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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/18/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The Examiner notes the claim set includes limitation(s) on how and how not the non-woven is consolidated, which is a process limitation(s). Process limitation(s) is not germane to the determination of patentability of a claimed product, unless a structure and/or composition/material is implied in said process step(s).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1, 3, and 23, canceled Claims 10, 14-20, and 24, and new Claim 25 in the response filed on 9/18/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-9, 11-13, 21-23, and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 23 reciting “each individual embossed pattern comprises tapered side walls that extend along a portion of the thickness D, the tapered side walls extending at an angle of between 18 degrees and 30 degrees relative to a direction of the thickness D” fails to comply with the written description requirement (emphasis added). Examiner acknowledges that Applicant’s filter medium comprises an embossed pattern, wherein each individual embossed pattern comprises tapered side walls that extend along a portion of the thickness D. As shown in Fig. 2a, the tapered side walls extending at an angle relative to a direction of the thickness D.
Applicant’s Fig. 2b and Page 8: Lines 5-9 appears to be relevant for the instant limitation. Specifically, it states, “In one embodiment of the instant invention, the areas of the structured roll protruding from the surface of the roller preferably have a flank angle from 18 to 30 degrees, such flank angle introduces the embossed pattern while the mechanical properties of the nonwoven remain robust allowing for a filter medium which can be cleaned during the cleaning cycles. This embodiment is illustrated by FIG. 2 b.” However, the relied upon citation is directed to the areas of the structured roll protruding from the surface of the roller used to emboss the non-woven textile to form an embossed pattern having tapered side walls, not necessarily to tapered side walls with specific angles.
When a textile layer is embossed using a roller having a plurality of protrusions with tapered edges having flank angles of between 18 degrees and 30 degrees, the resulting embossed features may substantially replicate the geometry of the protrusions. However, the angle of the embossed features may differ from the angle of the roller protrusions due to factors such as material deformation and elastic recovery during and after the embossing process. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a structure roll having protrusions with tapered sidewalls can be used to emboss a non-woven material to produce an embossed pattern having tapered side walls. It is unclear, however, whether the angle of the tapered protrusions in the structure roll would exactly impart the same angle to the textile layer. The resulting angle would likely depend on numerous factors, such as specific material for its non-woven textile layer, its elasticity (Young’s modulus) and degree of elastic recovery of the non-woven, embossing pressure, embossing speed and/or temperature.
For example, after the structured roll is removed, the non-woven textile layer may partially recover toward its original configuration, thereby altering the angle of the embossed features relative to the angle of the roller protrusions. Accordingly, while the geometry of the roller protrusions may generally influence and substantially correspond to the geometry of the resulting embossed features, an exact one-to-one correspondence between the respective flank angles in the structure roll and angles in the embossed pattern should not necessarily be assumed. Applicant has not clearly set forth, with evidence, that a structured roll with protrusions having flank angles of between 18 degrees and 30 degrees would exactly impart the same angles in Applicant’s textile layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20130153517 (“Umminger et al.”), in view of US Pub. No. 20140174934 (“Meier et al.”), in view of US Pat. No. 5660915 (“Schoeps et al.”), and in view of US Pat. No. 3929135 (“Thompson”).
With regards to Claims 1, 5-9, and 11-13, Umminger et al. teaches a filter medium, in filtrating air/gas and liquids, comprising (Abstract)
a) at least one textile layer (at least one textile stiffening layer) being a spunbonded non-woven of synthetic, organic polymer fibers ([0011], [0036], and [0038]-[0039]),
a1) the non-woven having a weight per unit area between 10 and 300 g/m2 [0057],
a2) the fibers of the non-woven having a titer in a range between 2 and 17 dtex [0068],
a3) the non-woven being consolidated by means of thermoplastic binders and/or mechanical means, with the proviso that the non-woven is not consolidated by needling and/or hydro-jet needling ([0014] and [0065]),
a4) the non-woven having an embossed pattern, the non-woven having an air permeability from at least 750 l/m2 [0070],
a5) the non-woven having an embossed pattern surface area, said embossed pattern surface area of the non-woven being from 5 to 30% of a total surface area of the non-woven [0064], and
a6) each individual embossed pattern surface area of the non-woven having a surface area from 0.2 to 4 mm2 [0064].
Umminger et al. teaches the non-woven having a multi-ply structure, wherein individual layers within the non-woven differ from each other. Umminger et al. further teaches that the individual titer of the fibers of synthetic polymers is between 2 and 17 dtex ([0066]-[0068]). Umminger et al. does not explicitly disclose the non-woven multi-ply structure in which a titer of fibers within each layer increases in one direction of a thickness of the non-woven.
Umminger et al. does not teach its non-woven having at a non-embossed area a thickness D and at the embossed pattern surface area a thickness d and a ratio d/D is a compression factor CF, said compression factor CF being in a range 0.2 ≤ FC ≤ 0.5, wherein D is 0.4 – 0.95 mm. Umminger et al. does not teach each individual embossed pattern comprises tapered side walls that extend from along a portion of the thickness D, the tapered side walls extending at an angle of between 18 degrees and 30 degrees relative to a direction of the thickness D.
Meier et al. teaches a filter medium comprising a non-woven having a multi-ply structure in which a fiber diameter within each layer increases in one direction of a thickness of the non-woven (Title, [0018]-[0023], [0075], and [0077]). Considering that a fiber diameter directly impacts the fineness/titer of fibers, the Examiner deems that Meier et al.’s multi-ply structure also has a titer gradient. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Umminger et al.’s non-woven having a multi-ply structure in which a titer of fibers within each layer increases in one direction of a thickness of the non-woven in order to obtain a filter with sufficient filtration efficiency ([0001]-[0003]).
Schoeps et al. teaches a spunbonded non-woven of synthetic, organic polymer fibers, wherein the non-woven has an embossed pattern. Schoeps et al. further teaches the thickness difference between densified (corresponds to Applicant’s d) and nondensified regions (corresponds to Applicant’s D) of the spunbonded is at least 25%, preferably 30-50%, and wherein a thickness of the non-embossed area of the non-woven is 0.2-0.6 mm (Col. 2: Lines 38-57 and Col. 3: Lines 12-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Umminger et al.’s non-woven have a CF within a range of 0.2-0.5 and a thickness D of 0.2-0.6 mm to achieve a non-woven with desirable consolidation and permeability (Col. 2: Lines 55-57).
Thompson teaches an embossed non-woven textile layer having tapered capillaries of critical angles of taper, wherein the critical angles of taper is from about 10° to about 60° relative to a thickness direction of its non-woven textile layer (Abstract, Figs. 2-4, Col. 2: Lines 13-24, Col. 3: Lines 42-68, Col. 6: Lines 11-24, and Col. 7: Lines 15-30). Therefore, Thompson teaches each individual embossed pattern comprises tapered side walls that extend along a non-embossed area a thickness D, the tapered side walls extending at an angle of between about 10° to about 60° relative to a direction of the thickness D. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Umminger et al.’s side walls have the claimed feature in order to provide the non-woven with desirable visual and tactile appeal, and provide liquids to flow through its textile medium while also inhibiting the reverse flow of these liquids (Col. 2: Lines 16-31).
With regards to Claim 2, Umminger et al. teaches the non-woven has a multi-ply structure in which individual layers within the non-woven differ from regard to the synthetic, organic polymer fibers and/or fiber diameters of fibers within each individual layer [0066].
With regards to Claim 3, Umminger et al. teaches the non-woven is a wet-laid non-woven, dry-laid non-woven or spunbonded non-woven, which is consolidated by means of thermoplastic binders and/or mechanical means, with the proviso that the non-woven is not consolidated by needling and/or hydro-jet needling ([0036] and [0065]).
With regards to Claim 4, Umminger et al. teaches the non-woven is a spunbonded non-woven, the spunbonded non-woven is consolidated by a melt-fusible binder causing a melt-binder-consolidated non-woven ([0043] and [0065]).
With regards to Claim 21, please see Abstract and [0111].
With regards to Claim 22, Umminger et al. teaches embossed pattern surface area is from 0.2 to 4 mm2, as set forth above [0064].
Umminger et al. does not teach each individual embossed pattern surface area having the claimed aspect ratio.
However, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the shape/aspect ratio of the embossed patterns in order to achieve a uniform and aesthetically pleasing pattern across the non-woven. For example, a square or circle shape has a length to width ratio of 1:1. Further, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20130153517 (“Umminger et al.”), in view of US Pat. No. 5660915 (“Schoeps et al.”), and in view of US Pat. No. 3929135 (“Thompson”).
Umminger et al. teaches a filter medium, in filtrating air/gas and liquids, with good filter performance comprising (Abstract and [0009])
at least one textile layer (at least one textile stiffening layer) being a spunbonded non-woven of synthetic, organic polymer fibers, wherein ([0011], [0036], and [0038]-[0039]),
the non-woven having a weight per unit area between 10 and 300 g/m2 [0057],
the fibers of the non-woven having a titer in a range between 2 and 17 dtex [0068],
the non-woven being consolidated by means of thermoplastic binders and/or mechanical means, with the proviso that the non-woven is not consolidated by needling and/or hydro-jet needling ([0014] and [0065]),
the non-woven having an embossed pattern, the non-woven having an air permeability from at least 750 l/m2 [0070],
the non-woven having an embossed pattern surface area, said embossed pattern surface area of the non-woven being from 5 to 30% of a total surface area of the non-woven [0064], and
each individual embossed pattern surface area of the non-woven having a surface area from 0.2 to 4 mm2 [0064].
Umminger et al. does not teach its non-woven having at a non-embossed area a thickness D and at the embossed pattern surface area a thickness d and a ratio d/D is a compression factor CF, said compression factor CF being in a range 0.2 ≤ FC ≤ 0.5, wherein D is 0.4 – 0.95 mm. Umminger et al. does not teach each individual embossed pattern comprises tapered side walls that extend from along a portion of the thickness D, the tapered side walls extending at an angle of between 18 degrees and 30 degrees relative to a direction of the thickness D.
Schoeps et al. teaches a spunbonded non-woven of synthetic, organic polymer fibers, wherein the non-woven has an embossed pattern. Schoeps et al. further teaches the thickness difference between densified (corresponds to Applicant’s d) and nondensified regions (corresponds to Applicant’s D) of the spunbonded is at least 25%, preferably 30-50%, and wherein a thickness of the non-embossed area of the non-woven is 0.2-0.6 mm (Col. 2: Lines 38-57 and Col. 3: Lines 12-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Umminger et al.’s non-woven have a CF within a range of 0.2-0.5 in order to achieve a non-woven with desirable consolidation and permeability (Col. 2: Lines 55-57).
Thompson teaches an embossed non-woven textile layer having tapered capillaries of critical angles of taper, wherein the critical angles of taper is from about 10° to about 60° relative to a thickness direction of its non-woven textile layer (Abstract, Figs. 2-4, Col. 2: Lines 13-24, Col. 3: Lines 42-68, Col. 6: Lines 11-24, and Col. 7: Lines 15-30). Therefore, Thompson teaches each individual embossed pattern comprises tapered side walls that extend along a non-embossed area a thickness D, the tapered side walls extending at an angle of between about 10° to about 60° relative to a direction of the thickness D. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Umminger et al.’s side walls have the claimed feature in order to provide the non-woven with desirable visual and tactile appeal, and provide liquids to flow through its textile medium while also inhibiting the reverse flow of these liquids (Col. 2: Lines 16-31).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20130153517 (“Umminger et al.”), in view of US Pat. No. 5660915 (“Schoeps et al.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20140110354 (“Haberkamp et al.”).
Umminger et al. teaches a filter medium, in filtrating air/gas and liquids, with good filter performance comprising (Abstract and [0009])
at least one textile layer (at least one textile stiffening layer) being a spunbonded non-woven of synthetic, organic polymer fibers, wherein ([0011], [0036], and [0038]-[0039]),
the non-woven having a weight per unit area between 10 and 300 g/m2 [0057],
the fibers of the non-woven having a titer in a range between 2 and 17 dtex [0068],
the non-woven being consolidated by means of thermoplastic binders and/or mechanical means, with the proviso that the non-woven is not consolidated by needling and/or hydro-jet needling ([0014] and [0065]),
the non-woven having an embossed pattern, the non-woven having an air permeability from at least 750 l/m2 [0070],
the non-woven having an embossed pattern surface area, said embossed pattern surface area of the non-woven being from 5 to 30% of a total surface area of the non-woven [0064], and
each individual embossed pattern surface area of the non-woven having a surface area from 0.2 to 4 mm2 [0064].
Umminger et al. does not teach its non-woven having at a non-embossed area a thickness D and at the embossed pattern surface area a thickness d and a ratio d/D is a compression factor CF, said compression factor CF being in a range 0.2 ≤ FC ≤ 0.5, wherein D is 0.4 – 0.95 mm. Umminger et al. does not teach each individual embossed pattern comprises tapered side walls that extend along a portion of the thickness D.
Regarding the limitation “the tapered side walls are formed using a roller having a plurality of protrusions having flank angles of between 18 degrees and 30 degrees relative to a direction that is transverse to a primary surface of the roller”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). In the instant case, the structure implied in said process step is each individual embossed pattern comprises tapered side walls that extend along a portion of the thickness D, the tapered side walls extending at an angle relative to a direction of the thickness D.
Schoeps et al. teaches a spunbonded non-woven of synthetic, organic polymer fibers, wherein the non-woven has an embossed pattern. Schoeps et al. further teaches the thickness difference between densified (corresponds to Applicant’s d) and nondensified regions (corresponds to Applicant’s D) of the spunbonded is at least 25%, preferably 30-50%, and wherein a thickness of the non-embossed area of the non-woven is 0.2-0.6 mm (Col. 2: Lines 38-57 and Col. 3: Lines 12-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Umminger et al.’s non-woven have a CF within a range of 0.2-0.5 in order to achieve a non-woven with desirable consolidation and permeability (Col. 2: Lines 55-57).
Haberkamp et al. teaches a filter medium comprising a textile layer having a multi-ply structure, wherein the textile layer has an embossed pattern. Haberkamp et al. teaches the textile layer having a non-embossed area a thickness D and an embossed pattern surface area a thickness d, wherein each individual embossed pattern comprises tapered side walls that extend along a portion of the thickness D, the tapered side walls extending at an angle relative to a direction of the thickness D (Figs. 1 and 5, Table 1, [0037], and [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Umminger et al.’s side walls be tapered as claimed in order to provide a texture and structural support to the filter medium [0038].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
