification element is on the outer side of the air dryer cartridge as the courts have held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 11 the Heer reference discloses the air-treatment unit has a fastening thread for the air-dryer cartridge, wherein the fastening thread has a thread start with at least one of a defined position and an angular position, and the air-dryer cartridge has a thread, which can be brought into engagement with the fastening thread of the air-treatment unit and which has a thread start with at least one of a defined position and an angular position (paragraph [0051]).
For claim 12, the combination of Leinung and Heer does not explicitly state the identification element is arranged in such a way, in relation to the thread start of the air-dryer cartridge, that the identification element is situated in an angular range between negative thirty degrees and positive thirty degrees with respect to the counterpart when the air-dryer cartridge has been screw-fastened onto the air-treatment unit. It is noted that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 13, the Leinung reference discloses the identification element is arranged in substantially a line-of-sight connection with the counterpart upon application (as discussed above Leinung figures 1 and 2, objects 18 and 20) of a prescribed torque (the combination of Leinung and Heer disclose that a prescribed torque is applied).
For claim 14, the Leinung reference discloses the identification element is an RFID chip (figures 20 and 24).
For claim 15, Leinung reference discloses the air-treatment unit has a base element (rectangle at the bottom of figure 1). The reference discloses the air dryer cartridge rising from the base element but does not disclose a housing element, which rises from the base element, wherein, in the assembled state, the housing element is arranged parallel to and in a line-of-sight connection with the air-dryer cartridge.
Heer discloses a housing element, which rises from the base element, wherein, in the assembled state, the housing element is arranged parallel to and in a line-of-sight connection with the air-dryer cartridge (figure 1 objects 28, 29 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Leinung reference to include a housing element, which rises from the base element, wherein, in the assembled state, the housing element is arranged parallel to and in a line-of-sight connection with the air-dryer cartridge (Heer figure 1 objects 28, 29 and 4)to provide structure and air flow control for the air treatment apparatus.
For claim 16, the combination of Leinung and Heer would result in the counterpart is
arranged in the housing element.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leinung DE102018113963 and Heer US 20180236398 as applied in claim 15 above and further in view of Kojima US 4,572,725.
For claim 17, the Leinung reference does not disclose a viewing window is arranged in the housing.
The Kojima reference discloses a viewing window is arranged in the housing (figure 1 object 56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Leinung reference to include a viewing window is arranged in the housing (Kojima figure 1 object 56) so as to allow the inside of the air dryer device to be viewed.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leinung DE102018113963, Heer US 20180236398 and Kojima US 4,572,725 as applied in claim 17 above further in view of Pore et al. US 20200158654.
For claim 18, the Leinung reference discloses that the counter part includes a sensor (page 4 last two paragraphs). The reference does not disclose the sensor is an optical sensor.
The Pore et al. reference discloses the sensor is an optical sensor (paragraph [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Leinung reference to include the sensor is an optical sensor (Pore et al. paragraph [0010]) so a moisture content of the drying agent of the air dryer can be determined.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leinung DE102018113963 and Heer US 20180236398 as applied in claim 10 above and further in view of Pore et al. US 20200158654.
For claim 19 the Leinung reference discloses that the counter part is arranged in the air treatment unit (figures 1 and 2, object 18). The Ference does not disclose that the counterpart is arranged on an electronic circuit board.
The Pore et al. reference discloses placing communication means on circuit boards (paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to have modified the Leinung reference to arrange the counter part on an electronic circuit board (Pore et al. [0047] so as to allow for wireless or contact communication between interfaces as desired by Leinung (page 3 last two paragraphs).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ROSE ORLANDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
AMBER ROSE ORLANDO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights