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(b)
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 12 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.
Claim 12 is indefinite because claim 12 recites the same limitation of “wherein when at least one of two end portions of the filter pleat pack in the width direction is viewed along the width direction” as that recited in claim 11 and claim 12 depends on claim 11, there is lack of proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–6, 10–11 and 14–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McClary et al., US 2015/0096933 A1 (“McClary”).
Regarding claim 1:
McClary discloses the claimed invention of that a filter pleat pack (McClary’s filtration medium 708), comprising:
an air filter medium folded into pleats (McClary’s filter medium 708 forms pleas 784, McClary Fig. 7, [0053], wherein
the air filter medium 708 includes a first porous fluorine resin membrane (McClary’s first layer 712, McClary discloses its first layer is made of porous fluoropolymer) and a first air-permeable supporting layer (McClary’s second layer 716, McClary Fig. 7, [0054] and [0034]),
the first air-permeable supporting layer 716 is placed on a downstream side in a direction of an air flow M that passes through the air filter medium with respect to the first porous fluorine resin membrane (McClary discloses its support layer is placed downstream from the first layer to provide support for the first layer against the pressure of the fluid, McClary Figs. 2 and 7, [0042]),
the first air-permeable supporting layer 716 includes a ventilation inhibiting portion contained entirely within at least one of two end portions (part of McClary’s thermoplastic materials 746a and 746b contained entirely within the first air-permeable supporting layer 716 would be claimed “ventilation inhibition portion” because it inhibits the filtration capability by blocking the flow of fluid stream) in a width direction (along the direction of a pleat ridge line as shown in McClary’s Fig. 7, McClary Fig. 7, [0008], [0054] and [0045]), the ventilation inhibiting portion 746a and 746b extending along the at least one of two end portions (McClary’s first peripheral edge 750 and second peripheral edge 754, McClary Fig. 7, [0053]), the ventilation inhibiting portion 746a, 746b are configured to inhibit ventilation in the width direction through the first air-permeable supporting layer because McClary discloses its thermoplastic material inhibit the filtration capacity of the filtration medium by blocking the flow of the fluid stream, McClary [0045], the width direction being a direction in which a pleat line of the air filter medium folded into pleats extends (as clearly shown in Fig. 7) and the ventilation inhibiting portion is in contact with the first porous fluorine resin membrane (same as that shown in an alternative embodiment of Fig. 3),
the ventilation inhibiting portion 246 is in contact with first porous fluorine resin membrane 214, McClary Fig. 3, [0043].
Regarding claim 2:
McClary discloses that the filter pleat pack according to claim 1,
wherein the ventilation inhibiting portion 746a, 746b reaches a first surface of the first air-permeable supporting layer (as clearly shown in the alternative embodiment of Fig. 6, where ventilation inhibiting portion 446a, 446b contained within the air-permeable support layer 470 reaches the top surface of support layer 470 and bottom surface of support layer 416, which corresponding to read on the claimed “first surface, McClary Fig. 6, [0049]),
the first surface is located farther from the first porous fluorine resin membrane 412 (as clearly shown in McClary’s alternative embodiment of Fig. 6, where the top surface of support layer 470 and bottom surface of support layer 416 are located farther from the first porous fluorine resin membrane 412). McClary Fig. 6, [0049].
Regarding claim 3:
McClary discloses that the filter pleat pack according to claim 1, wherein the first air-permeable supporting layer includes the ventilation inhibiting portion in each of the two end portions in the width direction (as clearly shown in Fig. 7, McClary Fig. 7, [0054]).
Regarding claim 4:
McClary discloses that the filter pleat pack according to any one of claims 1,
wherein a first resin (McClary’s thermoplastic material 746a is the claimed “first resin”) permeates the first air-permeable supporting layer (McClary’s layer 716) in the at least one end portion (McClary discloses the thermoplastic material 746a imbibed through at least the second layer 716, McClary Fig. 7, [0054],
the ventilation inhibiting portion 746a includes a portion of the first air-permeable supporting layer, the portion being permeated with the first resin (as clearly shown in the alternative embodiment of Fig. 6 and explains in McClary’s [0054], where thermoplastic material 746b imbibed through at least the second layer 716, McClary Figs. 6–7, [0054]).
Regarding claim 5:
McClary discloses that the filter pleat pack according to claim 1, wherein
the first air-permeable supporting layer 716 includes a thermally fused portion in the at least one end portion (McClary discloses its thermoplastic is in a solid state, which is heated above the melting point such that the material may flow and imbibe the first peripheral edge, McClary also discloses that the thermoplastic may be co-extruded with the filtration material, McClary [0058] and [0059], the process of melting a polymer and plastic co-extruding is process of fusion, therefore, the thermoplastic material imbibed in the support layer is a thermally fused portion), and
the ventilation inhibiting portion 746a includes the thermally fused portion of the first air-permeable supporting layer because McClary discloses its thermoplastic maybe co-extruded with the filtration material, which involves the fusion of two or more different plastics into a single, homogeneous structure as that shown in alternative embodiment of Fig. 6, McClary Figs. 6–7, [0059]).
Regarding claim 6:
McClary discloses that the filter pleat pack according to claim 1, wherein
wherein the filter pleat pack includes, in the at least one of two end portions (as shown in McClary’s Fig. 7, McClary Fig. 7, a strip-shaped body extending along the at least one of two end portions (as shown in McClary’s Fig. 7),
the strip-shaped body includes a first resin (McClary’s thermoplastic material),
the strip-shaped body is placed on a second surface of the air filter medium (as clearly shown in McClary’s alternative embodiment of Fig. 6, where the bottom surface is the claimed second surface of filter medium, the second surface being closer to the first air-permeable supporting layer 416, McClary Fig. 6, [0049],
the strip-shaped body permeates from the second surface into the first air-permeable supporting layer 416 to reach the first porous fluorine resin membrane 412, McClary Fig. 6, [0049],
the ventilation inhibiting portion 446b includes a portion of the first air-permeable supporting layer 416, the portion being permeated with the strip-shaped body (as shown in McClary’s Fig. 6, McClary Fig. 6, [0049].
Regarding claim 10:
McClary discloses that the filter pleat pack according to claim 4, wherein the first resin is a hot-melt resin (McClary discloses its first resin could be fluoroethylene propylene (FEP), which is a hot-melt resin, McClary [0010]).
Regarding claim 11:
McClary discloses that the filter pleat pack according to claim 1, wherein when the at least one of two end portions of the filter pleat pack in the width direction is viewed along the width direction, a second resin is placed to fill a region between faces of the air filter medium, the faces facing to each other on the downstream side in the direction of the air flow M, the at least one of two end portions including the ventilation inhibiting portion in the first air-permeable supporting layer (McClary discloses an alternative embodiment of Fig. 5, where in addition to ventilation inhibiting portion 546a and 576b, there exist a fourth layer 576 and a fifth layer 580, which is made of PTFE, and therefore reads on the claimed “second resin”, McClary Fig. 5, [0047]).
Regarding claim 14:
McClary discloses that the filter pleat pack according to claim 1, wherein
the air filter medium further includes a second air-permeable supporting layer (McClary’s third layer 770), and
the first porous fluorine resin membrane 712 is sandwiched between the first air- permeable supporting layer 716 and the second air-permeable supporting layer 770, McClary Fig. 7, [0054].
Regarding claim 15:
McClary discloses in an alternative embodiment that the filter pleat pack according to claim 1, wherein
the air filter medium further includes a second porous fluorine resin membrane, and
of all porous fluorine resin membranes of the air filter medium, the first porous fluorine resin membrane is located on a most downstream side in the direction of the air flow M (McClary’s first layer 512, fifth layer 580 and fourth layer 576, all of layers 512, 580 and 576 are fluorine resin membranes made of PTFE. McClary’s layer 576 could be mapped to the claimed first porous fluorine resin membrane located on a most downstream side in the direction of air flow M, McClary Fig. 5, [0047]).
Regarding claim 16:
McClary discloses that the filter pleat pack according to claim 1, wherein the first porous fluorine resin membrane is a porouspolytetrafluoroethylene membrane (McClary’s first layer 712 could be PTFE, McClary Fig. 7, [0010]).
Regarding claim 17:
McClary discloses an air filter unit (McClary’s filtration cartridge 900) comprising:
a filter pleat pack (McClary’s filtration medium 908);
and a frame (McClary’s end cap components 928a, 928b) supporting the filter pleat pack 908, wherein
the filter pleat pack 908 is the filter pleat pack according to claim 1, McClary Fig. 9, [0056].
Regarding claim 18:
McClary discloses the air filter unit according to claim 17, wherein at least one end portion of the filter pleat pack (either top or bottom of McClary’s filtration cartridge 900 ) in the width direction is joined to the frame 928b or 928a in a region of the at least one end portion on a downstream side in a direction of an air flow F that passes through the air filter unit (McClary’s filter function as an inside out filter and the outer circumferential is the claimed “downstream side”), the at least one end portion including the ventilation inhibiting portion (McClary’s thermoplastic material 946) in the first air-permeable supporting layer (similar to that shown in Fig. 6, equivalent to portion 446b or 446a). McClary Figs. 6 and 9, [0056].
Regarding claim 19:
McClary discloses that the air filter unit according to claim 18, wherein a region of the at least one end portion on an upstream side in the direction of the air flow F is not joined to the frame (McClary’s Fig. 1 shows an exemplary detail structure of endcap 128a and 128b, which has flange at outer circumference, and McClary discloses its filter cartridge is an inside out filter, which means a region of the least one end portion on an upstream side in the direction of the air flow F is not joined to the frame 128a or 128b, McClary Fig. 1A, [0024]).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 7–9, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McClary in view of Horie et al., US 2020/0230536 A1 (“Horie”).
Regarding claim 7:
McClary does not disclose that the filter pleat pack according to claim 6, wherein a ratio W1/Wo is 0.6 or more in a cross-section of a portion of the strip-shaped body and located, when viewed along a direction in which an air flow P that passes through the filter pleat pack flows, between an upstream valley fold of the folded air filter medium and a plane in contact with two downstream valley folds adjacent to the upstream valley fold along the air filter medium, where Wo is a length of the strip-shaped body in the width direction in the cross- section, and W1 is a length of the portion of the strip-shaped body in the width direction in the cross-section, the portion being in contact with the first porous fluorine resin membrane.
However, based on the published instant disclosure (hereinafter “Spec.”), it is understood that the dimension of the claimed strip-shaped body 7 is located at an end face of the filter medium 2. Spec. Fig. 5A–5C, [0061]. It is also understood from Fig. 5C that the ratio of W1/Wo would directly affect the pleat spacing and the stability of the structure. For example, Wo defines a pleat spacing and W1 determines the how strong the bead is adhered to the pleat surface. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understood that there is a design need to define a bead dimension to ensure both desirable pleat spacing and stability of the pleated filter.
Additionally, similar to McClary, Horie discloses a very similar string shaped resin 42, Horie Fig. 6, [0089]. Horie discloses its resin bead 42 is used as a spacer for maintaining the spceing of the pleated filter media 1. Id. Horie also discloses that the shape and arrangement of the beads are not limited. Id. Furthermore, Horie discloses a similar (closely packed with almost parallel pleat panels) pleated filter media as that disclosed in the instant disclosure, Horie Fig. 6 and Spec. Fig. 5A. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McClary to include Horie’s bead 42 (the claimed “strip shaped body”) with the claimed W1/Wo ratio range to arrive a similar structured pleated filter media as that shown in Horie.
Furthermore, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed W1/Wo ratio range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 8:
McClary does not disclose that the filter pleat pack according to claim 6, wherein
in a cross-section of a portion of the strip-shaped body and located, when viewed along a direction in which an air flow P that passes through the filter pleat pack flows, between an upstream valley fold of the folded air filter medium and a plane in contact with two downstream valley folds adjacent to the upstream valley fold along the air filter medium, a length W1 of the portion of the strip-shaped body in the width direction is 1.0 mm or more, the portion being in contact with the first porous fluorine resin membrane.
However, based on the published instant disclosure (hereinafter “Spec.”), it is understood that the dimension of the claimed strip-shaped body 7 is located at an end face of the filter medium 2. Spec. Fig. 5A–5C, [0061]. It is also understood from Fig. 5C that the W1 would directly affect the stability of the structure. For example, in extreme situation, where W1 approaches 0, which means the adhesive bead is not attached to the pleated filter panel, and therefore would not be able to maintains a desired pleated shape. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to understood that there is a design need to define a bead dimension to ensure desirable pleat stability of the pleated filter.
Additionally, similar to McClary, Horie discloses a very similar string shaped resin 42. Horie Fig. 6, [0089]. Horie discloses its resin bead 42 is used as a spacer for maintaining the spceing of the pleated filter media 1. Id. Horie also discloses that the shape and arrangement of the beads are not limited. Id. Furthermore, Horie discloses a similar (closely packed with almost parallel pleat panels) pleated filter media as that disclosed in the instant disclosure. Horie Fig. 6 and Spec. Fig. 5A. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McClary to include Horie’s bead 42 (the claimed “strip shaped body”) with the claimed W1 length to arrive a similar structured pleated filter media as that shown in Horie.
Furthermore, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed W1 length is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 9:
McClary does not disclose that the filter pleat pack according to claim 6, wherein the strip-shaped body is a bead of the filter pleat pack.
However, Horie discloses its string shaped resin could be a bead, Horie Fig. 6, [0089]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify McClary’s strip-shaped body to be a bead because such design in known in the art.
Regarding claim 20:
McClary does not disclose that the air filter unit according to claim 17, wherein the frame is shaped to cover a lateral surface of the filter pleat pack, the lateral surface being closer to an end portion of the filter pleat pack in the width direction, the end portion including the ventilation inhibiting portion in the first air-permeable supporting layer because McClary’s air filter unit is cylindrical shaped.
However, McClary discloses other configurations (such as a planar) filtration devices could be utilized. McClary [0040].
Horie discloses a planar pleated filter pack 44, where a supporting frame 45 is shaped to cover a lateral surface of the filter pleat pack 41. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Horie’s supporting frame 45 around McClary’s planer filter pleated pack as that shown in McClary’s Fig. 7 because it is known in the art for a pleated planar filter to have a lateral filter frame as that shown by Horie. With such modification, modified McClary would have Horie’s frame 45 shaped to cover a lateral surface of McClary’s filter 708, the lateral surface being closer to an end portion of the filter pleat pack in the width direction, and end portion including the ventilation inhibiting portion 746a in the first air-permeable supporting layer 716, McClary Fig. 7 and Horie Fig. 7.
Claims 12–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McClary in view of Sebastian et al., US 2019/0299035 A1 (“Sebastian”).
Regarding claim 12:
McClary does not disclose that the filter pleat pack according to claim 11, wherein when at least one of two end portions of the filter pleat pack in the width direction is viewed along the width direction, the second resin is placed to fill a region from a valley fold located on an upstream side in a direction of an air flow P that passes through the filter pleat pack to 50% or more of an inter-valley-fold height, the at least one of two end portions including the ventilation inhibiting portion in the first air-permeable supporting layer.
However, in the analogous art of pleated filters, Sebastian discloses an edge dam 40 and 40’ that are made of adhesive beads to at least generally fill each pleat valley at a location proximate a corrugated edge of the pleated filter media. Sebastian Fig. 4, [0046]. Sebastian’s edge dam would read on the claimed “second resin” that passes through the filter pleat pack to 50% or more of inter-valley-fold height because it fills the entire pleat valley. Sebastian discloses that its edge dam fills upstream and downstream pleat valleys and sufficiently occlude a corrugated edge of the pleated filter media. Sebastian Fig. 4, [0014]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Sebastian’s edge dam at both upstream/downstream of the McClary’s pleated filter to provide sufficient seal at the corrugated edge of McClary’s corrugated edge of the pleated filter media. With such modification, modified McClary would comprises a second resin (Sebastian’s edge dam 40) placed to fill the region from a valley fold located on an upstream side in a direction of an air flow P that passes through the filter pleat pack to 50% or more of an inter-valley-fold height, the at least one end portion including the ventilation inhibiting portion in the first air-permeable supporting layer.
Regarding claim 13:
McClary does not disclose that the filter pleat pack according to claim 11, wherein the second resin is a hot-melt resin.
However, as discussed in claim 12, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Sebastian’s edge dam at both upstream/downstream of the McClary’s pleated filter to provide sufficient seal at the corrugated edge of McClary’s corrugated edge of the pleated filter media. With such modification, Sebastian’s edge dam would be the claimed “second resin” and Sebastian discloses its edge dam is could be a hot melt adhesive. Sebastian [0054].
Response to Arguments
Drawings
Applicant’s drawing filed Apr. 21, 2021 is accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner withdraws the current rejection except for claim 12, because the applicant fails to amend the claims to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102(a)(1) and 103
The applicant amends the claims to further requires a ventilation inhibiting portion contained entirely within at least one of two end portions in a width direction. The applicant then argues that McClary’s “thermoplastic material 746a) is imbibed through at least the second layer 716 and the third layer 770 of the filtration medium 708. The applicant argues that since McClary’s ventilation inhibiting portion 746a is not only contained in the alleged first air-permeable supporting layer 716, but it is also contained in a third layer 770 and therefore McClary fails to disclose the limitation of “contained entirely within”, Applicant Rem. dated Dec. 31, 2025 (Hereinafter “Applicant Rem.”) p. 10.
The examiner disagrees. The amened limitation of “contained entirely within” does not overcome McClary for at least two reasons. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, now the ventilation inhibiting portion is mapped to “part of McClary’s thermoplastic materials 746a and 746b contained entirely within the first air-permeable supporting layer 716”, and therefore reads on the claimed. Additionally, the examiner points out that the limitation of “at least one of two end portions in a width direction” could be mapped to end portions of the entire filter pleat pack, rather than end portion of the first air-permeable supporting layer, because the applicant does not further limit “end portions in a width direction” and McClary’s thermoplastic materials 746a and 746b is contained entirely within end portion of the filter pleat pack. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776