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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 34-48 are pending.
Claims 42-48 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 42-48 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 38 and 39 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.
Regarding claim 38, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the limitations following the phrase are not part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 39, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the limitations following the phrase are not part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 34-39 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by La Roux (US 20120065042).
Regarding claim 34, Le Roux teaches a method for making a filter element [0001] comprising the steps of:
advancing two sheets of filtering material in a longitudinal direction (the two sheets of filtering material depicted in Fig. 18);
separating the two or more sheets of longitudinally advancing filtering material (two sheets of filtering material are separated in Fig. 18);
gathering the separated sheets of longitudinally advancing filtering material to form a partially gathered rod of filtering material ([0038] and [0087]) having a longitudinally extending recess (which is formed by output tube 55C in Fig. 18, specifically the output tube forms the longitudinally extending recess);
inserting an additive release vessel into the longitudinally extending recess (via output tube 55c in Fig. 18 and [0087]);
gathering the filtering material around the additive release vessel to close the recess and thereby form a rod comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material and one or more additive release vessels ([0038] and [0087]).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 35, Le Roux teaches that the two or more sheets of longitudinally advancing filtering material are separated by a separator (output tube, 55c in Fig. 18), and wherein the gathering of the separated two or more sheets of longitudinally advancing filtering material comprises drawing the separated two or more sheets of longitudinally advancing filtering material into a gathering chamber (‘tongue’, 4 and [0087]).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, Le Roux teaches that the separator (output tube’, 55c) is coupled to the gathering chamber (‘tongue’, 4) such that the two or more sheets of longitudinally advancing filtering material are separated before entering the gathering chamber (‘tongue’, 4), and the separator (‘output tube’, 55c) prevents complete gathering of the two or more sheets of longitudinally advancing filtering material to thereby form a longitudinally extending recess in the partially gathered filtering material (specifically the output tube, 55c, forms the longitudinally extending recess).
Regarding claim 37, Le Roux teaches wherein the gathering chamber (‘tongue’, 4) comprises an inlet for receiving the separated sheets of filtering material and an outlet for the partially gathered filtering material to exit, and wherein the gathering chamber is tapered longitudinally away from the inlet (Fig. 18 and [0087]).
Regarding claim 38, Le Roux teaches wherein the separated two or more longitudinally advancing sheets of filtering material are drawn into a preliminary chamber (‘stuffer jet’, 3) before entering the gathering chamber (‘tongue’, 4).
Regarding claim 39, Le Roux teaches that the additive release vessel (‘capsule’) is inserted into the longitudinally extending recess by an additive release vessel inserter (output tube, 55c in Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 41, Le Roux teaches comprising a step of cutting the rod to form a filter element comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material and one or more additive release vessels ([0038],[0044] and [0075]-[0076]).
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.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Roux as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Sebastian (US 20110180084).
Regarding claim 40, Le Roux does not expressly teach that the filtering material, specifically filter tow, is a non-woven material or paper.
Sebastian teaches a method and apparatus for making a filter rod element (abstract) and teaches that filter rods can be formed of filter materials such as paper or nonwoven polypropylene [0032]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made the filter tow of La Roux out of convention filter tow material, as taught by Sebastian, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and 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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
YANA B. KRINKER
Examiner
Art Unit 1755
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755