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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 10 2021 126 855.9, filed on 10/15/2021.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 08, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-20 are currently amended and remains pending in the application. Claim 2 is canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 04/09/2026.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanhope et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20180207566 A1, July 26, 2018 (hereinafter “Stanhope”) in view of Mbadinga-Mouanda et al. DE 102009040202 A1, April 21, 2011 (hereinafter “Mbadinga”).
Regarding claim 1, Stanhope discloses a filter element for filtering a fluid comprising a filter bellows including a filter pack (12), deep filter pleats (figs. 4-7, deep filter pleats 14), a raw (dirty) side inlet surface and a clean side outlet surface (paragraph 0073), and a reinforcement frame (fig. 1, frame member 18, paragraph 0064) wherein the filter bellows is arranged in the reinforcement frame and a seal (figs. 1-2, gasket 30; paragraph 0072) is arranged circumferentially between the filter medium and the frame (paragraph 0079). However, Stanhope fails to disclose a filter zigzag-shaped folded medium, a reinforcement frame with at least one seal arranged at least partially continuously at an outer circumferential side of the filter medium at the raw side inlet surface or the clean side outlet surface of the filter bellows; adhesive tracks arranged along the folds of the filter medium at both an inflow side and an outflow side of the folds, offset from one another in the transverse direction; the outflow side adhesive tracks configured to relieve tension for a compensation of a length change relative to the filter medium or seal; and the outflow-side and inflow-side adhesive tracks each comprise first adhesive gaps, wherein the elongate adhesive sections and the first adhesive gaps of each one of the adhesive tracks are arranged alternatingly relative to one another, with the first gaps on the inflow side aligned with the elongate adhesive sections on the outflow side and the first gaps on the outflow side aligned with the elongate adhesive sections on the inflow side.
Mbadinga discloses a filter medium (106) with a zigzag-shaped pattern (figs 3-4; paragraph 0054), a frame with a circumferential seal, arranged at the outer circumferential side of the filter medium, which serves to separate the raw side from the clean side (paragraph 0031, 0039, 0049); the zigzag-shaped pattern of interruptions comprising adhesive tracks (101) arranged along the folds of the filter medium (106) (fig. 4, paragraph 0051-0054), wherein adhesive tracks are provided on both the raw side (105) (i.e., the inflow side) and the clean side (104) (i.e., the outflow side) of the filter medium and extend between fold tips and fold bases (paragraphs 0015-0017). The adhesive tracks comprise adhesive sections separated by interruptions (gaps), and that the interruptions (107) (paragraphs 0013-0017, 0051-0052) of adhesive tracks on the raw side and the clean side are arranged with spatial offset relative to one another in the transverse (i.e., fold-direction-perpendicular) direction (paragraphs 0018-0020).
Mbadinga’s independent claim 1 recites that all the adhesive tracks on the raw side lie directly opposite the adhesive tracks on the clean side, and that the interruptions (gaps) of the adhesive tracks on the raw side and the clean side do not overlap. Mbadinga further explains, at paragraph [0052], that this arrangement is deliberately configured such that an overlap of the raw-side and clean-side adhesive tracks is formed in the region of the clean side fold tips and near the clean-side fold base, while not such overlap is formed in the intervening region. This is illustrated in figure 3 embodiment (paragraph 0015-0017, 0051), where the raw-side gap is positioned centrally between fold tip and fold base while the clean-side gap surrounds the fold tip, that is, at a different position along the fold that the raw-side gap.
Because the raw-side (inflow) and clean-side (outflow) tracks are directly opposite one another, and because the gap in one track cannot spatially coincide with the gap in the opposing track, it necessary follows that wherever a gap exist on the inflow-side track, an elongate adhesive section exists at the same position on the opposing outflow-side track, and vice versa. This is exactly the “alternating” relationship recited in amended claim 1, the first gaps on the inflow side aligned with the elongate adhesive sections on the outflow side, and the first gaps on the outflow side aligned with the elongate adhesive sections on the inflow side. Mbadings’s teaching is thus not limited to showing generic, unrelated interruptions on each side independently but expressly teaches the relative positional relationship between the gaps and sections on the opposing sides of the fold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pleated filter media of Stanhope to incorporate the zig-zag folded structure and adhesive track configuration of Mbadinga, including the directly-opposing track arrangement with non-overlapping gaps in order to improve structural stability of the filter media and reduce stress concentrations during operations as explicitly taught by Mbadinga while ensuring that unfiltered air is not permitted to bypass the filter media at the fold tips/bases (paragraph 0052). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the circumferential sealing arrangement of Mbadinga into Stanhope to ensure proper separation between raw and clean air streams and improve sealing performance.
Regarding claim 3, Stanhope fails to disclose the elongate adhesive sections of the adhesive tracks at the inflow side and the first adhesive gaps of the adhesive tracks at the outflow side are arranged alternatingly along the unwinding of the folds. However, Mbadinga discloses adhesive tracks arranged along the folds of a pleated filter medium, wherein the adhesive tracks include adhesive sections separated by interruptions (107) (figs. 3-4, paragraphs 0051-0054). The adhesive sections and interruptions are arranged along the fold direction and that the interruptions of adhesive tracks on opposite sides are positioned such that they do not overlap, thereby establishing an alternating arrangement of adhesive sections and gaps distributed along the folds (paragraphs 0017-0019, 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter element of Stanhope to incorporate adhesive tracks having alternating adhesive sections and gaps arranged along the unfolding direction of the folds, as taught by Mbadinga, in order to provide distributed bonding along the folds while allowing flexibility and accommodating deformation of the filter medium during operation.
Regarding claim 4, Stanhope fails to disclose the elongate adhesive sections of the adhesive tracks at the inflow side or the elongate adhesive sections of the adhesive tracks at the outflow side include elongate adhesive sections extending across fold tips of the folds. However, Mbadinga discloses adhesive tracks arranged in the folds of a pleated filter medium, wherein the adhesive tracks extend between fold tips (102) and fold bases (103) (fig. 3, paragraph 0051). Mbadinga further discloses that these adhesive tracks are applied along the fold direction and are positioned within the fold regions of the filter medium (paragraph 0012). Because the adhesive tracks extend continuously between fold tips and fold bases, the adhesive tracks are positioned so as to traverse the fold tip regions along the folds (paragraphs 0051-0052), Accordingly, the elongate adhesive sections include adhesive sections extending across the fold tips of the folds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the adhesive track arrangement of Mbadinga into the pleated filter of Stanhope in order to stabilize the pleated filter medium and distribute bonding along the folds while allowing flexibility of the filter structure.
Regarding claim 5, Stanhope discloses that the first adhesive gaps of the adhesive tracks at the inflow side or the first adhesive gaps of the adhesive tracks at the outflow side include first adhesive gaps extending across fold tips of the folds. However, Mbadinga discloses adhesive tracks arranged along the folds of a filter medium, wherein the adhesive tracks extend between fold tips (102) and fold bases (103) and include interruptions at defined locations (fig. 3, paragraph 0051). The interruption (107) of the adhesive track is specifically provided at the region of the fold tip on the clean side such that the fold tip region is not bonded by adhesive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the adhesive track configuration of Mbadinga, including adhesive gaps at fold tips, in order to reduce stress concentration at fold tips and improve flexibility of the pleated filter medium while maintaining structural stability.
Regarding claim 6, Mbadinga discloses a filter medium having folds including fold tips and fold bases, wherein adhesive tracks are arranged in the folds and extends between folds tips and fold bases (figs. 3-4, paragraph 0012-0014, 0051-0054). The adhesive tracks are not continuous but include interruptions along their length, and that at least one interruption is provided between the fold tip and the fold base along the adhesive track. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the interrupted adhesive track configuration into the filter element of Stanhope in order to provide regions of reduce stiffness along the folds, thereby reducing stress concentrations while maintaining sufficient bonding for structural stability.
Regarding claim 7, Stanhope fails to disclose that the folds comprise fold tips visible at the outflow side, wherein one or more of the first adhesive gaps are arranged on the fold tips visible at the outflow side. However, Mbadinga discloses adhesive track arranged along the folds of the pleated filter medium (106), wherein the adhesive tracks include interruptions (107) (paragraphs 0051-0052). An interruption is specifically provided at the region of the fold tip (102) on the clean side such that the fold tip region is not bonded by adhesive (figs. 3-4; paragraphs 0016, 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the adhesive track of Mbadinga, including the gaps (interruptions) at fold tips, into the filter element of Stanhope in order to reduce stress concentration at fold tips and improve flexibility of the pleated filter medium while maintain structural stability.
Regarding claim 8, Mbadinga discloses adhesive tracks arranged along the folds of a filter medium, wherein the adhesive tracks are provided on both the raw side (105) and the clean side (104) of the filter medium and extend between fold tips and fold bases (paragraphs 0015-0017). The adhesive tracks extend between fold tips and fold bases along the folds, and include interruptions (107) distributed along the extent (figs. 3-4, paragraphs 0051-0054). The interruptions (107) occur at defined positions along the adhesive tracks, including regions between fold tips and fold bases. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the adhesive track into the pleated filter element of Stanhope, including adhesive sections and gaps extending into fold regions on respective sides, in order to provide distributed bonding while permitting controlled flexibility and deformation of the filter medium.
Regarding claim 9, Mbadinga discloses adhesive tracks arranged along the folds of a filter medium, wherein the adhesive tracks are provided on both the raw side (105) and the clean side (104) of the filter medium and extend between fold tips and fold bases (paragraphs 0015-0017). The adhesive tracks extend between fold tips and fold bases along the folds, and include interruptions (107) distributed along the extent (figs. 3-4, paragraphs 0051-0054). The interruptions (107) occur at defined positions along the adhesive tracks, including regions between fold tips and fold bases. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the adhesive track into the pleated filter element of Stanhope, including adhesive sections and gaps extending into fold regions on respective sides, in order to provide distributed bonding while permitting controlled flexibility and deformation of the filter medium.
Regarding claim 10, Stanhope fails to disclose that at the clean side outlet surface, the adhesive tracks at the outflow side comprise second adhesive gaps arranged at fold tips of the folds, wherein the second adhesive gaps are arranged in relation to the transverse direction such that, on neighboring ones of the adhesive tracks at the outflow side, the second adhesive gaps are arranged on different ones of the fold tips of the folds. However, Mbadinga discloses adhesive tracks arranged along the folds of a pleated filter medium, wherein the adhesive tracks include interruptions (107) and are provided on both the raw side (105) and the clean side (104) of the filter medium and extend between fold tips and fold bases (paragraphs 0015-0017). The interruptions of adhesive tracks on the raw side and the clean side are arranged such that they do not overlap (paragraph 0052). The positions of the interruptions are defined along lines arranged at an angle relative to the fold direction (paragraph 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the adhesive track configuration of Mbadinga, including adhesive gaps at fold tips arranged in a non-overlapping and spatially displaced manner, into the filter element of Stanhope in order to reduce stress concentration at fold tips.
Regarding claim 11, Mbadinga discloses adhesive tracks arranged along the fold of a pleated filter medium, wherein the adhesive tracks include interruptions distributed along the folds (paragraph 0015-0017). The interruptions of the adhesive tracks are arranged such that their start and end points are aligned along a plurality of lines that extend across the folds and are arranged relative to the fold direction (paragraph 0019). As a result, elongate adhesive sections of neighboring adhesive tracks on a given side of the filter medium are arranged at corresponding positions relative to the folds, and the interruptions of those neighboring adhesive tracks are likewise arranged in coordinated positions (figs. 3-4). It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the structured alignment of the adhesive track feature into the filter element of Stanhope in order to achieve uniform distribution of adhesive bonding and predictable mechanical behavior across pleated filter medium.
Regarding claim 12, Mbadinga discloses adhesive tracks arranged along the fold of a pleated filter medium, wherein the adhesive tracks include interruptions distributed along the folds (paragraph 0015-0017). The interruptions of the adhesive tracks are arranged such that their start and end points are aligned along a plurality of lines that extend across the folds and are arranged relative to the fold direction (paragraph 0019). As a result, when viewed in a transverse direction relative to the unfolding of the folds, elongate adhesive sections of neighboring adhesive tracks at the outflow side are arranged at the same level, and the corresponding adhesive interruptions of those neighboring adhesive tracks are also arranged at a same level. It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the aligned arrangement of adhesive track feature into the filter element of Stanhope in order to achieve uniform bonding distribution and consistent mechanical behavior across pleated filter medium.
Regarding claims 14, Stanhope discloses a filter comprising a pleated filter media pack arranged within a frame and configured for airflow from an inlet side to an outlet side, wherein the pleats are arranged in a regular, repeating pattern across the filter pack (paragraph 0067; figs. 1-3, 6-7), establishing a uniform spacing of structural features across the folds. Mbadinger discloses adhesive tracks arranged along the folds of a pleated filter medium on both the raw side and the clean side, wherein the adhesive tracks are arranged parallel to one another (paragraph 0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to arrange the parallel adhesive tracks of Mbadinga with uniform spacing along the folds when applied to the pleated filter structure of Stanhope in order to achieve uniform bonding distribution, consistent airflow characteristics, and predictable mechanical stability of the filter media.
Regarding claim 15, Mbadinga discloses adhesive tracks arranged along the folds of a pleated filter medium, wherein the adhesive tracks are arranged parallel to one another and perpendicular to the direction of the fold edges (paragraph 0051). The adhesive tracks being perpendicular to the fold edges, are oriented perpendicular to the fold tips defined by those fold edges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the adhesive track arrangement of Mbadinga into the pleated filter structure of Stanhope in order to provide structure bonding and stabilization of pleats.
Regarding claim 16, Stanhope discloses a filter housing (paragraph 0064), wherein fluid enters from an upstream side and exits from a downstream side; a filter element for filtering a fluid comprising a filter bellows including a filter pack (12), deep filter pleats (figs. 4-7, deep filter pleats 14), a raw (dirty) side inlet surface and a clean side outlet surface (paragraph 0073), and a reinforcement frame (fig. 1, frame member 18, paragraph 0064) wherein the filter bellows is arranged in the reinforcement frame and a seal (figs. 1-2, gasket 30; paragraph 0072) is arranged circumferentially between the filter medium and the frame (paragraph 0079). However, Stanhope fails to disclose a filter zigzag-shaped folded medium, a reinforcement frame with at least one seal arranged at least partially continuously at an outer circumferential side of the filter medium at the raw side inlet surface or the clean side outlet surface of the filter bellows; adhesive tracks arranged along the folds of the filter medium at both an inflow side and an outflow side of the folds, offset from one another in the transverse direction; the outflow side adhesive tracks configured to relieve tension for a compensation of a length change relative to the filter medium or seal; and the outflow-side and inflow-side adhesive tracks each comprise first adhesive gaps, wherein the elongate adhesive sections and the first adhesive gaps of each one of the adhesive tracks are arranged alternatingly relative to one another, with the first gaps on the inflow side aligned with the elongate adhesive sections on the outflow side and the first gaps on the outflow side aligned with the elongate adhesive sections on the inflow side.
Mbadinga discloses a filter medium (106) with a zigzag-shaped pattern (figs 3-4; paragraph 0054), a frame with a circumferential seal, arranged at the outer circumferential side of the filter medium, which serves to separate the raw side from the clean side (paragraph 0031, 0039, 0049); the zigzag-shaped pattern of interruptions comprising adhesive tracks (101) arranged along the folds of the filter medium (106) (fig. 4, paragraph 0051-0054), wherein adhesive tracks are provided on both the raw side (105) (i.e., the inflow side) and the clean side (104) (i.e., the outflow side) of the filter medium and extend between fold tips and fold bases (paragraphs 0015-0017). The adhesive tracks comprise adhesive sections separated by interruptions (gaps), and that the interruptions (107) (paragraphs 0013-0017, 0051-0052) of adhesive tracks on the raw side and the clean side are arranged with spatial offset relative to one another in the transverse (i.e., fold-direction-perpendicular) direction (paragraphs 0018-0020).
Mbadinga’s independent claim 1 recites that all the adhesive tracks on the raw side lie directly opposite the adhesive tracks on the clean side, and that the interruptions (gaps) of the adhesive tracks on the raw side and the clean side do not overlap. Mbadinga further explains, at paragraph [0052], that this arrangement is deliberately configured such that an overlap of the raw-side and clean-side adhesive tracks is formed in the region of the clean side fold tips and near the clean-side fold base, while not such overlap is formed in the intervening region. This is illustrated in figure 3 embodiment (paragraph 0015-0017, 0051), where the raw-side gap is positioned centrally between fold tip and fold base while the clean-side gap surrounds the fold tip, that is, at a different position along the fold that the raw-side gap.
Because the raw-side (inflow) and clean-side (outflow) tracks are directly opposite one another, and because the gap in one track cannot spatially coincide with the gap in the opposing track, it necessary follows that wherever a gap exist on the inflow-side track, an elongate adhesive section exists at the same position on the opposing outflow-side track, and vice versa. This is exactly the “alternating” relationship recited in amended claim 1, the first gaps on the inflow side aligned with the elongate adhesive sections on the outflow side, and the first gaps on the outflow side aligned with the elongate adhesive sections on the inflow side. Mbadings’s teaching is thus not limited to showing generic, unrelated interruptions on each side independently but expressly teaches the relative positional relationship between the gaps and sections on the opposing sides of the fold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pleated filter media of Stanhope to incorporate the zig-zag folded structure and adhesive track configuration of Mbadinga, including the directly-opposing track arrangement with non-overlapping gaps in order to improve structural stability of the filter media and reduce stress concentrations during operations as explicitly taught by Mbadinga while ensuring that unfiltered air is not permitted to bypass the filter media at the fold tips/bases (paragraph 0052). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the circumferential sealing arrangement of Mbadinga into Stanhope to ensure proper separation between raw and clean air streams and improve sealing performance.
Regarding claim 19, Stanhope discloses a filter system comprising a housing and filter element disposed within the housing (paragraph 0064). The filter element seated within the housing such that fluid is directed through the filter media (figs. 1-2). Mbadinga discloses a filter element having a seal arranged circumferentially, wherein the seal separates the raw side from the clean side when the filter element is installed (paragraph 0050-0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the sealing arrangement of Mbadinga into the filter system of Stanhope to ensure proper separation between the raw and clean sides and prevent bypass of unfiltered fluid.
Regarding claim 20, Stanhope discloses and shows the filter element configured as a replaceable unit inserted into the housing and arranged across the flow path, such that the filter media is oriented transversely relative to the main flow axis (figs. 1-2, paragraph 0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the filter element structure of Mbadinga into the filter system of Stanhope to provide structural integrity and be configured to be inserted into the housing.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanhope et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20180207566 A1, July 26, 2018 (hereinafter “Stanhope”) in view of Mbadinga-Mouanda et al. DE 102009040202 A1, April 21, 2011 (hereinafter “Mbadinga”), in further view of Kahler U.S. Pub. No. 5888262 A, March 30, 1999 (hereinafter “Kahler”).
Stanhope and Mbadinga are relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 13, Kahler discloses that adhesive applied to pleated filter structures may be interrupted along its longitudinal extent and arranged in multiple discrete, repeating regions along the folds (figs. 2A-3C; col. 6-7), hence disclosing controlled and repeatable segmentation of adhesive regions along fold length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the adhesive track arrangement of Mbadinga as applied to the pleated filter of Stanhope in view of Kahler to employ uniform, repeating pattern of adhesive sections and gaps, and to select the lengths of the adhesive sections and the intervening gaps to be identical in order to achieve uniform bonding distribution.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanhope et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20180207566 A1, July 26, 2018 (hereinafter “Stanhope”) in view of Mbadinga-Mouanda et al. DE 102009040202 A1, April 21, 2011 (hereinafter “Mbadinga”), in further view of Ackermann et al., U.S. Pub. No. 20100186353 A1, July 29, 2010 (hereinafter “Ackermann”).
Stanhope and Mbadinga are relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 17, Ackermann discloses a filter device comprising a cyclone pre-separator (26) arranged upstream of a main filter element (36) (figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs 0009, 0037-0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the cyclone pre-separator of Ackermann into the filter system of Stanhope in order to remove coarse particles prior to infiltration and hence improve filter efficiency and extend filter life.
Regarding claim 18, Ackermann discloses a secondary filter element (38) arranged downstream of the main filter element (36) in the flow direction (fig. 3, paragraphs 0010, 0017, 0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate such a downstream safety filter into the system of Stanhope in order to capture residual particles and protect downstream components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that he proposed combination of Stanhope and Mbadinga does not teach “the elongate adhesive sections and the first adhesive gaps of each one of the adhesive tracks are arranged alternatingly relative to one another, with the first gaps on the inflow side aligned with the elongate adhesive sections on the outflow side and the first gaps on the outflow side aligned with the elongate adhesive sections on the inflow side,” because “Mbadinga does not depict or discuss respective positioning of adhesive sections and gaps on two sides of a substrate,” and that “even if Mbadinger adhesive tracks 101 with the breaks 107 were used with Stanhope's filter element, the proposed combination would not teach or suggest any particular alignment of adhesive sections and/or gaps on an inflow side of a filter element with adhesive sections and/or gaps on an outflow side of a filter element.”
This argument is NOT persuasive. As set forth above, Mbadinga’s independent claim 1 expressly recites that all the adhesive tracks on the raw side lie directly opposite the tracks on the clean side, and that the interruptions of the adhesive tracks on the raw side and the clean side do not overlap one another. Mbadinga paragraph [0052] confirms that this non-overlapping relationship is deliberately configured to produce an overlap configured to produce an overlap of the raw-side and clean-side tracks specifically in the region of the clean-side fold tips and near the clean-side fold base. Mbadinga’s figure 3 embodiment (paragraphs 0015-0017, 0051) illustrates this concretely: the raw side interruption (107) is positioned midway between the fold tip and fold base, while the clean side interruption surrounds the fold tip, a different position along the same fold. This is a direct teaching of the relative positioning of gaps and section between the two opposing sides of the filter medium, not merely a showing of interruption on each side considered in isolation, as Applicant contends. Because the tracks on the two sides are directly opposed and their gaps cannot overlap, a gap on one side must, by necessity, register with an adhesive section on the other side, precisely the alternating arrangement recited by amending claim 1. Applicant’s characterization of Mbadinga as silent on this positional relationship is accordingly incorrect and the rejection of claim 1 (and claim 16, by the same reasoning) is maintained.
Applicant argues that claim 3-15, and 17-20 are patentably defined over Stanhope and Mbadinga because they depend from claims patentably defined over cited art, and further for the additional subject matter they recite. Because claims 1 and 16 remain properly rejected for the reason discussed above, Applicant’s dependency-based argument for claims 3-15, and 17-20 is not persuasive, and Applicant has not identified with particularity how the additional limitations of these dependent claims are not taught by the cited art. The rejection of these claims is maintained.
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 MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights