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, 3, 10, 12, 14–18, 25, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinka et al., US 2018/0236389 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Jinka teaches a filter media, which reads on the claimed “filter media.” See Jinka [0006].
The filter media comprises an open support layer and a charged fiber layer. See Jinka [0006]. The charged fiber layer is a nonwoven web of fibers. See Jinka [0006], [0057]. The charged fiber layer reads on the “non-woven fiber web comprising fibers.”
The charged fiber layer comprises a first plurality of fibers of a first polymer and a second plurality of fibers of a second polymer. See Jinka [0010]. The first polymer can be polypropylene (id. at [0013]) and can be provided in an amount between 10 to 90 wt% versus the total weight of the charged fiber layer (id. at [0014]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “polypropylene makes up at least 75% of the polymers in the non-woven fiber web,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection I.
The fibers in the charged fiber layer have an average diameter of 1 to 15 microns, which reads on the claimed range of less than or equal to 15 microns. See Jinka [0007].
The filter media has a gamma between 20 and 2501. See Jinka [0033]. It is noted that Jinka is silent as to the gamma of the charged fiber layer, as it describes the gamma of the filter media, which is a combination of the charged fiber layer and the open support layer. But gamma measures the relationship between filtration efficiency and pressure drop. Id. at [0106]. Also, the open support layer would not be expected to contribute significantly to the efficiency or pressure drop of the filter media because it is a material provided for mechanical reinforcement with a high permeability and made from a material (such as a net or mesh) with low efficiency. See Jinka [0059], [0116]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the charged fiber layer to have a gamma between 20 and 250 because it is the only layer of the filter media that would contribute significantly to efficiency and pressure drop. The prior art range of 20 to 250 overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 200, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Also, the filter media has a ratio of the dust holding capacity to a basis weight of the filter media ranging from 0.007 to 50 gsm/gsm. See Jinka [0024], [0031]. The prior art range of 0.007 to 50 gsm/gsm overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1 gsm/gsm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
The charged fiber layer has a thickness of 30 to 350 mils, which is within the claimed range of greater than 6 mils. See Jinka [0022].
Regarding claim 3, Jinka teaches that the filter media can comprise an additional charged fiber layer comprising non-continuous fibers. See Jinka [0094], [0077]. The additional charged fiber layer reads on the “charged fiber layer comprising non-continuous fibers.”
Regarding claim 10, Jinka teaches that the filter media can comprise an additional charged fiber layer comprising a nonwoven material having fibers with a diameter as small as 1 micron, which converts to 1,000 nm. See Jinka [0094], [0007], [0057]. Fibers with a diameter of 1 micron are recognized in the art as “nanofibers.” See e.g., Böhringer et al., US 2021/0106976 A1, [0123] (nanofibers have a fiber diameter in the range of 1 to 5,000 nm). The additional charged fiber layer having fibers of 1 micron reads on the “second non-woven fiber web, and wherein the second non-woven fiber web comprises nanofibers.”
Regarding claims 12, 14 and 16, Jinka teaches that the filter media can comprise an additional charged fiber layer comprising a nonwoven material comprising polypropylene fibers, with an average diameter of 1 to 15 microns and made from a meltblown material. See Jinka [0094], [0011], [0007], [0152]. The additional charged fiber layer reads on the “second non-woven fiber web also comprising fibers comprising polypropylene.” The prior art range of 1 to 15 microns overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 5 microns, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 15, Jinka teaches that the charged fiber layer (the “non-woven fiber web”) is meltblown. See Jinka [0152].
Regarding claim 17, Jinka teaches that the open support layer can be positioned upstream of the charged fiber layer. See Jinka [0052]. The open support layer reads on the “backer.”
Regarding claim 18, Jinka teaches that the open support layer (the “backer”) has an air permeability of 1,100 to 20,000 CFM which is within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 200 CFM. See Jinka [0006].
Regarding claim 25, Jinka teaches that the charged fiber layer (the “non-woven fiber web”) has an air permeability between 80 and 1,200 CFM, which is within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 20 and less than or equal to 1300 CFM. See Jinka [0023].
Regarding claim 28, Jinka teaches that the charged fiber layer (the “non-woven fiber web”) has the same structure as a fiber web that is “hydrocharged” because the charged fiber web is charged. See Jinka [0006]; MPEP 2113, subsection I (the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production unless the process steps impart structure).
Regarding claim 29, Jinka teaches that the fibers of the charged fiber layer (the “non-woven fiber web”) have an average diameter of 1 to 15 microns, which is within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 3 microns and less than or equal to 15 microns. See Jinka [0007].
Claims 10–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinka et al., US 2018/0236389 A1 in view of Healey et al., US 2010/0107881 A1.
Regarding claims 10–13, Jinka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Jinka differs from claims 10 and 11 because it is silent as to the filter media further comprising a second non-woven fiber web comprising nanofibers with an average fiber diameter of less than or equal to 300 nm. Jinka differs from claims 12 and 13 because it is silent as to the filter media comprising a second non-woven fiber web comprising polypropylene fibers having an average diameter that is less than the average diameter of the fibers of the charged fiber layer (the “non-woven fiber web”).
But Jinka suggests that additional layers can be used with the filter media, because it teaches that the filter media can have any suitable number of open support or charged fiber layers, and can include a third layer. See Jinka [0094]. Jinka also teaches that the filter media can have a waved configuration. Id. at [0009].
With this in mind, Healey teaches a filter media with a waved configuration comprising a fine filtration layer, made of a nonwoven material, comprising fibers made of a polymer such as polypropylene with an average diameter of 0.3 and 1.5 µm, which converts to 300 to 1,500 nm. See Healey [0052], [0054]. The fine filtration layer is beneficial because it has a relatively high filtering efficiency, as it has a DOP efficiency of up to 99.999%. Id. at [0055].
It would have been obvious for the filter media of Jinka to include the fine filtration layer of Healey to improve the efficiency of the filter material. With this modification, the fine filtration layer reads on the “second non-woven fiber web” and the average diameter of the fibers of the fine filtration layer (300 to 1,500 nm) overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 300 nm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. The average fiber diameter of the fine filtration layer of Healey is less than the average fiber diameter of the fibers of the charged fiber layer of Jinka. See Healey [0052]; Jinka [0007].
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinka et al., US 2018/0236389 A1 in view of Jaganathan et al., US 2016/0175752 A1.
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Jinka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Jinka differs from claims 17 and 19 because it is silent as to the filter media comprising a backer having a stiffness of greater than or equal to 300 mg.
But the filter media can be pleated. See Jinka [0119].
With this in mind, Jaganathan teaches a filter media comprising a backer layer that has an MD stiffness of 2,147 mg and a CD stiffness of 582 mg. See Jaganathan Table 1, [0146]. The backer layer is beneficial because it facilitates pleating. Id. at [0065].
It would have been obvious to use the backer layer of Jaganathan with the filter media of Jinka to facilitate plating.
Claims 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinka et al., US 2018/0236389 A1 in view of Smith et al., US 2017/0312673 A1.
Regarding claims 24 and 30, Jinka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Jinka differs from claim 24 because it is silent as to the mean flow pore size of the charged fiber layer (the “non-woven fiber web”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach this layer having a mean flow pore size of greater than or equal to 20 microns. Jinka differs from claim 30 because it is silent as to the solidity of the charged fiber layer. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach this layer having a solidity of less than or equal to 6%.
But Smith teaches a filter media comprising a fiber filtration layer, which is similar to the charged fiber layer of Jinka, where the fiber filtration layer has a mean flow pore size of 5 to 40 microns and a solidity between 1 and 15%. See Smith [0028], [0041].
It would have been obvious for the charged fiber layer of Jinka to have a mean flow pore size of 5 to 40 microns and a solidity of 1 to 15% because these are suitable values for similar filtration layers. The prior art range of 5 to 40 microns overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to 20 microns, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. The prior art range of 1 to 15% overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 6%, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 27 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinka et al., US 2018/0236389 A1 in view of either the admitted prior art in the Applicant’s specification or Pourdeyhimi et al., US 2017/0137970 A1.
Regarding claims 27 and 32, Jinka teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Jinka differs from claims 27 and 32 because it is silent as to the melt flow rate of the polypropylene in the charged fiber layer. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the polypropylene has a melt flow rate of less than or equal to 2000 (claim 27) or greater than or equal to 75 (claim 32).
But the fibers of the charged fiber layer can be meltblown. See Jinka [0152].
With this in mind, the Applicant’s disclosure admits that several polypropylene resins, suitable for meltblowing fibers, were on sale before the effective filing date of the claims. See Spec. p. 6, ll. 23–28. These include polypropylene resins supplied by ExxonMobil having a melt flow rate of 500, 925 or 1550, LyondellBasel having a melt flow rate of 450, 500, 800, 1100, 1200, 1500 or 1800, Total Energies having a met flow rate of 100 or 1300, and Borealis having a melt flow rate of 450, 800, 1200 or 2000. Id. It would have been obvious to use one of the commercially available polypropylene resins described in the Applicant’s specification as the polypropylene used in Jinka because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Also, Pourdeyhimi teaches a meltblown grade polypropylene resin having a melt flow rate of 100 to 2400. See Pourdeyhimi [0074]. It would have been obvious to use the polypropylene resin of Pourdeyhimi as the polypropylene used in Jinka because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 10 and 11 because the amendments overcome these rejections.
35 U.S.C. 112(d) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 29 because the amendment overcomes the prior rejection.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments filed June 10, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made, as explained above.
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
1 Jinka calculates gamma using substantially the same equation as the Applicant’s specification. See Jinka [0106]; Spec. p. 20, ll. 27–29.