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 § 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.
Claim 64 is 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.
Claim 64 recites “the corner portions of the radially inward facing surface of the seal member”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the corner portions of the radially inward facing surface of the seal member”.
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.
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oussoren et al(6726735) taken together with German reference(DE102012109857A1).
Oussoren et al in figures 1,2,5 teach a filter element(filter cartridge 1) comprising a tube of filter media(pleat pack 2) extending axially between a first end and a second end and defining a central cavity, the filter media of the tube of filter media having a radially inner most edge at the first end, a seal member (upper fitting 30; noting upper fitting made of a resiliently flexible material molded to an upper end of the filter pack (column 8 lines 36-38)) attached to a first end of the tube of filter media, the seal member having a radially inward facing tapered inner surface (noting figure 5) including radially inward facing seal surface (inward projecting wall 34) with tapered inner surface, the tapered inner surface extending at a second angle relative to the central axis, the first angle being more parallel to the central axis than a second angle. Oussoren et al is silent as to the tube of filter media being frustoconical increasing in radial dimension when moving along a central axis from a second end towards a first end, the tube of filter media extending at a first angle relative to a central axis.
German reference in figure 3 teaches a filter element(filter 300) including a tube of filter media(first filter section 320 and second filter section 322) extending axially between a first end and a second end and defining a central cavity, the tube of filter media being frustoconical increasing in radial dimension when moving along a central axis from a second end(second end closest to end cap 316) towards a first end(first end closest to end cap 314), the tube of filter media extending at a first angle relative to a central axis. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tube of filter media of Oussoren et al with a frustoconical shape increasing in radial dimension from a second end towards a first end(first end including upper fitting 30 of Oussoren et al) so that a cross sectional area for filtration increases along the tube of filter media, and so that additional volume of free air becomes available between filters, and the velocity of air flowing through the available free air flow paths may decrease(noting translation of German reference).
Oussoren et al taken together with German reference further teaches the cross-sectional shape of the tube of filter media and the first seal member is generally polygonal; the polygonal shape of the seal member defining a plurality of straight sides interconnected by a plurality of corner regions; and the second angle being measured in a portion of the polygonal shape of the seal member defined by a straight side(noting translation of German reference stating “according to embodiments, any filter having a cross-sectional shape providing a taper, e.g. oval, square, and the like, as falling within the scope of embodiments of the invention”). Oussoren et al taken together with German reference further teaches wherein the corner portions of the radially inward facing surface of the seal member extend at a third angle relative to the central axis; and the third angle being more parallel to the central axis than the second angle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 47,49, 52, 56, 60, 61, 63, 110-117 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 47 includes limitations which were indicated as allowable subject matter in the office action dated 10-31-2025. Claims 49,52,56 depend on claim 47 and hence are also allowed.
Claim 60 recites “a filter element comprising a tube of filter media extending axially between a first end and a second end and defining a central cavity, the tube of filter media being frustoconical increasing in radial dimension when moving along a central axis from the second end towards the first end, the tube of filter media extending at a first angle relative to the central axis, the filter media of the tube of filter media having a radially inner most edge at the first end, a seal member attached to a first end of the tube of filter media, the seal member having a radially inward facing tapered inner surface , the tapered inner surface extending at a second angle relative to the central axis, the first angle being more parallel to the central axis than a second angle; wherein the tapered inner surface of the seal member has a first surface edge, the first surface edge being an axially outermost extent of the tapered inner surface of the seal member that is spaced axially the furthest from the first end of the filter media, the first surface edge is positioned radially outward of the inner most edge of the tube of filter media at the first end; the tapered inner surface of the seal member has a second surface edge opposite the first surface edge, the second surface edge being closer to the second end of the tube of filter media than the first surface edge, the second surface edge is positioned radially inward of the first surface edge and radially inward of the inner most edge of the tube of filter media at the first end.”.
Oussoren et al in figures 1,2,5 teach a filter element(filter cartridge 1) comprising a tube of filter media(pleat pack 2) extending axially between a first end and a second end and defining a central cavity, the filter media of the tube of filter media having a radially inner most edge at the first end, a seal member (upper fitting 30; noting upper fitting made of a resiliently flexible material molded to an upper end of the filter pack (column 8 lines 36-38)) attached to a first end of the tube of filter media, the seal member having a radially inward facing tapered inner surface(noting figure 5) including radially inward facing seal surface (inward projecting wall 34) with tapered inner surface, the tapered inner surface extending at a second angle relative to the central axis, the first angle being more parallel to the central axis than a second angle. Oussoren et al is silent as to the tube of filter media being frustoconical increasing in radial dimension when moving along a central axis from a second end towards a first end, the tube of filter media extending at a first angle relative to a central axis.
German reference in figure 3 teaches a filter element(filter 300) including a tube of filter media(first filter section 320 and second filter section 322) extending axially between a first end and a second end and defining a central cavity, the tube of filter media being frustoconical increasing in radial dimension when moving along a central axis from a second end(second end closest to end cap 316) towards a first end(first end closest to end cap 314), the tube of filter media extending at a first angle relative to a central axis. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tube of filter media of Oussoren et al with a frustoconical shape increasing in radial dimension from a second end towards a first end(first end including upper fitting 30 of Oussoren et al) so that a cross sectional area for filtration increases along the tube of filter media, and so that additional volume of free air becomes available between filters, and the velocity of air flowing through the available free air flow paths may decrease(noting translation of German reference).
However Oussoren et al taken together with German reference does not teach or suggest wherein the tapered inner surface of the seal member has a first surface edge, the first surface edge being an axially outermost extent of the tapered inner surface of the seal member that is spaced axially the furthest from the first end of the filter media, the first surface edge is positioned radially outward of the inner most edge of the tube of filter media at the first end; the tapered inner surface of the seal member has a second surface edge opposite the first surface edge, the second surface edge being closer to the second end of the tube of filter media than the first surface edge, the second surface edge is positioned radially inward of the first surface edge and radially inward of the inner most edge of the tube of filter media at the first end. Claims 61, 63 depend on claim 60 and hence are also allowed.
Claim 110 includes subject matter from claim 47 that was indicated as allowable subject matter in the office action dated 10-31-2025. Claims 111-117 depend on claim 110 and hence are also allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-2-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues from the applicant’s review of Oussoren , such as figs 19 and 21, the filter media in Oussoren is round, and as such, Oussoren would not have a seal member that includes corner portions as required by claim 64. Applicant further argues because Oussoren does not have corner regions as claimed, Oussoren would not teach or disclose corner portions that have a third angle as required by claim 64.
Examiner notes German reference in the translation states “according to embodiments, any filter having a cross-sectional shape providing a taper, e.g. oval, square, and the like, as falling within the scope of embodiments of the invention”). Examiner respectfully submits German reference teaches modification of the round filter media of Oussoren to any polygonal shape, including triangular shape including corners. Examiner further respectfully submits any triangular shape filter media including corners inherently requires a corresponding seal member for attachment to a tubesheet that also includes corners to match the shape of the filter media. Examiner respectfully submits that someone of ordinary skill in the art, requiring a polygonal shape for a seal member that includes corners, would modify the annular seal of figure 5 of Oussoren including a radially inward facing tapered inner surface to provide for the same radially inward facing tapered inner surface on a polygonal shaped seal. Examiner respectfully submits German reference specifically teaches a frustoconical tube of filter media, therefore Oussoren taken together with German reference teaches wherein corner portions of the radially inward facing seal surface of the seal member extends at a third angle relative to the central axis, and the third angle being more parallel to the central axis than the second angle, as claimed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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 at 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
February 26, 2026