|
Patent landscape, scope, and claims: |
US Patent 9,314,561 Scope, Claims, and US Patent Landscape for Filter Apparatus With Rotatable Cartridge Housing
US 9,314,561 claims a specific mechanical filter system: multiple cartridges held in parallel by a plate-and-opening housing, with cartridges rotatably coupled through aligned openings, and a clamp that attaches to the housing or support structure. The independent claim centers on the combination of (1) two-or-more cartridges each with inlet/outlet ends and screens, (2) an upper and lower plate defining openings that rotatably couple the cartridges in the same orientation, and (3) an attachment clamp connected to the housing through which the cartridge bodies pass. Dependent claims narrow to specific mechanical variants (support rods/plates, pole clamp), cartridge construction (cylindrical and optionally transparent cartridge tube; inlet/outlet connector with inlet/outlet flanges; conical outlet flange), and media (activated carbon, hydrogel-coated activated carbon). A second independent claim form focuses on two cartridges with specified transparent tube materials and named flange geometries.
What this patent protects (claim scope snapshot)
- Device type: filter apparatus with multiple rotatable filter cartridges mounted through a two-plate housing.
- Core mechanical architecture: upper plate + lower plate parallel to each other, each plate has multiple openings aligned so cartridges extend through and are rotatably coupled.
- Retention/connection: attachment clamp connected to the housing (or support elements) and optionally rotatably coupled.
- Cartridge end structure: inlet/outlet connectors, inlet flange, conical outlet flange, screens at both ends.
- Cartridge construction and media: cylindrical transparent cartridge tube; filter media may be activated carbon and optionally hydrogel-coated activated carbon.
- Cartridge material options (narrower): transparent cartridge tube material from a defined list (polysulfone, polycarbonate, polypropylene, acrylic).
What is the claim scope of US 9,314,561 (independent claim 1) for rotatable multi-cartridge filter housings?
Claim 1 is the broadest combination claim in the excerpt and defines the apparatus at the structural level. The claim is drafted as a system claim where every limitation must be present to infringe.
Claim 1 elements (construed as claim-required features)
- Two or more filter cartridges
- Each cartridge has:
- a first end with an inlet and a first screen
- a second end with an outlet and a second screen
- walls configured to contain filter media
- Housing with two plates oriented substantially parallel
- Upper plate and lower plate configured to hold the cartridges in about the same orientation
- Each plate defines two or more openings
- Rotatable cartridge coupling
- The upper plate openings and lower plate openings receive and rotatably couple the cartridges
- Attachment clamp connected to the housing
- The cartridges extend through:
- the plate openings,
- the upper plate,
- the lower plate
- Cartridges extend through the clamp region
- The clamp is connected to the housing and the cartridges extend through the plate system and the clamp as recited.
Practical scope implications
- “Rotatably coupled” is central. A design with fixed cartridges rather than rotatable mounting is outside the literal claim 1 scope.
- The claim is architecture-first. Even if a design uses similar cartridge media, it can still avoid claim 1 if it lacks the parallel two-plate rotatable mounting with a connected attachment clamp.
- “Two or more” captures at least a duplex arrangement and scales upward.
How do dependent claims narrow US 9,314,561’s mechanical design (support elements, pole clamp, clamp rotatability)?
Dependent claims add specific mechanical sub-features to the claim 1 baseline.
Dependent claim 2: housing support elements
- The housing further comprises one or more support elements connecting the upper and lower plates.
Dependent claim 3: clamp connected to support elements
- The attachment clamp is connected to one or more of the support elements (not merely connected to the housing generally).
Dependent claim 4: support elements are rods and support plates
- Support elements comprise a combination of rods and support plates.
Dependent claim 5: attachment clamp is a pole clamp
- The attachment clamp is specifically a pole clamp.
Dependent claim 19: clamp rotatably coupled to housing
- Attachment clamp is rotatably coupled to the housing.
Scope effect
- Designs that satisfy claim 1 but use a different support architecture can avoid dependent claims 2–4.
- A clamp that is not a pole clamp avoids claim 5.
- Rotatable attachment clamp coupling (claim 19) adds another potential noninfringement lever.
What formulation and media features are claimed in US 9,314,561 (activated carbon and hydrogel-coated activated carbon)?
Claim 12 and claim 13 introduce filtration media.
Claim 12
- Filter media comprises activated carbon.
Claim 13
- Filter media is hydrogel coated activated carbon.
Scope effect
- These are dependent limitations. To infringe claim 12 or 13, the apparatus must otherwise meet claim 1 (or claim 15 where applicable) plus the defined media.
- A device using different carbon chemistries (non-hydrogel coated) may fall back to claim 1 coverage if the device structure matches claim 1, but it would avoid claim 13.
What cartridge construction details are claimed (transparent cylindrical tube, inlet/outlet connectors, and flange geometries)?
Claim 6–11 and claim 14 capture cartridge/tube structure and connector geometry.
Claim 6–7: cartridge tube and transparency
- Walls containing filter media comprise a cartridge tube (claim 6).
- Tube is transparent (claim 7).
Claim 8: inlet and outlet include connectors
- Inlet includes an inlet connector.
- Outlet includes an outlet connector.
Claim 9: outlet flange between outlet connector and cartridge tube
- Outlet connector is connected to the cartridge tube by an outlet flange.
Claim 10: conical outlet flange
- Outlet flange is conical.
Claim 11: inlet flange between inlet connector and tube
- Inlet connector is connected to the cartridge tube by an inlet flange.
Claim 14: cylindrical shape
- Walls configured to contain filter media define a cylindrical shape.
Scope effect
- These are dependent. Claim 1 can still be infringed without transparency or conical flanges, but only if the remainder of claim 1 is met.
- For designs with metal or opaque cartridges, or with non-conical outlet flanges, these dependent claims reduce infringement risk.
How do claim 15 and claim 16–17 broaden or reframe the invention (two cartridges with named flange geometries and tube material list)?
Claim 15 is a second independent-style claim in your excerpt, reciting a two-cartridge configuration with more specific connector/flange and material constraints.
Claim 15 key elements
- Exactly two filter cartridges
- Each cartridge includes:
- First end:
- inlet connector connected to cartridge tube by an inlet flange
- first screen
- Second end:
- outlet connector
- cartridge tube connected by a conical outlet flange
- second screen
- Transparent cartridge tube configured to contain filter media
- Housing:
- upper and lower plates parallel
- each plate defines two openings
- cartridges rotatably coupled through both plates
- Support elements:
- support plates and rods connecting the upper and lower plates
- Pole clamp:
- connected to the support plates
- Cartridges extend through openings and plates.
Claim 16
- Filter media comprises activated carbon.
Claim 17: tube material selection list
- Transparent cartridge tube material selected from:
- polysulfone
- polycarbonate
- polypropylene
- acrylic
Scope effect
- Claim 15 is narrower than claim 1 because it locks in:
- two cartridges (not “two or more”)
- conical outlet flange
- transparent tube
- support rods and plates
- pole clamp connected to support plates
- tube material from a closed list
- A design using different transparent polymers (e.g., PMMA variants outside “acrylic” wording, SAN, Tritan, etc.) could avoid claim 17, but would not necessarily avoid claim 1.
What does claim 18 add about housing construction (connected structure + rotatable engagement)?
Claim 18 presents another housing apparatus version focused on the connected structure and rotatable engagement.
Claim 18 elements (as recited)
- Connected structure with:
- upper plate and lower plate parallel
- holds two or more filter cartridges in about the same orientation
- plates each define two or more openings
- openings receive cartridges and rotatably engage cartridges
- One or more support elements connecting plates
- Attachment clamp connected to housing
- cartridges extend through openings and through the plates
Claim 21: clamp rotatably coupled
- Attachment clamp rotatably coupled to housing.
Scope effect
- Claim 18 is close to claim 1 but emphasizes rotatable engagement language and “connected structure.”
How strong is the US 9,314,561 patent estate for competitive design-arounds (what to change to avoid infringement)?
Based on the claim structure in the excerpt, the most direct design-around levers are mechanical and connector-related:
Highest-value noninfringement levers
- Eliminate or change “rotatably coupled” cartridges
- If cartridges are fixed/bayonet-locked rather than rotatably mounted through the plate openings, claim 1/claim 18/claim 15 dependence may fail.
- Replace the two-plate parallel rotatable architecture
- A single-plate manifold, a three-dimensional frame, or a cartridge mounting that does not rely on aligned upper and lower openings can avoid the core claim combination.
- Change the clamp type
- Using a different clamp concept than a “pole clamp” can avoid claim 5, and likely also reduce exposure to claim 15’s pole clamp connection.
- Avoid specified cartridge connector geometry
- Non-conical outlet flange can avoid claim 10/claim 15 outlet flange limitations.
- Avoid transparent tube or specified tube materials
- Opaque tubes or different polymer choices can avoid claim 7 and claim 17.
- Avoid the specific media formulation if targeting dependent claims
- Use activated carbon without hydrogel coating to avoid claim 13.
Risk posture for different product categories
- If a competitor’s device matches the full plate-and-rotatable multi-cartridge architecture and uses transparent cartridge tubes with conical outlet flanges and pole clamp, the claim coverage is tighter.
- If the competitor only shares “activated carbon” or “cartridge tubes” but not the rotatable two-plate housing architecture, the practical infringement risk against claim 1 is lower.
What is the likely US patent landscape around US 9,314,561 (adjacent filing themes and common overlaps)?
Your excerpt defines a mechanically specific apparatus, so the surrounding landscape typically clusters around:
- Multi-cartridge filter housings with parallel supports
- Rotatable cartridge retention systems (for cartridge replacement or flow/inspection)
- Transparent filter cartridges for monitoring
- Activated carbon cartridge media, including coated variants (hydrogel-coated carbon)
- Connector/flange geometries for cartridge tubes, including conical features
From a freedom-to-operate perspective, the competitive battlegrounds are usually:
- cartridge mounting (rotatable vs fixed),
- housing geometry (two-plate aligned openings),
- cartridge connector interfaces (inlet/outlet flange shape and coupling),
- clamp style (pole clamp or equivalent),
- and any claimed coated media (hydrogel-coated activated carbon).
What patent litigation or Paragraph IV risk exists for US 9,314,561 based on the claim type?
No litigation, Orange Book listing, or regulatory exclusivity status is included in the provided information. The claim is a mechanical filter apparatus, not a typical small-molecule or biologic drug claim, so the standard generic Paragraph IV framework is generally not the right risk lens unless the patent is listed in an FDA compounding or drug-device context. With the provided record, no litigation-specific or Orange Book status can be established.
Key takeaways
- US 9,314,561 claim scope in the excerpt is dominated by a two-plate housing with upper and lower parallel plates, each with openings that rotatably couple multiple cartridges in a fixed orientation, and an attachment clamp connected to the housing.
- Dependent claims narrow to support rods/plates, a pole clamp, transparent cylindrical cartridge tubes, connector/flange structures including a conical outlet flange, and activated carbon media with optional hydrogel-coated activated carbon.
- Claim 15 is narrower than claim 1, locking in two cartridges, conical outlet flange, transparent tube, specific support structure, pole clamp, and a closed list of transparent tube materials.
- The highest-impact design-arounds are mechanical: remove or change the rotatable coupling and the two-plate rotatable cartridge mounting architecture, or change clamp type and connector flange geometry.
FAQs
1) Does US 9,314,561 require transparent cartridge tubes to infringe claim 1?
No. Transparency appears in dependent claim 7. Claim 1 can be infringed without the transparency limitation if the full claim 1 structural combination is present.
2) If a competitor uses activated carbon but not hydrogel-coated activated carbon, which claims are avoided?
Claim 13 is avoided. Claim 12 may still be met if activated carbon is used; claim 1 could still be in play depending on the mechanical match.
3) What design change most directly avoids claim 1 and claim 18?
Changing the cartridge mounting so cartridges are not rotatably coupled/rotatably engaged through aligned openings in the parallel upper and lower plates.
4) How does the conical outlet flange limitation affect infringement analysis?
A non-conical outlet flange can avoid dependent claim 10 and the narrower configuration of claim 15, but it does not automatically avoid claim 1 unless claim 1 itself requires that flange feature (it does not, per your excerpt).
5) Are different transparent polymers outside polysulfone/polycarbonate/polypropylene/acrylic safe from claim 17?
Using transparent tube materials not falling within the stated closed list can avoid claim 17, while broader independent claims may still be evaluated based on the overall mechanical architecture.
References (APA)
- United States Patent 9,314,561.
More… ↓
⤷ Start Trial
|
