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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 8th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 18-41 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims and the Abstract have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 8th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yu does not disclose that the first layer and the second layer can be bound by physical entanglement between fibers of the first layer and fibers of the second layer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Yu teaches that the first layer and the second layer may be formed into a composite article by a wet-laid process (¶0140 “For example, in some cases, two layers are formed into a composite article by a wet-laid process as described above, and the composite article is then combined with a third layer by any suitable process (e.g., lamination, co-pleating, or collation).”). Joining the two layers to form a composite article would result in the physical entanglement of the two fibers and therefore reads on the claim.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Higginson in order to remedy the deficiencies of Yu regarding the z-directional tensile strength as Higginson does not teach a measurement of bond strength when the two layers are bound by the physical entanglement between fibers of the first layer and the second layer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Higginson teaches that an internal bond strength between the two layers of filter media of greater than or equal to 1.10 psi is suitable to ensure that the filter media remains intact when it is used in its application (¶0183). Although Higginson teaches the use of an adhesion rather than physical entanglement, this does not teach away from the internal bond strength necessary for the layers of filter media to remain intact. The teachings of Higginson were relied upon to establish a suitable range of internal bond strength for a multilayer filter media regardless of the bonding method of said layers. Additionally, where 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 MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range as Higginson teaches that a z-directional tensile strength of 1.10 psi is suitable to ensure that the layers of the filter media remain intact during filtration. For these reasons, the rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 8th, 2025 have been maintained. However, with the amendments made to claim 1 and in order to further clarify the previous rejection, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Yu, and further in view of Higginson.
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.
Claims 1-16, 18-28 and 30-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0341290 to Yu et al. (hereinafter referred to as Yu), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0368654 to Higginson et al. (hereinafter referred to as Higginson).
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a filter media (Fig. 1, fiber web 10) comprising: a first layer comprising first fibers (Fig. 1, first layer 15); and a second layer comprising second fibers (Fig. 1, second layer 20); and wherein the first fibers of the first layer comprise synthetic fibers in an amount of at least 50 wt.% based on total weight of the fibers in the first layer (¶0070 “In some embodiments, the weight percentage of synthetic fibers in the first layer of the fiber web may be … greater than or equal to about 50 wt.%”), the second fibers of the second layer comprise cellulosic fibers in an amount of at least 30 wt.% based on total weight of the fibers in the second layer (¶0060 “In some embodiments, the weight percentage of cellulose fibers in the second layer of the fiber web may be … greater than or equal to about 30 wt%”), the first layer is joined to the second layer with an interface between the first layer and the second layer comprising a mixture of the first fibers and the second fibers (¶0140 “For example, in some cases, two layers are formed into a composite article by a wet-laid process as described above, and the composite article is then combined with a third layer by any suitable process (e.g., lamination, co-pleating, or collation).”). Yu additionally teaches wherein the first fibers and second fibers are joined through physical entanglement (¶0140 “For example, in some cases, two layers are formed into a composite article by a wet-laid process as described above, and the composite article is then combined with a third layer by any suitable process (e.g., lamination, co-pleating, or collation).” ; Joining the two layers to form a composite article would result in the physical entanglement of the two fibers). Yu does not teach a z-directional tensile strength (zdt) across the first layer and the second layer in the absence of a secondary adhesive is at least 0.5 psi.
However, Higginson teaches a multilayer filter media (Fig. 2) with an internal bond strength between two layers that is greater than or equal to 500 g/in2 (¶0183 “For instance, an adhesive may adhere two layers together with a bond strength of … greater than or equal to 500 g/in2” ; 500 g/in2 is equal to approximately 77.5 g/cm2, which is equal to approximately 1.10 psi), wherein the internal bond strength is a measure of z-directional tensile strength (¶0185 “The bond strength between two layers may be determined by using a z-directional peel strength test.”).
Yu and Higginson are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multilayer filter media for use in various applications (e.g., for filtering air, water, or oil). Although Higginson teaches that the multiple layers are attached using an adhesive, Yu teaches that the multiple layers may be attached either with an adhesive or using other suitable techniques (¶0097 “Different layers may be adhered together by any suitable method. For instance, layers may be adhered by an adhesive and/or melt-bonded” ; ¶0140 “For example, in some cases, two layers are formed into a composite article by a wet-laid process as described above, and the composite article is then combined with a third layer by any suitable process (e.g., lamination, co-pleating, or collation).”), suggesting that the bonding strength between the layers will be similar using a technique other than using an adhesive. Higginson suggests that the internal bond strength between the two layers of greater than or equal to 1.10 psi is suitable to ensure that the filter media remains intact when it is used in its application (See Higginson ¶0183). Therefore, because the filter materials of Higginson and Yu are used for similar applications it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art that an internal bond strength (z-directional tensile strength) across the first and second layers to be greater than or equal to 1.10 psi to ensure that the layers of the filter media remain intact during filtration. Furthermore, where 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 MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range as Higginson teaches that a z-directional tensile strength of 1.10 psi is suitable to ensure that the layers of the filter media remain intact during filtration.
Regarding claim 2, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the first layer is joined to the second layer by physical entanglement between the first fibers and the second fibers (¶0018 “In some embodiments, fiber web 10 includes a clear demarcation between the first and second layers … In such embodiments, the first and second layers may be formed separately, and combined by any suitable method such as lamination, collation, or by use of adhesives.”).
Regarding claim 3, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the synthetic fibers have an average fiber diameter of greater than 10 microns (¶0073 “In some embodiments, the non-fibrillated synthetic fibers may have an average diameter of … greater than or equal to about 10 microns”).
Regarding claim 4, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the first fibers of the first layer comprise the synthetic fibers in an amount of at least 70 wt.% based on total weight of the fibers in the first layer (¶0070 “In some embodiments, the weight percentage of synthetic fibers in the first layer of the fiber web may be … greater than or equal to about 70 wt.%”).
Regarding claim 5, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the first fibers of the first layer comprise the synthetic fibers in an amount of at least 90 wt.% based on total weight of the fibers in the first layer (¶0070 “In some embodiments, the weight percentage of the synthetic fibers in the first layer of the fiber web may be … greater than or equal to about 90 wt%”).
Regarding claim 6, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the second fibers of the second layer comprise the cellulosic fibers in an amount of at least 50 wt.% based on total weight of the fibers in the second layer (¶0060 “In some embodiments, the weight percentage of cellulose fibers in the second layer of the fiber web may be … greater than or equal to about 50 wt%”).
Regarding claim 7, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the second fibers of the second layer comprise the cellulosic fibers in an amount of at least 70 wt.% based on total weight of the fibers in the second layer (¶0060 “In some embodiments, the weight percentage of cellulose fibers in the second layer of the fiber web may be … greater than or equal to about 70 wt.%”).
Regarding claim 8, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the synthetic fibers are selected from the group consisting of polyester fibers, PBT fibers, polyamide fibers, polypropylene fibers, polyvinyl alcohol fibers, and combinations thereof (¶0037 “A fibrillated fiber may be formed of any suitable materials such as synthetic materials (.e.g, synthetic polymers such as polyester, polyamide, polyaramide”).
Regarding claim 9, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 8 above. Yu further teaches wherein the synthetic fibers are polyester fibers (¶0037 “A fibrillated fiber may be formed of any suitable materials such as synthetic materials (.e.g, synthetic polymers such as polyester”).
Regarding claim 10, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 9 above. Yu further teaches wherein the polyester fibers are polyethylene terephthalate fibers (¶0037 “A fibrillated fiber may be formed of any suitable materials such as synthetic materials (e.g., synthetic polymers such as … polyethylene terephthalate”).
Regarding claim 11, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 9 above. Yu further teaches wherein the polyester fibers are present in the first layer in an amount of at least 90 wt.% based on total weight of the fibers in the first layer (¶0037 “A fibrillated fiber may be formed of any suitable materials such as synthetic materials (.e.g, synthetic polymers such as polyester” ; ¶0070 “In some embodiments, the weight percentage of the synthetic fibers in the first layer of the fiber web may be … greater than or equal to about 90 wt%”).
Regarding claim 12, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 9 above. Yu further teaches wherein the first layer comprises binder fibers, and the binder fibers are present in an amount of no greater than 25 wt.% based on total weight of the fibers in the first layer (¶0076 “In some embodiments, non-fibrillated synthetic fibers may be binder fibers.” ; ¶0081 “In embodiments in which the fiber web includes at least first and second layers … the weight percentage of non-fibrillated synthetic fibers in each of the layers may also vary. … In some embodiments, the weight percentage of non-fibrillated synthetic fibers in the first layer of the fiber web may be … less than or equal to about 20 wt%”).
Regarding claim 13, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 12 above. Yu further teaches wherein the binder fibers comprise polyvinyl alcohol fibers (¶0068 “As described herein, the synthetic fibers may be fibrillated or non-fibrillated. … Examples of suitable non-fibrillated synthetic fibers include … polyvinyl alcohol” ; ¶0081 “In embodiments in which the fiber web includes at least first and second layers … the weight percentage of non-fibrillated synthetic fibers in each of the layers may also vary. … In some embodiments, the weight percentage of non-fibrillated synthetic fibers in the first layer of the fiber web may be … less than or equal to about 10 wt%”).
Regarding claim 14, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the second layer comprises a second binder resin (¶0088 “In some embodiments, the fiber web may include a binder resin.”).
Regarding claim 15, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 14 above. Yu further teaches wherein the second binder resin is selected from the group consisting of phenolic binder resins, latex binder resins, and acrylic binder resins (¶0088 “For example, the binder resin may comprise a thermoplastic (e.g., acrylic, polyvinylacetate, polyester, polyamide), a thermoset (e.g., epoxy, phenolic resin), or a combination thereof.”).
Regarding claim 16, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 14 above. Yu further teaches wherein a binder resin is present in the second layer (¶0088 “In some embodiments, the fiber web may include a binder resin.”), wherein the binder resin is present in the fiber web in varying amounts (¶0089 “The amount of binder resin in a fiber web may vary. For example, the weight percentage of binder resin in the fiber web may be between 0 and 45 wt%.”). Yu does not explicitly teach wherein the second binder resin is present in the second layer in an amount between 10 and 30 wt.% based on total weight of the second layer. However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP § 2144.05(I)), therefore it would have been obvious to select a weight percentage of the binder resin present in the second layer within the claimed range. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the binder resin amount based on the strength needed (dependent upon the use of the filter material). Where 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 MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 18, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 14 above. Yu further teaches wherein the second binder resin is a phenolic binder resin (¶0088 “For example, the binder resin may comprise a thermoplastic (e.g., acrylic, polyvinylacetate, polyester, polyamide), a thermoset (e.g., epoxy, phenolic resin), or a combination thereof.”).
Regarding claim 19, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 14 above. Yu further teaches wherein a binder resin is present in the second layer (¶0088 “In some embodiments, the fiber web may include a binder resin.”), wherein the binder resin is present in the fiber web in varying amounts (¶0089 “The amount of binder resin in a fiber web may vary. For example, the weight percentage of binder resin in the fiber web may be between 0 and 45 wt%.”). Yu does not explicitly teach wherein the second binder resin is present in the second layer in an amount between 20 and 30 wt.% based on total weight of the second layer. However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP § 2144.05(I)), therefore it would have been obvious to select a weight percentage of the binder resin present in the second layer within the claimed range. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the binder resin amount based on the strength needed (dependent upon the use of the filter material). Where 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 MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 20, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the cellulosic fibers are selected from the group consisting of kraft pulp fibers, sulfite pulp fibers, chemically treated fibers, mechanically treated pulp fibers, chemi-thermo mechanically treated pulp fibers, non-woody cellulosic fibers, regenerated cellulosic fibers, and combinations thereof (¶0037 “A fibrillated fiber may be formed of any suitable materials such as … regenerated cellulose” ; ¶0042 “It should be understood that, in certain embodiments, the fibrillated fibers may have compositions other than those described above. For example, suitable compositions may include … cellulose wood, cellulose non-wood”).
Regarding claim 21, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the first layer comprises cellulosic fibers in an amount of no more than 20.0 wt.% based on total weight of the first fibers of the first layer (¶0059 “In some embodiments, the weight percentage of cellulose fibers in the first layer of the fiber way may be … less than or equal to about 20 wt%”).
Regarding claim 22, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the first layer comprises cellulosic fibers in an amount of no more than 10.0 wt.% based on total weight of the first fibers of the first layer (¶0059 “In some embodiments, the weight percentage of cellulose fibers in the first layer of the fiber way may be … less than or equal to about 10 wt%.”).
Regarding claim 23, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the second layer comprises at least one groove (¶0141 “In some embodiments, further processing may involve pleating the fiber web … In some cases, the fiber web, or various layers thereof, may be suitably pleated” ; The pleats of Yu read on the “groove” as required by claim 23).
Regarding claim 24, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein a weight ratio between the first layer and the second layer is in the range of between 20:80 and 80:20 (¶0156 “b. Sample 2: Second layer:first layer basis weight ratio of 1:2”).
Regarding claim 25, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the filter media further comprises at least one subsequent layer comprising subsequent fibers selected from the group consisting of synthetic fibers, cellulosic fibers, and combinations thereof (¶0017 “It should be appreciated that while Fig. 1 shows only first and second layers, other layers may be present in other embodiments. For example, a fiber web may include a third layer … Moreover, it should be appreciated that any additional layers (e.g., a third layer, a fourth layer, etc.) may have any of the features or properties described herein for the first or second layers.”).
Regarding claim 26, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 25 above. Yu does not teach wherein the subsequent fibers comprise synthetic nanofibers. However, Higginson teaches the use of nanofibers to increase the filtration performance (¶0002 “Some filter media include layers comprising nanofibers that increase the filtration performance of the filter media.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter media as taught by Yu to further include the nanofibers as taught by Higginson, in order to improve the filtration performance of the filter media.
Regarding claim 27, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the filter media further comprises at least one additional layer laminated to the filter media (¶0140 “For example, in some cases, two layers are formed into a composite article by a wet laid process as described above, and the composite article is then combined with a third layer by any suitable process (e.g., lamination”).
Regarding claim 28, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 27 above. Yu further teaches wherein the at least one additional layer is laminated to the first layer of the filter media (¶0017 “For example, a fiber web may include a third layer positioned directly adjacent the first layer” ; ¶0140 “For example, in some cases, two layers are formed into a composite article by a wet laid process as described above, and the composite article is then combined with a third layer by any suitable process (e.g., lamination”).
Regarding claim 30, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the filter media has a Mullen burst strength of greater than 20 psi (¶0115 “In some embodiments, the Mullen burst strength for the fiber web may … greater than 30 psi”) and wherein the filter media may be used as an oil filter (¶0144 “In some embodiments, fiber webs used as filter media can be incorporated into a variety of filter elements for use in various filtering applications. Exemplary types of filters include … oil filters”). Yu does not explicitly teach that the filter media has a hot oil burst strength of at least 20 psi after exposure to oil at 140⁰C for 500 hours. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the required burst strength may vary depending upon the application of such a filter. If the filter is to be used as an oil filter in an engine, it would require sufficient burst strength at high temperature for an extended period of time to prevent the filter media from failing in such conditions. Where 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 MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 31, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu does not disclose the filtration endurance index of the filter media. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the required endurance index may vary depending upon the application of such a filter. If the filter is to be used as an oil filter in an engine, it would require sufficient endurance at high temperature for an extended period of time to prevent the filter media from failing in such conditions. Where 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 MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 32, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein the filter media does not contain a mechanical support layer (Fig. 1 depicts an embodiment with two layers, no mechanical support layer is present).
Regarding claim 33, Yu teaches a filter element comprising the filter media as taught by Yu and Higginson in claim 1 above (Yu ¶0093 “Fiber webs described herein may be used in an overall filtration arrangement or filter element.”).
Regarding claim 34, Yu and Higginson teach the filter element as applied to claim 33 above. Yu further teaches wherein the filter media is pleated (¶0141 “In some cases, the fiber web, or various layers thereof, may be suitably pleated”).
Regarding claim 35, Yu and Higginson teach the filter element as applied to claim 33 above. Yu further teaches wherein the filter media is corrugated (¶0142 “In some embodiments, a fiber web can be post-processed such as subjected to a corrugation process”).
Regarding claim 36, Yu teaches a process for producing the filter media as taught by Yu and Higginson in claim 1, comprising the steps of: forming a first fibrous slurry comprising the first fibers and a first solvent (¶0132 “In certain embodiments, two or more layers are formed by a wet laid process. For example, a first dispersion (e.g., a pulp) containing fibers in a solvent”); forming a second fibrous slurry comprising the second fibers and a second solvent (¶0132 “A second dispersion (e.g., another pulp) containing fibers in a solvent”); transferring the first fibrous slurry to a first headbox zone while simultaneously transferring the second fibrous slurry to a second headbox zone (¶0135 “In other cases, two or more different slurries may be pumped into separate headboxes to form different layers”) depositing the first fibrous slurry and the second fibrous slurry to a single continuous traveling forming belt wherein the first fibrous slurry is located on top of the second fibrous slurry (¶0135 “In other embodiments, a first layer can be formed and a second layer can be formed on top” ; ¶0137 “Fibers may then be collected on to a screen or wire at an appropriate rate using any suitable equipment, e.g., a fourdrinier, a roto-former, a cylinder, or an inclined wire fourdrinier.”); and applying a vacuum condition to the first fibrous slurry and the second fibrous slurry to remove at least a portion of the first solvent and/or the second solvent (¶0132 “Vacuum is continuously applied to the first and second dispersions of fibers during the above process to remove the solvent from the fibers”).
Regarding claim 37, Yu and Higginson teach the process as applied to claim 36 above. Yu further teaches wherein the first solvent comprises water (¶0132 “For example, a first dispersion (e.g., a pulp) containing fibers in a solvent (e.g., an aqueous solvent such as water)”).
Regarding claim 38, Yu and Higginson teach the process as applied to claim 36 above. Yu further teaches wherein the second solvent comprises water (¶0132 “A second dispersion (e.g., another pulp) containing fibers in a solvent (e.g., an aqueous solvent such as water)”).
Regarding claim 39, Yu and Higginson teach the process as applied to claim 36 above. Yu does not teach wherein the first headbox zone and the second headbox zone comprise separate compartments of a single headbox. However, the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Yu would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice and does not distinguish the instant application from the process as taught by Yu. Combining the two headbox components may be useful in a setting with limited space and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (V)(B).
Regarding claim 40, Yu and Higginson teach the process as applied to claim 36 above. Yu further teaches wherein the first headbox zone and the second headbox zone comprise separate headboxes operating in tandem (¶0135 “In other cases, two or more different slurries may be pumped into separate headboxes to form different layers”).
Regarding claim 41, Yu and Higginson teach the filter media as applied to claim 1 above. Yu further teaches wherein said filter media is manufactured using a wet-laid dual headbox method (¶0132 “In certain embodiments, two or more layers are formed by a wet laid process.” ; ¶0135 “In other cases, two or more different slurries may be pumped into separate headboxes to form different layers”).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu and Higginson as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0092639 to Harp et al. (hereinafter referred to as Harp).
Regarding claim 29, Yu and Higginson teaches the filter media as applied to claim 27 above. Yu further teaches wherein the fiber webs may be used as a fuel filter (¶0144 “In some embodiments, fiber webs used as filter media can be incorporated into a variety of filter elements for use in various filtering applications. Exemplary types of filters include … fuel filters (e.g., automotive fuel filters)”). Yu does not teach wherein the at least one additional laminated layer comprises a membrane formed of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE).
However, Harp teaches a multilayer composite that contains a filter media and a hydrophobic microporous membrane (Abstract “multilayer composite in which a nonwoven filter media layer is affixed to but separated from a hydrophobic microporous membrane”), wherein the hydrophobic microporous membrane comprises expanded polytetrafluoroethylene and is laminated to the fiber layer (¶0026 “In this exemplary embodiment, porous nonwoven filter media 10 is disposed adjacent to hydrophobic microporous membrane 11 (in this embodiment a film of ePTFE laminated to a fiber non-woven)”). Harp further teaches that the use of a hydrophobic microporous membrane allows for separation of water and particles with resistance to clogging (¶0007 “The present invention provides a multilayer composite in which a nonwoven filter media layer is affixed to but separated from a hydrophobic microporous membrane by a distance such that the multilayer porous composite provides effective separation of water and particulate with substantial resistance to clogging in new fuels with low interfacial tensions.”), particularly useful for use in newer fuels as they have a higher water content (¶0002 “As a consequence, new fuels often have higher water content, lower interfacial tension against water … The escalated water content in fuel … can reduce lubricity, thus causing damage. Furthermore, suspended particulates of a size from 4-20 microns and smaller can provide a significant source of abrasive wear.”).
Yu, Higginson, and Harp are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multilayer filter components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter media as taught by Yu and Higginson to include a membrane formed of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene in the additional laminated layer as taught by Harp to effectively separate water and particulates with an improved resistance to clogging. Furthermore, the use of such a membrane would prevent damage to the filter media when used in fuel filters and may increase the overall life span of the filter media.
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 RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights