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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 3–4, 6–13, 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abdalla et al., WO 2019/112560 A1 (“Abdalla”).
Regarding claim 1:
Abdalla discloses that a filter system (Abdalla’s filter assembly 100) comprising: a filter housing (Abdalla’s filter housing 102) comprising a fluid inlet (Abdalla’s fluid inlet 105) for inflow of a fluid into the filter housing 102. Abdalla Fig. 1, [0022] and [0026]. Abdalla discloses that a filter element 110 removably received in the filter housing 102 (Abdalla discloses its filter 120 maybe removable from internal volume 103 of housing 102). Abdalla Fig. 1, [0028]. Abdalla discloses that the filter element 110 comprising a folded filter medium (Abdalla’s pleated filter media 120) and a stabilization ring (Abdalla’s barrier 140) attached to the filter medium 120 and stabilizing the filter medium (intended use, and Abdalla discloses its barrier 140 is capable of stabilizing the filter medium because Abdalla discloses its barrier 140 is configured to bond and secure the plurality of pleats in a fixed location). Abdalla Fig. 1, [0035]. Abdalla discloses that wherein the stabilization ring 140 is arranged on the filter medium 120 such that the stabilization ring 140, at least in sections, is arranged within an inflow cross section of the fluid inlet 105 (as shown in Fig. 1). Abdalla Fig. 1, [0026]. Abdalla discloses that the fluid directly flows against the filter medium 120 in operation of the filter system (as shown in Fig. 1, arrow indicates fluid flows into filter medium via outer circumferential surface, where the fluid directly flows against the filter medium 120; and Abdalla discloses its barrier 140 maybe porous or have slots or openings to allow fluid to communicate through to the filter media 120. Abdalla [0040]. It is therefore understood that in Abdalla, fluid could directly flow against filter medium in operation of the filter system (via the slots or openings)). Abdalla Fig. 1, [0026].
Regarding claim 3:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 1, wherein a symmetry axis of the fluid inlet passes through the stabilization ring (as shown in Fig. 1). Abdalla Fig. 1, [0026].
Regarding claim 4:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 3, wherein the symmetry axis of the fluid inlet (overlapping the flow arrow at inlet 105) is arranged perpendicularly to a symmetry axis (Abdalla’s longitudinal axis AL) of the filter element 110 (as shown in Fig. 1). Abdalla Fig. 1, [0028].
Regarding claim 6:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 1, wherein the filter element comprises a first end disk 114 and a second end disk 112, wherein the filter medium 120 is arranged between the first end disk 114 and the second end disk 112. Abdalla Fig. 1, [0032]. Abdalla also discloses that the stabilization ring 140 is arranged off-center between the first end disk 114 and the second end disk 112. Abdalla Fig. 1, [0032].
Regarding claim 7:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 1, wherein precisely one stabilization ring is provided (see Fig. 1). Abdalla Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 8:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 1, wherein the stabilization ring 140 is glued onto the filter medium (Abdalla discloses its pleat tips 324 are bonded to the barrier inner surface via an adhesive). Abdalla [0037].
Regarding claim 9:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 8, wherein the stabilization ring comprises a strip, a string and/or a hot melt (Abdalla discloses its adhesive could be a thermally activated material, have a melting point lower than a melting point of each of the barrier and the filter media, which is a hot melt; and Adballa’s stabilization ring 140 shows as a strip). Abdalla Fig. 1, [0038].
Regarding claim 10:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 1, wherein the filter element 120 has a circular cylindrical cross section or an oval cross section (as shown in Fig. 3). Abdalla Fig. 3, [0043].
Regarding claim 11:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 1, wherein the fluid flows perpendicularly against the filter medium in operation of the filter system (as shown in Fig. 1). Abdalla Fig. 1, [0026].
Regarding claim 12:
It is noted that this limitation describes an intended use limitation of the fluid flow direction rather than a structural limitation of the filter system. Such limitations are given patentable weight only insofar as it affects the structure of the claimed filter system.
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 1, wherein the fluid flows through the inflow cross section against the filter medium in operation of the filter system (as shown in Fig. 1). Abdalla Fig. 1, [0026].
Regarding claim 13:
Abdalla discloses that a filter element 110 of a filter system 100, the filter element 110 comprising: a folded filter medium 120 and a stabilization ring 140 attached to the filter medium 120 and stabilizing the filter medium 120. Abdalla Fig. 1, [0028] and [0049]. Abdalla discloses that the filter element 110 is configured to be removably received in a filter housing 102 of the filter system 100. Abdalla Fig. 1, [0028]. Abdalla discloses that the stabilization ring 140 is arranged on the filter medium 120 such that the stabilization ring 140, at least in sections, is arranged within an inflow cross section of a fluid inlet 105 of the filter housing 102 when the filter element 110 is received in the filter housing 102. Abdalla Fig. 1, [0026]. Abdalla discloses that the filter element 110 is configured such that a fluid directly flows against the filter medium 110 (outer circumferential surface of filter 110 not covered by barrier 140) in operation of the filter system. Abdalla Fig. 1, [0039].
Regarding claim 15:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 13, wherein the filter element comprises a first end disk 114 and a second end disk 112, wherein the filter medium 120 is arranged between the first end disk 114 and the second end disk 112. Abdalla Fig. 1, [0032]. Abdalla also discloses that the stabilization ring 140 is arranged off-center between the first end disk 114 and the second end disk 112. Abdalla Fig. 1, [0032].
Regarding claim 16:
Abdalla discloses that the filter element according to claim 13, wherein precisely one stabilization ring is provided (see Fig. 1). Abdalla Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 17:
Abdalla discloses that the filter element according to claim 13, wherein the stabilization ring 140 is glued onto the filter medium (Abdalla discloses its pleat tips 324 are bonded to the barrier inner surface via an adhesive). Abdalla [0037].
Regarding claim 18:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 17, wherein the stabilization ring comprises a strip, a string and/or a hot melt (Abdalla discloses its adhesive could be a thermally activated material, have a melting point lower than a melting point of each of the barrier and the filter media, which is a hot melt; and Adballa’s stabilization ring 140 shows as a strip). Abdalla Fig. 1, [0038].
Regarding claim 19:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 13, wherein the filter element 120 has a circular cylindrical cross section or an oval cross section (as shown in Fig. 3). Abdalla Fig. 3, [0043].
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 2, 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Abdalla in view of Jainek et al., DE 10 2018 129 695 A1 (“Jainek”).
Regarding claim 2:
Abdalla does not disclose that the filter system according to claim 1, wherein the stabilization ring 140 is arranged centrally in the inflow cross section.
Abdalla discloses that barrier may comprises a second barrier positioned on a second portion of the filter media different form the first position. Abdalla [0041].
Additionally, similar to Abdalla, Jainek discloses a pleated filter element 1. Jainek Fig. 1, [0067]. Similar to Abdalla, Jainek also discloses its pleated filter element 1 comprises one or multiple reinforcement band 10. Janiek [0066]. Additionally, Jainek discloses its reinforcement band 10 is arranged centrally in the inflow cross section because Jainek’s filter element 1 can be flowed through radially from outside to inside. Jainek Fig. 1, [0041]. It would have been obvious for Abdalla to have a stabilizing ring 140 arranged centrally in the inflow cross section as disclosed by Jainek because such location are known in the art as being suitable to arranged a stabilization ring.
Regarding claim 5:
Abdalla discloses that the filter system according to claim 1, wherein the filter element comprises a first end disk 114 and a second end disk 112, wherein the filter medium 120 is arranged between the first end disk 114 and the second end disk 112. Abdalla Fig. 1, [0032].
Abdalla does not disclose that the stabilization ring 140 is arranged centrally between the first end disk and the second end disk.
However, Abdalla discloses that barrier may comprises a second barrier positioned on a second portion of the filter media different form the first position. Abdalla [0041].
Additionally, similar to Abdalla, Jainek discloses a pleated filter element 1. Jainek Fig. 1, [0067]. Similar to Abdalla, Jainek also discloses its pleated filter element 1 comprises one or multiple reinforcement band 10. Janiek [0066]. Additionally, Jainek discloses its reinforcement band 10 is arranged centrally in the inflow cross section because Jainek’s filter element 1 can be flowed through radially from outside to inside. Jainek Fig. 1, [0041]. It would have been obvious for Abdalla to have a stabilizing ring 140 arranged centrally in the inflow cross section as disclosed by Jainek because such location is known in the art as being suitable to arranged a stabilization ring.
With such modification, modified Abdalla would have its stabilizing ring 140 arranged centrally between the first end disk 114 and a second end disk 112.
Regarding claim 14:
Abdalla discloses that the filter element according to claim 13, further comprising a first end disk 114 and a second end disk 112, wherein the filter medium 120 is arranged between the first end disk 114 and the second end disk 112. Abdalla Fig. 1, [0050].
Abdalla does not disclose that the stabilization ring 140 is arranged centrally between the first end disk and the second end disk.
However, Abdalla discloses that barrier may comprises a second barrier positioned on a second portion of the filter media different form the first position. Abdalla [0041].
Additionally, similar to Abdalla, Jainek discloses a pleated filter element 1. Jainek Fig. 1, [0067]. Similar to Abdalla, Jainek also discloses its pleated filter element 1 comprises one or multiple reinforcement band 10. Janiek [0066]. Additionally, Jainek discloses its reinforcement band 10 is arranged centrally in the inflow cross section because Jainek’s filter element 1 can be flowed through radially from outside to inside. Jainek Fig. 1, [0041]. It would have been obvious for Abdalla to have a stabilizing ring 140 arranged centrally in the inflow cross section as disclosed by Jainek because such location is known in the art as being suitable to arranged a stabilization ring.
With such modification, modified Abdalla would have its stabilizing ring 140 arranged centrally between the first end disk 114 and a second end disk 112.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The applicant argues that Abdala fails to disclose or suggest “wherein the stabilization ring is arranged on the filter such that the stabilization ring, at least in sections, is arranged within an inflow cross section of the fluid inlet” as required by claim 1. Applicant Rem. dated Sep. 18, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 5. The applicant argues that Abdalla’s barrier 140 is positioned around a portion of the filter media 120 and proximal to the filter media second end 123 and proximal to the fluid inlet 105 such that the stream of fluid entering the internal volume impinges on a barrier outer surface of the barrier 140. Id. The applicant argues that Abdallah discloses that direct impingement of the fluid on the filter media may distort the plurality of pleats form their original location. Id. The applicant argues that the claimed “stabilization ring” extends around the filter medium, but only partially covers the filter medium from the inflow. While Abdallah discloses that its barrier 140 must entirely cover the filter media from the inflow. And therefore, Abdalla’s barrier 140 is not a stabilization ring.
The examiner does not agree. What applicant argues it not consistent with what the claim recites. For example, the applicant argues that the claimed stabilization ring “only partially covers the filter medium from the inflow,” and such limitation is not recited in the instant claim 1. The recited limitation “such that the stabilization ring, at least in sections, is arranged within an inflow cross section of the fluid inlet “is different from applicant’s argument of “only partially covers the filter medium from the inflow.”
Additionally, Abdalla read on the limitation of “wherein the stabilization ring is arranged on the filter such that the stabilization ring, at least in sections, is arranged within an inflow cross section of the fluid inlet” because Abdalla’s fluid inlet 105 is arranged on a side wall 104, and Abdalla discloses its barrier could have a circular shape as shown in Abdalla’s Fig. 3. Therefore, Abdalla’s barrier would comprise portions that is not directly facing the inlet 105. And thus, reads on the limitation that “the stabilization ring, at least in sections, is arranged within an inflow cross section of the fluid inlet.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s argument regarding its dependent claims relies on the allowability of claim 1, therefore, are not found persuasive.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights