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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 February 2026 has been entered.
Applicant has made no amendments to the previous claims. Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 26-28, 37, 39, 40, 63, 65, 86, 87 and 89-92 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or render obvious a filter media having an air permeability of less than or equal to 60 CFM at a pressure of 125 Pa. Applicant argues that the Office has erred by assuming that every portion of Eaton et al. (US 2010/0282682 A1) relates to respirators, and that no sections cited to by Applicant do, and that this means that Applicant's arguments are not relevant to the rejection presented. The Office also made several assertions that the arguments presented are not responsive to the exact rejection and embodiments identified by the Patent Office. See Remarks, p, 9, bottom. Applicant argues that the embodiment in Bohringer et al. (US 2018/0207613 A1) teaching the gas/air transmission identified by the Patent Office does not specifically relate to respirators (and so, therefore, according to the Patent Office, should not be relevant), is not taught as most preferred, and is lower than values taught as being most preferred. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to modify Eaton to have such a value. See Remarks, p. 9, top. Likewise, Applicant argues that in Eaton, almost all the teachings cited by the Office do not directly mention respirator embodiments, while content cited by Applicant does not exclude respirator embodiments. Therefore, if Applicant’s arguments do not relate to respirators, neither do the Office’s arguments, and obviousness is not established. See Remarks, p. 8, “In response.”
It is noted that Applicant’s arguments are generalizations that do not address specifics of the previous action (Non-Final Rejection of 1 August 2025). Applicant later puts forth more specific arguments, which are addressed below. However, in response to the above assertions, Applicant’s argument appears to assume that all passages in Bohringer should be presumed to not apply to air filters or respirators where air filters or respirators are not specifically mentioned. However, no basis for this assumption is presented. Bohringer is directed toward protective material that is an adsorptive filtering material (claim 1), examples of which are respirator filters and air filters ([0017], [0189]), so the skilled practitioner, reading Bohringer, would have understood that the teachings disclosed may generally relate to respirators and air filters. Likewise, since Eaton is directed toward gas/air filters and respirators (Abstract; [0012], [0069], [0071]), the skilled practitioner would have recognized the teachings disclosed generally may relate to respirators and gas/air filters. In each case, the skilled practitioner would recognize what teachings are relevant to respirators or air filters, as discussed below.
Regarding their specific arguments, Applicant argues that if it is the Patent Office's position that only portions of Eaton that directly refer to respirators are relevant to its rejection, then the teachings of Eaton relevant to its rejection can, at best, be that respirators are commercially available, can have the features depicted in FIG. 3, and can have flanges, since respirators are only mentioned in paragraphs 4, 71, and 73. See Remarks, p. 8, “Eaton only.”
In response, this is not the Office’s position. At least paragraphs [0012], [0054], [0069], [0070], and [0073] refer to gas/air filtration. [0004] provides an example of what is meant by a “fluid filtration system” throughout the disclosure (“such as”). [0071] is related to the respirator of Fig. 3, which is specifically discussed for multiple paragraphs, such as [0073]. As Eaton was used as the primary reference, and not as the reference teaching “an air permeability of less than or equal to 60 CFM at a pressure of 125 Pa” (Remarks, p. 7; Non-Final Rejection of 1 August 2025, p. 6), Applicant’s argument does not appear to relate to the basis for the Office’s argument regarding the obviousness of the claimed air permeability, and is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office has asserted that the teachings of paragraphs 72, 120, 68, 124, 117, and 183 relate to a respirator embodiment, yet none includes text that indicates they are relevant to a respirator embodiment. See Remarks, p. 8, bottom. Applicant then elaborates on this point, and for each paragraph argues that there is no reference to respirators or gas filtration. See Remarks, p. 9 through p. 10, first two lines.
In response, it is again unclear what specific aspect of the previous action is being contested by these arguments, as these paragraphs were not used as a basis for stating that the claimed air permeability would have been obvious. Applicant appears to imply that Eaton was cited improperly as a reference teaching filter media generally, but this is argument is not stated, so it is unclear to the examiner if this is indeed Applicant’s position. Applicant’s unstated major premise appears to be that Eaton intends the skilled practitioner to understand that paragraphs that do not mention respirators do not apply to respirators, but Applicant does not explain why such a restrictive interpretation would be correct. Applicant acknowledges that Fig. 3 is related to a respirator ([0071]), and a plain reading of [0072] makes clear that it is Fig. 3 that is being discussed, along with Fig. 2, which use the same reference characters. See also [0073]: “potentially hazardous substances in such fluid may be absorbed and/or adsorbed by particulates 16 distributed in first layer 20) and exits fluid (e.g., gas) filtration article 28,” (emphasis added). [0120] discusses sorbent particulate, which [0121] makes clear relates to gas filtration (“Mixtures of sorbent particles can also be employed, e.g., to absorb mixtures of gases”). Applicant states that [0068] and [0117] relate to sorbent particles, and the skilled practitioner would have recognized that the sorbent particles are for adsorbing gases during gas filtration, as noted above. Sorbent particles are also discussed in [0117] (“the particulates”). Applicant argues that [0183] is an application that includes a mandrel core, which is not shown in Fig. 3, but a “mandrel core” was not mentioned in the previous action, and [0183] does not discuss a single embodiment but examples of ways the teachings may be tailored for specific applications (“By using these approaches, a composite nonwoven fibrous web may be formed that is tailored for a specific application. For example . . .). Applicant does not appear to make any particular argument directed toward the rejection with these examples, and so these examples are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office stated that Applicant improperly cited paragraphs 172 and 193. Regarding 172, there is no indication that calendaring is not used for respirator embodiments and there is no indication its teachings are not limited to calendaring. Applicant argues it teaches that “it is desirable for pressure drop to be high” but that it does not teach that “high pressure drop is only disfavored” when calendaring is employed, so it is relevant to embodiments in which calendaring is not employed, and should be understood to be applicable to respirator embodiments to the degree that other portions of Eaton that do not specify non-respirator embodiments are relevant to respirator embodiments. Regarding 193, the paragraph refers to mechanisms for pressurizing gas directly before referring to reduced pressure under pressurized flow, and one would one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Eaton is teaching that reduced pressure drop (i.e., high air permeability) is desirable. See Remarks, p. 10.
While it is unclear to the examiner what is being argued in some instances (“it is desirable for pressure drop to be high . . . reduced pressure drop (i.e., high air permeability) is desirable”), it is noted the Office only referred to these paragraphs in response to Applicant’s footnotes in a prior argument (Remarks, 24 June 2025, p. 8, bottom). The Office’s position was not that the paragraphs were “improperly cited,” but that they were not used in the previous rejection, and so lacked relevance to the rejection. Applicant refers to “reduced” and “high” pressure drops, but these terms are relative terms that are not related by Applicant to the claimed air permeability range, and they are not related to the rejection, which relied upon Bohringer. The Office did not mention calendaring in the previous rejection, so it is unclear why Applicant believes these teachings regarding calendaring are relevant to the rejection. Likewise, the rejection did not refer to any application of filters using pressurized fluid flow, so it is unclear what bearing these teachings should have on the previous rejection. Rather than argue that teachings related to calendaring and pressurized flow must be considered in the rejection, Applicant appears to imply that that these teachings should be assumed to necessarily apply to respirators, but there is an absence of reasoning why this is an appropriate interpretation.
Turning to Bohringer, Applicant uses a similar argument, stating that only paragraphs 17, 190, and 192 mention respirators, while the rejection referenced paragraphs 60, 63, 141, 152, 158, and 42. Applicant proceeds to discuss these paragraphs, contending that they are not necessarily associated with respirators, or that they may be associated with other applications, or that their applications are not stated. See Remarks, p. 11 through p. 12, “Paragraph 152.”
Applicants method of argumentation, here as before, is flawed because the skilled practitioner would not be so limited in understanding the disclosure of Bohringer, reduced to understanding individual paragraphs in isolation. For example, it would have been obvious that “breathability” ([0042]) relates to respirators. Generally, the disclosure relates to protective material/articles such as filtering elements like respirators and air filters (e.g., [0004], [0017], [0141], [0190]), and the skilled practitioner would have maintained this context throughout the disclosure.
Regarding [0158], which was relied upon in the rejection to address the claimed range for air permeability, Applicant argues that the ranges disclosed are not directed to respirators in particular, mirroring the Office’s previous contention that the “most preferable” range is not clearly directed to respirators in particular (Non-Final Rejection of 1 August 2025, bottom). One would have had no reason to believe that any of them would have been suitable for use in respirators, and therefore would have believed that none of the ranges were particularly relevant, but that the only guidance provided would be to select the most preferable range, which is higher than 60 CFM (Remarks, p. 12, “Paragraph 158).
Again, Applicant’s specific arguments are at times not clear to the examiner, who seems to argue that none of the ranges are for respirators, but also that for respirators, only a “most preferable range” would be applicable. It is clear that [0158] is not directed at any particular application, and it provides a basis for optimization within various ranges that was relied upon in the rejection (Non-Final Rejection, p. 8, line 2: “a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing air permeability”). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, and examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123 (I) and (II).
Regarding [0158], Applicant argues that consideration of the prior art as a whole requires also considering “portions that would lead away from the claimed invention,” citing MPEP 2143.02(VI). Considering Bohringer as a whole, it provides the following teachings with respect to air transmission: that it should be high, that it is most preferably at least 350 l·m−2·s−1 (which is 69 CFM), and, in two outstanding experimental reductions to practice, 400 l·m−2·s−1 and 420 l·m−2·s−1. Therefore, air permeabilities well in excess of 69 CFM are more desirable than air permeabilities below 60 CFM. See Remarks, p. 13, top and footnote.
In response, it is noted that “2143.02(VI)” appears to be a typographical error for “2141.02(VI),” which states that “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” Citing particular examples ([0195], [0211]) and a single preferred range ([0158]) to exclude other teachings in the reference is quite the opposite of considering the reference “as a whole” in the absence of any argument for “teaching away” from the combination used in the rejection, so Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that [0042] does not provide any air permeability values or indicate whether it is directed to embodiments related to respirators (Remarks, p. 13, bottom).
In response, as stated above, this paragraph addresses breathability, which is obviously relevant to air filters and respirators, as air permeability is equivalent to breathability (US 5,108,827, col. 8, line 8), so Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant states that in [0211], the examples have outstanding perviousness to air, which would indicate a low pressure drop, and so would apply the teachings of Bohringer to modify Eaton to have a pressure drop of 400 l·m−2·s−1 or 420 l·m−2·s−1, which is well in excess of 60 CFM. See Remarks, p. 13, “The Patent Office.”
In response, Applicant’s argument does not address the rejection because the rejection was based on optimization within the ranges disclosed by Bohringer rather than the specific examples mentioned in [0211]. Applicant’s arguments are based on specific examples in Bohringer, and no reasoning is provided why Eaton in view of Bohringer must be modified to reflect these air permeability values only.
Applicant argues that the Patent Office has not shown why Thompson et al. (US 2021/0146287 A1) would make obvious any particular value of air permeability. See Remarks, p. 14, middle.
In response, the ranges of values presented in the rejection were sourced from Bohringer, not Thompson (p. 7, bottom). Thompson was used as an evidentiary reference to argue one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing Eaton in view of Bohringer.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton et al. (US 2010/0282682 A1) in view of Bohringer et al. (US 2018/0207613 A1), and as evidenced by Morgan et al. (US 2011/0036347 A1), Thompson et al. (US 2021/0146287 A1), and Lalouch et al. (US 2013/0037481 A1).
Eaton discloses a fluid filtration article 28 for a respirator (Fig. 3; [0071]) (i.e., a filter media) comprising:
a second layer 10' of a composite nonwoven fibrous element 24 comprising, in an alternative, only sub-micrometer fibers ([0071], [0072], noting “and/or sub-micrometer fibers”) (i.e., a first non-woven fiber web, wherein the first non-woven fiber web comprises fibers having an average fiber diameter of less than or equal to 1 micron);
a first layer 20 in which a plurality of sorbent particulates 16 is distributed ([0072], [0120]), with at least 80 weight percent sorbent particles enmeshed in a microfiber web ([0068], [0124]) (i.e., a layer comprising adsorptive particles, wherein fibers make up less than or equal to 20 wt% of the layer comprising adsorptive particles), noting that it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I)), the particulates comprising particulates with a population median diameter of preferably at most about 1,000 μm, or preferably at most about 500 μm ([0117]) (i.e., wherein all of the adsorptive particles in the layer together have an average diameter of greater than or equal to 250 microns and less than or equal to 1.2 mm), again noting that it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art; and
optionally, an outer or pre-filter layer having greater pore size to remove larger contaminants ([0183]) (i.e., a prefilter).
It is noted that Eaton discusses fiber diameters and sorbent particulate diameters in terms of medians rather than averages ([0106], [0117]). However, Eaton is regarded as making obvious the claimed ranges of average diameters since Eaton is teaching desired diameters in each case, without suggesting that average diameters differing from the median diameters are preferable, so that the skilled practitioner would recognize that the expression of the diameters using a median measurement is merely the preferred method of Eaton to measure the diameters to be of the preferred sizes (e.g., [0107]), which are taught to be preferably of those sizes.
However, Eaton does not explicitly disclose (i) wherein the prefilter has an initial DEHS penetration at 0.33 microns of less than or equal to 30%; (ii) wherein the filter media has an air permeability of less than or equal to 60 CFM at a pressure of 125 Pa; or (iii) wherein the filter media has an adsorption efficiency of greater than or equal to 1% for one or more gases.
Regarding (i), Bohringer discloses a filtering material ([0004]) for a respirator ([0017]) comprising a protective material 1 with an adsorptive layer 4 comprising adsorbent particles 5 (Fig. 2A; [0060], [0063]) and a covering layer 6 ([0141]) that allows an initial penetration of DEHS aerosol with a Most Penetrating Particle Size (MPPS) of 0.1 to 0.3 μm of at most 30% ([0152]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Eaton by providing (i) a prefilter that has an initial DEHS penetration at 0.33 microns of less than or equal to 30% as taught by Bohringer because (1) it was known in the art that a pre-filter element was useful to prevent aerosols from entering a filter so as to avoid the need to replace the filter if a sick patient's mucous enters into the filter, as evidenced by Morgan ([0045]); and (2) a covering or pre-filter layer should be characterized by an initial penetration of DEHS aerosol with a Most Penetrating Particle Size (MPPS) of 0.1 to 0.3 μm of at most 30% (Bohringer, [0152]). It is noted that although a DEHS particle size of 0.1 to 0.3 microns is not equivalent to the claimed 0.33 microns, since Bohringer teaches a covering or pre-filter layer that allows the penetration of at most 30% of smaller, more difficult-to-filter particles than those claimed, the skilled practitioner would have recognized that the covering layer of Bohringer is effective to allow an initial DEHS penetration at 0.33 microns of less than or equal to 30%.
Regarding (ii), Bohringer teaches that the protective material 1 may have a gas/air transmission rate (i.e., air permeability) of at least 150 l·m-2·s-1 at a flow resistance of 127 Pa (Bohringer, [0158]), or about 29. 5 CFM (i.e., less than 60 CFM). Bohringer teaches that a high air transmission rate results in a high breathability ([0042]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Eaton in view of Bohringer by providing (ii) filter media that has an air permeability of less than or equal to 60 CFM at a pressure of 125 Pa by Bohringer because (1) it would have been desirable to provide a composite air filter with a gas/air transmission rate (i.e., air permeability) of at least 150 l·m-2·s-1 at a flow resistance of 127 Pa (Bohringer, [0158]) to optimize breathability (Bohringer, [0042]) while maintaining effective filtration; (2) since Bohringer teaches an air permeability of 29. 5 CFM at a flow resistance of 127 Pa ([0158]), the skilled practitioner would have expected the cover layer of Eaton in view of Bohringer to provide an air permeability within the claimed range at 125 Pa since the difference in pressures is relatively small; and (3) it was known that air permeability could be selected as desired through management of fiber sizes, types, and lengths, among other factors, as evidenced by Thompson ([0072]), so the practitioner of Eaton in view of Bohringer would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing air permeability.
Regarding (iii), Eaton teaches that the sorbent particulates may be activated carbon ([0120]), and it was known in the art that a filter web comprising activated carbon has a gas efficiency test result for n-butane of 93% at 0.0 minutes, as evidenced by Lalouch ([0321], [0328], Table 2), so the skilled practitioner of Eaton in view of Bohringer would have found it obvious to provide a filter media that has an adsorption efficiency of greater than or equal to 1% for one or more gases.
Claims 3, 7, 10, 13, 26-28, 39, 40, and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton in view of Both et al. (US 2013/0101477 A1) and Bohringer, and as evidenced by Morgan, Thompson, and Lalouch.
Regarding claim 3, Eaton discloses a fluid filtration article 28 for a respirator (Fig. 3; [0071]) (i.e., a filter media) comprising:
a second layer 10' of a composite nonwoven fibrous element 24 comprising, in an alternative, only sub-micrometer fibers ([0071], [0072], noting “and/or sub-micrometer fibers”) (i.e., a first non-woven fiber web, wherein the first non-woven fiber web comprises fibers having an average fiber diameter of less than or equal to 1 micron);
a first layer 20 in which a plurality of sorbent particulates 16 is distributed ([0072], [0120]), with sorbent particles enmeshed in a microfiber web ([0068], [0124]) (i.e., a layer comprising adsorptive particles), the particulates comprising particulates with a population median diameter of preferably at most about 1,000 μm, or preferably at most about 500 μm ([0117]) (i.e., wherein all of the adsorptive particles in the layer together have an average diameter of greater than or equal to 250 microns and less than or equal to 1.2 mm), noting that it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art; and
optionally, an outer or pre-filter layer having greater pore size to remove larger contaminants ([0183]) (i.e., a prefilter).
It is noted that Eaton discusses fiber diameters and sorbent particulate diameters in terms of medians rather than averages ([0106], [0117]). However, Eaton is regarded as making obvious the claimed ranges of average diameters since Eaton is teaching desired diameters in each case, without suggesting that average diameters differing from the median diameters are preferable, so that the skilled practitioner would recognize that the expression of the diameters using a median measurement is merely the preferred method of Eaton to measure the diameters to be of the preferred sizes (e.g., [0107]), which are taught to be preferably of those sizes.
However, Eaton does not explicitly disclose (i) a layer comprising adsorptive particles in an amount such that the adsorptive particles have a basis weight of greater than or equal to 90 g/m2 and less than or equal to 1000 g/m2; (ii) wherein the prefilter has an initial DEHS penetration at 0.33 microns of less than or equal to 30%; (iii) wherein the filter media has an air permeability of less than or equal to 60 CFM at a pressure of 125 Pa; or (iv) wherein the filter media has an adsorption efficiency of greater than or equal to 1% for one or more gases.
Regarding (i), Both discloses a non-woven electret fibrous web in which sorbent particles 8 are distributed (Fig. 1; [0032]). Both teaches that a sorbent loading level may be at least about 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 gsm ([0057], a range within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 90 g/m2 and less than or equal to 1000 g/m2. It has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Both teaches that a variety of different loadings of the particles may be used relative to the total weight of the fibrous web, depending, for example, on the density of the particles, size of the particles, and/or desired attributes of a final non-woven electret fibrous web article ([0061]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Eaton by providing (i) a layer comprising adsorptive particles in an amount such that the adsorptive particles have a basis weight of greater than or equal to 90 g/m2 and less than or equal to 1000 g/m2 as taught by Both because, although Eaton teaches a loading of at least about 2,000 gsm for relatively coarse (e.g., micro-sized) sorbent particles (Eaton, [0124]), it was known that factors such as the density of the particles and/or desired attributes of a final fibrous web article could contribute to a decision to use a variety of different loadings, such as loadings of 100, 200, 300, 400, or 500 gsm (Both, [0057], [0061]), so the skilled practitioner would have been motivated to optimize sorbent loading based on such factors in the embodiment taught by Eaton in view of Both.
Regarding (ii), Bohringer discloses a filtering material ([0004]) for a respirator ([0017]) comprising a protective material 1 with an adsorptive layer 4 comprising adsorbent particles 5 (Fig. 2A; [0060], [0063]) and a covering layer 6 ([0141]) that allows an initial penetration of DEHS aerosol with a Most Penetrating Particle Size (MPPS) of 0.1 to 0.3 μm of at most 30% ([0152]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Eaton in view of Both by providing (ii) a prefilter that has an initial DEHS penetration at 0.33 microns of less than or equal to 30% as taught by Bohringer because (1) it was known in the art that a pre-filter element was useful to prevent aerosols from entering a filter so as to avoid the need to replace the filter if a sick patient's mucous enters into the filter, as evidenced by Morgan ([0045]); and (2) a covering or pre-filter layer should be characterized by an initial penetration of DEHS aerosol with a Most Penetrating Particle Size (MPPS) of 0.1 to 0.3 μm of at most 30% (Bohringer, [0152]). It is noted that although a DEHS particle size of 0.1 to 0.3 microns rather than the claimed 0.33 microns, since Bohringer teaches a covering or pre-filter layer that allows the penetration of at most 30% of smaller and therefore more difficult to filter particles than those claimed, the skilled practitioner would have recognized that the covering layer of Bohringer is effective to allow an initial DEHS penetration at 0.33 microns of less than or equal to 30%.
Regarding (iii), Bohringer teaches that the protective material 1 may have a gas/air transmission rate (i.e., air permeability) of at least 150 l·m-2·s-1 at a flow resistance of 127 Pa (Bohringer, [0158]), or about 29. 5 CFM (i.e., less than 60 CFM). Bohringer teaches that a high air transmission rate results in a high breathability ([0042]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer by providing (iii) filter media that has an air permeability of less than or equal to 60 CFM at a pressure of 125 Pa by Bohringer because (1) it would have been desirable to provide a composite air filter with a gas/air transmission rate (i.e., air permeability) of at least 150 l·m-2·s-1 (29. 5 CFM) at a flow resistance of 127 Pa (Bohringer, [0158]) to optimize breathability (Bohringer, [0042]) while maintaining effective filtration; (2) since Bohringer teaches an air permeability of 29. 5 CFM at a flow resistance of 127 Pa ([0158]), the skilled practitioner would have expected the cover layer of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer to provide an air permeability within the claimed range at 125 Pa since the difference in pressures is so small; and (3) it was known that air permeability could be selected as desired through management of fiber sizes, types, and lengths, among other factors, as evidenced by Thompson ([0072]), so the practitioner of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing air permeability.
Regarding (iv), Eaton teaches that the sorbent particulates may be activated carbon ([0120]), and it was known in the art that a filter web comprising activated carbon has a gas efficiency test result for n-butane of 93% at 0.0 minutes, as evidenced by Lalouch ([0321], [0328], Table 2), so the skilled practitioner of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer would have found it obvious to provide a filter media that has an adsorption efficiency of greater than or equal to 1% for one or more gases.
Regarding claim 7, Eaton teaches that the sorbent particles can be activated carbon ([0120]), which cab adsorb hazardous substances in a fluid ([0073]) (i.e., wherein the adsorptive particles are configured to remove a species from air by adsorption).
Regarding claim 10, Eaton teaches that the sorbent particles can be activated carbon ([0120]), and activated carbon sorbent particulates can have a gas efficiency test result for n-butane of 93% at 0.0 minutes, as evidenced by Lalouch ([0321], [0328], Table 2) (i.e., the species comprises n-butane).
Regarding claim 13, Eaton teaches that the sorbent particles can be activated carbon ([0120]) (i.e., wherein the adsorptive particles comprise adsorptive particles comprising activated carbon).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Eaton teaches that particulates are bonded to fibers using an adhesive ([0123]) (i.e., wherein the layer comprising adsorptive particles further comprises a binder; wherein the binder comprises an adhesive).
Regarding claims 26 and 28, Eaton teaches that particulates are adhesively bonded to fibers via application of heat to thermoplastic fibers (i.e., thermal bonding) ([0123]) which may be bicomponent fibers ([0101]) (i.e., wherein the layer comprising adsorptive particles further comprises a binder; wherein the binder comprises bicomponent fibers).
Regarding claim 39, Eaton teaches a composite nonwoven fibrous web including the outer or pre-filter layer ([0183]) (i.e., wherein the prefilter is a second non-woven fiber web).
Regarding claim 40, Eaton teaches that the disclosed nonwoven fibrous webs may be formed with meltblown filaments ([0177]) (i.e., the second non-woven fiber web is a meltblown fiber web).
Regarding claim 87, Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer does not explicitly disclose a first non-woven fiber web that has an air permeability of greater than or equal to 40 CFM.
However, as discussed above, Bohringer teaches that it would have been desirable to provide a composite air filter with a gas/air transmission rate (i.e., air permeability) of at least 150 l·m-2·s-1 at a flow resistance of 127 Pa (Bohringer, [0158]), thereby suggesting a range of preferable air permeabilities of 29.5 CFM and above. It has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). In addition, it was known that air permeability could be selected as desired through management of fiber sizes, types, and lengths, among other factors, as evidenced by Thompson ([0072]), so the practitioner of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the air permeability of an individual layer to optimize breathability (Bohringer, [0042]) while maintaining effective filtration. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Billingsley et al. (US 2011/0240027 A1).
Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer does not explicitly disclose adsorptive particles configured to remove a species comprising a volatile organic compound, an acidic gas, a basic gas, an aldehyde, and/or benzene.
Billingsley discloses a filter element 20 for a respiratory protection device (Fig. 2; [0032], [0023]) comprising a bimodal mixture of active particles for adsorbing gases ([0026], [0029]) enmeshed in polymer fibers ([0032]). Billingsley teaches activated carbon active particles 26a, 28a for filtering targeted gaseous contaminants ([0032], [0034]) such as both acid gases and basic gases ([0034]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer by providing adsorptive particles configured to remove a species comprising an acidic gas and a basic gas as taught by Billingsley because (1) Eaton teaches activated carbon particles (Eaton, [0120]); and (2) acid gases and basic gases are contaminants that can be removed by activated carbon particles (Billingsley, [0032], [0034]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Billingsley.
Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer does not explicitly disclose activated carbon that is surface treated.
Billingsley discloses a filter element 20 for a respiratory protection device (Fig. 2; [0032], [0023]) comprising a bimodal mixture of active particles for adsorbing gases ([0026], [0029]) enmeshed in polymer fibers ([0032]). Billingsley teaches activated carbon active particles 26a, 28a for filtering targeted gaseous contaminants ([0032], [0034]) that are treated for acid gases and basic gases ([0034]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer by providing adsorptive particles that are activated carbon that is surface treated as taught by Billingsley because activated carbon particles may be treated to target acidic or basic gases (Billingsley, [0032], [0034]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Thompson.
Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer does not explicitly disclose that the first non-woven fiber web is charged.
Thompson discloses filtration material ([0031]) with a nanofiber layer that may include activated carbon ([0057]). Thompson teaches that the electrostatic charging of fibers is often used to attract and capture smaller particles ([0002]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer by providing a first non-woven fiber web that is charged as taught by Thompson because electrostatic charging of fibers was known to be often used to attract and capture smaller particles (Thompson, [0002]).
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer, as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Angadjivand et al. (US 2013/0291876 A1).
Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer does not explicitly disclose that the second non-woven fiber web comprises an electret charge.
Angadjivand discloses a multi-layered respirator (Fig. 3; Abstract) including a layer with a sorbent component ([0080]). Angadjivand teaches that an electret pre-filter may be disposed upstream to a more refined and selective downstream filtration layer ([0086]) to assist in removing contaminants from air ([0008]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer by providing a second non-woven fiber web comprises an electret charge as taught by Angadjivand because an electret pre-filter may be disposed upstream to a more refined and selective downstream filtration layer to assist in removing contaminants from air (Angadjivand, [0008], [0086]).
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer, as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Angadjivand.
Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer does not explicitly disclose that the second non-woven fiber web is a charged, meltblown non-woven fiber web.
Angadjivand discloses a multi-layered respirator (Fig. 3; Abstract) including a layer with a sorbent component ([0080]). Angadjivand teaches that an electret pre-filter may be disposed upstream to a more refined and selective downstream filtration layer ([0086]) to assist in removing contaminants from air ([0008]), and that synthetic fiber webs including electret charged microfibers may be produced from processes such as melt-blowing ([0080]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer by providing a second non-woven fiber web that is a charged, meltblown non-woven fiber web as taught by Angadjivand because an electret pre-filter may be disposed upstream to a more refined and selective downstream filtration layer to assist in removing contaminants from air (Angadjivand, [0008], [0086]), and electret fibers may be produced by melt-blowing (Angadjivand, [0080]).
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer, as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Angadjivand, and as evidenced by Jinka et al. (US 2018/0001247 A1).
Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer does not explicitly disclose that the second non-woven fiber web comprises two types of fibers having different dielectric constants.
Angadjivand discloses a multi-layered respirator (Fig. 3; Abstract) including a layer with a sorbent component ([0080]). Angadjivand teaches that an electret pre-filter may be disposed upstream to a more refined and selective downstream filtration layer ([0086]) to assist in removing contaminants from air ([0008]), and that synthetic fiber webs including electret charged microfibers may be produced from processes such as melt-blowing ([0080]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer by providing a second non-woven fiber web comprises two types of fibers having different dielectric constants as taught by Angadjivand because (1) an electret pre-filter may be disposed upstream to a more refined and selective downstream filtration layer to assist in removing contaminants from air (Angadjivand, [0008], [0086]), and electret fibers may be produced by melt-blowing (Angadjivand, [0080]); and (2) it was known in the art that a non-woven fabric comprising two polymers having different dielectric constants may facilitate charging of the layer, as evidenced by Jinka ([0074]), so the practitioner of Eaton in view of Both, Bohringer, and Angadjivand would have been motivated to use two polymers having different dielectric constants to facilitate charging of the pre-filter.
Claims 89-90 and 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Billingsley.
Eaton teaches the use of bimodal mixtures of sorbent particles ([0124]) (i.e., two types of adsorptive particles). However, Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer does not explicitly disclose filter media comprises two types of adsorptive particles are functionalized to adsorb different types of contaminants (claim 89); wherein the two types of adsorptive particles configured to adsorb different types of contaminants both comprise activated carbon (claim 90); wherein the two types of adsorptive particles both comprise activated carbon (claim 92).
Billingsley discloses a filter element 20 for a respiratory protection device (Fig. 2; [0032], [0023]) comprising a bimodal mixture of active particles for adsorbing gases ([0026], [0029]) enmeshed in polymer fibers ([0032]). Billingsley teaches activated carbon active particles 26a, 28a for filtering targeted gaseous contaminants ([0032], [0034]) that are treated (i.e., functionalized) for acid gases and basic gases, such that active particles of one filter layer remove acid gases and active particles of another filter layer remove basic gases ([0034]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter media of Eaton in view of Both and Bohringer by providing filter media comprises two types of adsorptive particles are functionalized to adsorb different types of contaminants (claim 89); and wherein the two types of adsorptive particles configured to adsorb different types of contaminants both comprise activated carbon (claim 90), and wherein the two types of adsorptive particles both comprise activated carbon (claim 92) as taught by Billingsley because activated carbon particles may be treated to target acidic or basic gases (Billingsley, [0032], [0034]).
Claim 91 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton in view of Both, Bohringer, and Billingsley, as applied to claim 89 above, and as further in view of Hitzke et al. (US 2019/0001253 A1).
Eaton in view of Both, Bohringer, and Billingsley does not explicitly disclose filter media comprising a first type of adsorptive particle configured to adsorb formaldehyde and a second type of adsorptive particle configured to adsorb ammonia.
Hitzke discloses an interior air filter ([0055]) comprising activated carbon particles ([0069]). Hitzke teaches that it is advantageous for the activated carbon particles to be impregnated for removing ammonia and formaldehyde ([0040]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter media of Eaton in view of Both, Bohringer, and Billingsley by providing filter media comprising a first type of adsorptive particle configured to adsorb formaldehyde and a second type of adsorptive particle configured to adsorb ammonia as taught by Billingsley because it is advantageous for the activated carbon particles to be impregnated for removing ammonia and formaldehyde (Hitzke, [0040]). Regarding the use of different types of adsorptive particles so configured, since Billingsley teaches different particles treated to target different contaminants (Billingsley, [0034]), it would have been obvious to the practitioner of Eaton in view of Both, Bohringer, and Billingsley to use adsorptive particles configured to target particular species.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772