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 § 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 1–6, 10–12 and 14–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkemann et al., US 2021/0102318 A1 in view of Smith et al., US 2020/0139281 A1 and in further view of Shim et al., US 2018/0243673 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Berkemann teaches a filter, which reads on the claimed “filtration media.” See Berkemann [0001].
The filter can comprise a substrate because the reference says that a substrate may be eliminated if the diameter of the coarser fibers are selected to be large enough (implying that the filter has a substrate if the coarser fibers are not so selected). See Berkemann [0045]. The substrate reads on the claimed “support layer.”
The filter also comprises a bimodal non-woven, which reads on the claimed “fine fiber layer.” See Berkemann [0022].
The bimodal non-woven comprises co-mingled coarser fibers and finer fibers. See Berkemann [0033], [0045]. The coarser and finer fibers can each be manufactured by an electrospinning process. Id. at [0011]. The coarser fibers read on the “electrospun large fine fibers” and the finer fibers read on the “electrospun small fine fibers.” The finer fibers have an average diameter ranging from 20 nm to 3 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of “up to 0.6 µm,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. at [0052]. The coarser fibers have an average diameter ranging from 0.2 to 10 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 1 µm and up to 10 µm,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. at [0040]. The average diameter of the coarser fibers is up to 500 times the average diameter of the finer fibers (10 µm compared to 20 nm), which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 3 times the average diameter of the small fine fibers,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Berkemann differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the structure of the substrate, is silent as to the thickness of the bi-modal non-woven being up to 50 µm, and is silent as to the mean flow pore size of the filter when it comprises the substrate. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the substrate has an average pore size between 35 and 150 µm and a thickness up to 750 µm, with the bi-modal non-woven having a thickness up to 50 µm and with the substrate and bi-modal non-woven having a composite mean flow pore size of up to 11 µm, as claimed.
But Smith teaches a filter media comprising at least one support layer (analogous to the substrate) that is attached to an electrospun efficiency layer (analogous to the bi-modal non-woven). See Smith [0044], [0092]. The support layer has a mean flow pore size between 30 and 150 µm and a thickness of 3 to 200 mil (76.2 to 5,080 µm). Id. at [0147]–[0148]. The efficiency layer has a thickness of 0.001 to 2.5 mm (1 to 2,500 µm). Id. at [0100]. The filter media (i.e., the combined layers) has a mean flow pore size of 4 to 25 µm. Id. at [0086].
It would have been obvious for the substrate of Berkemann to have a mean flow pore size between 30 and 150 microns and a thickness of 76.2 to 5,080 µm because these are suitable ranges for pore size and thickness for a support material in a filter media. The prior art range of 30 and 150 µm overlaps with the claimed range of 35 to 150, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, and the prior art range of 76.2 to 5,080 µm overlaps with the claimed range of up to 750 µm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
It also would have been obvious for the bi-modal non-woven of Berkemann to have a thickness of 1 to 2,500 µm because this is a suitable thickness for an electrospun filtration layer in a filter media. The prior art range of 1 to 2,500 µm overlaps with the claimed range of up to 50 µm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
It further would have been obvious for the filter of Berkemann (the substrate and the bi-modal nonwoven) to have a composite mean flow pore size of 4 to 25 µm because this is a suitable mean flow pore size for a filter media. The prior art range of 4 to 25 µm overlaps with the claimed range of up to 11 µm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Berkemann as modified differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the bi-modal non-woven (the “fine fiber layer”) being deposited on the substrate (the “support layer”) via electrospinning.
But Shim teaches a filter comprising electrospun fibers 32 that are spun directly onto a supporting layer 28 with the supporting layer being a nonwoven substrate. See Shim Fig. 2, [0019], [0024].
PNG
media_image1.png
520
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the bi-modal non-woven of Berkemann to be deposited onto the substrate via electrospinning, as claimed, because this is a suitable method for depositing an electrospun layer onto a support layer.
With respect to the limitation of—“the filtration media is capable of hydraulic fluid filtration at a flow rate of 0.347 L/min with a clean media pressure drop of 5 psi or less and an over-all beta value for 3 µm particles of at least 100”—the filter of Berkemann as modified is presumed to be capable of performing the claimed functions because it has the same structure as the claimed “filtration media.” See MPEP 2112.01, subsection I (when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent).
Regarding claim 2, Berkemann as modified teaches that the bi-modal non-woven layer (the “fine fiber layer”) comprises a “first layer of fine fibers,” comprising the coarser and finer fibers (the “large fine fibers” and the “small fine fibers”), because the bi-modal non-woven layer is a layer having these fibers. See Berkemann [0033], [0045].
Regarding claim 3, Berkemann as modified teaches that the bi-modal non-woven layer is deposited on the substrate, as explained above. This bi-modal non-woven layer reads on the “first layer of the fine fiber layer of fine fibers is deposited on the support layer.”
Berkemann as modified differs from claim 3 because it is silent as a second bi-modal non-woven layer being deposited on the first bi-modal non-woven layer. But Smith teaches a filter media comprising a first efficiency layer deposited onto a scrim and a second efficiency layer deposited onto the first efficiency layer. See Smith [0046].
It would have been obvious to deposit a second bi-modal non-woven layer onto the first bi-modal non-woven layer because this is conventional in the art, and merely represents obvious duplication of parts for the purpose of increasing filtration capacity.
Regarding claim 4, Berkemann as modified teaches that the first bi-modal non-woven layer comprises the coarser fibers (“fine fibers”) with an average diameter from 0.2 to 10 µm. See Berkemann [0040]. Also, the second bi-modal non-woven layer comprises finer fibers (“fine fibers”) having an average fiber diameter from 20 nm to 3 µm. Id. at [0052]. Therefore, the “fine fibers” of the first bi-modal non-woven layer have an average diameter of up to 500 times the “fine fibers” of the second bi-modal non-woven layer, which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 3 times the average fiber diameter,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Berkemann as modified teaches that the second bi-modal non-woven layer comprises the finer and coarser fibers (“fibers of two different diameters…comprising small fine fibers and large fine fibers”). See Berkemann [0033], [0045]. The average diameter of the coarser fibers is up to 500 times the average diameter of the finer fibers (10 µm compared to 20 nm), which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 3 times the average diameter of the small fine fibers,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
The finer fibers are deposited on the first bi-modal non-woven layer, as claimed, because the second bi-modal non-woven layer is deposited on the first bi-modal non-woven layer, as explained above. Also, the coarser fibers are deposited on the finer fibers because these fibers are co-mingled. See Berkemann [0033], [0045].
Regarding claim 6, Berkemann as modified teaches that the second bi-modal non-woven layer comprises the finer and coarser fibers (“fibers of two different diameters…comprising small fine fibers and large fine fibers”). See Berkemann [0033], [0045]. The average diameter of the coarser fibers is up to 500 times the average diameter of the finer fibers (10 µm compared to 20 nm), which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 3 times the average diameter of the small fine fibers,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
The finer fibers are co-mingled with the coarser fibers. See Berkemann [0033], [0045].
Regarding claim 10, Berkemann as modified teaches that the substrate comprises a spunbond layer. See Berkemann [0045].
Regarding claim 11, Berkemann as modified teaches that the coarser fibers have an average diameter that is up to around 10 µm larger than the finer fibers, which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 0.2 µm greater, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See Berkemann [0040], [0052] (the coarser fibers have an average diameter ranging from 0.2 to 10 µm while the finer fibers have (an average diameter ranging from 20 nm to 3 µm).
Regarding claim 12, Berkemann as modified teaches that the filter of Berkemann (the substrate and the bi-modal nonwoven) to has a composite mean flow pore size of 4 to 25 µm, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. The prior art range of 4 to 25 µm overlaps with the claimed range of up to 9 µm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 14, Berkemann as modified teaches that the finer fibers have an average diameter of 20 nm to 3 µm (0.02 to 3 µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.6 µm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See Berkemann [0052].
Regarding claim 15, Berkemann as modified teaches that the finer and coarser fibers can be made of a material, such as polypropylene, which is compatible with hydraulic fluid. See Berkemann [0029]; Healey et al., US 2016/0136553 A1, [0115].
Regarding claim 16, Berkemann as modified teaches a filter element comprising the filter, which is the filter element that the filter is used in. See Berkemann claim 20.
Regarding claim 17, Berkemann as modified teaches that the filter element comprises the filter, which reads on the “efficiency layer, and the efficiency layer comprises the filtration media.”
Regarding claim 18, Berkemann as modified teaches the limitations of claim 17, as explained above.
Berkemann as modified differs from claim 18 because it is silent as to the filter element further comprising a loading layer.
But Smith teaches a filter media that can comprise a cover layer that can function as a dust loading layer. See Smith [0150]. The cover layer is beneficial because it improves the dust loading of the filter media. Id. It would have been obvious to modify the filter element of Berkmann to include the cover layer of Smith to improve dust loading.
Regarding claim 19, Berkemann as modified teaches that the average diameter of the coarser fibers is around 0.07 to 500 times the average diameter of the finer fibers, as the coarser fibers have an average diameter ranging from 0.2 to 10 µm while the finer fibers have an average diameter ranging from 20 nm to 3 µm. See Berkemann [0040], [0052]. The prior art range of 0.07 to 500 times overlaps with the claimed range of 3 to 6 times, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 20, Berkemann as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Berkemann as modified differs from claim 20 because it is silent as to the basis weight of the substrate. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the substrate has a basis weight of at least 10 g/m2, as claimed. But Shim teaches that its supporting layer 28 is a substrate that has a basis weight of 75 to 200 gsm (g/m2). See Shim [0019]. It would have been obvious for the substrate of Berkemann to have a basis weight of 75 to 200 g/m2 because this is a suitable basis weight for a substrate of a filter material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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