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 § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 56, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McLellan et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0217220).
Claims 41, 44, and 45: McLellan et al. teach a filter [0070-0071] comprising a plurality of metal fibers having a non-round cross section [0051], with the cross section comprising a large axis and a small axis [0051], wherein a ratio of the small axis to the large axis lies in the range of 0.99 to 0.05. McLellan et al. teach that the shape of the fiber is ellipsoidal. A axis ratio of greater than 0.99, i.e. 1, would be a circle. An axis ratio of 0.05 would be a line. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably concluded that the teaching of ellipsoidal cross-section includes an axis ratio of 0.05 to 0.99.
Claim 46: the length of the fibers are 0.1mm or more [0056].
Claim 47: the cross-section of the fibers include values equal to and less than 100um [0050].
Claim 48: the length of the small axis is 2um or less [0050].
Claim 49: the fibers form an ordered or unordered network [0069-0072](Fig. 1A).
Claim 50: the porosity is 93-99.9% [0061].
Claim 51: the pore size is 10um or less [0063].
Claim 53: the fiber volume fraction is 0.01 and 30 vol% [0074].
Claim 54: the thickness of the filter is from 0.1 to 100mm [0070].
Claim 56: the fibers are sintered [0099].
Claim 57: the fibers are made of a metal alloy [0045, wherein the metals are listed and can be combinations thereof].
Claim 58: the fibers are sintered [0099].
Claim 59: the fibers are obtainable by melt spinning as metal can be melted.
Claim 61: the cross section comprises rounded edges [0070-0071, ellipsoid], a porosity of 93-99% [0061], and a pore size of from 0.1-300um [0063].
Claim 62: the thickness is from 6 to 49mm [0070].
Claims 42, 43, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLellan et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0217220).
Claims 42 and 43: McLellan et al. teach that the fibers may have a variety of shapes [0070-0071]. They do not teach the specific axis ratios as claimed. “[W]here 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 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 60: McLellan et al. do not teach the fiber density of the filter. However, fiber density is a well-known result effective variable that is routinely optimized to control flow rate through the filter material. “[W]here 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 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLellan et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0217220) in view of Lundquist (USP 6152978).
Claim 55: McLellan et al. teach that the mat made of the metal fibers is used as a filter media but do not teach a frame holding the fibers.
Lundquist teaches a soot filter comprising a frame holding a filter metal filter media (col. 17, lines 10-28). The fibers are held in a frame so that they can be functional as a filter media in practice. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to include a frame with McLellan et al.’s fibers so that it can be put into use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that McLellan et al.’s are not the claimed “metal fibers” because they comprise metal oxide compositions (abstract).
The claim only recites “comprising” (i.e. ‘open type’ claim language) “metal fibers”.
Applicant’s disclosure states:
“The metal fibers are made of metal or contain at least a metal. In the invention it is not particularly limited which metal is contained in the metal fibers or from which metal the metal fibers are made of. Nevertheless, it is preferred that the metal fibers of the plurality of metal fibers in the filter contain one of the elements selected from the group consisting of copper, silver, gold, nickel, palladium, platinum, cobalt, iron, chromium, vanadium, titanium, aluminum, silicon, lithium, manganese, boron, combinations of the foregoing and alloys containing one or more of the foregoing. It is further preferred that the metal fibers of the plurality of metal fibers in the network contain one of the elements selected from the group consisting of copper, silver, gold, nickel, palladium, platinum, iron, vanadium, aluminum, silicon, lithium, manganese, boron, combinations of the foregoing and alloys containing one or more of the foregoing.
It may be possible that the fibers are composed of an alloy such as CuSn8, CuSi4, AISi1, Ni, stainless steel, Cu, Al or vitrovac alloys. Vitrovac alloys are Fe-based and Co-based amorphous alloys. It may particularly be preferred if the metal fibers are made of copper or of aluminum or of a stainless steel alloy. Different types of metal fibers can be combined with each other, so that the filter can contain for ex- ample metal fibers made of copper, one or more stainless steel alloys and/or aluminum. Filters being made out of metal fibers, wherein the metal fibers are of cop- per, aluminum, cobalt, stainless steel alloys containing copper, aluminum, silicon and/or cobalt are particularly preferred.”
The disclosure also teaches that the fibers may be “sintered or process by a thermal treatment” and “obtainable by a melt spinning process”.
Neither the claim nor the disclosure limit the meaning of “metal fibers” in any way consistent with Applicant’s argument. Further in support of this, McLellan et al very clearly teach that to make their fibers, they include a “a metal compound” [0012].
McLellan et al. very clearly teach metal fibers as it is undisputed that – at least – McLellan et al. teach fibers comprising metal oxide. There is no definition in the claim or the disclosure that precludes metal oxides from being the metal fibers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights