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(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 1–7, 9–10, 12–14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yung et al., US 2020/0324510 A1 (“Yung”).
Regarding claim 1:
Yung discloses that a filter (Yung’s structure 100, Yung Fig. 1, [0021]), comprising:
a first layer (Yung’s first layer 102, Yang Fig. 1, [0021]) including a first resin (Yung discloses first layer 102 could be fluoropolymer, such as PTFE, Yung Fig. 1, [0030]), a plurality of holes being provided in the first resin (Yung’s structure 100 comprises pore size from 0.01 to microns, Yung Fig. 3, [0006] and [0022]), the first layer 102 including a first face (proximate surface 106), at least a part of the plurality of holes reaching the first face (Yung discloses the thickness of the first layer is less than or equal to 30 microns and a median pore size of 0.01 to 10 microns, it is therefore concluded that not all of the holes reach the first surface because Yung’s first layer thickness is larger than Yung’s pore size, Yung Fig. 3, [0006]); and
a second layer (Yung’s second layer 104) including a second resin (Yung discloses a suitable material for its second layer is a second polymer, which could be polyacrylonitrile, which is a resin, Yung Fig. 1, [0006]), the second resin of second layer 104 blocking at least a part of the plurality of holes reaching the first face (because Yung’s second resin 104 overlaps with the first face and therefore blocks at least a part of the plurality of holes reaching the first face, Yung Fig. 1, [0006]),
wherein the first resin comprises a hydrophobic resin such that the filter blocks a non-target substance including liquid comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of water and oil, while passing a target gas (as discussed earlier, Yung’s first resin could be PTFE, Yung Fig. 1, [0030], PTFE is hydrophobic resin, and PTFE is disclosed in the instant Spec. as an example for the claimed “first resin”, Spec. [0024]; Yung’s first resin of PTFE is capable of blocking a non-target substance including liquid such as water because PTFE is hydrophobic).
Regarding claim 2:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 1, wherein the first resin of first layer 102 includes a fluorine compound (Yung discloses its first resin could be a fluoropolymer, which includes a type of fluorine compound, Yung Fig. 3, [0006]).
Regarding claim 3:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 2, wherein the second resin of second layer 104 includes an acrylic resin (Yung discloses as polyacrylonitrile, which is an acrylic resin, Yung Fig. 3, [0006]).
Regarding claim 4:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 1, wherein a first thickness of the first layer is not less than 2 times and not more than 10,000 times a second thickness of the second layer (Yung discloses the first layer is less than or equal to 30 microns thick and the second layer is 5 to 500 microns thick, if one pick the first thickness as 30 microns, second thickness as 10 microns, which gives a first thickness 3 times the second thickness, falls within the claimed range, Yung Fig. 3, [0006]).
Regarding claim 5:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 1, wherein a first thickness of the first layer is not less than 10 µm and not more than 5000 µm (Yung’s first thickness is 30 microns, falls within the claimed range, Yung Fig. 3, [0006]).
Regarding claim 6:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 1, wherein a second thickness of the second layer is not less than 0.1 µm and not more than 100 µm (Yung’s second thickness is between 5 to 500 microns, overlaps with the claimed range, Yung Fig. 3, [0006]).
Regarding claim 7:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 1, wherein the second resin 104 covers at least a part of the first face (Yung’s second resin 104 overlaps with the first face, Yung Fig. 3, [0021]).
Regarding claim 9:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 1, wherein the second layer further includes a plurality of first solid pieces (Yung discloses its second layer could comprise Colorants, pigments, and dyes, titanium dioxide is provided as an example, which reads on the claimed “plurality of first solids pieces”, Yung Fig. 3, [0081]).
Regarding claim 10:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of first solid pieces includes at least one of a metal, a metal oxide or a metal nitride (Yung’s titanium dioxide is a metal oxide, Yung Fig. 3, [0081]).
Regarding claim 12:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of first solid pieces include titanium oxide, Yung Fig. 3, [0081].
Regarding claim 13:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 1, further comprising a third layer (Yung’s scrim layer 110) including a third resin (Yung discloses its scrim layer could be nylon spun bond scrim, nylon is a resin, Yung Fig. 3, [0024]),
the first layer 102 being located between the third layer 110 and the second layer 104, Yung Fig. 3, [0024],
the first layer 102 including a second face (bottom face of 102) facing the third layer 110 (as shown in Fig. 3,
a part of the plurality of holes reaching the second face (the same reason as explained in claim 1, Yung discloses the thickness of the first layer is less than or equal to 30 microns and a median pore size of 0.01 to 10 microns, it is therefore concluded that not all of the holes reach the second surface because Yung’s thickness is larger than Yung’s pore size, Yung Fig. 1, [0006]),
the third resin 110 blocking the part of the plurality of holes reaching the second face (as shown in Fig. 3, Yung’s third resin 110 overlaps with Yung’s second face and therefore would necessarily blocking at least a part of the plurality of holes, Yung Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 13, wherein the third resin includes an acrylic resin (Yung discloses its scrim layer could be PBN-II™, which comprises acrylic resin, Yung Fig. 3, [0085]).
Regarding claim 16:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 13, wherein the third resin 110 covers at least a part of the second face (as shown in Yung’s Fig. 3, Yung Fig. 3, [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 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:
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yung, as evidenced by Yamada, US 2013/0273798 A1 (“Yamada”).
Regarding claim 11:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of first solid pieces includes Fe and Ni (Yung discloses iron oxide and nickel titanate as other example of Colorants, pigments, and dyes, they include Fe and Ni, Yung Fig. 3, [0081]).
Yung does not explicitly disclose the plurality of first solid pieces includes Cr.
However, Yung discloses that colorants, pigments and dyes could be metal powders and are not limited to what is listed, Cr is a metal powder that could be used as a colorant as evidenced by Yamada, where Yamada lists chrome yellow as an example of pigment that are compatible with use in an air filter, Yamada [0001] and [0043]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Yung to include Cr in its plurality of first solid pieces as other examples of colorants or pigments.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yung in view of Tanahashi et al., US 2005/0212174 A1 (“Tanahashi”).
Regarding claim 8:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 1, wherein
the first face includes a first region in which the second resin is provided, and a second region in which the second resin is not provided (Yun’s second resin forms second layer 104, which is a filter layer comprising medium pore size of greater than 1 micron, such porous structure would have surface area with pores and surface area with solids structure, the solid structure would be the claimed “first region” where second resin is provided and the porous area would the claimed “second region” where a second resin is not provided, Yung Fig. 1, [0006]).
Yung does not disclose a ratio of an area of the first region to an area of the second region is not less than 0.01 and not more than 100.
Similar to Yung, Tanahashi discloses an air filter 1, Tanahashi Fig. 3, [0047]. Similar to Yung, Tanahashi discloses its filter comprising nonwoven fibers, Tanahashi [0043]. Additionally, Tanahashi discloses a fiber void ratio, which is defined by dividing the total volume of voids by the volume of the woven or nonwoven fabric, Tanahashi [0033]. Tanahashi discloses its fiber void ratio is preferably 50–95%, which falls within the claimed range. Tanahashi [0033]. Tanahashi discloses such fiber void ratio ensures a good amount of power supported in the fiber void, Tanahashi [0033]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Yung’s first face to have a similar fiber void ratio for the benefits of holding more particles.
Regarding claim 17:
Yung discloses that the filter according to claim 13, wherein
the second face includes a third region in which the third resin is provided, and a fourth region in which the third resin is not provided (Yung’s third resin forms a scrim, the part forms the solid portion of the scrim would read on the claimed “third region” and the part that forms the apertures in the scrim would read on the claimed “fourth region). Yung Fig. 3, [0024].
Yung does not disclose a ratio of an area of the third region to an area of the fourth region is not less than 0.01 and not more than 100.
Similar to Yung, Tanahashi discloses an air filter 1, Tanahashi Fig. 3, [0047]. Similar to Yung, Tanahashi discloses its filter comprising nonwoven fibers, Tanahashi [0043]. Additionally, Tanahashi discloses a fiber void ratio, which is defined by dividing the total volume of voids by the volume of the woven or nonwoven fabric, Tanahashi [0033]. Tanahashi discloses its fiber void ratio is preferably 50–95%, which falls within the claimed range. Tanahashi [0033]. Tanahashi discloses such fiber void ratio ensures a good amount of power supported in the fiber void, Tanahashi [0033]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Yung’s second face to have a similar fiber void ratio for the benefits of holding more particles.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yung in view of Wertz et al., US 2011/0259813 A1 (“Wertz”).
Regarding claim 15:
Yung does not disclose that the filter according to claim 13, wherein a third thickness of the third layer is not less than 0.1 µm and not more than 100 µm.
Similar to Yung, Wertz discloses a multiple layer filter structure 10. Wertz Fig. 2, [0020]. Similar to Yung, Wertz discloses its filter structure could comprises a scrim layer. Wertz Fig. 2, [0098]. Additionally, Wertz discloses its scrim could have a thickness of from 50 microns to 1000 microns. Wertz Fig. 2, [0100]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Yung’s third layer (scrim layer) to be within the claimed range disclose by Wertz because such range are disclosed in the multiple filtration layer art as being suitable for a scrim layer. With such modification, modified Yung would have a scrim layer thickness overlapping the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yung in view of Miller, III et al., US 2014/0030179 A1 (“Miller, III”).
Regarding claim 18:
Yung does not disclose that the filter according to claim 13, wherein the third layer 110 further includes a plurality of second solid pieces.
Similar to Yung, Miller, III discloses a scrim material 10 for a filter. Miller, III Fig. 1, [0030]. Miller, III discloses its scrim material is catalyst coated. Miller, III Fig. 1, [0029]. Miller, III discloses its catalyst is provided to reduce VOCs. Miller, III [0029]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Miller, III’s catalyst coating on Yung’s scrim for the purpose of reducing VOCs.
Claims 19–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yung in view of Bertaux et al., US 2016/0116404 A1 (“Bertaux”).
Regarding claim 19:
Yung does not disclose a gas sensor, comprising: a housing; and a detector provided in the housing, the housing including an opening, and the filter according to claim 1.
Similar to Yung, Bertaux discloses an air filter (Bertaux’s collection member 95, which could be a filte, Bertaux Fig. 3, [0028]). Bertaux’s filter 95 is disposed in a gas sensor (Bertaux’s system 20 for analyzing the particulate quality of ambient air, Bertaux Fig. 2, [0026]). Bertaux discloses its gas sensor 20 comprising a housing 25, a detector (Bertaux’s spectrum detector) provided in the sensor system 20, Bertaux Fig. 2, [0026] and claim 20. Bertaux discloses the housing including an opening (Bertaux’s air inlet port 35, Bertaux Fig. 2, [0026]). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace Bertaux’s air filter in its system with Yung’s filter because Yung discloses its filter is useful in a variety of applications due to their high temperature resistance, barrier, permeability properties, and processability, Yung [0082]. Additionally, both filters serve the same function of filtering air and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP 2143(I).
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Yung discloses that a gas system, comprising: the gas sensor according to claim 19, and the gas sensor including a communicator (Bertaux’s electronic controller 85, Bertaux Fig. 2, [0027]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
The applicant amends claim 1 and argues that Yung does not teach the amended limitation. Applicant Rem. dated Jan. 23, 2026 (hereinafter “Applicant Rem.”) ps. 7–8. The applicant argues that Yung does not disclose a hydrophobic resin that can block liquid, much less blocking liquid from water or oil, Applicant Rem. p. 9.
The examiner does not agree. Yung discloses its first resin could be PTFE as mapped in claim 1, Yung [0030]. Yung’s first resin therefore shares the same composition as the claimed invention, because the instant disclosure discloses its first resin could be PTFE. PTFE is hydrophobic and therefore is capable of blocking liquid such as water. Additionally, it is pointed out that the current claim is directed to a filter, and Yung has the exact same structure as the claimed filter and therefore read on the claim. The limitation of “blocking a non-target substance including liquid…” describes intended use.
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