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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/27/2026 has been entered.
Claims 4, 10, 15, and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, and 17-19 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been considered but are addressed with the modified ground of rejection presented below. The claimed arrangement as incorporated by the amendments would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement in view of the teachings of Lang as discussed more fully below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of by Hamlin et al (US PGPub 2006/0107639 A1) and Herrin et al (US PGPub 2010/0243554 A1) in view of Lang (US PGPub 2015/0165352 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 7, Hamlin teaches a pleated filter element which includes inner (20) and outer (30) perforated, tubular support cage elements [Abs, Figs. 4-5, 0041] which may be configured to facilitate flow in either outside-in or inside-out flow directions [0018] such that the central tube may represent a fluid inlet or fluid exit as needed, and the outer perforate surface may also represent fluid inlet or fluid exit as needed. The element includes a pleated filter medium in the fluid passageway between the support cylinders, which includes both primary pleats (14P) which extend between the inner and outer support cylinders, and secondary pleats (14S) which are shorter and form a “W” (or “M”) shape [0052, Fig. 4]. This is properly some pleats having greater lengths than other pleats, or legs of some pleats longer than legs of other pleats, or in general may be described as M-shaped pleats.
Regarding the requirement that the pleats have a repeating pattern of two long pleats followed by a short pleat, with each sets of pleat lengths being the same longer or shorter length, Hamlin is silent to this arrangement.
Herrin teaches fluid filter assemblies containing inner and outer filter elements [Abs] and which may include inner (35) and outer (175) cages for particular layers [0037, 0050]. The pleat layers may include a variety of different patterns, including those which alternate between long and short pleat legs; in various embodiments, these legs are depicted and disclosed as reaching one of two predefined lengths e.g. a length D1 and a length D2 [0052, Figs. 25-26]. Further, in at least some patterns, the pleats include repeating sections with two long pleats followed by a short pleat [Fig. 27]. As such, providing sections with such patterns and predefined short- and long-length values is at minimum obvious over the taught arrangement. Herrin is silent to particular embodiments in which an inner and outer support cylinder are both provided to e.g. the same pleat layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter of Hamlin in view of Herrin to provide uniform pleat lengths and patterns of two long/one short as in Herrin’s embodiments, in order to gain the benefit of, as in Herrin, maintaining adjacent pleat surfaces in a manner that reduces contact with one another and reducing flow restriction [0049] while providing greater filtration surface area.
Additionally or alternatively, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Hamlin, which already teaches both inner and outer cages may be provided, to provide both in the same embodiment because, as in Hamlin, this can provide resistance to radial forces for the filter material and can also provide axial strength and bending resistance to the overall module [0041].
Applicant amended to require that the pleats are arranged such that the inner pleat tips all contact the inner support cylinder and that only some of the outer pleat tips contact the outer support cylinder. Herrin teaches that the pleats are arranged such that the intermediate pleat sections extend in a direction opposite the direction of flow; in an illustrated inside-out embodiment [Fig. 22], this results in pleats touching the outer cylinder [0050], but Herrin explicitly suggests that some embodiments may employ an inner cylinder to the same purpose i.e. for opposite direction flow. Similarly, Hamlin teaches that the cylinder pleat arrangement may be designed to accommodate flow in a first direction and a second opposite direction, radially [0018]. They do not explicitly illustrate the claimed configuration.
However, such reverse configurations are known in the art for the same broad purpose i.e. the use of smaller intermediate plates to provide support and the like, and a support cylinder on a side of the pleats in which all pleat tips contact the cylinder. Lang teaches an example [Abs, Fig. 2] in which pleats of different heights are arranged i.e. with an outside-in configuration (clean side (R) is positioned in the core of the filter) [0013, Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such a configuration in the combined system of Herrin and Hamlin for the purposes identified above i.e. to provide an advantageous flow configuration and support for embodiments in which the outside of the filter is the feed side and the inside is the clean side.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
725
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
258
244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
451
520
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2 and 8, the filter media as discussed by Hamlin may include layers with polyester or polypropylene [0047], and otherwise may contain glass fibers for e.g. depth layers [0044].
With respect to claims 3 and 9, as above the pleats of Hamlin and Herrin may both be described as M-shaped due to the presence of the secondary pleats which are positioned between the primary pleats.
With respect to claims 4 and 10, as above the primary pleats as taught by at least Hamlin include tips which touch the inner or outer cylinder, and the secondary pleats include tips which touch neither cylinder [Fig. 4].
With respect to claims 5, 6, 12, as above the inner and outer cylinders are perforated as in Hamlin, and Herrin similarly teaches the presence of apertures (holes) [0050, Fig. 21].
With respect to claim 19, at least Herrin teaches that the element may include both inner and outer pleated filter layers [0034]. Providing additional layers of filter material in series is a well-known configuration in the art of filtration e.g. to provide increased separation in a staged manner or the like.
Claims 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of by Hamlin et al and Herrin et al in view of Lang, further in view of Scher et al (US PGPub 2010/0006494 A1).
With respect to claims 11 and 17, Hamlin teaches that support layers e.g. outer cages may include expandable mesh structures [0065] but does not specify metal meshes. Herrin teaches lattice-like structures or otherwise perforated structures but does not specify a metal mesh.
However, Scher teaches a filter coalescer cartridge containing pleated media [Abs] with multiple layers, and teaches that a filter material may be surrounded by a perforated metal tube [0024, 0033, 0034]. As such, the use of metal materials represent an obvious constructional detail for retention of pleated media, and in combination with Hamlin’s teaching of a mesh design, the use of a metal mesh would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 13, Scher teaches that such pleated filter media can be used in coalescer devices, such that use of the media of the combination of Hamlin and Herrin in such a device would have been obvious. The inlet and effluent chamber would be represented by the inflow and outflow sides of the filter device (e.g. outside-in flow in some embodiments as illustrated by Herrin and Lang); Herrin illustrates integration of filters into broader housings [Fig. 16] in this manner. See the rejection of e.g. claims 1 and 7 above for discussion of the filter media and support cylinders and the like as in Herrin and Hamlin.
With respect to claim 14, the filter media as discussed by Hamlin may include layers with polyester or polypropylene [0047], and otherwise may contain glass fibers for e.g. depth layers [0044]. Scher similarly teaches glass fiber layers [0009] suitable for coalescers.
With respect to claim 15, as above the pleats of Hamlin and Herrin may both be described as M-shaped due to the presence of the secondary pleats which are positioned between the primary pleats.
With respect to claim 16, as above the primary pleats as taught by at least Hamlin include tips which touch the inner or outer cylinder, and the secondary pleats include tips which touch neither cylinder [Fig. 4].
With respect to claims 18, as above the inner and outer cylinders are perforated as in Hamlin, and Herrin similarly teaches the presence of apertures (holes) [0050, Fig. 21].
With respect to claim 19, Scher teaches embodiments in which a first pleat block and first support tube e.g. (52) are surrounded by a second pleat block and second support layers (54) as well as further layers of media [Figs. 3-4, 0031-0035]. This allows for benefits such as e.g. independent layer pressure management [0039]. It would have been obvious to include such an arrangement in the combined system of Hamlin and Herrin for the same benefits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights