Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/506,601

FILTER SYSTEM COMPRISING A RESONATOR

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 10, 2023
Examiner
BUI, DUNG H
Art Unit
1773
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
MANN+HUMMEL GMBH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
962 granted / 1227 resolved
+13.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
85 currently pending
Career history
1312
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1227 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A, claims 1-6, 8-15 and 19, in the reply filed on 12/16/25 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)(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) 1, 6, 8-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ribeiro et al (US 20220145836; hereinafter Ribeiro). As regarding claim 1, Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for a filter system (4a) for filtering a fluid, the filter system comprising: a filter housing (15) comprising a housing top part and a housing bottom part, wherein the housing top part and the housing bottom part extend along a housing axis; a filter pack configured to be arranged in the filter housing and configured to separate fluid-tightly a clean fluid side and a raw fluid side from each other in the filter housing; wherein the filter pack comprises a filter element comprising a hollow cylinder-type filter bellows (17) arranged about a longitudinal axis of the filter element; wherein the filter element comprises a first end face and a first end disk arranged at the first end face, wherein the first end face is substantially closed; wherein the filter element further comprises a second end disk arranged at a second end face, wherein the first end disk is positioned opposite the second end disk, and wherein the second end disk comprises a fluid passage for filtered fluid; a resonator comprising an end closed by a bottom, wherein the resonator is arranged in an interior of the filter pack such that the bottom is oriented toward the first end disk of the filter element (annotated fig. 5). PNG media_image1.png 522 567 media_image1.png Greyscale As regarding claim 6, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the filter pack further comprises a central tube (20) arranged in the interior of the filter pack. As regarding claim 8, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the central tube comprises an end (annotated fig. 5; no number) positioned opposite the first end face of the filter element. As regarding claim 9, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the resonator (13) is arranged to be exchangeable from the clean fluid side (fig. 4b). As regarding claim 10, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the filter pack further comprises a secondary element ([0049]) comprising a hollow cylinder-type filter bellows arranged about a longitudinal axis of the secondary element, wherein the secondary element is arranged inside the central tube of the filter element, wherein the resonator (13) at least in sections is arranged in an interior of the secondary element such that the bottom of the resonator is oriented toward the first end disk of the filter element. As regarding claim 11, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the secondary element ([0049]) is arranged concentrically to the housing axis of the filter housing and wherein the resonator is arranged concentrically to the longitudinal axis of the secondary element (annotated fig. 5). As regarding claim 19, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention for wherein the resonator (13) comprises an open end positioned opposite the bottom, wherein the open end extends in a region of the second end disk of the filter element (annotated fig. 5). 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. Claim(s) 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribeiro et al (US 20220145836; hereinafter Ribeiro) as applied supra. As regarding claim 12, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the secondary element comprises an end disk comprising an opening, wherein the resonator extends at least partially through the opening of the end disk of the secondary element, wherein the opening of the end disk of the secondary element seals relative to the resonator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the secondary element comprises an end disk comprising an opening, wherein the resonator extends at least partially through the opening of the end disk of the secondary element, wherein the opening of the end disk of the secondary element seals relative to the resonator in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As regarding claim 15, Ribeiro as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the resonator (13) is pushed in from an end face of the secondary element into the opening of the end disk of the secondary element. Claim(s) 2-5, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribeiro et al (US 20220145836; hereinafter Ribeiro) as applied supra, and further in view of Miller et al (US 6099606; hereinafter Miller). As regarding claim 2, Ribeiro discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro discloses the claimed invention except for a seal device, wherein the resonator and the filter pack adjoin each other through the seal device. Miller teaches a seal device (fig. 7 - a seal for sealing two surfaces in an air filtration arrangements), wherein the resonator and the filter pack adjoin each other through the seal device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a seal device, wherein the resonator and the filter pack adjoin each other through the seal device as taught by Miller in order to uniform, self-energizing circumferential sealing between concentric filter elements, preventing bypass leakage while accommodating tolerances, misalignment, and pressure variations. As regarding claim 3, Ribeiro as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first end disk of the filter element comprises an opening through which the resonator extends at least partially and is sealed relative to the opening of the first end disk (annotated fig. 5). As regarding claim 4, Ribeiro as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the seal device is a seal structure (Miller – fig. 7) disposed at the first end disk of the filter element, wherein the seal structure surrounds the opening of the first end disk and seals relative to the resonator. As regarding claim 5, Ribeiro as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the seal device is selected from the group consisting of a PUR seal, an O-ring seal, a 2K seal, and a labyrinth seal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the seal device is selected from the group consisting of a PUR seal, an O-ring seal, a 2K seal, and a labyrinth seal in order to enhance filter system performance, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. As regarding claim 13, Ribeiro as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Ribeiro as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the end disk of the secondary element comprises a seal structure, wherein the seal structure surrounds the opening of the end disk of the secondary element and seals relative to the resonator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the end disk of the secondary element comprises a seal structure, wherein the seal structure surrounds the opening of the end disk of the secondary element and seals relative to the resonator in order to uniform, self-energizing circumferential sealing between concentric filter elements, preventing bypass leakage while accommodating tolerances, misalignment, and pressure variations, since it was known in the art as shown in Miller (fig. 7). Claim 14 is likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth for claim 5 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET. 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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. /DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 10, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601509
MULTI-STAGE DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM FOR LOCAL AREA DEHUMIDIFICATION OF DRY ROOM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599248
SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR ELIMINATING AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594516
FRAME FOR COLLAPSIBLE AND FOLDABLE PLEATED DISPOSABLE AIR FILTER WITH DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE SENSOR AND COMMUNICATION CAPABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594510
REINFORCED MEMBRANE SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594561
A MODULAR CENTRIFUGAL SEPARATOR FOR CLEANING GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1227 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month