Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/775,080

FILTER ELEMENT COMPRISING A FILTER MEDIUM FOLDED IN A ZIGZAG SHAPE, AND FILTER SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 17, 2024
Priority
Jan 28, 2022 — DE 10 2022 102 013.4 +1 more
Examiner
CLEMENTE, ROBERT ARTHUR
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Mann+hummel GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
1080 granted / 1335 resolved
+20.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1360
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
59.1%
+19.1% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1335 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 – 6, 11, 8, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/026179 to Bini et al. (hereinafter referred to as Bini). In regard to claim 1, as shown in figure 1, Bini discloses a filter element (11) capable of being used for a filter system for filtering a fluid. The filter element (11) includes a filter body (13) that can be made of pleated paper, as discussed in paragraph [0041]. The pleated paper forms a filter medium folded in a zigzag shape. The filter body (13) is capable of being flowed through by a fluid in a flow direction. As shown in figures 4 – 6, the peripheral portion (25) can be considered to form a frame element. A seal (19) is connected to the frame element (25). The frame element (25) and the seal (19) can be considered to circumferentially surround a clean-side end face of the filter body (13) in a circumferential direction. The stiffening element (21) is shown to be a lattice structure arranged at the clean-side end face of the filter body (13). As shown in figure 6, the frame element (25) comprises a circumferentially extending annular structure that can be considered to be connected by a connection structure to the lattice structure. Outer portions of the lattice structure form the connection structure. The connection structure is also embedded at least partially in the seal (19). The connection structure includes passages extending in a radial direction and configured to interlock the seal and the frame element. The plates (29) forms a sleeve surrounding, at least in sections, a wall surface of the filter body (13) in an axial direction of the filter body and in the circumferential direction. The frame element (25) is connected to the sleeve (29). In regard to claim 2, the circumferentially extending annular structure of the frame element (25) is embedded at least in a radial direction in the seal (19). In regard to claims 3 and 4, as shown in figures 3 – 5, the seal (19) is connected to folds of the filter body (13). How the seal is formed does not affect its structure. In regard to claim 5, as shown in figure 6, the lattice structure (21) and the circumferentially extending annular structure of the frame element (25) are formed as one piece. In regard to claim 6, as shown in figures 1 and 3, the sleeve (29) comprises a sleeve height measured in the axial direction, wherein the sleeve height corresponds to at least 70% of a height of the wall surface. In regard to claim 8, as broadly recited in the claim, the shape of the sleeve (29) can be considered at least one guide element configured to assist in positioning of the filter element in a filter housing. In regard to claim 11, as discussed above, the frame element (25) is formed as one piece with the lattice structure (21). In regard to claim 13, as shown in figures 1 and 2, the filter body (13) can be considered to comprise on at least one part of a cross-sectional surface thereof a rectangular cross section. In regard to claim 15, as discussed in paragraph [54], the filter element (11) can be housed in a housing of a circuit for filtering combustion air of an internal combustion engine. Such a housing inherently has a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet. The circuit forms a filter system for filtering a fluid. 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 nonobviousness. Claims 9, 10, and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bini. Bini is discussed above in section 3. In regard to claims 9 and 10, Bini does not specifically disclose anything that projects radially outwardly from the sleeve that can be considered a guide element or a grip element. There is no evidence the shape of the sleeve is critical. Anything that projects radially outwardly from the sleeve is considered to be capable of acting as a guide element or a grip element, as broadly recited in the claims. The use of guides and grips is well known in the art. A radial projection could also be used to add strength to the sleeve. Such as projection could act as a grip or guide even if that is not the intended use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the sleeve in Bini with a shape having a radially outward projection as it has been held that a particular shape of a structural feature or object is matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant, see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47. As discussed above, the radially outward projection is capable of acting as a guide element or a grip element. In regard to claim 14, as shown in figures 3 – 5, Bini forms the seal with an angles surface extending inwardly in the radial direction. Bini does not disclose the seal having steps extending inwardly in the radial direction parallel to the clean-side end face. There is no evidence the shape of the seal is critical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the seal in Bini with steps extending inwardly in the radial direction parallel to the clean-side end face as it has been held that a particular shape of a structural feature or object is matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant, see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47. Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bini in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0129068 to Canfield et al. (hereinafter referred to as Canfield). Bini is discussed above in section 3. In regard to claim 7, Bini only discloses plates (29) at two lateral walls that are considered to form the sleeve. Bini does not disclose a sleeve that is connected continuously to the circumferentially extending annular structure in the circumferential direction. As shown in figures 1 and 2, Canfield discloses a similar filter element (100) with a pleated media pack (102) and a seal (108) at one face. Canfield includes an outer cover (106) that surrounds the filter media pack (102) and can be used to help seal ends of the pleated media, as discussed in paragraph [0080]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bini to form the sleeve to extend around the entire circumference of the filter body as suggested by Canfield as this is a known arrangement for a filter element and can help seal the pleated filter medium in the filter element. In the combination, a sleeve that circumferentially surrounds the filter medium also will be connected continuously to the circumferentially extending annular structure in the circumferential direction. In regard to claim 12, the sleeve in the combination of Bini and Canfield extends the height of the filter medium. The end of the sleeve opposite of the seal can be considered a frame circumferentially surrounding a raw-side end face of the filter body in the circumferential direction. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references listed on the PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) are considered to be of interest disclosing similar Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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. /ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 17, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678724
FILTER MATERIAL FOR AIR FILTER AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING FILTER MATERIAL
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673290
DRYER FOR COMPRESSED GAS, COMPRESSOR INSTALLATION PROVIDED WITH A DRYER AND A METHOD FOR DRYING COMPRESSED GAS
4y 5m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12673876
SYSTEMS & METHODS FOR AMMONIA RECOVERY, ACID GAS SEPARATION, OR COMBINATION THEREOF
2y 4m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12654122
ZIGZAG-FOLDED NONWOVEN MATERIAL
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12654119
MID-PRESSURE WATER SEPARATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+7.2%)
2y 5m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1335 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month