DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed with the US on 08/29/2023 and having an Effective Filing Date of 08/29/2022, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 29 AUGUST 2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 8 recites the limitation “A filter element comprised of a multilayered filter medium as recited in claim 1”, however claim 1 recites a method, wherein the filter medium is at one point unbonded and then bonded, it is not clear to which this limaitons would refer. This should be corrected to “A filter element comprised of the multilayered filter medium as formed by the method recited in claim 1”
Claim 14 recites the limitation “A roll of the multilayered filter medium as recited in claim 1”, however claim 1 recites a method, wherein the filter medium is at one point unbonded and then bonded, it is not clear to which this limaitons would refer. This should be corrected to “A roll of the multilayered filter medium as formed by the method recited in claim 1”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2015/094938 A1 (hereinafter “Kshirsagar”).
Regarding Claim 1 Kshirsagar discloses a method comprising:
bonding a multilayered filter medium comprised of at least one layer of filter membrane and at least one support layer web material (a porous fibrous nonwoven matrix between two substrates) by bonding along a perimeter of the filter web while concurrently cutting (i.e. slitting) the filter medium; [0003]-[0004], [0072], [0073].
Regarding Claim 2 Kshirsagar discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the bonding utilizes ultrasonics [0073].
Regarding Claim 5 Kshirsagar discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein there are a plurality of the layers of the support layer web material (i.e. at least two, supra) and may comprise at least one of polyester, polypropylene, [0068].
Regarding Claim 6 Kshirsagar discloses the method as recited in claim 5, wherein the plurality of layers comprise at least one of spunbond material [0068].
Regarding Claim 7 Kshirsagar discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein there are a plurality of the layers of the support layer web material (i.e. at least two, supra) comprising woven materials, that are adhered to each other (i.e. via the edge bonding).
Regarding Claim 12 Kshirsagar discloses the method as recited in claim 11, wherein during the ultrasonic bonding/cutting [0073] sintering fibers of the at least one layer of filter membrane and the at least one support layer web material to each other via heat produced when creating the pleated filter element will inherently occur; MPEP 2112.
Regarding Claim 13 Kshirsagar discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the multilayered filter medium includes at least one layer of meltblown material as the at least one layer of filter membrane (the porous fibrous nonwoven matrix may be meltblown [0058]), wherein the at least one support layer web material that is bonded along the perimeter of the multilayered filter medium while concurrently slitting the filter medium is bonded at least on two edges to the at least one layer of filter membrane; ([0072] entire perimeter may be bonded).
Regarding Claim 14 Kshirsagar discloses the multilayered filter medium formed by the method as recited in claim 1, which may be rolled [0086], [00106].
Regarding Claim 16 Kshirsagar discloses a filter element comprising a multilayered filter medium with at least one first layer of a filter membrane or a meltblown material, and at least one support layer web material as a second layer (a porous fibrous nonwoven matrix, which may be meltblown, between two substrates which may be spunbonded), wherein the at least one first layer and the at least one second layer are bonded and sealed to each other along a perimeter thereof; [0003]-[0004], [0058], [0068], [0072], [0073].
Regarding Claim 17 Kshirsagar discloses the filter element as recited in claim 16, wherein the at least one first layer and the at least one second layer are constructed of materials that are able to be bonded and sealed along the perimeter using ultrasonic energy; [0073].
Regarding Claim 18 Kshirsagar discloses the filter element as recited in claim 16, wherein the supports layer(s) may be polyester and polypropylene [0068] and the membrane/matrix may be various thermoplastics including polypropylene [0060], and thus all layers are considered to be constructed of materials that are able to be bonded and sealed along the perimeter using one or more lasers, inherently MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 19 Kshirsagar discloses the filter element as recited in claim 16, wherein the supports layer(s) may be polyester and polypropylene [0068] and the membrane/matrix may be various thermoplastics including polypropylene [0060], and thus all layers are considered to be constructed of materials that are able to be bonded and sealed along the perimeter using one or more heated blades and/or a heated rule, inherently MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 20 Kshirsagar discloses the filter element as recited in claim 16, wherein there are a plurality of the layers of the support layer web material comprising at least one of polyester and polypropylene [0068].
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 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.
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.
Claims 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshirsagar in view of US 5,207,812 (hereinafter “Tronto”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 10-11 Kshirsagar discloses the method as recited in claim 1 and the filter medium thus formed by the method, which may be pleated or rolled Kshirsagar [0086], but does not disclose (claim 8) a filter element where said medium is assembled into an external casing with a perimeter of the medium encapsulated such that the perimeter is not in a direct stream of fluid flow, or (claim 10) applying one or more glue beads across the pleated filter element to maintain pleats formed in the pleated filter element or (claim 11) forming the pleated filter element into a cylindrical shape; applying a first end cap to a first end of the cylindrically shaped pleated filter element; and applying a second end cap to a second end of the cylindrically shaped pleated filter element.
However Tronto discloses a pleated filter cartridge, wherein the filter media is pleated, then glue is applied to the ends to form ends caps; C3/L1-15, Example 1.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kshirsagar by forming the pleated filter element into a cylindrical shape and applying glue to both the ends of the pleats to form end caps as discleod by Tronto because this involves use of known technique (rolling and sealing the ends of a pleated filter with glue) to improve similar devices/methods in the same way (forming it into a functional filter element). This result in a filter element where said medium is assembled into an external casing with a perimeter of the medium encapsulated such that the perimeter is not in a direct stream of fluid flow as claimed.
The glue end caps are seen broadly to be formed from one or more glue beads, and would function to maintain the pleats formed in the pleated filter media.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102021110554 A1 (hereinafter “Potz”) in view of US 2008/0302074 A1 (hereinafter “Gebert”).
Regarding Claim 1 Potz discloses a method comprising: bonding a multilayered filter medium comprised of at least one layer of filter membrane and at least one support layer material (a PTFE layer and a thermoplastic layer) by bonding along a perimeter of the filter web while concurrently slitting the filter medium; [0019], [0025]-[0035].
Potz does not disclose the support layer material is a web.
However Gebert discloses a similar multilayered filter medium, comprising layer(s) of ePTFE membrane, and additional layers including supporting layers of fibrous and/or nonwoven polymer material, i.e. webs [0013]-[0015].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Potz by using for the thermoplastic layer, a fibrous and/or nonwoven polymer support web as disclosed by Gebert because this involves the simple substitution of known PTFE membrane support layers to obtain the predictable result of forming a bonded multilayered filter medium.
Regarding Claim 4 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the bonding utilizes heated cutting blades (i.e. knives); Potz [0026].
Regarding Claim 5 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein in the combined invention of Potz in view of Gebert, the multilayered filter medium would include at least an ePTFE membrane and at least one additional layers, however it would further have been obvious to include multiple additional layers in various orders of arrangement since Gebert discloses at least 3-5 total layers [0014]-[0017] in various orders, in order to provide additional functionality or support.
Said additional layers may comprise polyester, polypropylene, or other thermoplastic material; Gebert [0014]-[0015].
Regarding Claim 6 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the method as recited in claim 5, wherein the plurality of layers may comprise meltblown material; Gebert [0014].
Regarding Claim 7 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein in the combined invention of Potz in view of Gebert, the multilayered filter medium would include at least an ePTFE membrane and at least one additional layers, however it would further have been obvious to include multiple additional layers in various orders of arrangement since Gebert discloses at least 3-5 total layers [0014]-[0017] in various orders, in order to provide additional functionality or support.
Said additional layers may comprise nonwoven material; Gebert [0014]-[0015].
Regarding Claim 9 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising thermally bonding an PTFE membrane layer to an upstream exterior of the multilayered filter medium; (i.e. wherein the media may comprise two layers, one of which is PTFE, supra, where the filter does not have an inherent flow direction and thus either side may be the upstream side. While Potz does not disclose if the PTFE membrane is an ePTFE membrane, as Gebert discloses a similar PTFE membrane wherein the PTFE membrane layer is ePTFE [0013]-[0015], it would have been obvious to use ePTFE as the PTFE layer in the combined method since this involves the simple substitution of known PTFE membrane used in multilayer filters.
Regarding Claim 12 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the method as recited in claim 11, wherein during the cutting with heated blades Potz [0026] sintering fibers of the at least one layer of filter membrane and the at least one support layer web material to each other via heat produced when creating the pleated filter element will inherently occur; MPEP 2112.
Regarding Claim 13 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the method as recited in claim 1, wherein in the combined invention of Potz in view of Gebert, the multilayered filter medium would include at least an ePTFE membrane and at least one additional layers, however it would further have been obvious to include multiple additional layers in various orders of arrangement since Gebert discloses at least 3-5 total layers [0014]-[0017] in various orders, in order to provide additional functionality or support.
Thus, wherein the multilayered filter medium includes at least one layer of meltblown material as the at least one layer of filter membrane (where the layers may comprise meltblown layers Gebert [0014] which may be considered the at least one layer of filter membrane), wherein the at least one support layer web material (i.e. in embodiments where the first and third materials comprise fibrous media, where one may be meltblown, though other may be considered the support layer web Gebert [0014]) that is bonded along the perimeter of the multilayered filter medium while concurrently slitting the filter medium (i.e. as detailed in claim 1) is bonded at least on two edges to the at least one layer of filter membrane (i.e. because multiple edges are disclosed to be cut; Potz [0027].
Regarding Claim 14 Potz in view of Gebert discloses a roll of the multilayered filter medium as recited in claim 1; Potz [0027], [0032].
Regarding Claim 15 Potz discloses a filter medium comprised of at least one filter membrane and at least one thermoplastic material (a PTFE layer and a thermoplastic layer), which is bonded along a perimeter/edge of the filter web while concurrently slitting the filter medium; [0019], [0025]-[0035], and is thus bonded only along the lateral extents at a time of slitting.
Potz does not disclose the support layer material is a web.
However Gebert discloses a similar multilayered filter medium, comprising layer(s) of ePTFE membrane, and additional layers including supporting layers of fibrous and/or nonwoven polymer material, i.e. webs [0013]-[0015].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter medium of Potz by using for the thermoplastic layer, a fibrous and/or nonwoven polymer support web as disclosed by Gebert because this involves the simple substitution of known PTFE membrane support layers to obtain the predictable result of forming a bonded multilayered filter medium.
While Potz does not disclose if the PTFE membrane is an ePTFE membrane, as Gebert discloses a similar PTFE membrane wherein the PTFE membrane layer is ePTFE [0013]-[0015], it would have been obvious to use ePTFE as the PTFE layer in the combined method since this involves the simple substitution of known PTFE membrane used in multilayer filters.
This in combination result in at least one ePTFE membrane being exposed as an outermost layer on an upstream side of the filter medium (i.e. because the filter does not have an inherent flow direction and thus either side may be the upstream side), which will inherently enable washing.
Regarding Claim 16 Potz discloses a filter element comprising a multilayered filter medium with at least one first layer of a filter membrane, and at least one support layer material as a second layer (a PTFE layer and a thermoplastic layer), which is bonded along a perimeter/edge of the filter web while concurrently slitting the filter medium; [0019], [0025]-[0035], and is thus the at least one first layer and the at least one second layer are bonded and sealed to each other along a perimeter thereof
Potz does not disclose the support layer material is a web.
However Gebert discloses a similar multilayered filter medium, comprising layer(s) of ePTFE membrane, and additional layers including supporting layers of fibrous and/or nonwoven polymer material, i.e. webs [0013]-[0015].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter medium of Potz by using for the thermoplastic layer, a fibrous and/or nonwoven polymer support web as disclosed by Gebert because this involves the simple substitution of known PTFE membrane support layers to obtain the predictable result of forming a bonded multilayered filter medium.
Regarding Claim 17 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the filter element as recited in claim 16, wherein at least one first layer may be ePTFE, supra, and the at least one second layer may be a thermoplastic web of at least polypropylene, polyester Gebert [0015], and thus are considered to be constructed of materials that are able to be bonded and sealed along the perimeter using ultrasonic energy, inherently MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 18 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the filter element as recited in claim 16, wherein at least one first layer may be ePTFE, supra, and the at least one second layer may be a thermoplastic web of at least polypropylene, polyester Gebert [0015], and thus are considered to be constructed of materials that are able to be bonded and sealed along the perimeter using one or more lasers, inherently MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 19 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the filter element as recited in claim 16, wherein at least one first layer may be ePTFE, supra, and the at least one second layer may be a thermoplastic web of at least polypropylene, polyester Gebert [0015], and thus are considered to be constructed of materials that are able to be bonded and sealed along the perimeter using one or more heated blades and/or a heated rule (also, supra), inherently MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 20 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the filter element as recited in claim 16, wherein there are a plurality of the layers of the support layer web material comprising at least one of polyester, polypropylene, or other thermoplastic material; Gebert [0014]-[0015].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potz in view of Gebert further in view of DE 202021104951 U1 (hereinafter “DE’951”).
Regarding Claim 3 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the method as recited in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the bonding utilizes laser cutting.
However DE’951 discloses a facemask filter formed from a first and second layers of fibrous polymers, wherein a laser is used simultaneously to cut a seal the edges of the layers together (Abstract, pg. 4, first full para, ).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Potz in view of Gebert by substituting for the heated cutting blades a laser cutter as disclosed by DE’951 because this involves the simple substitution of known means to cut and seal the edges of a filter medium to obtain the predictable result of cutting and sealing the edges of the filter medium.
Claims 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potz in view of Gebert further in view of US 5,207,812 (hereinafter “Tronto”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 10-11 Potz in view of Gebert discloses the method as recited in claim 1 and the filter medium thus formed by the method, which may be pleated Potz [0001], Gebert [0022], but does not disclose (claim 8) a filter element where said medium is assembled into an external casing with a perimeter of the medium encapsulated such that the perimeter is not in a direct stream of fluid flow, or (claim 10) applying one or more glue beads across the pleated filter element to maintain pleats formed in the pleated filter element or (claim 11) forming the pleated filter element into a cylindrical shape; applying a first end cap to a first end of the cylindrically shaped pleated filter element; and applying a second end cap to a second end of the cylindrically shaped pleated filter element.
However Tronto discloses a pleated filter cartridge comprising an ePTFE laminate, wherein the filter media is pleated, then glue is applied to the ends to form ends caps; C3/L1-15, Example 1.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Potz in view of Gebert by forming the pleated filter element into a cylindrical shape and applying glue to both the ends of the pleats to form end caps as discleod by Tronto because this involves use of known technique (rolling and sealing the ends of a pleated filter with glue) to improve similar devices/methods in the same way (forming it into a functional filter element). This result in a filter element where said medium is assembled into an external casing with a perimeter of the medium encapsulated such that the perimeter is not in a direct stream of fluid flow as claimed.
The glue end caps are seen broadly to be formed from one or more glue beads, and would function to maintain the pleats formed in the pleated filter media.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/Magali P Slawski/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773