DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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, 4–14, 16, 20, 22–26 and 31 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.
Claim 1 recites:
1. An article comprising:
a fibrous structure including:
two nonwoven layers each comprising a fibrous web layer; and
one or more functional insert layers located between the nonwoven layers for providing additional properties to the article, wherein at least one of the functional insert layers includes nanofibers deposited on a scrim, wherein the scrim is a spunbond scrim, a meltblown scrim, or a combination thereof;
wherein the two nonwoven layers and one or more functional insert layers are vertically lapped together to form a vertically lapped structure with loops at generally opposing surfaces of the fibrous structure;
wherein the loops have a generally curved shape:
wherein the loops at each opposing surface are generally aligned with each other;
wherein a distance between each loop and an adjacent loop at a same surface is about 10 mm or less; and
wherein the functional insert layer is a continuous sheet of material prior to lapping and
wherein the article in its finished state is free of facings attached to the surfaces of the vertically lapped structure. Amendments original, emphasis added.
The Applicant has not pointed out where the new limitation of—the nanofibers are “deposited on a scrim, wherein the scrim is a spunbond scrim, a meltblown scrim, or a combination thereof”— is supported, nor does there appear to be written description of this limitation in the application as filed. See MPEP 2163.04, subsection I. The Applicant has failed to explain where this limitation finds support in the original disclosure. Also, the Examiner has been unable to find a description of a “spunbond scrim” or “meltblown scrim” that nanofibers are deposited on in the original disclosure.
Claims 4–14, 16, 20, 22–26 and 31 lack written description because they depend from claim 1.
Also, claim 26 recites:
26. The article of claim 1, wherein the article provides filtration and is free of electrostatic charging. Amendments original.
The Applicant has not pointed out where the new limitation of the articles if “free of electrostatic charging” is supported, nor does there appear to be written description of this limitation in the application as filed. See MPEP 2163.04, subsection I. Instead, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to accumulate electrostatic charge at least the scrim layer because the scrim layer is made of a spunbond or meltblown material, which are conventionally made of plastic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth et al., US 6,153,059 in view of Wertz et al. US 2011/0259813 A1 in view of Sundet, US 2010/0326028 A1 and in further view of Crabtree et al., US 2010/0313760 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Wadsworth teaches a composite web 366 that can be used as a gas filtration medium, which reads on the claimed “article.” See Wadsworth Fig. 10D, col. 23, ll. 41–64, col. 1, ll. 27–30.
The composite web 366 comprises a “fibrous structure,” as claimed, because the composite web 366 has a meltblown web 368 sandwiched between two carded webs 372, 374, with each web comprising fibers. See Wadsworth Fig. 10D, col. 23, ll. 41–64, col. 1, ll. 19–24, col. 3, ll. 7–11.
The two carded webs 372, 374 read on the “two nonwoven layers each comprising a fibrous web layer.” See Wadsworth Fig. 10D, col. 23, ll. 41–64, col. 3, ll. 7–11.
The meltblown web 368 reads on the “one or more functional insert layers located between the nonwoven layers for providing additional properties to the article.” See Wadsworth Fig. 10D, col. 23, ll. 41–64.
The webs 368, 372, 374 are “vertically lapped together,” as claimed, because the webs 368, 372, 374 are combined and then passed through a “STRUTO” type perpendicular lapper 314. See Wadsworth Fig. 11, col. 23, ll. 41–64, col. 21, ll. 44–53. A “STRUTO” type perpendicular lapper is a vertical lapper. See Piana et al., US 2019/0248103 A1 [0024] (“A ‘vertical lapper’ is sometimes referred to as a ‘STRUTO’”). The lapper 314 creates the pleated composite web 366 seen in Fig. 10D, which reads on the claimed “vertically lapped structure.” See Wadsworth Fig. 10D, col. 23, ll. 41–64. The pleated composite web 366 has “loops at generally opposing surfaces of the fibrous structure,” which are the rounded portions of the pleated structure at the top and bottom of the composite web 366, as seen in Fig. 10D. The loops are generally aligned with each other, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 10D.
The rounded portions of the pleated structure at the top and bottom of the composite web 366 have a generally curved shape, as seen in Fig. 10D.
The meltblown web 368 (the “functional insert layer”) is a continuous sheet of material prior to lapping, as claimed, because the meltblown layer 368 is created and laminated with the carded webs 372, 374 before being passed through the lapper 314. See Wadsworth col. 23, ll. 46–49.
Wadsworth differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the structural details of the meltblown web 368 (the “one or more functional insert layers”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the meltblown web 368 including nanofibers deposited on a scrim wherein the scrim is a spunbond scrim, a meltblown scrim or a combination thereof.
But, as noted, the composite web 366 of Wadsworth can be used for gas filtration. See Wadsworth col. 1, ll. 27–30. The embodiment of Fig. 10D has relatively high filtration efficiency. Id. at col. 25, ll. 26–40.
With this in mind, Wertz teaches a pleatable gas filter media that can be used in high efficiency applications, such as HEPA filtration. See Wertz [0001], [0149]. The filter media comprises a nanofiber layer/scrim composite that can be combined with another layer (the first layer) to create the filtration media. See Wertz [0138], [0148]–[0149]. The nanofiber layer is meltblown and the scrim is spunbond. Id. at [0076], [0099]. The nanofiber layer contributes to the efficiency of the filter media. Id. at [0106]. Also, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the scrim of the nanofiber layer/scrim composite is beneficial for increasing the strength of the nanofiber layer because scrims are conventionally provided to improve structural rigidity of composite materials. See Crabtree [0117].
It would have been obvious to use the nanofiber/scrim composite material of Wertz as the meltblown web 368 to provide a material that has improved strength while also ensuring that the filter composite web 366 of Wadsworth has relatively high filtration efficiency.
Wadsworth also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the pleat space between the pleats in the composite web 366. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that a distance between each loop and an adjacent loop at a same surface is about 10 mm or less.
But the composite web 366 is a pleated filtration medium that can be used for air filtration. See Wadsworth col. 25, ll. 26–40.
With this in mind, Sundet teaches a pleated filter media that can be used for air filtration, where the tip to tip spacing between successive pleat tips can be any suitable pleat spacing, including a range from 3 to 25 mm. See Sundet [0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for adjacent pleat tips (the “loops”) in Wadsworth to be spaced between 3 to 25 mm apart, because this is a suitable pleat spacing for a filter media used in air filtration.
With this modification, the distance between each loop and an adjacent loop at a same surface in the composite web 366 of Wadsworth would range form 3 to 25 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range of about 10 mm or less, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Wadsworth further differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the composite web 366 being free of facings attached to the surfaces of the vertically lapped structure when the composite web 366 is in its finished state. Instead, the embodiment of Fig. 10D illustrates a scrim netting 376 that is attached to the pleats of the vertically lapped structure to provide support. See Wadsworth Fig. 10D, col. 23, ll. 49–55.
But Crabtree teaches a pleated filter media 202 that is supported by a scrim 212 or 222. See Crabtree Figs. 2A, 2B, [0117]–[0119]. The scrim 222 can be provided as a planar structure that is attached to a surface of the filter media 202 (similar to how the scrim 376 is illustrated in Fig. 10D of Wadsworth). Id. at Fig. 2B, [0119]. Or the scrim 212 can be co-pleated with the filter media 202 during assembly. Id. at Fig. 2A, [0024], [0117]–[0118].
PNG
media_image1.png
1060
1943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the scrim layer 376 of Wadsworth to be co-pleated with the webs 368, 372, 374 because co-pleating a scrim layer with other filter material layers is an alternative method of attaching a scrim layer to a filter media (as opposed to attaching the scrim layer as a planar sheet of material), and would simplify the manufacturing process of Wadsworth. When the scrim layer 376 of Wadswoth is co-pleated with the webs 368, 372, 374, the scrim layer 376 would be part of the “vertically lapped structure.” Therefore, the composite web 366 (the “article”) of Wadsworth would be “in its finished state free of facings attached to the surfaces of the vertically lapped structure,” as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Wadsworth teaches that the “fibrous structure” consists of the two carded webs 372, 374 (the “two nonwoven layers”) and the one meltblown web 368 (the “functional inert layer” sandwiched between the two carded webs 372, 374, with the meltblown web 368 sandwiched between the two carded webs 372, 374. See Wadsworth Fig. 10D, col. 23, ll. 41–64. The webs 368, 372, 374 are lapped together to form the vertically lapped structure in the lapper 314. Id.
Regarding claim 5, Wadsworth teaches that the meltblown web 368 (the “functional insert layer”) is a filtration media insert for filtering fluids. See Wadsworth col. 17, ll. 26–40.
Regarding claim 6, Wadsworth teaches that the meltblown web 368 is capable of providing cushioning or resilience to the “fibrous structure” because the meltblown web 368 is a piece of material with a thickness, which will therefore provide at least some cushioning or resilience to the composite web 366.
Regarding claim 8, Wadsworth teaches that the meltblown web 368 (the “functional insert layer”) is made of a thermoplastic material. See Wadsworth col. 2, ll. 24–27; Wertz [0083]. The meltblown web 368 is molded, because it retains a pleated shape as seen in Fig. 10D.
Regarding claim 9, Wadsworth teaches that the fibers of the meltblown web 368 can be conductive. See Wadsworth col. 2, ll. 49–56.
Regarding claim 13, Wadsworth teaches that the meltblown web 368 (the “at least one functional insert layer”) is a membrane layer because it is a relatively thin piece of material. See Wadsworth Fig. 10D, col. 23, ll. 41–64. The meltblown web 368 is capable of blocking moisture because it can be made from a hydrophobic polymer, such as PTFE. See Wertz [0083].
Regarding claim 16, Wadsworth teaches that the fibrous structure is thermoformed into a three-dimensional shape because the composite 366 is passed through an oven 354 after it is lapped which fuses the thermoplastic fibers of the pleated structure to each other. See Wadsworth col. 22, ll. 50–63, col. 23, ll. 46–49.
Regarding claim 23, Wadsworth teaches that the composite 366 (the “article”) is free of a separate frame assembly because Fig. 10D does not illustrate the composite 366 being located within a separate frame assembly.
Regarding claim 31, Wadsworth teaches that the composite 366 can be free of a separate adhesive layer because the adhesive web seen in Fig. 10D is optional, as the reference says that “[i]f desired, an adhesive web…may be applied to the top surface of the support fabric 308.” See Wadsworth col. 22, ll. 64–67.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth et al., US 6,153,059 in view of Wertz et al. US 2011/0259813 A1 in view of Sundet, US 2010/0326028 A1 in view of Crabtree et al., US 2010/0313760 A1 and in further view of Angadjivand et al., US 2017/0252590 A1.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Wadsworth as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above.
Wadsworth as modified differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to “at least one of the one or more functional insert layers is an intumescent material” and differs from claim 20 because it is silent as to the article, at least one or more functional insert layers, or both is a fire retardant material.
But, as noted, the composite web 366 in the Fig. 10D embodiment of Wadsworth comprises two carded webs 372, 374 that sandwich a meltblown web 368. Wadsworth teaches that the laminates may contain “one or more layers” of carded webs, suggesting that more than two carded layers can be used with the composite web 366. See Wadsworth col. 2, ll. 57–67. As such, it would have been obvious to include an additional carded web with the composite web 366 (sandwiched between the two carded webs 372, 374) because this would merely represent the mere duplication of parts, with the reference suggesting that more than two carded webs can be used with the composite.
With this modification, the additional carded web would be a “functional insert layer.” Also, Wadsworth teaches that the carded webs can comprise staple fibers, and that the composite web 366 can be used for air filtration. See Wadsworth col. 2, ll. 57–67. With this in mind, Angadjivand teaches a carded fibrous web used for air filtration, comprising staple fibers that are pre-treated with ammonium phosphate-type intumescent FR (flame retardant) agents. See Angadjivand [0107]. The staple fibers are beneficial because they provide flame resistance to the material. It would have been obvious for the additional carded web to comprise the staple fibers that are pre-treated with ammonium phosphate-type intumescent FR agents of Angadjivand to provide flame resistance to the additional carded web. With this modification, the additional carded web would read on the “an intumescent material” as required by claim 7, and the “one or more functional insert layers” would be a “fire retardant material,” as required by claim 20.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth et al., US 6,153,059 in view of Wertz et al. US 2011/0259813 A1 in view of Sundet, US 2010/0326028 A1 in view of Crabtree et al., US 2010/0313760 A1 and in further view of Gray et al., US 2015/0044267 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Wadsworth as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above.
Wadsworth differs from claim 10 because it is silent as to “at least one of the one or more functional insert layers includes a superabsorbent polymer or hydrogel.”
But, as noted, the composite web 366 in the Fig. 10D embodiment of Wadsworth comprises two carded webs 372, 374 that sandwich a meltblown web 368. Wadsworth teaches that the laminates may contain “one or more layers” of carded webs, suggesting that more than two carded layers can be used with the composite web 366. See Wadsworth col. 2, ll. 57–67. As such, it would have been obvious to include an additional carded web with the composite web 366 (sandwiched between the two carded webs 372, 374) because this would merely represent the mere duplication of parts, with the reference suggesting that more than two carded webs can be used with the composite.
With this modification, the additional carded web would be a “functional insert layer.” Wadsworth also teaches that the carded webs can include a mixture of various types of fibers. See Wadsworth col. 2, ll. 49–67. Also, Gray teaches that superabsorbent polymer fibers can be incorporated into a filter material, and are beneficial because they help produces equivalent filtration efficiency while reducing thickness and air resistance. See Gray [0008], [0094], [0106]. It would have been obvious for the additional carded web of Wadsworth to include the superabsorbent polymer fibers of Gray to help improve filtration efficiency and reduce air resistance.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth et al., US 6,153,059 in view of Wertz et al. US 2011/0259813 A1 in view of Sundet, US 2010/0326028 A1 in view of Crabtree et al., US 2010/0313760 A1 and in further view of Healey et al., US 2010/0107881 A1.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Wadsworth as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Wadsworth differs from claim 11 because it is silent as to at least one of the one or more functional insert layers is a film or foil.
But Healey teaches a filter media with a waved configuration, comprising an inner filtration layer 12 that can be made from a membrane layer that is a film material. See Healey Fig. 1A, [0057], [0060]. The film is beneficial because it has a plurality of pores that permit fluid to pass while contamination particles are captured on the membrane. Id. at [0061]. This also means that the film is selectively permeable as required by claim 12.
It would have been obvious to include the membrane layer of Healey between the two carded layers 372, 374 of Wadsworth to improve filtration performance.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth et al., US 6,153,059 in view of Wertz et al. US 2011/0259813 A1 in view of Sundet, US 2010/0326028 A1 in view of Crabtree et al., US 2010/0313760 A1 and in further view of Hidaka et al., US 2016/0175753 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Wadsworth as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Wadsworth as modified differs from claim 14 because it is silent as to the one or more functional insert layers or one or both of the nonwoven layers or a combination, including adsorptive materials.
But Hidaka teaches a filtering medium comprising an adsorbing layer positioned between base material layers. See Hidaka [0012]. The adsorbing layer is beneficial because it functions as a deodorizing layer. Id. at [0018]. It would have been obvious to include ethe adsorbent layer of Hidaka between the carded webs 372, 374 of Wadsworth to provide a deodorizing layer in the filter material. With this modification, the adsorbing layer would be a “functional insert layer.”
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth et al., US 6,153,059 in view of Wertz et al. US 2011/0259813 A1 in view of Sundet, US 2010/0326028 A1 in view of Crabtree et al., US 2010/0313760 A1 and in further view of Gulrez et al., US 2018/0243674 A1.
Regarding claim 22, Wadsworth as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Wadsworth differs from claim 22 because it is silent as to the multilayer laminated (the “article”) being treated with components for imparting antimicrobial properties. But the composite web 366 can be used for air filtration.
With this in mind, Gulrez teaches a filter media that can be used to filter air. See Gulrez [0064]. The various layers of the filter media, are treated such that they have antimicrobial properties to prevent microbial growth. Id. at [0197].
It would have been obvious for the composite web 366 of Wadsworth to be treated such that they have antimicrobial properties to prevent microbial growth.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth et al., US 6,153,059 in view of Wertz et al. US 2011/0259813 A1 in view of Sundet, US 2010/0326028 A1 in view of Crabtree et al., US 2010/0313760 A1 and in further view of Kometani et al., US 5,720,790.
Regarding claim 24, Wadsworth as modified teaches the limitations of claim 23, as explained above.
Wadsworth as modified differs from claim 24 because it is silent as to a frame that is formed to seal the composite 366 by hot pressing edges of the composite 366 and positioning edges to form side walls. But composite 366 is made of layers comprising thermoplastic polymers. See Wadsworth col. 2, ll. 22–48.
With this in mind, Kometani teaches a filter element F comprising a nonwoven fabric comprising main fibers and adhesive fibers that can be melted. See Kometani Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 53–65. The filter element F comprises a flange portion 200 that is made by pressing the filter material at a high temperature to melt the adhesive fibers to form a thin, solid resinous sheet around the perimeter of the filter element. Id. at Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 20–24. The flange 220 comprises a seal portion 220 that allows the filter element F to be sealed within a housing 510. Id. at Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 25–39. The flange 220 forms the edges of the filter element F to form side walls, as seen in Fig. 1. The construction of Kometani is beneficial because it ensures that the filter element F has high strength while providing sufficient seal performance. Id. at col. 4, ll. 55–63.
PNG
media_image2.png
1024
821
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have to use the method of Kometani to form a flange and seal around the perimeter of the composite 366 of Wadsworth to provide these benefits so that the filter media of Wadsworth can be sealed within the housing that it is inserted into.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadsworth et al., US 6,153,059 in view of Wertz et al. US 2011/0259813 A1 in view of Sundet, US 2010/0326028 A1 in view of Crabtree et al., US 2010/0313760 A1 and in further view of Walz et al., US 2016/0051918 A1.
Regarding claim 25, Wadsworth as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Wadsworth as modified differs from claim 25 because it is silent as to the composite 366 density gradient from one surface toward an opposing surface, and wherein larger particles are trapped at the one surface and smaller particles are trapped toward the opposing surface. But, as noted, the composite 366 can be used for air filtration.
With this in mind, Walz teaches an air filter medium comprising multiple layers that are laminated together. See Walz Fig. 5, [0264]. The packing density of the fibers in the layers increases from the upstream surface to the downstream surface. Id. at [0265]. This enables absorption of dirt particles across the entire material depth of the filter medium. Id.
It would have been obvious to modify Wadsworth such that the multiple layers of the composite 366 have an increasing fiber packing density from the upstream to the downstream surface, in order to enable absorption of particles across the entire material depth of the laminate.
Response to Arguments
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to co-pleat the scrim layer 376 of Wadsworth with the carded webs 372, 374 and the meltblown web 368, in view of Crabtree, which illustrates a scrim 212 or 222 that can either be planar across a surface of a pleated filter media (Fig. 2B) or co-pleated with the filter media (Fig. 2A). See Applicant Rem. dated October 20, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) 8. Instead, it is argued that Wadsworth shows the scrim 376 across the surface of the material, and asserts that there is no motivation or reasonable expectation of success in deviating from this construction and processing method. Id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The lapping process of Wadsworth is provided create a pleated structure in the composite web 366. See Wadsworth Fig. 11A, col. 22, ll. 42–50. The lapping process works by combining the two carded webs 372, 374 and the meltblown web 368 as a flat sheet, and then using comb 326 to press the pleats into the combined structure. Id. at Fig. 11A, col. 21, l. 54–col. 22, l. 6, col. 23, ll. 41–64. It is noted that the pleats are then attached to a planar scrim 376 to provide structural support to the pleated structure. Id. at Fig. 10D, col. 23, ll. 49–55.
PNG
media_image3.png
765
1155
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But Crabtree teaches a pleated filter media comprising a scrim layer 212 or 222 for providing structural rigidity to a pleated composite filter media 202. See Crabtree Figs. 2A, 2B, [0117]–[0119]. In Crabtree, the scrim 222 can either be provided as a planar structure across the pleats, similar to the scrim 376 in Wadsworth (see Crabtree Fig. 2B) or the scrim 212 can be co-pleated with the composite filter media 202 during assembly (see Crabtree Fig. 2A). Either option is suitable for providing a scrim layer for structural support of a pleated composite filter media.
PNG
media_image1.png
1060
1943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the scrim 376 of Wadsworth could either be provided as a planar structure seen in Fig. 10D of Wadsworth and Fig. 2B of Crabtree—or the scrim 376 could be co-pleated with the two carded webs 372, 374 and the meltblown web 368 during assembly as seen in Fig. 2A of Crabtree. The motivation for co-pleating the scrim 376 with the other webs 368, 372, 374 in Fig. 10D of Wadsworth is that it would simplify the manufacturing process by eliminating the need for adding the scrim layer after the webs 368, 372, 374 have been pleated. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in co-pleating the scrim 376 with the other webs 368, 372, 374 because Crabtree teaches that the scrim 212 can be co-pleated with the other layers of the composite filter media 202 during assembly (see Crabtree Fig. 2A, [0118]), while the modification would merely involve combining the scrim 376 with the other webs 368, 372, 374 and then using the comb 326 to press pleats into the combined structure.
The Applicant also argues that in Sundet, the filter has “pleat tips” whereas the “loops” in claim 1 are described as having a “generally curved shape.” See Applicant Rem. 9. Therefore, it is argued that there is no showing that the claimed curved shape would be possible using the pleating techniques of Sundet. Id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s analysis. Fig. 10D of Wadsworth clearly illustrates pleats which are loops with a generally curved shape, which are formed by the vertically lapped technique taught in Wadsworth. The Sundet reference is relied on merely to teach what the proper spacing between pleats, rather than the shape of the pleats themselves.
With respect to claim 23, the Applicant argues that the break lines at each edge of Fig. 10D of Wadsworth fail to provide sufficient evidence that the article is free of a frame assembly. See Applicant Rem. 9. The Examiner maintains that the composite structure 366 in Fig. 10D is free of a frame based on the drawings and the fact that the text of the reference is silent as to the composite structure 366 being located in a frame.
With respect to claim 10, the Applicant argues that there is no showing how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would position a functional insert having the properties of Gray between two layers with an expectation of success. The Applicant provides no reasoning for this argument other than this mere argument. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. But also note that it would have been obvious to include an additional carded web with the composite web 366 of Wadsworth (reading on the “functional insert layer”) because this would have been obvious duplication of parts, and it would have been obvious for this additional carded web to include superabsorbent polymer fibers because the carded web can have a mixture of various types of fibers while Gray ray teaches that superabsorbent polymer fibers can be incorporated into a filter material, and are beneficial because they help produces equivalent filtration efficiency while reducing thickness and air resistance.
The arguments with respect to claim 26 are unpersuasive because claim 26 fails the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as it has been amended to include the feature of the article “is free of electrostatic charging,” which is not supported by the original disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776