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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 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 and 23, and canceled Claims 14-20 and 24 in the response filed on 11/10/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-13 and 21 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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claims 1, 3, and 23 recite the broad recitation “needling”, and the claims also recite "hydro-jet needling" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1-13, 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 Pub. No. 20140110354 (“Haberkamp et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1 and 5-13, Umminger et al. teaches a filter medium 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.
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).
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 (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].
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.
Claim 23 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 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. Umminger et al. does not teach each individual embossed pattern comprises tapered side walls that extend along a portion 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 (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].
Claims 1-13, 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.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20140110354 (“Haberkamp et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1 and 5-13, Umminger et al. teaches a filter medium 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.
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]).
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. A total thickness D is about 0.4 – 2.06 mm and a thickness d is about 0.1 mm. Therefore, Haberkamp et al. teaches 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 of about 0.25-0.049 (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 non-woven have a CF within a range of 0.2-0.5 and each individual embossed patterns comprise tapered side walls as claimed in order to provide a texture and structural support to the filter medium [0038].
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20130153517 (“Umminger et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20140110354 (“Haberkamp et al.”).
Umminger et al. teaches a filter medium 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. Umminger et al. does not teach each individual embossed pattern comprises tapered side walls that extend along a portion of the thickness D.
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. A total thickness D is about 0.4 – 2.06 mm and a thickness d is about 0.1 mm. Therefore, Haberkamp et al. teaches 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 of about 0.25-0.049 (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 non-woven have a CF within a range of 0.2-0.5 and each individual embossed patterns comprise tapered side walls 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