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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Figs. 1-2, in the reply filed on 18 August 2026 is acknowledged. However, Applicant failed to provide a listing of claims encompassing the elected Species I as required in the Restriction Requirement. Therefore, Examiner has withdrawn the following claims for reading on the non-elected Species of Figs. 3-7:
Claim 6, which requires a sediment filter of Figs. 3-4.
Claim 13, which requires a flowrate between about 3-4 GPM of Figs. 3-4.
Accordingly, claims 6 and 13 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected Species and claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are deemed to read on the elected Species.
Claims 6 and 13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 August 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites features of the filters to be cleaned in the apparatus of claim 1 and does not further limit the apparatus of claim 1.
Claims 16-20 recite features of the claiming cleaning fluid and intended use of cleaning cycles, which are not structural features that further limit the apparatus of claim 1. While the filter washing station recites “configured to” language, such language does not structurally limit what cleaning cycle, cleaning fluid, or timing before applying a new coat of filter oil is being used in the apparatus, such intended use recitation merely requires the capability to perform such intended use. MPEP 2115 and caselaw is replete with teachings disclosing that expressions relating an apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-5 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0246087 to Crawford et al. (“Crawford”) in view of WO 2023/191529 A1 to Kim et al. (“KIM”; US 2025/0121414 cited as unofficial translation).
Regarding claim 1, Crawford discloses a system for a filter washing station (1; see Figs. 1-2 and 4-5a-f), the system comprising:
a filter drawer (filter chamber 2) for housing one or more filters during cleaning and drying;
one or more spray nozzles (34) disposed in the filter drawer for flushing contaminants from the one or more filters;
a water tank (8,9) below the filter drawer for holding a volume of a cleaning fluid (see Fig. 1);
a water pump (10) for pumping the cleaning fluid to the one or more spray nozzles (see Figs. 1-2);
a wire mesh (11,12) above the water tank for removing contaminants from cleaning fluid draining from the one or more filters (see Fig. 1).
Crawford discloses the wire mesh providing coarse filtration of recirculated washing fluid and optional use of a sand-filter system (see ¶ [0021]), but Crawford does not expressly discloses one or more filter cartridges for removing particles flowing with the cleaning fluid as recited in claim 1. Kim teaches an art-related washing system using high-pressure and circulating cleaning fluid through a filter cartridge (80) for the purpose of filtering washing liquid for repeated reuse (see Kim at ¶ [0045]-[0047]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to provide the washing system of Crawford with a filter cartridge, such as that taught in Kim, to yield the same and predictable results of filtering washing fluid for recirculation and reuse.
Regarding claim 2, the system in the combination of Crawford and Kim above has a configuration that is fully capable of cleaning a filter having “exposed filter material that is amenable to being sprayed with a cleaning fluid.”
Regarding claim 3, Crawford discloses a water pump (10) and use of a water pressure output sensing gauge (18), but does not expressly disclose a flowrate of about 10 GPM at a water pressure ranging between about 60 PSI and about 100 PSI. However, Examiner takes the position that the water pump and pressurized water line has a configuration that is fully capable of such intended use. Even if assuming, arguendo, that the configuration of Crawford could not perform such flowrate and water pressure, Kim expressly teaches the cleaning system being a “high-pressure washer” and the position is taken that such system could readily perform the recited flowrate and water pressure intended use as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Crawford further discloses wherein the filter washing station is configured to enable the water pressure to be adjusted (note water pump isolation valve 44, which can be used to adjust the amount of water flowing to the water inlet cone 28 and spray nozzles 34).
Regarding claim 5, Crawford discloses the machine being a “self-contained, stainless steel unit” (Crawford at ¶ [0005]) and use of wire mesh filters (11,12). Crawford does not expressly disclose the wire mesh comprising 304 stainless-steel with an opening size of about 0.032 inches to capture macroscopic particles flowing with the cleaning water. However, the position is taken 304 stainless steel is a known material in the art used for its well-known properties, such as strength and chemical inertness, Examiner taking Official Notice to this effect. Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to form the wire mesh filter of Crawford using known materials, such as 304 stainless steel, to yield the predictable results of providing a wire mesh filter to the washing system. Regarding the opening size, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to modify the wire mesh opening size as desired to achieve the desired filtering, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 regarding Obviousness and Changes in Size.
Regarding claim 16 and the intended use of fluids usable in the apparatus, Crawford further discloses wherein the cleaning fluid comprises cleaning water that is sprayed onto the one or more filters to flush contaminants from the one or more filters (see use of water in abstract).
Regarding claim 17 and the intended use of fluids usable in the apparatus, Crawford discloses using water to clean filters, which is both a “fluid” and a “solvent” used for cleaning.
Regarding claim 18 and the intended use of cleaning solvent usable in the apparatus, the cleaning solvent of Crawford is fully capable of breaking up filter oil composition and flush away contaminants to at least some degree. Notwithstanding this, the apparatus of Crawford is also fully capable of the intended use of using different cleaning solvents with or without water if so desired
Similarly regarding claims 19-20 and the intended use of cleaning solvent usable in the apparatus, the cleaning solvent of Crawford is fully capable for use in a combination cleaning cycle or a clean and dry cycle prior to applying a new coat of oil to the filter. Note that the intended use of application of a new coat of oil has no structural cooperative relationship with the claimed cleaning apparatus.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0251387 to Royce et al. (“Royce”).
Crawford and Kim, supra, disclose the claimed invention including Crawford disclosing using a motor coupled with the filter to agitate the filter during cleaning by spinning/rotating. Crawford does not expressly disclose the motor being a DC motor. Royce teaches an art-related filter cleaning system incorporating a motor (54) for agitating the filter by bi-directional spinning and speed varying, and discloses the motor may be a DC motor (Royce at ¶ [0061]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to substitute one known motor for the other to achieve the same and predictable agitating results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0056035 to Kraai, which discloses cleaning filters by spraying water and/or solvents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Michael E. Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
