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 Objections
Claims 1, 3-6, 10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, line 9, the examiner suggests --265°C, and-- to improve the grammar and claim readability.
Regarding claim 10, the examiner suggests --150°C-- to use consistent formatting of the recited temperature ranges in the claims, and thereby improve claim readability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 3, parent claim 1 recites an air flux from about 0.125 to about 0.175 liters/minute and a bonding strength greater than or equal to about 0.35 MPa. Claim 3 improperly modifies the air flux range of claim 1 to include values outside the scope of the corresponding range of claim 1. Similarly, claim 3 also improperly modifies the bonding strength range to include values outside the scope of the corresponding range of claim 1.
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, 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng (CN 109183279 A, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng teaches a filter comprising (i) a layer comprising a fluoropolymer membrane (Abstract) and (ii) a layer comprising at least two air-permeable thermoplastic polymeric layers (Abstract), the air-permeable thermoplastic polymeric layers comprised of a first polymeric layer and a second polymeric layer, wherein the first polymeric layer is in bonded contact with the fluoropolymer membrane and possesses a melting point from 120°C to 300°C and wherein the second polymeric layer is in bonded contact with the first polymeric layer and has a melting point from 120°C to 300°C (Abstract; paragraphs 16-34). These temperature ranges overlap with the claimed ranges of about 95°C to about 180°C and about 220°C to about 265°C. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It is further noted that Zeng teaches the second polymeric layer may comprise polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers. PET fibers have a melting temperature of about 250 to 260°C, which is in the claimed range, and it is clear from Zeng that the first polymeric material must have a lower melting temperature, i.e. lower than about the 250 to 260°C melting temperature of the second polymeric layer of Zeng.
Further regarding claim 1, the nonwoven layers of Zeng have high air permeability (paragraphs 11, 21 and 29). Accordingly, it is clear that the porous polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane of Zeng and the method of lamination control the filter air permeability, of which air flux is a measure. Zeng, like Applicant, also seeks high bonding strength (paragraphs 26 and 34), and uses similar materials, i.e. a porous PTFE membrane and nonwoven polymeric layers such as nonwoven polyester layers. Applicant also laminates in the same manner as Zeng, i.e. by thermal lamination. Accordingly it is reasonable to expect similar air flux and bond strength values are achieved. Moreover, in view of Zeng’s teachings to minimize reduction in air permeability of the PTFE membrane when laminating a support material (Abstract; paragraph 16) and achieve high bonding strength, it is clear that achieving suitable air flux and bonding strength is a matter of routine experimentation. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Here, Zeng uses similar materials as claimed, thermally laminates in a similar manner as disclosed by Applicant and also desires high air permeability and bond strength. Thus Zeng teaches the general conditions of the claims. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide air flux and bond strength values in the claimed range because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide such values as a matter of routine experimentation in view of the teachings of Zeng.
Claim 3 is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claims 4-6, Zeng clearly teaches these additional limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Zeng teaches the additional limitation of two polyester nonwoven layers (paragraph 29) and a PTFE membrane (Abstract; paragraph 4). The temperature ranges are satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Claim 10 is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng as applied to claim 1, 3-7 and 10 above, and further in view of Lou (US 4582750).
Zeng is applied as above in the rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 10. Lou provides further evidence with respect to the temperature ranges of claims 1, 7 and 10, and is also required to address claim 9.
Regarding claim 1, 7 and 9-10, Zeng teaches the two layers may comprise PET in the high melting layer and low melting layer used for thermal lamination, but does not recite particular melting points or PET content of the layers. In related art of thermally bonding high melting PET fibers using low melting PET fibers, Lou suggest the use of PET homopolymer (i.e. 100 wt% PET) high melt fibers with a melting point of about 235 to 245°C, and PET/isophthalate copolymer low melt fibers with 80 wt% PET and a melting point of about 160 to 180°C (Example 7; column 3). These temperature ranges and PET content clearly fall within the respective claimed ranges. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Zeng because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to known suitable high and low melting PET fiber materials, as suggested by Lou.
Claims 3-6 are satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruschke (US 4190426) in view of Zeng, and optionally further in view of Lou.
Regarding claim 20, Ruschke teaches an in-line vent filter device comprising a filter, the filter comprising a PTFE membrane laminated to a nonwoven backing material (Abstract; Figures 1 and 5; column 1, lines 4-21; column 6, lines 26-29 and 55-59).
Ruschke differs from claim 20 in that:
i. Ruschke does not teach the layer (ii) as recited in claim 1 or the air flux and bonding strength recited in claim 1.
(i) As detailed in the rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 10 above, or the rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 9-10 above, Zeng or Zeng in view of Liu suggest a filter with these limitations.
It is clear from Zeng why such a supported PTFE membrane filter is desirable in Ruschke. Zeng teaches the two layer nonwoven backing provides reinforcement of the PTFE membrane, while also providing high air permeability and bond strength (paragraphs 2, 4, 16, 26 and 34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the filter of Zeng or Zeng in view of Lou as the nonwoven backed PTFE membrane filter in Ruschke because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted benefits in accordance with the teachings of Zeng. Naturally, in the modified device of Ruschke, the PTFE membrane and backing would be selected to be suitable for the device of Ruschke.
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 10 and 20, this ground of rejection is provided to further address the air flux and bond strength limitations of claims 1, 3 and 7. As detailed above, a component of Ruschke’s modified device is a filter which satisfies claim 1. The additional limitations of claim 7 are satisfied for the reasons detailed above in the rejection of claim 1, 3-7 and 10 or the rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 9-10. Regarding claims 1, 3 and 7, Ruschke is particularly drawn to the in-line vent filter device application specifically disclosed by Applicant. Accordingly, Ruschke provides further evidence that the porous PTFE membrane would be very similar to the porous PTFE membrane preferred by Applicant. As detailed above, the nonwoven layers suggested by Zeng have high air permeability (paragraphs 11, 21 and 29). Accordingly, it is clear that the porous PTFE membrane and the method of lamination control the filter air permeability, of which air flux is a measure. Zeng, like Applicant, also seeks high bonding strength (paragraphs 26 and 34), and uses similar polymeric materials, i.e. nonwoven polymeric layers such as nonwoven polyester layers. Applicant also laminates in the same manner as Zeng, i.e. by thermal lamination. In view of the similar materials and lamination technique of Zeng or Zeng in view of Lou, it is reasonable to expect similar air flux and bond strength values are achieved, particularly in view of the fact that Ruschke suggests a PTFE membrane suitable for in-line vent filter devices.
Moreover, in view of Zeng’s teachings to minimize reduction in air permeability of the PTFE membrane when laminating a support material (Abstract; paragraph 16) and achieve high bonding strength, it is clear that achieving suitable air flux and bonding strength is a matter of routine experimentation. It has also been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Here, Ruschke suggests a PTFE membrane suitable for in-line vent filter devices. Zeng or Zeng in view of Lou uses similar polymeric material layers as claimed, thermally laminates in a similar manner as disclosed by Applicant and also desires high air permeability and bond strength. Thus Ruschke in view of Zeng or in view of Zang and Lou teaches the general conditions of claims 1, 3 and 7. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide air flux and bond strength values in the claimed ranges in the filter of Ruschke in view of Zeng or in view of Zeng and Lou because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide such values as a matter of routine experimentation in view of the above noted teachings of Ruschke and Zeng.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruschke in view of Zeng and Lou.
Ruschke, Zeng and Lou are applied as above in the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 10 and 20. Here, Lou is not optional. Lou is applied as above in the rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 9-10 to satisfy the additional limitations of claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed bond strength and air flux ranges are unexpected as evidenced by the examples in the specification. Applicant’s Examples and Table 1 do clearly show that the preheating of inventive Example 1 produces significantly improved bond strength and air flux relative to comparative Example 1. Moreover, paragraph 13 of Applicant’s published application explains that retained porosity of the PTFE layer after lamination involves an effect on the PTFE layer due to the preheating. While these teachings and evidence are significant, they do not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the evidence of obviousness. First, the claims are directed to a product and thus are not limited to specific method steps. In particular, the claims are not limited to the preheating. To show unexpected results in the product, evidence should compare the product of the closest prior art, i.e. that of Zeng, to the inventive product. The fact that Applicant has found one method of retaining high porosity while achieving high bond strength does not establish that the closest prior art fails to achieve similar results. Moreover, Zeng provides reason to expect that high porosity is retained while high bond strength is also achieved. The examples in Zeng at paragraphs 19-42 clearly indicate that resistance to flow after lamination increases only by 6.7% in Example 1, 8.7% in Example 2 and 10% in Example 3. The Examples in Zeng also indicate high bond strength is achieved. Applicant does not provide any evidence which specifically compares Zeng to the claimed product. It is also noted that Applicant’s evidence of unexpected results does not clearly establish that the entire claimed ranges are drawn to the unexpected results. In particular Applicant only provides one inventive example with a single air flux and bond strength that fall within the respective claimed ranges. This does not establish that the entire claimed ranges are unexpected. The evidence must show that values at the end points and intermediate values in the ranges are unexpected while values just outside the end points do not indicate the unexpected results. Lastly, it is noted that only PTFE was tested in the examples, but some of the claims are not limited to PTFE. For these reasons, the examiner’s position is that the evidence of obviousness outweighs the evidence of unexpected results.
Applicant argues the claimed melting temperature ranges are narrower than Zeng’s teachings and also provide the unexpected results. It is noted that Attorney arguments do not constitute evidence. There is no objective evidence of record that specific combinations of melting point ranges achieve unexpected results, or unexpected results corresponding to the entire claimed ranges of melting points, air flux and bond strength.
Applicant argues Lou is not directed to laminating fibers to a fluoropolymer membrane and accordingly does not suggest achieving corresponding properties in such an application. In response the primary reference to Zeng was relied upon for a laminate of first and second polymeric layers with a fluoropolymer membrane to form a filter. Zeng suggests a low melting PET layer as an adhesive layer and a high melting PET layer (paragraphs 16 and 29). Lou was only relied upon to suggest known low melting PET fibrous material having such adhesive function and its corresponding melting point, and also known high melting PET fibrous material and its corresponding melting point.
Applicant argues Ruschke uses a single layer rather than a bilayer nonwoven backing for the PTFE membrane. In response, the rejection is based on a combination of references. Zeng was relied upon for the claimed first and second polymeric layer structure.
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 MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights