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 .
StatusClaims(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 12, is/are filed on 11/21/2025 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 12 is/are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs (US 20130056406 A1) in view of Stock (DE 10223352 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
797
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
800
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Jacobs teaches a filter element (10), comprising: a fabric filter bag (44) having an open end (top end) and a closed end (bottom end), the closed end configured to be received within an outer filter basket having a first brim and the open end configured to receive an inner filter basket having a second brim (note this configured for statement is intended use – structural patentable weight has not been given as this has not been positively recited); and a flange (46) having a cylindrical neck (52) extending from the flange and an annular ring (72) extending from the flange, wherein an outer edge of the annular ring comprises an integral o-ring (round ring 74) (C2/45-C7/65) configured to seal against the first brim and the second brim (intended use), and wherein the cylindrical neck is sewn to the open end of the fabric filter bag (‘The upper portion 50 is welded or sewn to the filter bag 42, while the lower portion 52 is stitched, sewn or welded to the filter bag 44.’) (C3/4-7). Jacobs does not teach wherein the flange, the cylindrical neck, and the annular ring are integrally formed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the flange, the cylindrical neck, and the annular ring for reducing the need of joining multiple parts therefore simplifying manufacturing, lowering production cost and reducing assembly time. It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Alternatively, Stock teaches an outer sealing bead [integral O-ring] (14) of elastic material is molded onto the outer edge of the sealing ring for improved tightness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have to combine the teachings of Stock into Jacobs for the purpose of preventing leakage.
Regarding claim 2, Jacobs it is unclear wherein the flange, the annular ring, and the cylindrical neck are formed of the same elastomeric material. However, this is well-known. Gershenson (US 5075004 A) teaches the flange (68), the annular ring (60), and the cylindrical neck (62) are integrally formed of the same elastomeric material (see fig. 2 - The entire collar, including all portions, is molded from the same material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have used the same material to save cost and provide fluid tight material.
Regarding claim 3, Jacobs does not teach wherein elastomeric material is selected from a list consisting of ethylene propylene diene monomer (EDPM) rubber and Fluorine Kautschuk Material (FKM). However, these are well-known in providing resilient material. See at least US 20050178097 A1 [0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated such material for the aforesaid advantage.
Regarding claim 5, Jacobs teaches wherein the flange has a frustoconical section (52) between the flange and the cylindrical neck.
Regarding claim 7, Jacobs teaches O-ring as modified would teaches wherein the O-ring is formed of a different elastomeric material than the flange.
Regarding claim 8, Jacobs as modified teaches wherein the elastomeric material forming the O-ring has a different durometer value than the elastomeric material forming the flange (implicitly if two materials are different, they will have different durometer values).
Regarding claim 12, Jacobs as modified does not teach wherein the O-ring is formed of the same elastomeric material as the flange. However, Gershenson (US 5075004 A) the flange (68), the annular ring (60), and the cylindrical neck (62) are integrally formed of the same elastomeric material (see fig. 2 - The entire collar, including all portions, is molded from the same material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have also have formed the O-ring integrally or with same material as this would have resulted in an appreciated result of sealing. It has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
***
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Waqaas Ali whose telephone number is (571) 270-0235. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5 PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached on 571-271-0579. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/WAQAAS ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights