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 .
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 recites “the filtered air passage” in line 2 it should read as “a filtered air passage”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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) 1-6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Troxell (US 20130239802 A1).
Regarding to claim 1, Troxell teaches an air filter system for a tank arranged to provide a fluid, comprising: an air filter housing being arranged to receive and hold an air filter material between an air inlet and an air outlet (Fig 7 100 70)), wherein the air filter housing is further arranged to guide unfiltered ambient air from the air inlet towards the air filter material and to guide filtered air from the air filter material out through the air outlet to the tank (Fig 7 100 35 36 70), and an indicator arrangement in fluid connection with the air outlet (Fig 7 45 or 50) and being configured to mechanically indicate a congestion level of the air filter material based on the air pressure difference at the air outlet caused by an accumulation of particles in the air filter material.
Regarding to claim language "configured to mechanically indicate a congestion level of the air filter material based on the air pressure difference at the air outlet caused by an accumulation of particles in the air filter material" and “a tank arranged to provide a fluid”, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it meets the limitations of the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §2111.02 II).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 2, Troxell teaches the air filter system according to claim 1, wherein the indicator arrangement comprises a filtered air passage between the air outlet and a closed compartment (Fig 7 45).
Regarding to claim 3, Troxell teaches the air filter system according to claim 1, wherein the filtered air passage is arranged at an angle with respect to air flow direction in the air outlet to fluidly connect the air outlet with the closed compartment (Fig 7 30 32 36).
Regarding to claim 4, Troxell teaches the air filter system according to claim 1, wherein the closed compartment comprises a recess arranged with a pressure plate attached to a loaded spring, wherein the pressure plate is arranged to mechanically indicate the congestion level of the air filter material when acted upon by the air pressure difference (Fig 7 50).
Regarding to claim 5, Troxell teaches the air filter system according to claim 1, wherein a wall of the closed compartment is configured such that the pressure plate is visible from the outside of the air filter housing(Fig 7 50).
Regarding to claim 6, Troxell teaches the air filter system according to claim 5, wherein the air filter housing comprise markings visible from the outside of the air filter housing that indicates the congestion level of the air filter material relative to movement of the pressure plate (Fig 7 50).
Regarding to claim 11, Troxell teaches the air filter system according to claim 1, a vehicle comprising an air filter system according to claim 1 (¶[0032]).
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 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) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troxell (US 20130239802 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holzwarth et al. (DE 102014015941 A1, hereinafter Holzwarth).
Regarding to claim 7, Troxell teaches the air filter system according to claim 1, but Troxell fails to teach wherein the air outlet comprise a filtered air guide that extends into the interior of the air filter housing and there comprise an opening to receive the filtered air.
However, Holzwarth teaches wherein the air outlet comprise a filtered air guide that extends into the interior of the air filter housing and there comprise an opening to receive the filtered air (see the top of Fig 6 or Fig 1, 14).
PNG
media_image2.png
778
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Holzwarth and Troxell are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filters. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would add guide on the outlet in order to better control the flow of liquid or air from the filter.
Regarding to claim 8 , Troxell teaches the air filter system according to claim 1, but Troxell fails to teach wherein the air outlet comprise a filtered air guide extending into the interior of the air filter housing such that back-splash from the tank is allowed to bypass the air filter material within the air filter housing.
However, Holzwarth teaches wherein the air outlet comprise a filtered air guide extending into the interior of the air filter housing such that back-splash from the tank is allowed to bypass the air filter material within the air filter housing (Fig 6, 118 116). Holzwarth and Troxell are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filters. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, would incorporate the down pipe of Holzwarth with the air filter of Troxell in order to eliminate possibility of the air filter being blocked by fluid.
PNG
media_image3.png
772
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 9, modified Troxell teaches the air filter system according to claim 8, wherein the interior of the air filter housing comprise a receptacle arrangement arranged to receive back-splash from the filtered air guide and control the discharge of the back-splash out from the interior of the air filter housing via the air inlet (Fig 6 120 124 126 116).
Regarding to claim 10, modified Troxell teaches the air filter system according to claim 9, wherein the filtered air guide extends into and has an open end within the receptacle arrangement (Fig 6, 125).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights