CTNF 18/027,704 CTNF 85586 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Election/Restrictions 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22, 24 and 26 , in the reply filed on 01/09/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden . This is not found persuasive because Applicant argument to a serious burden requirement does not fully address and rebut a finding of lack of unity as established by the Sakashita et al (US 20170072589) reference in the restriction requirement made on dated 11/10/25 . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Drawings 06-36 AIA The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “orthogonal projection” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-22-06 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “surface filtration layer (14)” . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 depends on canceled claim 3 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-09 Regarding claims 2 and 15, the phrase "xxx-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "xxx-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As regarding claim 9, the word "substantially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the word "substantially" is a required by the Applicant as part of the claimed invention or not. Claim 7 recites “its inflow side and its outflow side” in line 4. It is unclear what ‘its’ is referring to. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the one" and “the other grid layer” in line 2. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the other", “the central grid layer”, and “other two grid layers”. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 22 recites the limitation " the one", “the other one”, and “the central grid layer ” in lines 3-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 5 and 19 depends on claims 2, 15; and hence is also rejected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 5-7, 15, 17, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beiermann et al (US 20200179903; hereinafter Beiermann) in view of Doyen et al (US 20150027948; hereinafter Doyen) . As regarding claim 1, Beiermann discloses the claimed invention for an inherently stable, throughflow-porous filter element for filtering foreign substances from a gas stream, comprising: a filter body (fig. 5) made of plastic ([0021]) and having an inflow side and an opposite outflow side, with a surface filtration layer being formed on the inflow side, wherein the filter body comprises a three-dimensional support structure and having cavities (fig. 3; no number) through which gas can flow from the inflow side to the outflow side, and wherein the surface filtration layer at least partially fills the cavities of the three-dimensional support structure (figs. 2-5). Beiermann does not disclose the three-dimensional support structure manufactured in an additive manufacturing process. Doyen teaches the three-dimensional support structure manufactured in an additive manufacturing process ([0056]). Both Beiermann and Doyen are directed to filtration element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the three-dimensional support structure manufactured in an additive manufacturing process as taught by Doyen in order to enable the porous filter elements with optimized airflow, higher filtration efficiency, customizable designs, and reduced weight, all while minimizing material waste and simplifying production. As regarding claim 2, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the three-dimensional support structure has a cage structure that is open towards the inflow side (figs. 2-4); wherein the three-dimensional support structure forms basket-like, cup-like or funnel-like cavities, each having a bottom side and an opposite open side, the open side facing the inflow side; wherein the basket-like, cup-like or funnel-like cavities each have a lateral boundary which connects the bottom side to the open side and has openings through which adjacent basket-like, cup-like or funnel-like cavities are in communication with one another (figs. 2-4). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the three-dimensional support structure forms basket-like, cup-like or funnel-like cavities in order to enhance porous filter element performance, since it has been held that the shape of a structural feature is considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration is significant, see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47. As regarding claim 5, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the open side of a respective cavity has front openings and the bottom side and/or the lateral boundary has rear openings (fig. 2; no number), wherein in an orthogonal projection (fig. 3) from the open side to the bottom side, a plurality of rear openings of the bottom side and/or the lateral boundary is located within an area defined by a front opening of the open side. As regarding claim 6, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the open side of a respective cavity has only one opening (figs. 2-3). As regarding claim 7, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the filter body defines a thickness direction extending between its inflow side and its outflow side, and the surface filtration layer fills cavities of the three-dimensional support structure over at least 10% of the thickness of the surface filtration layer, wherein the filter body defines a thickness direction extending between its inflow side and its outflow side, and the surface filtration layer fills cavities of the three-dimensional support structure over at least 10% of the thickness of the three-dimensional support structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the filter body defines a thickness direction extending between its inflow side and its outflow side, and the surface filtration layer fills cavities of the three-dimensional support structure over at least 10% of the thickness of the surface filtration layer, wherein the filter body defines a thickness direction extending between its inflow side and its outflow side, and the surface filtration layer fills cavities of the three-dimensional support structure over at least 10% of the thickness of the three-dimensional support structure in order to enhance porous filter element performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As regarding claim 15, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the three-dimensional support structure has a truss-like configuration with rods (Doyen – 113 of figs. 1-2) which are connected to each other at nodes (fig. 4; no number); and/or wherein the three-dimensional support structure comprises a grid-like structure forming at least two grid layers (10, 21, 28 of fig. 4) of which one grid layer faces the inflow side, and the other grid layer faces the outflow side, the grid layers being connected to each other by rods or webs (fig. 4 and [0032]). As regarding claim 17, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the one and/or the other grid layer (10, 21, 28 of fig. 4) has a configuration with rods (Doyen – 113 of figs. 1-2) interconnected at nodes (fig. 4; no number) and defining openings; wherein the one and/or the other grid layer comprises a regular grid structure. As regarding claim 19, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least two grid layers are arranged such that the openings of one of the two grid layers are arranged offset from the openings of the other one of the two grid layers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the at least two grid layers are arranged such that the openings of one of the two grid layers are arranged offset from the openings of the other one of the two grid layers in order to force a more torturous airflow path, improving particle capture, structure support, and overall filtration efficiency, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Claim 20 is likewise rejected with reasons analogous as set forth in claim 19 above as regarding the openings of layers are offset or congruent manner. Also regarding claim 20, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the three-dimensional support structure comprises three grid layers lying one behind the other in the direction of flow between the inflow side and the outflow side of the filter body, with openings of the central grid layer being arranged offset from openings of the other two grid layers and/or wherein the three-dimensional support structure comprises three grid layers lying one behind the other in the direction of flow between the inflow side and the outflow side of the filter body, with openings of the two outer grid layers being arranged in congruent manner. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the three-dimensional support structure comprises three grid layers lying one behind the other in the direction of flow between the inflow side and the outflow side of the filter body, with openings of the central grid layer being arranged offset from openings of the other two grid layers and/or wherein the three-dimensional support structure comprises three grid layers lying one behind the other in the direction of flow between the inflow side and the outflow side of the filter body, with openings of the two outer grid layers being arranged in congruent manner in order to enhance porous filter element performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As regarding claim 22, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the openings of the one, the other one and/or the central grid layer are triangular, quadrangular, in particular square, rectangular, rhombic or parallelogram-shaped, polygonal, round and/or elliptical and/or wherein the webs or rods connecting two adjacent grid layers each are arranged offset from the nodes of the two grid layers. However, the shape of a structural feature is considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration is significant, see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9, 14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beiermann et al (US 20200179903; hereinafter Beiermann) in view of Doyen et al (US 20150027948; hereinafter Doyen), as applied supra, and further in view of Herding et al (US 20200298154; hereinafter Herding) . As regarding claim 9, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the surface filtration layer comprises a first layer ([0019] – ‘… at least one filter support 10 … other layers…) which partially, substantially completely fills cavities of the three-dimensional support structure; wherein the surface filtration layer comprises at least one second layer which is applied to the first layer from the inflow side, wherein the second layer forms a surface on the inflow side of the filter body; wherein the second layer at least partially occupies interstices in the first layer; Beiermann as modified does not disclose wherein the first layer and the second layer have different pore sizes, wherein the pore size of the first layer is larger than the pore size of the second layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the first layer and the second layer have different pore sizes, wherein the pore size of the first layer is larger than the pore size of the second layer in order to enhance porous filter element performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Herding ([0027] and [0043]). Beiermann as modified discloses wherein the second layer contains particles selected from the group consisting of PE, PTFE, SiO2, hollow glass, solid glass, foam glass or sand, PPS, aluminum oxide, or a mixture of at least two of said materials (Herding – [0027]). As regarding claim 14, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention for the first and the second layer of the surface filtration layer are formed as a coating (Herding – [0027] and fig. 3). As regarding claim 26, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the filter element is formed as a hollow body, wherein the inflow side of the filter body is arranged on an outer side of the hollow body and the outflow side of the filter body is arranged on an inner side of the hollow body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the filter element is formed as a hollow body, wherein the inflow side of the filter body is arranged on an outer side of the hollow body and the outflow side of the filter body is arranged on an inner side of the hollow body in order to enhance porous filter element performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Herding ([0060]-[0061] and fig. 4) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beiermann et al (US 20200179903; hereinafter Beiermann) in view of Doyen et al (US 20150027948; hereinafter Doyen), as applied supra, and further in view of Drury et al (US 20160121272; hereinafter Drury) . As regarding claim 24, Beiermann as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Beiermann as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the filter body comprises furthermore a three-dimensional mother pore structure, wherein the three-dimensional support structure is arranged at the inflow side of the three-dimensional mother pore structure wherein the three-dimensional mother pore structure has a larger pore size than the three-dimensional support structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the filter body comprises furthermore a three-dimensional mother pore structure, wherein the three-dimensional support structure is arranged at the inflow side of the three-dimensional mother pore structure wherein the three-dimensional mother pore structure has a larger pore size than the three-dimensional support structure in order to enhance porous filter element performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Drury (300, inner most layer, of fig. 3A and [0123]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET. 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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. /DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 2 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 3 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 4 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 5 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 6 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 7 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 8 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 9 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 10 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 11 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 12 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 13 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 14 Art Unit: 1773 Application/Control Number: 18/027,704 Page 15 Art Unit: 1773