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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated December 30, 2025 was submitted on March 17, 2026. Claim 1, 6, 16 and 21-23 was amended. Claim 20 was canceled. Claim 24 was added. Claims 1-19 and 21-24 are currently pending.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-19 and 21-23 (¶¶ 9-38 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of claims 21-23 have been made as detailed below. New claim 24 has also been addressed below.
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 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buettner, III et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0056226 A1, cited in previous Office Action) in view of Hutchison et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,475,227 B1, cited in IDS submitted May 22, 2024).
Regarding claim 21, Buettner discloses a pleated filter media pack (Abstract of Buettner, pleated filter media pack), comprising: a filter media sheet that includes a plurality of folds that form a plurality of pleat panels extending between first pleat tips along an inlet face of the filter media and second pleat tips along an outlet face of the filter media, the pleat tips and the pleat panels extending between opposed side edges of the pleated filter media pack, the plurality of pleat panels including first pleat panels and second pleat panels (FIGS. 6-7 of Buettner, filter media #600 which includes a plurality of media segments or panels #650 extending between pleat tips); further comprising embossments formed into at least some of the pleat panels (FIGS. 6-7 of Buettner, projections #622 #624; [0082] of Buettner, projections can be embossments), wherein adjacent members of the first pleat panels and second pleat panels overlay in contact with each other (FIGS. 6-7 of Buettner).
Buettner does not specifically disclose that the pleat panels extend at least 10 centimeters between folds, thereby providing a pleat depth, and wherein at least 3 pleat panels per centimeter are provided. Buettner, however, discloses that the pleat depth is 2 to 8 inches (i.e., 2.08-20.32 cm) ([0150] of Buettner) and the pleat density is 2 to 20 or at least 3 pleats per inch (i.e., 0.79-8.87 or at least 1.18 pleats per cm). Buettner therefore clearly teaches a pleat depth range (i.e., 2.08-20.32 cm) and a pleat density range (0.79-8.87 pleats per cm or at least 1.18 pleats per cm) that overlap with the ranges recited in claim 21 (i.e., at least 10 cm and at least 3 pleats per cm) which would render the claimed ranges obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Buettner also does not specifically disclose that the embossments comprise elongated grooves and wherein the embossments maintain a consistent groove depth for at least 90% of a length of the central portion of the embossments. Buettner, however, discloses that the projections can vary in shape and that the shape of the projections can be optimized to add stiffness to the media ([0084] of Buettner). Buettner also discloses elliptical projections ([0084] of Buettner) which inherently have an elongate shape. Hutchison discloses a pleated filter having embossed spacer members (Abstract of Hutchison) that extend longitudinally in the form of grooves of uniform depth (FIGS. 1 and 3 of Hutchison). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the filter media of Buettner with embossed spacers in the form of grooves having uniform depth as taught by Hutchison since Hutchison establishes that it was known to use embossed spacers having such a shape with pleated filter media. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 22, Buettner discloses that the first pleat panels and second pleat panels are parallel with each other (FIGS. 6-7 of Buettner, adjacent pleat panels are parallel).
Regarding claim 23, Hutchison discloses that the embossments are spaced away from and interposed between side edges such that the pleat panels are spaced without additional spacer elements and solely by embossments (FIGS. 8-9 and 10, 4:7-13 of Hutchison) but does not specifically disclose that the embossments are adhesive free. Hutchison, however, discloses that the panels are adhered only at their edges (4:3-4 of Hutchison). Accordingly, the embossments in the modified filter media are adhesive free.
Regarding claim 24, Hutchison discloses that due to the consistent groove depth, each embossment has an elongated linear contact with a flat portion of one of the adjacent members of the pleat panels (FIGS. 8-9, 4:22-27 of Hutchison, grooves in adjacent panels are offset allowing linear contact of the grooves with a flat portion of adjacent panels).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art is to Buettner. Buettner discloses a pleated filter media pack (Abstract of Buettner, pleated filter media pack), comprising: a filter media sheet that includes a plurality of folds that form a plurality of pleat panels extending between first pleat tips along an inlet face of the filter media and second pleat tips along an outlet face of the filter media, the pleat tips and the pleat panels extending between opposed side edges of the pleated filter media pack, the plurality of pleat panels including first pleat panels and second pleat panels (FIGS. 6-7 of Buettner, filter media #600 which includes a plurality of media segments or panels #650 extending between pleat tips); further comprising embossments formed into at least some of the pleat panels (FIGS. 6-7 of Buettner, projections #622 #624; [0082] of Buettner, projections can be embossments). While Buettner suggests that the pleat panels extend at least 10 centimeters between folds, thereby providing a pleat depth, and wherein at least 3 pleat panels per centimeter are provided ([0149]-[0150] of Buettner) and Choi suggests that the embossments comprise elongated grooves, neither Buettner, Choi nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest a pleated filter media pack as recited in claim 1 wherein each elongated groove has an open end and a closed end at opposite ends thereof.
The prior art as a whole therefore fails to teach or reasonably suggest the totality of the invention as defined by claim 1. In the absence of further prior art guidance, it would not have been obvious to arrive at the invention of claim 1 without impermissible hindsight. For the foregoing reasons, the invention of claim 1 is deemed non-obvious. Claims 2-19 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are therefore also deemed non-obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that Choi discloses elongated grooves having an embossment depth that is tapered from shallow to deep and fails to teach or reasonably suggest elongated grooves maintaining a consistent groove depth for at least 90% of a length as recited in claim 21 (pg. 10 of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is now relying upon the Hutchison reference to address this limitation.
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 CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights