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 .
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, 11, and 23, and canceled Claims 10, 14-20, and 24 in the response filed on 4/7/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the proposed combination of Umminger and Schoeps is improper because it would destroy the intended function and principle of operation of Umminger’s filter medium. Umminger utilizes a filter design comprises a plurality of layers, wherein each filtration layer “the thickness of the non-woven glass fiber fabric is between 1 and 20 mm, preferably between 4 and 7 mm.” See paragraphs [0080] and [0090] of Umminger. Thus, Umminger’s filter medium has a thickness in excess of 2 mm in order to provide the necessary service life and filtration efficiency.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner notes that the present claims are cast in open language, and therefor open to additional unrecited layer(s). In that regard, Umminger teaches a non-woven stiffening or non-woven cover fabric, which corresponds to Applicant’s at least one textile layer. Umminger teaches that its filter medium further comprises Filtration Layer (Layer 3) and Filtration Layer (Layer 2), wherein the Filtration Layers (2 and/or 3) have the argued thickness of 1-20 mm ([0073], [0080], and [0083]). That is, the argued thickness of 1-20 mm is not necessarily directed to the non-woven stiffening or non-woven cover fabric.
Umminger does not explicitly disclose the thickness of its non-woven stiffening or non-woven cover fabric. However, Umminger’s non-woven stiffening or non-woven cover fabric has many of the claimed properties, including but not limited to, weight per unit area and the fibers having a titer in a range of 0.5 to 15 dtex, which would correlate to the thickness of said layer. Applicant has not shown, with evidence, that Umminger et al.’s non-woven stiffening or non-woven cover fabric teaches away from having a thickness 0.4 – 0.95 mm.
Applicant further argues that Schoeps is non-analogous art that a person of ordinary skill in the art of high-performance filtration would not consult. While the spunbond is formed from a web of polymeric fibers, the spunbond of Schoeps is not designed to provide any filtration benefits as in the present application (or even the Umminger reference).
In response to Applicant's argument that Schoeps is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a non-woven textile layer is multifunctional. While Umminger’s non-woven stiffening or non-woven cover fabric is part of a filter medium, it does not necessarily have to provide only filtration, but can also provide support/reinforcement due to being a “stiffening” layer with the embossed pattern, spunbond material, etc.
In that regard, Schoeps teaches a support web formed of a non-woven textile layer (base felt) with good mechanical strength properties (Abstract and Col. 1: Lines 4-7 and 48-50). Similarly to Umminger’s non-woven stiffening or non-cover fabric, Schoeps also teaches its non-woven textile layer is spunbond with synthetic, organic polymer fibers with a weight per unit area of 50-250 g/m2, fibers of the non-woven having a titer in a range of 1-8 dtex, and bears an embossed pattern (Col. 2: Lines 38-50 and Col. 3: Lines 12-20). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings relating to one embossed non-woven textile with another embossed non-woven textile. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that 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).
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.
Claim 3 is 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, Claim 3 recites 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 1-9, 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 Pub. No. 20140110354 (“Haberkamp et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1, 5-9, and 11-13, 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, 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.
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].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights