Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Claim Interpretation It is noted that the language of claim 1 is very broad for every filter that has a 3D shape, the filter would have many faces opposite one another and a cross directional plane can be formed at any angle especially when the angle is “substantially orthogonal.” As such, different art is applied that would read on the claims due their breadth. It is further noted that it is unclear what embodiment in the specification is attempting to be claimed. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 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. The term “ substantially ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ substantially ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear the metes and bound of what would be considered substantially orthogonal as would a 85degree angle be considered substantially orthogonal while a 84 degree angle not . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim 1 -9 and 13-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reichter et al. (US 2009/0064646 in IDS) . Regarding claim 1, Reichter teaches a filter element comprising: a filter media comprising: a first face, a second face opposite the first face, and at least one side extending between the first face and the second face; and a filter element border extending along the at least one side and around the filter media, the filter element border (826 829) having a first semi- arcuate shape (bumps projections) (826d) in a cross-sectional plane extending through the filter media and substantially orthogonally to the first face and the second face (Fig s . 29- 30 and [0208]-[0210]) . It is noted that the bumps/projections in Reichter appear to have some straight lines and thus could be considered to not be arcuate. However, slightly modifying the shape of the projections to be arcuate would have been an obvious matter to one skilled in the art ( In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Regarding claims 2-3, it is submitted that the sides of the filter with the border having the arcuate projections would be considered the first portion, the border that extends around a different side of the filter face would be considered a second portion, the third portion is the side opposite the first portion and the fourth portion is opposite the second portion (Fig. 30). Regarding claim 4, as can be seen in Fig. 30, the border includes a space between the first face (top of filter) and the flat second and fourth portions. Regarding claim 5, Figs. 27-29 show the border can include a gasket (829) capable of interacting with a housing as claimed. Regarding claim 6, it is submitted that arcuate projections/bumps read on this limitation that are capable of interacting with unclaimed elements as claimed. Regarding claim 7, while Reichter teaches that border projections being extended along the first or second face in Fig. 30, it is submitted that making the filter border slightly lower on the side of the filter would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts where the filter would still operate in the same manner ( In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle , 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Regarding claim 8, Reichter teaches that the filter media is a rectangular prism type shape (Fig. 30). Regarding claim 9, Reichter teaches the filter element border being positioned between two housing sections (Figs. 29-30). Regarding claims 13-14, it is submitted that Reichter teaches the inlet (814) and outlet (811) arrangement (openings in 801 and 802) as claimed (Figs. 29-30). Regarding claims 15-16, see claims 2-3 above. Regarding claim 18, see claim 4 above. Regarding claim 19, see claim 8 above. Regarding claim 20, see claim 7 above. Claim 1 -9 and 13-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Connor et al. (US 7,247,183 in IDS) . Regarding claim 1, Connor teaches a filter element comprising: a filter media comprising: a first face, a second face opposite the first face, and at least one side extending between the first face and the second face (the first and second face could be any of the six sides of the rectangular prism filter element) ; and a filter element border extending along the at least one side and around the filter media, the filter element border having a first semi- arcuate shape (recesses and bumps shown in Fig. 1) in a cross-sectional plane extending through the filter media and substantially orthogonally to the first face and the second face (Figs. 1-2) . It is noted that the bumps/projections in Connor appear to have some straight lines and thus could be considered to not be arcuate. However, slightly modifying the shape of the projections to be arcuate would have been an obvious matter to one skilled in the art ( In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Regarding claims 2-3, it is submitted that the longer sides of the filter with the border having the arcuate projections extending away from the would be considered the first portion and third portion, the border that extends around a different side of the filter face would be considered a second portion, the third portion is the side opposite the first portion and the fourth portion is opposite the second portion (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 4, as can be seen in Figs. 1-2, the border includes a space between the first face (top of filter) and the flat second and fourth portions. Regarding claim 5, Figs. 1-2 show the border can include a gasket (34) capable of interacting with a housing as claimed. Regarding claim 6, it is submitted that arcuate projections/bumps read on this limitation that are capable of interacting with unclaimed elements as claimed. Regarding claim 7, as can be seen in Figs. 2- 3, the filter border does not extend along the first or second face. Regarding claim 8, Connor teaches that the filter media is a rectangular prism type shape (Fig. 1 ). Regarding claim 9, Connor teaches the filter element border being positioned between two housing sections (Fig. 3). Regarding claims 13-14, it is submitted that Connor teaches the inlet (58) and outlet (60) arrangement claimed. Regarding claims 15-16, see claims 2-3 above. Regarding claim 18, see claim 4 above. Regarding claim 19, see claim 8 above. Regarding claim 20, see claim 7 above. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1 -6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,415,333 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1 , 9 , 12 -14 are present in claim s 1 and 6 of `333. Claims 2-4 , 7, and 15-18, and 20 overlap with scope of claim 1and 6 of `333 or would be an obvious rearrangement of parts or shape based on the same design and function . Claims 5-6 overlap with claims 1-2 of `333. Claims 8 , 11 , and 19 are directed to an obvious change of filter shape. Claim 10 would have been an obvious matter of making a single part gasket into two based on a different embodiment in `333. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,623,351 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1, 9, 12-14 are present in claims 1 of `351. Claims 2-4, 7, and 15-18, and 20 overlap with scope of claim 1-4 of `351 or would be an obvious rearrangement of parts or shape based on the same design and function . Claims 5-6 overlap with claims 1-2 of `351. Claims 8, 11, and 19 are directed to an obvious change of filter shape. Claim 10 would have been an obvious matter of making a single part gasket into two based on a different embodiment in `351. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,782,708 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1, 9, 12-14 are present in claims 1 of ``708. Claims 2-4, 7, and 15-18, and 20 overlap with scope of claim 1-4 and 8 of `708 or would be an obvious rearrangement of parts or shape based on the same design and function . Claims 5-6 overlap with claims 1-2 of `708. Claims 8 11, and 19 are directed to an obvious change of filter shape. Claim 10 would have been an obvious matter of making a single part gasket into two based on a different embodiment in `708. Claims 1- 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,833,459 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1, are present in claims 1 of ` 459 . Claims 2-4, and 7 overlap with scope of claim s 1-4 and 6 of ` 459 or would be an obvious rearrangement of parts or shape based on the same design and function . Claims 5-6 overlap with claims 1-2 of ` 708 . Claims 8 is directed to an obvious change of filter shape. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3479 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9-5 MT (11-7 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7872 . 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. /PETER KEYWORTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777