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 1-15, 17, 20, 23 and 26-27 are pending:
Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17, 20 and 23 are rejected.
Claims 8 and 26-27 are objected to.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed 05/11/2026 have been entered. Amendments to the claims overcome claim objections, §112 rejections, §102 rejections and §103 rejections as previously set forth in non-final Office Action mailed on 02/10/2026.
Amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been entered. Arguments were fully considered.
On pg. 8 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant argues that:
Claim 1 is patentable over Govardhan, Dewachter, Boroson, Schrage, and Walker, taken in any combination or alone, at least because none of the cited references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1, as amended. As indicated above, claim 1 is amended to now specify that the claimed first and second areas associated with the first and second seals have one or both of different shapes and different centroids in the plane perpendicular to the filter media pack longitudinal axis. For reference, examples of the first and second areas having different shapes from each other are shown at FIGS. 8A, 8C, and 8E while examples of the first and second areas having a different centroid from each other are shown at FIGS. 8C, 8D, and 8E. With respect to Govardhan, it can be easily at Figures 12 and 13 that the beads 230, 232 of the disclosed design both have a generally rectangular perimeter shape that share a common centroid. Similarly, Dewatcher discloses circular sealing rings 27, 31 with circular perimeter shapes that are concentrically aligned to have a common centroid. Boroson, Schrage, and Walker, cited for other reasons, are unable to alleviate the shortcomings of Govardhan and Dewatcher. In view of the above, withdrawal of the rejection to claim 1 is respectfully requested.
This argument is moot because amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govardhan (US 2020/0047105) in view of Maier (WO 2021/058282; US 20220370944 A1, which is a national stage application of the PCT/EP2020/075203 (WO 2021/058282) has been used as an English equivalent document for Maier).
Regarding claim 1, Govardhan teaches a filter element (filter, see ABS) for the filtration of gaseous fluids, comprising:
a filter media pack (pleated filter media 220) having a longitudinal axis and a circumferential seal support structure (gasket 205) (the seals extend around the housing therefore are circumferential seals) sealingly coupled to a sidewall of said filter media pack, said seal support structure further comprising a first seal (seal feature 230) and a second seal (seal feature 232);
wherein axial projections of said first and said second seals along said longitudinal axis on a plane perpendicular to said longitudinal axis (see Fig. 17) define a first closed perimeter and a second closed perimeter (see Fig. 8), and wherein first and second areas corresponding to said first and said second closed perimeters comprise a non-overlap region (corresponds to the area/gap between 230 and 232).
Govardhan does not teach that the first and second areas have one or both of different shapes and different centroids in said plane.
In a related field of endeavor, Maier teaches a filter element (see ABS) comprising first and second areas have one or both of different shapes and different centroids in said plane (Figs. 3-4 show a sealing body 4 having asymmetric/eccentric geometries which implies different centroids or different shapes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seals of Govardhan by configuring said seals to have one or both of different shapes and different centroids in said plane as disclosed by Maier because said configurations improve the sealing effect and makes it easier to position the seal or the filter element (Maier, see ¶32-¶34).
Regarding claim 2, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1, wherein the areas defined by said closed perimeters also comprise an overlap region (Govardhan, corresponds to the area surrounded by the seal 230).
Regarding claim 3, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1.
Govardhan does not teach wherein said non overlap region has a surface which comprises at least 10% of the smallest area of the areas defined by said closed perimeters but Govardhan does comprise a non overlap region which has a spacing and the spacing does not consume the entire enclosed area, therefore the non overlap region has a surface area is greater than zero and less the full area defined by the smallest closed perimeter, in other words, >0% but <100% which overlaps with the claimed range.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of >0% and <100% completely encompasses the claimed range of
≥
10%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1, wherein said non overlap region has no rotational symmetry (Govardhan, see Figs. 19 and 22-23 wherein spacing/gap has axisymmetric spacing),
Regarding claim 5, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1, wherein said non overlap region is arranged asymmetrically with respect to said first perimeter and/or said second perimeter (Govardhan, see Figs. 19 and 22-23 wherein spacing/gap has arranged asymmetrically).
Regarding claim 6, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1.
Govardhan does not teach wherein the areas defined by said closed perimeters differ in surface area by at least 10% but Govardhan does comprise a non overlap region which has a spacing and the spacing does not consume the entire enclosed area, therefore the non overlap region has a surface area is greater than zero and less the full area defined by the smallest closed perimeter, in other words, >0% but <100% which overlaps with the claimed range.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of >0% and <100% completely encompasses the claimed range of
≥
10%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1, wherein one of the first perimeter or the second perimeter fully encircles the other one of the first perimeter or the second perimeter seal (Govardhan, see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 10, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1, wherein said first seal and said second seal are separate seals (Govardhan, see Figs. 13 and Fig. 23).
Regarding claim 11, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1, wherein each of said first seal and said second seal is arranged in a single plane, a first plane and a second plane, respectively (Govardhan, the embodiment shown in Fig. 26 show seals 330/332 arranged on a plane different from the plane seals 230/232).
Regarding claim 12, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1, wherein said first seal and said second seal follow one another along the circumference of the filter media pack (Govardhan, see Fig. 13 wherein the seals follow one another), except for their respective portions which correspond to the non-overlap region (Govardhan, see embodiment shown in Fig. 27).
Regarding claim 14, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1, wherein said seal support structure comprises a base sealingly coupled to a sidewall of said filter media pack and a flange radially extending from said base, said flange having an outer rim and defining a first side and an opposed second side of said flange respective to said longitudinal axis of said filter media pack, wherein said first and second seals are arranged on or adjacent to said flange (Govardhan, see annotated Fig. 14).
Annotated Fig. 14
PNG
media_image1.png
399
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1, wherein the areas defined by said perimeters have different shape (Govardhan, see Figs. 19-23 wherein each seal follows a different pattern which will have a different shape defined by the perimeter).
Regarding claim 20, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1, wherein said perimeters have a different centroid (Govardhan, the embodiment shown in Fig. 26 show seals with different centroid).
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewachter (WO 1999/037386) in view of Maier (WO 2021/058282; US 20220370944 A1, which is a national stage application of the PCT/EP2020/075203 (WO 2021/058282) has been used as an English equivalent document for Maier).
Regarding claim 1, Dewachter teaches a filter element (liquid separator and filter element, see ABS) for the filtration of gaseous fluids, comprising:
a filter media pack (filter material 19) having a longitudinal axis and a circumferential seal support structure (annular seals 29, 31) sealingly coupled to a sidewall of said filter media pack (see Fig. 2), said seal support structure further comprising a first seal (seal 29) and a second seal (seal 31);
wherein axial projections of said first and said second seals along said longitudinal axis on a plane perpendicular to said longitudinal axis define a first closed perimeter and a second closed perimeter (see Fig. 2), and wherein areas corresponding to said first and said second closed perimeters comprise a non-overlap region (the seals occupy distinct axial positions therefore do not overlap).
Dewachter does not teach that the first and second areas have one or both of different shapes and different centroids in said plane.
In a related field of endeavor, Maier teaches a filter element (see ABS) comprising first and second areas have one or both of different shapes and different centroids in said plane (Figs. 3-4 show a sealing body 4 having asymmetric/eccentric geometries which implies different centroids or different project shapes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seals of Dewachter by configuring said seals to have one or both of different shapes and different centroids in said plane as disclosed by Maier because said configurations improve the sealing effect and makes it easier to position the seal or the filter element (Maier, see ¶32-¶34).
Regarding claim 15, Dewachter and Maier teach the filter assembly (liquid separator and filter element, see ABS), comprising:
a housing (housing 1), said housing comprising a main housing portion (vessel 2) and a complementary housing portion (lid 3); and
a filter element according to claim 1 wherein said first seal (i.e. seal 29) forms a seal between said filter element and said complementary housing portion (see Fig. 2) and said second seal (i.e. seal 31) forms a seal between said filter element and said main housing portion (see Fig. 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govardhan (US 2020/0047105) in view of Maier (WO 2021/058282; US 20220370944 A1, which is a national stage application of the PCT/EP2020/075203 (WO 2021/058282) has been used as an English equivalent document for Maier) and further in view of Boroson (USPN 6,590,157).
Regarding claim 9, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach a sealing structure for highly moisture-sensitive electronic device element comprising a seal support structure comprises one or more electronic devices in an area of said seal support structure corresponding to said non-overlap region.
In a related field of endeavor, Boroson teaches a sealing structure for highly moisture-sensitive electronic device element (see ABS) comprising a seal support structure (gap sealing material 122 and sealing material 20) comprises one or more electronic devices (highly moisture-sensitive electronic device 12) in an area of said seal support structure corresponding to said non-overlap region (gap region) (see Fig. 7I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter of Govardhan by incorporating an electronic device within the seal structure as disclosed by Boroson because it prevents premature device failure or premature degradation of device performance (Boroson, see C1/L5-15).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govardhan (US 2020/0047105) in view of Maier (WO 2021/058282; US 20220370944 A1, which is a national stage application of the PCT/EP2020/075203 (WO 2021/058282) has been used as an English equivalent document for Maier) and further in view of Schrage (US 2019/0358575).
Regarding claim 13, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein a cross section of said filter media pack comprises convex and concave curves.
In a related field of endeavor, Schrage teaches a seal arrangement for filter element (see ABS) wherein a cross section of said filter media pack comprises convex and concave curve (concave region and convex region, see ¶165 and Fig. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter of Govardhan by configuring to have concave and convex regions as disclosed by Schrage because said configuration improves air flow through the filter (Schrage, see ¶45) and the filter of Govardhan is open to any shape and/or configuration (Govardhan, see ¶86).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govardhan (US 2020/0047105) in view of Maier (WO 2021/058282; US 20220370944 A1, which is a national stage application of the PCT/EP2020/075203 (WO 2021/058282) has been used as an English equivalent document for Maier) and further in view of Walker (USPN 5,843,198).
Regarding claim 23, Govardhan and Maier teach the filter element according to claim 1.
The combination does not teach wherein said first seal and said second seals comprise a TPE material.
In a related field of endeavor, Walker teaches an air filter (see ABS) comprising a seals comprise a TPE material (TPE material for the seals 38, see C4/L1-15).
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art one of ordinary skill in art before effective filing date of invention to modify the seal material of Govardhan with the TPE material of Walker because it is fabricated from a flexible, resilient material (Walker, see C4/L1-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 26-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Govardhan and Dewachter, each teach a filter element according to claim 1.
Govardhan or Dewachter teach nor fairly suggests “wherein said seal support structure comprises at least one pass-through opening for gaseous fluids in an area of said seal support structure corresponding to said non-overlap region” as required by claim 8.
Govardhan or Dewachter teach nor fairly suggests “wherein one of said first seal and said second seal follows said filter media pack over an angular range of at least 180o but not completely” as required by claim 26.
Govardhan or Dewachter teach nor fairly suggests “wherein said non-overlap region corresponds to an angular range for which one of the first or second seals does not follow said filter media pack” as required by claim 27.
Conclusion
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 EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7849. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7 am - 6 pm EST.
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.
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights