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 .
Status
Claims(s) 1-44, is/are filed on 6/24/2026 are currently pending. Claim(s) 1-7 and 21-31 is/are withdrawn, 8-20, and 32-44 is/are rejected.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
Claim(s) 8-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Branscomb (US 20160129380 A1).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Latch feature i.e. prongs)]
PNG
media_image1.png
289
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
293
364
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
474
1097
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Branscomb teaches a filter cartridge (4004), comprising: a filter body (304) having a first end (top end), a second end (bottom end), and a longitudinal axis; a fluid inlet and outlet (i.e. 114 and 122) at the first end of the filter body; and an integrated locking head (4300 – filter cap) on the first end of the filter body, wherein the integrated locking head comprises at least one displaceable latch feature (prongs shown above) extending longitudinally from the integrated locking head [0084, 0132-0135] (figs. 43a-43b, (note: the term displaceable is not given much weight other than it has the capability of being displaced (which is entirely broad category). The specification nor the claim emphasizes what makes the latch feature displaceable/flexible. Nonetheless, the reference teaches the filter cap can be made of polymeric material is which well-known to flexible/displaceable [0139]); wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature is configured to be received by at least one receptacle on an inner surface of a manifold, and wherein the at least one receptacle comprises: a stop element at a first end of the at least one receptacle; and a curved transition surface at a second end of the at least one receptacle (intended use – manifold is not positively recited) "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “The manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Id.at 580.
Regarding claim 9, Branscomb teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature comprises a latch feature (i.e. prong), wherein insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold causes the at least displaceable latch feature to interact with a curved interior surface of the manifold, prior to being received by the at least one receptacle, to force the at least one displaceable latch feature to displace radially inward as a result (intended use).
Regarding claim 10, Branscomb teaches wherein, after insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold, the latch feature is structured to sit within the at least one receptacle and prevent movement of the filter cartridge in a direction along the longitudinal axis that is opposite an insertion direction (intended use).
Regarding claim 11, Branscomb teaches wherein, after insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold, the at least one displaceable latch feature is structured to interact with the stop element of the at least one receptacle to prevent rotation of the filter cartridge in a first direction (intended use).
Regarding claim 12, Branscomb teaches wherein, after insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold, the at least one displaceable latch feature is structured to interact with the curved transition surface of the at least one receptacle to permit rotation of the filter cartridge in a second direction (intended use).
Regarding claim 13, Branscomb teaches wherein, during removal of the filter cartridge from the manifold and during rotation of the filter cartridge in the second direction, the at least one displaceable latch feature interacts with the curved transition surface of the at least one receptacle to force the at least one displaceable latch feature to displace radially inward (intended use).
Regarding claim 14, Branscomb teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature is a first displaceable latch feature, wherein the integrated locking head comprises a second displaceable latch feature, and wherein the first displaceable latch feature and the second displaceable latch feature are diametrically opposed relative an outer surface of the integrated locking head (intended use).
Regarding claim 15, Branscomb teaches wherein the integrated locking head comprises a key (4310b) extending radially outward from the integrated locking head [0134].
Regarding claim 16, Branscomb teaches wherein, during insertion of the filter cartridge into a manifold, the key is structured to pass through a primary keyway of an extraction guide of the manifold (intended use).
Regarding claim 17, Branscomb teaches wherein, when the key is positioned in a primary keyway of an extraction guide of a manifold, the primary keyway is structured to prevent rotation of the filter cartridge (intended use).
Regarding claim 20, Branscomb teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature comprises a first surface (outer surface) and the at least one receptacle comprises a second surface, wherein in an installed configuration, the first surface and the second surface define an interface surface and at least one gap between the first surface and the second surface (intended use).
Claim(s) 32-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Downs (US 20200086241 A1).
PNG
media_image4.png
547
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
819
453
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
840
594
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 32, Downs teaches a filter cartridge (filter cartridge 12/12C; FIGS. 1–5 and 12–15) comprising: a filter body (30) having a first end (i.e. 36), a second end (32), and a longitudinal axis (76); a fluid inlet (44) and outlet (46) at the first end of the filter body — an inlet port (44) and an outlet port (46), each ported through the open end (36); the snout (64) provides the outlet port (46) while the baseplate central opening (66) surrounding the snout defines the inlet port (44); and an integrated locking head (32c) on the first end … comprising at least one displaceable latch feature (124) which comprises an elongate member (extending portion from 34c to 124) extending longitudinally from the integrated locking head [0082-0101]. Parker discloses that the finger projections (124) can extend axially from the solid ring portion (126) and are resilient and radially flexible inwardly and outwardly, each including a cam install surface (130) and a catch ledge (132) [0132-0133]. The finger projections (124) are elongate members extending axially from the solid ring portion (126 The finger projections are thus displaceable latch features extending longitudinally from the head [0132-0137]. Note: the latch is "configured to be received by at least one receptacle on an inner surface of a manifold," the receptacle having "a stop element at a first end" and "a curved transition surface at a second end" - is functional/intended use language given limited patentable weight (see Claim Interpretation, supra). Parker's resilient, axially extending catch fingers (124) are fully capable of being received by such a receptacle; Parker further evidences the recited cooperating geometry in disclosing a catch (84) whose slot configuration (90) includes an abutment stop portion (100) and a ramped cam surface (112) at the detent.
Regarding claim 33, Downs teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature comprises a latch feature (i.e. 132), wherein insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold causes the at least one displaceable latch feature to interact with a curved interior surface of the manifold, prior to being received by the at least one receptacle, to force the at least one displaceable latch feature to displace radially inward as a result -- the finger projections (124) are radially flexible inwardly and outwardly … due to axially extending gaps (128) and are therefore capable of being displaced radially inward upon interaction with a curved interior surface, as recited. The recited manifold interaction is intended use.
Regarding claim 34, Downs teaches wherein, after insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold, the latch feature is structured to sit within the at least one receptacle and prevent movement of the filter cartridge in a direction along the longitudinal axis that is opposite an insertion direction. The catch ledge (132) of the finger projections is adapted to facilitate snap action installation and retention, seating so as to prevent movement in the direction opposite insertion. As the Examiner interprets these claims, the latch is structured to sit within a receptacle and axially retain the assembly against back-out (intended use as to the "receptacle").
Regarding claim 35, Downs teaches wherein, after insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold, the at least one displaceable latch feature is structured to interact with the stop element of the at least one receptacle to prevent rotation of the filter cartridge in a first direction (intended use).
Regarding claim 36, Downs teaches wherein, after insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold, the at least one displaceable latch feature is structured to interact with the curved transition surface of the at least one receptacle to permit rotation of the filter cartridge in a second direction (intended use).
Regarding claim 37, Downs teaches wherein, during removal of the filter cartridge from the manifold and during rotation of the filter cartridge in the second direction, the at least one displaceable latch feature interacts with the curved transition surface of the at least one receptacle to force the at least one displaceable latch feature to displace radially inward (intended use).
Regarding claim 38, Downs teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature is a first displaceable latch feature, wherein the integrated locking head comprises a second displaceable latch feature, and wherein the first displaceable latch feature and the second displaceable latch feature are diametrically opposed relative an outer surface of the integrated locking head (see fig. 14).
[AltContent: textbox (key)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
299
500
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, Downs teaches wherein the integrated locking head comprises a key extending radially outward from the integrated locking head. Note: a key is nothing more than extension.
Regarding claim 40, Downs teaches wherein, during insertion of the filter cartridge into a manifold, the key is structured to pass through a primary keyway of an extraction guide of the manifold (intended use).
Regarding claim 41, Downs teaches wherein, when the key is positioned in a primary keyway of an extraction guide of a manifold, the primary keyway is structured to prevent rotation of the filter cartridge (intended use).
Regarding claim 42, Downs teaches wherein the key has a cylinder shape and a radially-outward-facing surface that is sloped radially inward from a center of the radially- outward-facing surface (see fig. 15).
Regarding claim 43, Downs teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature comprises a first curved surface (top portion has a curve) having a first radius, and wherein the at least one receptacle comprises a second curved surface having a second radius at an interface surface receiving the first curved surface, wherein the second radius is smaller than the first radius (intended use the receptacle is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 44, Downs teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature comprises a first surface (top portion) and the at least one receptacle comprises a second surface, wherein in an installed configuration, the first surface and the second surface define an interface surface and at least one gap between the first surface and the second surface (intended use the receptacle is not positively recited).
Claim(s) 32-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rookey (US 20190217229 A1).
PNG
media_image8.png
481
413
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
436
599
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 32, Rookey teaches a filter cartridge (10A), comprising: a filter body (30D and 24) having a first end (top end), a second end (bottom end), and a longitudinal axis [0462];a fluid inlet (56) and outlet (58) at the first end of the filter body [0416]; and an integrated locking head (30D) on the first end of the filter body, wherein the integrated locking head comprises at least one displaceable latch feature (188) extending longitudinally from the integrated locking head [0495-0497], the at least one displaceable latch feature comprising an elongate member (long elongated portion of 82D), wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature is configured to be received by at least one receptacle on an inner surface of a manifold (intended use), and wherein the at least one receptacle comprises: a stop element at a first end of the at least one receptacle (intended use); and a curved transition surface at a second end of the at least one receptacle (intended use) [0462-0513] (figs. 13-18).
Regarding claim 33, Rookey teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature comprises a latch feature (bottom curve of 82D), wherein insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold causes the at least one displaceable latch feature to interact with a curved interior surface of the manifold, prior to being received by the at least one receptacle, to force the at least one displaceable latch feature to displace radially inward as a result (intended use).
Regarding claim 34, Rookey teaches wherein, after insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold, the latch feature is structured to sit within the at least one receptacle and prevent movement of the filter cartridge in a direction along the longitudinal axis that is opposite an insertion direction (intended use).
Regarding claim 35, Rookey teaches wherein, after insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold, the at least one displaceable latch feature is structured to interact with the stop element of the at least one receptacle to prevent rotation of the filter cartridge in a first direction (intended use).
Regarding claim 36, Rookey teaches wherein, after insertion of the filter cartridge into the manifold, the at least one displaceable latch feature is structured to interact with the curved transition surface of the at least one receptacle to permit rotation of the filter cartridge in a second direction (intended use).
Regarding claim 37, Rookey teaches wherein, during removal of the filter cartridge from the manifold and during rotation of the filter cartridge in the second direction, the at least one displaceable latch feature interacts with the curved transition surface of the at least one receptacle to force the at least one displaceable latch feature to displace radially inward (intended use).
Regarding claim 38, Rookey teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature is a first displaceable latch feature, wherein the integrated locking head comprises a second displaceable latch feature, and wherein the first displaceable latch feature and the second displaceable latch feature are diametrically opposed relative an outer surface of the integrated locking head (see fig. 13).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (key)]
PNG
media_image10.png
773
740
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, Rookey teaches wherein the integrated locking head comprises a key extending radially outward from the integrated locking head (see fig. 13 above).
Regarding claim 40, Rookey teaches wherein, during insertion of the filter cartridge into a manifold, the key is structured to pass through a primary keyway of an extraction guide of the manifold (intended use).
Regarding claim 41, Rookey teaches wherein, when the key is positioned in a primary keyway of an extraction guide of a manifold, the primary keyway is structured to prevent rotation of the filter cartridge (intended use).
Regarding claim 42, Rookey teaches wherein the key has a cylinder shape and a radially-outward-facing surface that is sloped radially inward from a center of the radially- outward-facing surface (fig. 18).
Regarding claim 43, Rookey teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature comprises a first curved surface (bottom curve of 82E) having a first radius, and wherein the at least one receptacle comprises a second curved surface having a second radius at an interface surface receiving the first curved surface, wherein the second radius is smaller than the first radius (intended use).
Regarding claim 44, Rookey teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature comprises a first surface (82E) and the at least one receptacle comprises a second surface, wherein in an installed configuration, the first surface and the second surface define an interface surface and at least one gap between the first surface and the second surface.
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) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Branscomb (US 20160129380 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Branscomb teaches wherein the key has a cylinder shape (see fig. 43a) but does not teach a radially-outward-facing surface that is sloped radially inward from a center of the radially-outward-facing surface. However, modifying this shape would have been an obvious matter of design choice since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used such a shape provide the best design in lock and securing the filter.
Regarding claim 19, Branscomb teaches wherein the at least one displaceable latch feature comprises a first curved surface having a first radius, and wherein the at least one receptacle comprises a second curved surface having a second radius at an interface surface receiving the first curved surface, wherein the second radius is smaller than the first radius. However, these types of shapes are well-known. Modifying this shape would have been an obvious matter of design choice since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used such a shape provide the best design in lock and securing the filter.
***
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 have been considered as filed but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Branscomb does not disclose a "displaceable latch feature" because Branscomb teaches that filter cap 4300 should have "strength or rigidity" ([0133]), and that "displaceable" cannot reasonably be read on a rigid element. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, "displaceable" is a capability term meaning capable of being displaced; it recites no degree of movement and no resilient, flexible, or cantilevered structure. MPEP §§ 2111, 2114(II). Branscomb's polymeric latch on cap 4300 is capable of being displaced and therefore meets the limitation.
Applicant argues that the specification's flexible prongs 150 and paragraphs [0131]–[0148] establish the meaning of "displaceable." However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Limitations from the specification are not imported into the claims. MPEP § 2111.01(II). The claim recites "displaceable," not "flexible" or "prong," and the disclosed embodiment does not narrow the broader claim term. A dictionary meaning of "displaceable" is likewise a capability that Branscomb's polymeric latch possesses.
Applicant argues that [0139] (cap 4400) was improperly cited and that [0133] shows cap 4300 should be strong or rigid. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rest on [0139]; [0133]'s permissive language ("may be constructed of" a polymer having "strength or rigidity") states a material option for one embodiment and does not prohibit displacement. Rigidity and displaceability are not mutually exclusive, and polypropylene is a resilient thermoplastic commonly used for flexible features. Where a claim recites a capability, the burden is on Applicant to show the prior-art structure is incapable of the recited function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Attorney argument that the material is "rigid" is not evidence of incapability. MPEP § 2145. Applicant's remaining arguments do not separately dispute the other limitations, which remain as mapped. The § 102 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Branscomb teaches away from a displaceable latch under In re Gurley and In re Gordon, because its "strength or rigidity" teaching would discourage a flexible latch and its mechanism would fail if the latch were displaceable. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. A reference teaches away only if it criticizes, discredits, or discourages the claimed approach; a mere preference for one alternative is not teaching away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Branscomb neither disparages a displaceable latch nor states it would be inoperable. To the contrary, Branscomb itself discloses a resilient snap engagement — engagement arms 506a/506b whose tab 512 rides over the manifold body 516 and seats in recess 528 ([0116]–[0118]) — so it cannot be said to lead the skilled artisan away from displaceable latches. Applicant's assertion that the mechanism "would fail" is attorney argument unsupported by evidence.
Applicant further argues that the "displaceable" deficiency defeats the § 103 rejection. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees, for the reasons mentioned above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. 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