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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 48, 49, 51, 54-56, 58, and 59 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/21/2026.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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 60-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) in view of Schwandt et al. (WO 2017/034976).
Claims 60 and 62: Schwandt et al. teach a method of filtering particles from a fluid stream [0019] in a closed crankcase ventilation system [0014], the method comprising: placing a medium in the fluid stream (Fig. 1), the medium comprising: a seamless filtration component (Fig. 1, 114; Fig. 2, no seams are present); wherein the seamless filtration component comprises a plurality of bonded polymeric fibers [0027]; and wherein the seamless filtration component has a porosity from about 60% to about 95% [0033]; wherein the fluid stream has a temperature of up to about 150°C [0019, 0029]; thereby removing the particles from the fluid stream [0003, 0019].
Claim 61: the particles have an average diameter of 0.1um to 5um [0037, contaminants are oil droplets that have the diameter of from 0.4-2um].
Claim 63: the filter removes greater than 99% of particles as small as 0.3um at a pressure of 0.8kPa (i.e. “about 0.4kPa”).
Claim 64: the bonded polymeric fibers have an average diameter of from 1-30um [0007].
Claim 65: the bonded fibers include nylon [0015].
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 66, 67, 71, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwandt et al. (WO 2017/034976) and further in view of Little et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0234748).
Claim 66: Schwandt et al. teach that the fiber bicomponent or multicomponent fibers [0035] but not specifically that they have a “core-shell”, or better known in the art as a “core-sheath” structure.
Little et al. teach a CCV filter media comprising a bi-component fiber wherein they teach “The term "bi-component fiber" means a fiber having at least one thermoplastic binder polymer portion with a melting point and a second thermoplastic structural polymer portion with a different and higher melting point than the binder polymer portion. The physical configuration of these fibers is typically in a "side-by-side" or "sheath-core" structure.” [0014]
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious that the disclosure of “bicomponent” or “multicomponent” fibers in Schwandt et al. included the core-shell structure.
Claim 67: Schwandt et al. do not teach pore size.
In the analogous art of crankcase ventilation filter media, Little et al. teach that typica pore size of the loading layer – which is the fiber media filter of Schwandt et al. – is from 5 to 30 microns [0057].
Pore size is well-recognized in the art as a result effective variable that is optimized depending on the desired separation properties. Given that the materials are intended for the same purpose, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious that a pore size from 5-30um would be suitable for Schwandt et al.’s application. “[W]here 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 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 71: Schwandt et al. do not teach that the fibers are specifically hydrophobic or oleophilic.
In the analogous art of crankcase ventilation filter media, Little et al. teach that the media fibers comprise hydrophobic or oleophilic [0063].One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use hydrophobic or oleophilic fibers in Schwandt et al.’s filter media because it would allow for capture and/or removal of oil particles.
Claim 72: Schwandt et al. do not teach a percentage of fibers.
Little et al. teach that there are media fibers and binder fibers [0063]. The media fibers are the nylon fibers and the binder fibers is a secondary fiber in an amount of from 0.1-10 wt%.
Claims 68 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwandt et al. (WO 2017/034976) in view of Gerken et al. (US Pub. No. 20170225109).
Claims 68 and 69: Schwandt et al. do not teach multiple filter layer or that they are spaced.
Gerken et al. teach a filter unit for treating air flow comprising two filter media layers (Fig. 2, 12 and 18). The two filter media and separation allows for increased air flow through the filter media as there are at least two flow paths.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to provide a second filter media and position it spaced from first in order to increase the filtration capacity of Schwandt et al.’s filter device.
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwandt et al. (WO 2017/034976).
Claim 70: Schwandt et al. do not teach specific percentage amounts of fibers. However, they teach that the media comprises nylon filter media [0015]. There is no requirement that there be a combination of fibers wherein one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have reasonably concluded that all of the fibers could have been nylon fibers. Nylon is a polyamide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 pm.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights