DETAILED ACTION
Representative Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
1046
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In claim 1, it is unclear what minimal structure is intended by the recitation, “wherein the filtering component is adapted to be assembled against a first identical filtering component so that their facing respective internal faces define a space that is circumferentially compartmented by the contacting respective ribs of said internal face”. Patent claims are required to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. This language is not seen to comport with this legislative requirement. Moreover, such nebulous and ambiguous language fails to place potential infringers on clear notice as to what constitutes infringement.
PNG
media_image2.png
600
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 makes reference to claim 1 and is therefore, by definition a dependent claim. A dependent claim must further limit a claim from which it depends. Yet, claim 9 recites, “as claimed in claim 1 or a filtering element”. This language means that the subject matter of claim 1 is not necessary, is optional or negated. A dependent claim may not remove or negate limitations from a claim upon which it depends. It is unclear how claim 9 and its dependencies (claims 10-12 and 15) further limit claim 1 from which it depends. For this reason, the scope of claims 9-12 and 15 is incomprehensibly indefinite or ascertainable. Accordingly, art has not been applied against 9-12 and 15.
In independent claim 13, it is unclear what is intended by “the passages opening out on compartmented sectors”, or what structure defines the “compartmented sectors”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 makes reference to claim 1 and is therefore, by definition a dependent claim. A dependent claim must further limit a claim from which it depends. Yet, claim 9 recites, “as claimed in claim 1 or a filtering element”. This language means that the subject matter of claim 1 is not necessary, is optional or negated. A dependent claim may not remove or negate limitations from a claim upon which it depends. It is unclear how claim 9 and its dependencies (claims 10-12 and 15) further limit claim 1 from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1/A2) as being anticipated by KR 10-2013-0108334 A (02 OCTOBER 2013) or “Cited Reference 1”.
The Office Action of the Korean Patent Office made of record on 22 JANUARY 2026 is adopted as it applies to claims 1 and 5-8 as detailed below.
PNG
media_image3.png
139
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
879
579
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
883
583
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
758
582
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2013-0108334 A (02 OCTOBER 2013) or “Cited Reference 1”.
The Office Action of the Korean Patent Office made of record on 22 JANUARY 2026 is adopted as it applies to claims 2 and 3 as detailed below.
PNG
media_image7.png
1106
876
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1/A2) as being anticipated by GRIFFITH (GB 915,341 – 1963).
The rationale relating to novelty/anticipation set forth with in the Written Opinion set forth below with respect to claims 1 and 6 is adopted.
PNG
media_image8.png
740
484
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
307
635
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1/A2) as being anticipated by VOCELKA (US 2,631,732 – 1953).
The rationale relating to novelty/anticipation set forth in the Written Opinion set forth below with respect to claim 13 is adopted.
PNG
media_image10.png
874
605
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
743
600
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
998
673
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1/A2) as being anticipated by DEDUL (US 2021/0046407 A1). See the annotated figures below.
PNG
media_image13.png
931
649
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
426
668
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Election/Restrictions
While not agreeing with the comments made by Applicant, the restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached from 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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 a re unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights