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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Foreign priority is claimed in the Instant Application; EFD is 03/16/2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, 8, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “at least one of the first lower endcap or the second lower endcap are configured”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitations to “at least one of the first lower endcap or the second lower endcap is configured.”
Claim 7 recites “The fuel water separator of claim 1”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitations to “The fuel water separator filter of claim 1.”
Claim 8 recites “micron rate”. It is respectfully suggested to clarify whether “micron rate” is intended to mean “micron rating.”
Claim 13 and 16 recite, “the first sump”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitations to “the first water sump” for consistency with claim 9.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 3-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Jiang et al., (US 2016/0258397 A1, hereinafter as “Jiang’397”) in view of Jiang et al., (US 7,887,704 B2, hereinafter as “Jiang’704”) and further in view of Wolhowe (US 2017/0144091 A1, hereinafter as “Wolhowe”).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang’397 teaches a fuel water separator filter that is configured as a filter-in-construction with multiple water separating layers to separate water from the fuel (Abstract; ¶ [0004]). Jiang’397 discloses a fuel-water-separator filter, comprising:
a first stage comprising:
having an outer filter including filtration media (130, Fig. 3) sealingly retained between first and second endplates (178, 180, Fig. 3) (¶ [0047]) (a first media pack coupled to a first upper endcap and first lower endcap);
coalescing layer (132, Fig. 3) secured to the interior side of media (130, Fig. 3) and extending between endplates (178, 180, Fig. 3) (¶ [0047]) (a first coalescing wrap coupled proximate to an inner surface of the first media pack and coupled to both the first upper endcap and the first lower endcap).
hydrophobic separation downstream of the first stage coalescer (¶ [0038]) (a first hydrophobic screen positioned in the first stage)
But Jiang’397 does not teach: (I) a second stage comprising: a second media pack positioned within the first media pack and coupled to a second upper endcap and a second lower endcap; a second coalescing wrap coupled proximate to an inner surface of the second media pack and coupled to both the second upper endcap and the second lower endcap; (II) a first hydrophobic screen positioned in the second stage; and a second hydrophobic screen positioned radially within the second stage.
Regarding (I), Jiang’074 teaches is a filter element including an outer filter media and an inner filter media where the outer filter media is operable to remove particulates present in a flow of fluid and/or coalesce water contained in the flow of fluid (Abstract; col. 1, lines 34-39). Jiang’074 discloses concentric outer and inner-filter-media stages (252, 254, Fig. 3) ( col. 4, lines 16-29) extending between endcaps and an inner stage (600, Fig. 9) and outer stage (602, Fig. 9) (col. 9, lines 25-35) having respective endcap structures (a second stage comprising: a second media pack positioned within the first media pack and coupled to a second upper endcap and a second lower endcap). Jiang’074 further discloses that the inner stage may itself comprise coalescing media, such that the filter has “dual coalescing stages” (col. 6, lines 55-61) (a second coalescing wrap coupled proximate to an inner surface of the second media pack and coupled to both the second upper endcap and the second lower endcap).
Regarding (II), Wolhowe teaches fuel filters, in particular fuel filters configured to remove particulate contamination while also separating water from the fuel (¶ [0002]). Wolhowe discloses a second filter stage disposed radially within a first filter stage (¶ [0007]) (a second stage positioned within the first stage); and followed by a hydrophobic filter stage and permits additional hydrophobic stages within the nested filter architecture (¶ [0010-0011]) and further discloses hydrophobic material 74 positioned internally about core manifold 70 (¶ [0075]) (a second hydrophobic screen positioned radially within the second stage).
Jiang’397, Jiang’074, and Wolhowe are analogous arts because each is directed to multistage fuel filtration and removal of water from fuel using nested filtration and removal of water from fuel using nested filtration, coalescing and/or hydrophobic water-separation media and therefore each is within the same field of endeavor and addresses the same fuel-water-separation problem.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Jiang’074’s dual concentric coalescing stages into Jiang’397’s nested fuel -water separator because the dual media stages remove water and contaminants and improves particle filtration efficiency (Jiang’074: col. 4, lines 28-29); it would have been obvious to incorporate Wolhowe’s successive hydrophobic separation into Jiang’397’s nested fuel -water separator to provide the feature “a first hydrophobic screen positioned between the first stage and the second stage” because successive hydrophobic separation help facilitate separation of the coalesced water (Wolhowe: ¶ [0008]).
In regard to claim 3, Jiang’074 teaches outer stage (602, Fig. 9) having a greater axial length than inner stage (600, Fig. 9), producing axial gap (605, Fig. 9) between their respective lower surfaces (col. 10, lines 7-11) (the second media pack is offset from the first media pack) but does not clearly teach the offset direction requiring a portion of the inner second media pack to extend axially outside the first media pack. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the known axially offset nested media in the opposite axial direction where required by available endcap and housing space because the nested media need not terminate in the same axial plate and contemplates different axial gap; reversing the direction of the known axial offset would predictably retain the same nested filtration relationship while accommodating the available filter-envelope end endcap geometry (Jiang’074: col. 11, lines 57-65).
In regard to claims 4 and 5, Jiang’074 teaches upper endcap (256, Fig. 3) having outer flange (348, Fig. 3) securing outer media (254, Fig. 3), internal segment (352, Fig. 3) extending inwardly/downwardly to base portion (356, Fig. 3), and inner flange structures (359/360, Fig. 3) securing inner media (254, Fig. 3), collectively forming receiving/cradle regions (col. 7, lines 49-67) (the first upper endcap comprises an outer portion and an inner portion, the outer portion coupled with the first media pack and the inner portion extending axially from the outer portion away from the first media pack). Under BRI, consistent with the specification, “pocket” reasonably encompasses a recessed or bounded receiving region formed by portions of an endcap and need not required a separately manufactured closed cavity. Jiang’074’s endcap cradles therefore teach or at minimum render obvious the claimed receiving pocket. In regard to claim 5, Jiang’074, as applied to claim 4, teaches axially unequal inner/outer media stages and end cap receiving structures (col. 4, lines 22-40) (the second media pack comprises a second upper media pack end, the second upper media pack end axially offset from the first upper media pack end such that the second upper media pack end). It would have been obvious to form the known endcap receiving/cradle region as a recessed receiving pocket size to receive the nested stage end because bounded end cap uses engagement members to secure and located the media ends to predictably locate and support the nested stage while preserving concentric packaging (Jiang’074: col. 4, liner 58 thru col 5, line 5).
In regard to claim 6, Jiang’397 teaches multiple sealing surface (246, Fig. 9) sealing against the standpipe and seal (214, Fig. 9) sealing against the housing (¶ [0063]) (the first and second sealing components), while Jiang’074 teaches inner stage (600, Fig. 9) terminating at first lower end cap (604, Fig. 9) (col. 9 lines 49-50); outer stage 602 terminating at second lower end cap 618 (col. 10, lines 63-65); and unequal media lengths producing axial gap (605, Fig, 9) (col. 10, lines 7-11) (the first and second lower endcap structures at axially offset positions). It would have been obvious to provide Jiang’397’s known sealing components at the respective axially separated endcap interfaces of Jiang’074 because the seals perform known function of maintaining fluid isolation at the respective filter/housing interfaces (Jiang’397: ¶ [0010]).
In regard to claim 7, Jiang’397 teaches inner-filter frame structure (240, Fig. 9) having central opening (252, Fig. 9) receiving the standpipe and hydrophobic screen media (234, Fig. 9) supported on frame structure (240, Fig. 9) (¶[0062]) (a centrally supported hydrophobic screen positioned within the second stage) while Wolhowe teaches hydrophobic separator (72, Fig. 2A)/material (74, Fig. 2A) concentrically supported adjacent core manifold (70, Fig. 2A), which fits as over a central standpipe (¶ [0075]) (a central support supporting the hydrophobic separator). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrate the known central screen-support structure with an endcap as a projecting central support to provide the feature “central protrusion” of the second upper end cap because integral formation of inner-filter frame structure (240, Fig. 9) and (endplate 280, Fig. 9) (¶¶ [0066]) as taught by Jiang’397, explain the unitary formation that reduces the number of parts and eliminates a sealing junction, thereby reducing cost (Jiang’397: ¶ [0066])
In regard to claim 8, Jiang’074 teaches outer filter media stage 252 media configured to remove the majority/larger particulates, while inner media stage 254 removes finer particles passing through the outer media, where the reference identifies fuel contaminants (col. 5, lines 18-35) including particles on the order of 4-6 microns and distinguishes the finer particles function of the downstream media (col. 1, lines 23-29) (the first stage comprises a first micron rate and the second stage comprises a second micron rate, the first micron rate greater than the second micron rate).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Jiang’397 in view of “Jiang’704”, Wolhowe, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Eberle et al., (US 2013/0292310 A1, hereinafter as “Eberle”).
Regarding claim 2, Jiang’397 in view of Jiang’704, and Wolhowe, teaches sealing the outer filter against wall (24, Fig. 1) of water sump (20, Fig. 1) to prevent unfiltered fuel and water from bypassing the filter (Jiang’397: ¶ [0036]) (at least one of the first lower endcap configured to form a seal with a wall of a housing) but does not teach a seal with a wall of a housing to prevent water from splashing between a first water sump and a second water sump of the housing.
However, Eberle teaches first and second collecting chambers (61, 67, Fig. 2) and teaches that the chambers are separated from each other in a fluid-proof manner (¶ [0027]) (prevent water from splashing between a first water sump and a second water sump of the housing).
Jiang’397, Jiang’074, Wolhowe, and Eberle are analogous arts because each is directed to fuel filtration and the separation, collection, or management of water removed from fuel; the first three concern staged/nested fuel-water separation and Eberle concerns fluidly isolated collection of separated water within a fuel-filter system.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Eberle’s chamber dividing structure at modified Jiang’397’s combination with known endcap-to-housing sealing arrangement because fluid-proof separation of the two water-collecting chambers prevents collecting water from passing between chambers (Eberle: (¶ [0027]).
Claims 9-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Jiang’397 in view of “Jiang’704”, Wolhowe, and further in view of Eberle.
Regarding claim 9, Jiang’937 teaches a fuel-water-separator system comprising housing (14, Fig. 1) and filter (12, Fig. 1) (¶ [0035]). Jiang’937 discloses a fuel water separator system, comprising:
housing 14 (housing); an outer filter comprising filtration media where a first and second endplates (178, Fig. 3) and (180, Fig. 3) sealingly attached to the respective ends of the filter media (134, Fig. 4) (¶ [0052, 0055]) (a first media pack coupled to a first upper endcap and first lower endcap);
coalescing layer (132, Fig. 3) secured to the interior side of filtration media (134, Fig, 4) and extending between endplates (178 and 180, Fig. 3) (a first coalescing wrap coupled proximate to an inner surface of the first media pack and coupled to both the first upper endcap and the first lower endcap).
But Jiang’937 does not teach: (I) a housing having a first water sump and a second water sump fluidly separated by an annular wall; (II) a first stage configured to provide water to the first water sump; a second stage configured to provide water to the second water sump; (III) a second media pack positioned within the first media pack and coupled to a second upper endcap and a second lower endcap; and a second coalescing wrap coupled proximate to an inner surface of the second media pack and coupled to both the second upper endcap and the second lower endcap; (IV) a first hydrophobic screen positioned between the first stage and the second stage; and a second hydrophobic screen positioned radially within the second stage.
Regarding (I) and (II), Eberle teaches a fuel filter housing having two concentric water-collecting chambers (61, 67, Fig. 2) fluid-tightly separated by a central cylindrical wall/sealing arrangement (¶ [0027]) (a housing having a first water sump and a second water sump fluidly separated by an annular wall), with separated water routed to respective collection regions (¶ [0027]) (a first stage configured to provide water to the first water sump; a second stage configured to provide water to the second water sump);
Regarding (III), Jiang’075 teaches concentric inner and outer fuel-filter stages, including an inner media stage disposed radially within the outer media and respective endcap structures (col. 9, lines 25-37) (a second media pack positioned within the first media pack and coupled to a second upper endcap and a second lower endcap), and also teaches both stages as coalescing stages (col. 9, lines 38-52) (a second coalescing wrap coupled proximate to an inner surface of the second media pack and coupled to both the second upper endcap and the second lower endcap).
Regarding (IV), Wolhowe discloses a second filter stage disposed radially within a first filter stage (¶ [0070]) (a second stage positioned within the first stage); and followed by a hydrophobic filter stage and permits additional hydrophobic stages within the nested filter architecture (¶ [0070]) and further discloses hydrophobic material (74, Fig. 2A) positioned internally about core manifold (70, Fig. 2A) (¶ [0075]) (a second hydrophobic screen positioned radially within the second stage).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Eberle’s chamber dividing structure at Jiang’397’s known water separation regions because separately collection water removed at the respective stages prevents the separated water stream from combining (Eberle: (¶ [0008]); it would have been obvious to incorporate Jiang’074’s dual concentric coalescing stages into Jiang’397’s nested fuel -water separator because the dual media stages remove water and contaminants and improves particle filtration efficiency (Jiang’074: col. 4, lines 28-29); it would have been obvious to incorporate Wolhowe’s successive hydrophobic separation into Jiang’397’s nested fuel -water separator to provide the feature “a first hydrophobic screen positioned between the first stage and the second stage” because successive hydrophobic separation help facilitate separation of the coalesced water (Wolhowe: (¶ [0008]).
In regard to claim 10, Eberle teaches first chamber (61, Fig. 3) sealed in a fluid proof manner from surrounding second chamber (67, Fig. 3) by sealing ring (57, Fig. 3) and the intervening chamber structure (¶ [0027]) (the filter forms a sealing engagement with the annular wall to fluidly isolate the first water sump from the second water sump).
In regard to claim 11, Jiang’397 teaches separate sealing surface (246, Fig. 9) and housing seal (214, Fig. 9) (¶ [0063]) (first and second sealing components) while Eberle sealing ring (57, Fig. 3) providing fluid-proof sealing of chamber (61, Fig. 3) relative to surrounding chamber (67, Fig. 3) (¶ [0027]) (sealing engagement maintaining separating from the annular chamber wall). It would have been obvious to employ Jiang’397’s respective seals at the corresponding housing/chamber interfaces because fluid proof separation is required between chambers (61 and 67, Fig. 3) as taught by Eberle to predictably prevent crossflow between collected water regions (Eberle: ¶ [0027])
In regard to claim 12, Eberle teaches a first chamber (61, Fig. 3) positioned inside surrounding second chamber (67, Fig. 3) and chamber defining structure extending axially toward the filter element (¶¶ [0026-0027]) ( (the annular wall disposed radially within the housing and extends axially into the housing toward the filter).
In regard to claim 13, Eberle, as applied to claim 12, teaches one collecting chamber concentrically surrounding the other (¶ [0027]) while Jiang’374 teaches a central standpipe forming part of filtered fuel outlet (18, Fig. 1) (¶ [0038]) (the second water sump circumferentially surrounding the outlet and positioned radially within the first sump). It would have been obvious to retain Jiang’374 central filtered-fuel outlet within Eberle’s concentric collection geometry because both references employ co-axial filter/housing structures that predictably preserve compact coaxial packaging (Eberle: ¶ [0012]).
In regard to claim 14, Eberle teaches separate base-side discharges (73 and 75, Fig. 3) for collecting chambers (61 and 67, Fig. 3) (¶ [0029]) (a first drain port to permit draining of water from the first water sump; and a second drain port to permit draining of water from the second water sump). It would have been obvious to route both passages to extend radially through the housing wall because the passages perform the known function of conveying collected water from the internal chambers to the exterior for disposal (Eberle: ¶ [0029]).
In regard to claim 15, Eberle, as applied to claim 14, teaches separate discharges (73, 75, Fig. 3) for chambers (61, 67, Fig. 3) (¶ [0029]) (first and second drain ports). Jiang’074 teaches automatic drainage of separated water from a fuel-filter collection region (col. 3, lines 21-22) (a drain arrangement configured to drain collected water). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect Eberle’s two water-only discharge paths to a common controllable drain because both discharges remove the same separated-water fluid from the same filter assembly and Jiang’074 teaches automatically draining accumulated water thereby predictably resulting a simultaneous evacuation through a single actuated drainage arrangement (Jiang’074: col. 3, lines 21-23).
In regard to claim 16, Jiang’074, as applied to claim 15, teaches water-in-fuel (WIF) sensor (162, Fig. 2) positioned in the lower portion of filter assembly (156, Fig. 2) to detect separated water; when a predetermined amount of water has accumulated, sensor (162, Fig. 2) sends a signal to the engine control unit; filter assembly (156, Fig. 2) automatically drains collected water (col 3, lines 11-23) (the drain valve is configured to drain the first water sump and the second water sump based on a level of water in the first sump). It would have been obvious to use the accumulated-water condition detected in one of Eberle’s collection chambers to actuate the common drain because detection of predetermined accumulated quantity and automatic drainage predictably prevents excessive water accumulation (Jiang’074: col 3, lines 11-23).
In regard to claim 17, Jiang’397 teaches optional air vent (186, Fig. 3) in first endplate (178, Fig. 3) venting air from the interior of outer filter (160, Fig. 3) (¶ [0048]) (the housing comprises a vent, the vent permitting a venting of air through the housing from the first water sump). Eberle supplies the outer first water-collection chamber (¶ [0029]) (first water sump). It would have been obvious to place Jiang’397’s known air vent in communication with the collection region and route the passage outward through the adjacent housing wall (the vent extending radially from the first water sump to an exterior of the housing) because the vent’s function allows air to escape from the filter interior where an outward housing passage performs that same venting function for air displaced from the collection region (Jiang’397: (¶ [0061).
In regard to claim 18, Jiang’397 teaches a central opening (252, Fig. 9) in inner-filter frame structure (240, Fig. 9) configured to receive a standpipe (¶ [0062]) (a center pipe positioned within the second media pack) and hydrophobic filter media (234, Fig. 9) supported by frame structure (240, Fig. 9) (¶ [0064]) ( the second hydrophobic screen supported within the second stage). Wolhowe teaches the core manifold (70, Fig 2A) fitted over central standpipe assembly (100, Fig. 3A) and hydrophobic separator (72, Fig. 2A)/material (74, Fig. 2A) supported positioned centrally within inner liner/flow direction (50, Fig. 2A) and associated with the central standpipe (¶¶ [0077-0078]) (a central support and hydrophobic screen associated with the center pipe). It would have been obvious to integrate the central screen support with the end cap because integrally forming frame structure and endplate of Jiang’397 and explains that doing so reduces the number of parts, eliminates sealing junction and reduction production cost (Jiang’397: [0055]).
In regard to claim 20, Jiang’074 teaches outer filter -media stage (602, Fig. 9) having a greater axial length than inner stage (600, Fig. 9), thereby creating axial gap (605, Fig. 9) between the respective media ends and explains that the associated gaps allow water coalescence in the outer media to travel downwardly after exiting the stage (col. 10, lines 7-17), (the second media pack is offset from the first media pack such that at least a portion of the second media pack). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to located the already axially offset nested media toward the opposite axial end where required by the end cap/housing packaging because the respective media need not terminate in the same axial plane and selecting different axial lengths create axial gap (605, Fig. 9), which predictably preserves the known nested serial-filtration relationship while accommodating the selected endcap and housing geometry (Jiang‘074: col. 4, lines 16-40).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Jiang’397 in view of “Jiang’704”, Wolhowe, Eberle, as applied to claim 9, and further in view of the evidentiary reference Giolitti et al (US 2007/0114160 A1, hereinafter as “Giolitti”).
In regard to claim 19, Eberle teaches first and second separately defined collecting chamber 61 and 67 (the first water sump has a first volume, and the second water sump has a second volume). Eberle also teaches that the first volume is greater than the second volume. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to size Eberle’s respective collecting chambers according to their expected separated water-loading, including providing the first chamber with a greater volume when the chamber receives the greater water load because selecting fuel-filter water-collection capacity according to the quantity of separated water requiring accommodation provide sufficient collection capacity for the greater water load while efficiently utilizing the available housing volume as evidenced by (Giolitti: ¶¶ [0002-0003, 0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any 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 Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
