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 the species of a helically pleated shape of Claims 1-14 & 20 in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5 & 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maignen (US0426945).
Applicants’ claims are directed to a filter.
Regarding Claim 1, Maignen discloses the filter for use for separating constituent components of a fluid mixture, said filter comprising:
A porous media material for filtration of fluids, wherein the porous material has a helically pleated shape comprising a corrugated cross-section; and the filter defining an axial length along the largest dimension of the filter; wherein the corrugated cross-section extends a substantial portion of the axial length of the filter (See Figure 6 Filtering device which is helically pleated; C is a porous media material).
Regarding Claim 2, Maignen discloses the filer filter according to claim 1, further comprising at least one integral support structure which is positioned so as to maintain the helical corrugated shape (See Figure 6 Item A and B diaphragm or outer ring or cord).
Regarding Claim 3 Maignen discloses the filter according to claim 2, wherein the at least one integral support structure extends helically along an external surface of the porous material (See Figure 6 Item B cord or outer ring).
Regarding Claim 4, Maignen discloses the filter according to claim 2, wherein the at least one integral supporting structure comprises multiple support structures (See Figure 6 Item A and B are each of multiple support structures).
Regarding Claim 5, Maignen discloses the filter according to Claim 2, wherein the at least one supporting structure is at least one of a flexible cord, a semi-rigid material, and/or a rigid material (See Figure 6 Item B ring or cord).
Regarding Claim 11, Maignen discloses the filter according to claim 1, wherein the porous material has substantially more filtration surface area of tubular filter of the same length (See Figure 6; filter is asbestos-tissue, porous material is carbon).
Regarding Claim 12, Maignen discloses the filter media according to claim 1, wherein the corrugated filter media is designed to fit into a standard filter cage (See Figure 6 the filter fits into a standard filter cage).
Regarding Claim 13, Maignen discloses the filter according to claim 1 wherein the corrugated filter media comprises a series of pleats, with each of said series of pleats comprises a substantially V-shape, with an annular region and two extending sides, and wherein the at least one supporting cord runs substantially the axial length of the filter media and is disposed within the annular region of each of the pleats (See Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Maignen discloses a filter for use for separating constituent components of a fluid mixture, said filter comprising: a porous media material for filtration of fluids, wherein the porous material has a radially pleated shape comprising a corrugated cross-section; and the filter defining an axial length along the largest dimension of the filter; wherein the corrugated cross-section extends a substantial portion of the axial length of the filter (See Figure 6 and claim mapping for Claim 1).
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.
Claims 6-10 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maignen (US0426945) in view of May (US5419373), Geibel (US5876601) and Humbert (US3241680).
Regarding Claims 6-9, Maignen discloses the filter according to Claim 1, except wherein there is at least one retaining strap that extends substantially the axial length of the filter, wherein at least one retaining strap extends from one end of the filter to the other end of the filter, wherein at least one restraining strap comprises multiple retaining straps, each of which retaining straps is disposed along an exterior portion of the filter and/or an interior portion of the filter, wherein at least one of the multiple retaining straps are adhered to the helical corrugated filter media.
May discloses a filter wherein there is at least one retaining strap that extends substantially the axial length of the filter, wherein at least one retaining strap extends from one end of the filter to the other end of the filter, wherein at least one restraining strap comprises multiple retaining straps, each of which retaining straps is disposed along an exterior portion of the filter and/or an interior portion of the filter, wherein at least one of the multiple retaining straps are adhered to the helical corrugated filter media (See Figure 1 Item 18 in considered a strap and is on the outside of the filter, See abstract for plurality of straps).
Geibel discloses a filter wherein there is at least one retaining strap that extends substantially the axial length of the filter, wherein at least one retaining strap extends from one end of the filter to the other end of the filter, wherein at least one restraining strap comprises multiple retaining straps, each of which retaining straps is disposed along an exterior portion of the filter and/or an interior portion of the filter, wherein at least one of the multiple retaining straps are adhered to the helical corrugated filter media (See Figure 22 Item 50 in considered a strap and is on the outside of the filter, and adhered via friction to the pleats).
Humbert discloses a filter wherein there is at least one retaining strap that extends substantially the axial length of the filter, wherein at least one retaining strap extends from one end of the filter to the other end of the filter, wherein at least one restraining strap comprises multiple retaining straps, each of which retaining straps is disposed along an exterior portion of the filter and/or an interior portion of the filter, wherein at least one of the multiple retaining straps are adhered to the helical corrugated filter media (See Figure 2 Item 30 in considered a strap and is on the outside of the filter, and adhered via glue to the pleats).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate one of the straps from May, Geibel, and/or Humbert into Maignen because all of these would allow for added strength of the filter and pleats in the helical direction that Maignen seeks for maintaining the required shape.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Maignen, May, Geibel, and Humbert disclose the filter according to claim 1, further comprising: a closed end at one end of the filter media; and an open end at the end of the filter media opposite the closed end to allow fluid to enter the filter (See Figure 6 closed end on the top, open end on the bottom ; a flexible support structure extending helically around an external surface of the porous media (See helically filter from Claim 1); and at least one retaining strap that extends from the open end of the filter to the closed end of the filter (See combination rejection for Claim 6 and straps).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Maignen, May, Geibel, and Humbert disclose the filter for use for separating constituent components of a fluid mixture, said filter comprising: a porous media material for filtration of fluids, wherein the porous material has a helically pleated shape comprising a corrugated cross-section; and a closed end at one end of the filter media; and an open end at the end of the filter media opposite the closed end to allow fluid to enter the filter at least one integral support structure which is positioned so as to maintain the helical corrugated shape; and a retaining strap that extends substantially the axial length of the filter; wherein the filter defining an axial length along the largest dimension of the filter; and the corrugated cross-section extends a substantial portion of the axial length of the filter (See claim mapping for claim 6 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY RAMDHANIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
