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 Status
Claims 1-17 and 28 have been cancelled.
Claims 18-26 and 35-37 are withdrawn.
Claims 27 and 29-34 are rejected.
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) 27, 29 and 31-34 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Medina et al. (US 2019/0070531) [hereinafter Medina].
With respect to claim 27, Medina discloses a filter cartridge 2, as shown in Fig. 5, having: a filter medium 20, as shown in Fig. 5, with an inner core 14 (fluid-permeable supporting tube), as shown in Fig. 5, which is surrounded by a pleated media web of a filter medium 20, as shown in Fig. 5, wherein the media web has, on at least one of its end regions, a beads of glue 26 (strip-shaped sealant) which is also folded into the media web, as shown in Figs. 3-4, and which, as a self-contained component, is at least in part firmly connected to the media web, as shown in Figs. 3-5, wherein the supporting tube 14 has at least one outwardly protruding sealing bead which engages in the adjacently arranged sealant 26 while compacting said sealant 26, as shown in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 29, Medina discloses wherein the supporting tube 14 is configured to be fluid-impermeable in the region of contact with the respective sealant 26, as shown in Fig. 15.
With respect to claim 31, Medina discloses wherein the supporting tube 14 has an end cap 4 (ring-like broadening) at least on one of its ends which at least partially overlaps the adjacently arranged sealant 26 in each case, as shown in Fig. 15.
With respect to claim 32, Medina discloses wherein the supporting tube 14 has, on one of its free ends on an end cap 4 (locator fitting), a fitting 8 (locator ring) on the inside thereof, or is configured in this region as a press-fit part, as shown in Fig. 5.
With respect to claim 33, Medina discloses wherein the media web is supported at least on one end cap 4, which is a self-contained or integral part of the supporting tube 14, as shown in Fig. 5.
With respect to claim 34, Medina discloses a portion 50 (filter head) which has an inlet for unfiltered medium and an outlet for filtrate 54, as shown in Fig. 24, and a filter bowl releasably arranged thereon which receives the filter element (see paragraph 0069, lower portion of housing 50 mates with a respective cylindrically shaped cartridge), wherein the filter element is connected releasably or permanently to the outlet in the filter head 50 using a locator fitting 4 of its supporting tube 14, as shown in Figs. 15-24.
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.
Claim(s) 30 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina (US 2019/0070531) in view of Pulek et al. (US 2001/0010297) [hereinafter Pulek].
With respect to claim 30, Medina lacks wherein the media web is enclosed by a film-like, fluid-permeable surrounding casing which extends at least between two opposite sealants.
Pulek discloses a filter assembly 10, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a filter medium 12 retained at its outer perimeter by a netting 16 (film-like, fluid-permeable surrounding casing) extending at least between two opposite sealants 18, 24, as shown in Figs. 1-2 (see paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the media web disclosed by Medina with a film-like, fluid-permeable surrounding casing, as taught by Pulek, in order to provide support for the media web (see paragraph 0037) and extend the life of the filter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the glue beads 26 of Medina are not comparable to the claimed strip-shaped sealant, and no beads are arranged in at least one of the end regions of the media web of Medina, since the end region of the pleats 24 (part of above line 4) in Fig. 3 of Medina, is deliberately left free of glue beads 26: This argument is not persuasive. Medina teaches a pleated media web of a filter medium 20 having, on at least one of its end regions, beads of glue 26, which have been considered to be the claimed strip-shaped sealant, folded onto the media web, as shown in Figs. 3-4 and as claimed by applicant in claim 1. Medina teaches that the beads 26 may be deposited on the front surface 28 of the polyester material 22, the rear surface 30, or both surfaces 28, 30 (see paragraph 0050). This means that the end region of the pleats 24 may also have beads 26.
In response to applicant’s argument that Medina does not show at least one outwardly protruding sealing bead, but instead show a ribbed, but flush surface: This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 requires “the supporting tube has at least one outwardly protruding sealing bead” and Medina teaches a supporting tube 14 having at least one outwardly protruding sealing bead, as shown in the figure above. One of the ribs of the supporting tube 14 has been considered to be the claimed “at least one outwardly protruding sealing bead”, as shown in the figure above.
In response to applicant argument that Medina fails to teach that the at least one protruding sealing bead would engage in the adjacently arranged sealant while compacting said sealant: This argument is not persuasive. Medina teaches that “either the glue beads 26 are allowed to fully solidify on the pleated filter medium 20 before the filter cartridge 2 is assembled, or the pleated filter medium 20 may be shaped in a cylindrical form and assembled with the top end cap 10, the bottom end cap 4 and the inner core 14 to form the filter cartridge 2 while the glue beads 26 are solidifying” (see paragraph 0053 of Medina). This means that Medina teaches the at least one protruding sealing bead would engage in the adjacently arranged sealant while compacting said sealant, as required by claim 1, since Medina teaches the rib (bead) of the support tube 14 contacts the sealant 26 when is not fully solid (see paragraph 0053 of Medina) and is inherent that it will compact the sealant in the contact area.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights