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.
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 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al., US 2015/0330080 A1 (“Nielsen”).
Regarding claim 1:
Nielsen discloses that a filter media (Nielsen’s polymeric foam) comprising a filtration particle (Nielsen’s polymeric foam comprising stone fibers, which could be regarded as a type of particles that is significant longer than it is wide, Nielsen Fig. 1, [0036]), said filtration particle having an Al2O3 content of from 25 wt% to 65 wt% (Nielsen discloses an Al2O3 content of 12 wt% to 30 wt%, Nielsen [0038], Nielsen’s range overlapping the claimed range of 25-65% and thus support a prima facie case of obviousness; MPEP 2144.05(I), ) and a SiO2 content of less than 70 wt% (Neilsen discloses a SiO2 range of 25-50%, Nielsen [0037], falls within the claimed range of <70%) based on the weight of the filtration particle,
wherein the filtration particle comprises at least 5 wt% Na2O (Nielsen discloses up to 15 wt% Na2O, Nielsen Fig. 1, [0043m falling within the claimed range of at least 5%),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize Al2O3 content of 25-30% as taught by Nielsen as Nielsen’s overlap of range with the claimed invention and the lack of unexpected results show a skilled artisan to choose the noted subrange with an expectation of success.
For the limitation of “the filtration particle is in the form of a powder particle”:
While Nielsen uses the term “stone fibre”, Nielsen discloses its man-made citreous fibers (preferably stone fibres) has an average diameter of 2 to 7 micrometers, Nielsen [0063]. Additionally, Nielsen also discloses that at least some of its man-made vitreous fibres have a length less than 10 micrometers to favor the production of a foam with numerous small cells rather than fewer large cells, Nielsen [0035]. Those very short fibres of Nielsen are “powders” according to the published disclosure of the current invention (hereinafter “Spec.”). Where the Spec. states “filtration particle is in the form of a powder particle, the average diameter may be from 1 to 30 μm” Spec. [0091]. The Spec. also states that “Fiber” is a fibrous or filamentary structure having a high aspect ratio of length to diameter1, Spec. [0064]. Nielsen’s “very short fibres” with an average diameter of 2 to 7 micrometers, and a length of about 10 micrometers has a diameter consistent with applicant’s powder definition and an aspect ratio of length to diameter of about 1, which is not a “high aspect ratio of length to diameter”, Nielsen’s very short fibres are therefore “powders” according to the disclosure of the instant Spec.
Regarding claim 2:
Nielsen discloses that that the filter media of claim 1, wherein the filtration particle has an Al2O3 content of from 30 wt% to 40 wt% (Nielsen discloses an alumina content of 12 to 30 wt%, overlapping the claimed range and supporting a prima facie case of obviousness; MPEP 2144.05(I)). Nielsen Fig. 1, [0036].
Regarding claim 3:
Nielsen discloses that the filter media of claim 1, wherein the filtration particle has a SiO2 content of less than 60 wt%, or less than 50 wt% (Nielsen discloses a silica range of 25 to 50 wt%, falls within the claimed range). Nielsen Fig. 1, [0036].
Regarding claim 4:
Nielsen discloses that the filter media of claim 1, wherein the filtration particle comprises at least 10 wt% Na2O, or at least 15 wt% Na2O (Nielsen discloses a Na2O of a range of up to 15 wt%, overlapping the claimed range and supporting a prima facie case of obviousness; MPEP 2144.05(I)). Nielsen Fig. 1, [0036].
Regarding claim 5:
Nielsen discloses that the filter media of claim 1, wherein the filtration particle has a mass ratio of silicon to aluminum (Si/Al) of from 0.6 to 4, or from 0.7 to 3.5, or from 0.8 to 1.5 (based on Nielsen’s wt% of Al2O3 being 30 wt%, and SiO2 being 25 wt%, and molar mass of Al2O3 being 102 g/mole, SiO2 being 60 g/mole, molar mass of Al being 27 g/mole and Si being 28 g/mole, one can calculate a mass ratio of silicon to aluminum being 0.68, which falls within the range of 0.6 to 4). Nielsen Fig. 1, [0036].
Regarding claim 6:
Nielson discloses that the filter media of claim 1, wherein the filtration particle is an alkali-treated filtration particle (Nielson discloses its foam composite could comprise a fire retardant such as magnesium hydroxide, which is an alkali, and therefore read on the alkali-treated filtration particle). Nielson Fig. 1, [0076].
Regarding claim 7:
Nielson discloses that the filter media of claim 1, further comprising matrix fibers selected from one or more of cellulose fibers, polymeric fibers, glass fibers and fibrillated fibers (Nielson discloses its fibers present in the polymeric foam could be stone fibers or any type of man-made vitreous fibers, including glass fibers). Nielson Fig. 1, [0120].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson in view of Osterhoudt, US 2010/0326928 A1 (“Osterhoudt”).
Regarding claim 8:
Nielson does not disclose that the filter media of claim 7, wherein the matrix fibers are at least partially coated with nanoalumina. Nielson discloses a high level of alumina in fibres can act as a catalyst. Nielson [0058].
Similar to Nielson, Oosterhout discloses a filter media. Oosterhout [0022]. Similar to Oishi, Oosterhout discloses its filter media comprises fiber structures (Oosterhout’s microglass fiber 34) Oosterhout [0052]. Oosterhout discloses its microglass fiber 34 is coated with nanoalumina. Oosterhout [0052]. Oosterhout discloses its nanoalumina fibers resulting from exposed Al))) ions on the surface of the fibers, which are electro-positive, and allowing its filter media to remove negatively charged microorganisms such as bacterial and viruses. Oosterhout [0051]. It would have been obvious to include Oosterhout’s nanoalumina on Nielson’s stone fibers for the benefits of removing viruses and bacteria.
Claims 9–11 and 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson in view of Chavanne et al., US 2013/0081992 A1 (“Chavanne”).
Regarding claim 9:
Nielson does not disclose that the filter media of claim 1, which is configured for use as a pre-filter of a second filter media.
Similar to Nielson, Chavanne discloses a layer 46 comprising polyurethane and glass fibers. Chavanne [0030]. Chavanne discloses its layer 46 is configured to use as a prefilter. Chavanne Fig. 1, [0030]. Chavanne also discloses a second filter media 47. Chavanne Fig. 1, [0031]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Nielson’s polymeric foam as prefilter material of a second filter media as disclosed by Chavanne because a polyurethan foam is known in art as being suitable for pre-filter materials.
Regarding claim 10:
Nielson does not disclose that the filter media of claim 1, which has a mean flow pore size of less than 3 µm, or less than 2.5 µm, measured according to ASTM 316-03.
However, Chavanne discloses its first frame made of polyurethane and glass fiber could filter particles greater than 0.2-micron size, which means the pores of Chavanne’s filter 46 is less than 0.2 microns, which is well within the claimed range of less than 2.5 microns. Chavanne Fig. 1, [0030]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Nielson’s filter media to have a mean flow pore size as disclosed by Chavanne because polyurethane comprising glass fibers are known in the art with an average pore size of less than 0.2 microns. While Chavanne does not disclose its pore size is measured according to ASTM 316-03, ASTM 316-03 is standard method used to measure pore size, and the instant disclosure does not demonstrate any novelty in pore diameter measured by such method. Additionally, the prior art reference of Chavanne discloses a pore diameter much smaller than the upper limit of 2.5 microns. Even if one take into account a possible error margin introduced by the pore measuring method, the pore range disclosed by Chavanne would still likely fall within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11:
Nielson does not disclose that the filter media of claim 1, which has a gravity flow of less than 200 s/500 mL, or less than 150 s/500 mL.
However, Chavanne discloses a flow rate of 5-250 ml/min (250 ml/min converts to 120s/500 ml), which falls within the claimed range. Chavanne Fig. 1, [0005]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Nielson to have a similar gravity flow rate because such flow rate is known in the art.
Regarding claim 19:
Nielson does not disclose that a method of removing a heavy metal from a fluid, the method comprising passing the fluid through the filter media of claims 1.
However, as discussed in claim 9, it would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Nielson’s polymeric foam as prefilter material of a second filter media as disclosed by Chavanne because a polyurethan foam is known in art as being suitable for pre-filter materials. And Chavanne’s filter is configured as water filter for removal of heavy metals. Chavanne Fig. 1, [0006]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Nielson’s filter to be used in a process of removing heavy metals from a fluid as disclosed by Chavanne because such filter is known in the art as suitable for water filter used to remove heavy metals.
Regarding claim 21:
Nielson discloses that the method of claim 20, wherein the filter media of claim 1 is used as a pre-filter of a second filter media (this limitation has been addressed in claim 20).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson in view of Snyder, US 2014/0166572 A1 (“Snyder”).
Regarding claim 12:
Nielson does not disclose that the filter media of claim 1, which has a wet MD tensile strength of at least 3 lb/in, or at least 5 lb/in or at least 10 lb/in.
Similar to Nielson, Snyder discloses a filter media comprising fibers with alumina content and sodium oxide and polyurethane resin. Snyder [0059]. Additionally, Snyder discloses a wet MD tensile strength of 17 lb/in. Snyder [0123]. It would have been obvious for Nielson’s filter media to have a similar wet MD tensile strength because such MD tensile strength range is known in the art for polyurethane foam comprising alumina and sodium oxide.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson in view of Chen et al., US 2017/0239600 A1 (“Chen”).
Regarding claim 13:
Nielson does not disclose that the filter media of claim 1, wherein said filter media is compliant with NSF/ANSI 53.
Similar to Nielson, Chen’s water filter media comprises polyurethane, silica, alumina. Chen [0069] and [0072]. Additionally, Chen’s filter is compliance with NSF/ANSI 53. Chen [0015]. Chen discloses that NSF/ANSI 53 is issued by drinking water treatment unit joint committee. Chen [0005]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make Nielson’s filter media to comply with NSF/ANSI 53 such that Nielson’s filter could meet the standard of the drinking water treatment unit joint committee.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The applicant includes a further limitation of “wherein the filtration particle is in the form of a powder particle”. The applicant argues that Nielsen does not each a filtration particle in the form of powder, as recited in independent claim 1. The applicant argues that “substituting man-made vitreous fibres with a filtration particle in the form of a powder particle, as required by independent claim 1 would defeat the structural reinforcement function and destroy the intended operation of load bearing insulation panels taught by Nielsen, Applicant Rem. p. 7.
The examiner disagrees. As discussed in the rejection of Claim 1, Nielsen specifically points out “It is also preferred that at least some of the fibres, for example at least 0.5% or at least 1% by weight, have a length less than 10 micrometers. These very short fibres are thought to be able to act as nucleating agents in the foam formation process. The action of very short fibres as nucleating agents can favour the production of a foam with numerous small cells rather than fewer large cells.” Nielsen [0035]. Nielsen’s “very short fibres” are powders according to the disclosure provided in the instant Spec. And therefore, Nielsen teaches a filtration particle in the form of powder. There is no “substitution” necessary for Nielsen and using filtration particles in powder form would not defeat the structural reinforcement function as clearly stated in Nielsen.
Applicant’s other arguments regarding Nielsen being non-analogous and Nielsen’s insulation material is not a filter (Applciant Rem. ps. 7–8) have been addressed multiple times in previous correspondences. For the purpose of saving both parties’ time moving forward, those same responses are not repeated here. Please refer to previous correspondences for details.
Conclusion
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
1 The instant disclosure (“Spec.”) does not define the term “high”, however, the Spec. mentions a commercial product “lyocell”, which has a fiber diameter of 5 to 10 micrometers and a length from 5 mm to 100 mm, see lyocelll fiber diameter and length - Google Search. The examiner is interpreting “a high aspect ratio of length to diameter” consistent with a lyocell fibre.
Prosecution Insights