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 Objections
Claims 26 and 27 are objected to because they use the status identifier “Previously Presented” when they should be labeled “Currently Amended.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 23 recites:
23. The filter media of claim 18, wherein first layer, the second layer, or both the first layer and the second layer further comprises a coating that increases oleophobicity of the layer. Emphasis added.
Claim 23 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “a coating” refers to the “coating” of claim 1. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the “coating” of claim 23 can refer to the “coating” of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 18, 20, 23, 26–28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harp, US 2008/0257153 A1 in view of Pacheco et al., US 5,376,273 in view of Karasawa et al., US 6,764,745 B1 and in further view of Scancarello et al., US 2017/0184086 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Harp teaches a gas permeable venting material 47, which reads on the claimed “filter media.” See Harp Fig. 1, [0021].
The body of the venting material 47 is porous, and therefore reads on the “layer of porous material.” See Harp Fig. 1, [0022]. The body of the venting material 47 comprises an embossed surface pattern 24 comprising a plurality of raised structures, which reads on the “patterned outer surface comprising a plurality of raised structures.” Id. at Figs. 2, 4, [0022], [0024]. Each raised structure has a height in the z-axis greater than 12 microns, which is within the claimed range of “a height in a range of 1 µm to 40 µm.” Id. at [0025].
A coating is disposed on the surface pattern 24, as claimed. See Harp [0031].
The hierarchical structure and the coating are configured to render the outer surface oleophobic, as claimed. See Harp [0031].
PNG
media_image1.png
659
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Harp differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the body of the venting material 47 comprising phase-inverted material comprising nanoscale nodules sized about 50 nm to 1000 nm.
But Harp teaches that the porous venting material 47 can be made from a porous polymeric membrane material of a polymer, such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). See Harm [0023]. The porous venting material 47 can also be constructed as a laminate with the porous venting material 47 supported by a backer material. Id. at [0032].
With this in mind, Pacheco teaches a membrane that can be made from PVDF and that can be used for gas filtration. See Pacheco abstract, col. 1, ll. 13–18. The membrane is a phase-inverted material because it is manfuactured using a solvent-casting technique. Id. at col. 8, ll. 37–53.1 The surface of the membrane comprises a series of nodules 52 that are “nanoscale” and sized “about 50 nm to 1000 nm,” as claimed, because the nodules 52 are less than 1 micron and can range down to the several tenths of a micron in diameter. See Pacheco Fig. 8, col. 3, ll. 62–66, col. 7, ll. 21–30. Pacheco further teaches that a serious problem during production of supported membranes is that the external or internal grid can delaminate from the membrane. Id. at col. 1, ll. 43–50. Pacheco solves this problem by supporting the membrane with a support that includes the same polymer, with the membrane having improved structural rigidity, chemical inertness and uniformity of thermal expansion and contraction. Id. at col. 1, ll. 53–59. It would have been obvious to use the membrane of Pacheco as the porous venting material 47 of Harp to provide a membrane material with improved structural rigidity, chemical inertness and uniformity of thermal expansion and contraction.
PNG
media_image2.png
819
896
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With this modification, the porous venting material 47 of Harp has a “hierarchical structure” comprising the nodules 52 of Pacheco (the “nanoscale nodules”) and the embossed surface pattern 24 of Harp (the “plurality of raised structures”), as claimed.
Harp as modified also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the receding contact angle of the embossed surface pattern 24 when in contact with a contaminant. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach “a receding contact angle that is 50° or greater when in contact with a contaminant,” as claimed.
But Harp teaches that the embossed surface pattern 24 is oleophobic with an AATCC Test method 118-2002 oil rating of at least 2. See Harp [0031]. Also, Scancarello teaches a porous lattice structure for fluid supply comprising a coating that renders the lattice structure oleophobic with a receding contact angle of at least 90° for non-polar liquids. See Scancarello [0063].
It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal receding contact angle of the embossed surface pattern 24 of Harp to provide the desired level of oleophobicity to the material. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed range of a receding contact angle that is 50° or greater when in contact with a contaminant, because the surface pattern 24 is coated so that it is oleophobic with Scancarello teaching that an oleophobic coating can provide a receding contact angle for non-polar fluids of at least 90°. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (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).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Harp as modified teaches that the surface pattern 24 would be expected to exhibit a roll-off angle of 35° or less when exposed to a liquid having a surface tension of 20 mN/m or greater, measured using a droplet size of 20 microns (claim 2) and the patterned surface in contact with a contaminant exhibits a contact angle that is at least 5° higher than the porous material without a patterned surface (claim 3), because the surface pattern 24 would have substantially the same structure as claimed. See MPEP 2112.01(I) (when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent).
Regarding claim 5, Harp as modified teaches the limitations of claim 27, as explained above.
Harp as modified differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the pattern solid fraction of the raised structures. Note that pattern solid fraction can be calculated using the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
80
327
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where s is the width of each raised structure and p is pitch, which is the center-to-center distance. See Spec. Fig. 3E, p. 10, ll. 1–17, p. 14, ll. 17–25.
But, as noted, it would have been obvious for the center-to-center distance (p) of the raised structures of Harp to be 2 to 20 microns. Also, Karasawa teaches that its protrusion portions 18 have a width A ranging from 1 to 10 microns. See Karasawa Fig. 3, col. 5, ll. 26–31. It would have been obvious for each raised structure of Harper to have a width (s) ranging from 1 to 10 microns, because this is a suitable dimension for protrusions used to create a liquid repellant surface on a substrate. With this modification, the raised structures of Harp would have a pattern sold fraction ranging from 0.05 to 5, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.8, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, Harp teaches that the porous material of the venting material 47 is a membrane. See Harp [0023].
Regarding claim 18, Harp as modified by Pacheco teaches that the membrane comprises a porous support that is partially exposed above a surface of the membrane. See Pacheco col. 2, ll. 7–12. The membrane reads on the “first layer” and the support reads on the “second layer of porous material disposed on the first layer.”
Regarding claim 20, Harp as modified by Pacheco teaches the membrane (the “first layer”) comprises a phase inverted material because it is manfuactured using a solvent-casting technique. See Pacheco col. 8, ll. 37–53. Also, the support (the “second layer”) comprises polymeric fibers. Id. at col. 2, ll. 7–12, col. 11, ll. 19–20.
Regarding claim 23, Harp layer of porous material of the venting material 47 further comprises a coating that increases oleophobicity of the layer. See Harp [0031]. This coating would be applied to the membrane material of Pacheco when it is used to manufacture the porous material of Harp. The coating would be applied to at least one of the membrane (the “first layer”) or support (the “second layer”) of Pacheco because the support can be positioned above one surface of the membrane. See Pacheco col. 2, ll. 7–12.
Regarding claim 26, Harp teaches a vent body 42, which reads on the claimed “venting apparatus.” See Harp Fig. 1, [0032].
The vent body 42 comprises an opening (covered by venting material 47) configured to vent an enclosure 32, as claimed. See Harp Fig. 2, [0022].
The vent body 42 further comprises a venting material 47 affixed within the vent body 42, and forming a liquid-tight, gas-permeable seal of the opening. See Harp Fig. 1, [0021]–[0022]. The venting material 47 reads on the “venting element.” The venting material 47 comprises a porous material, as claimed. Id. at [0022]. The venting material 47 also comprises an embossed surface pattern 24 comprising a plurality of raised structures, which reads on the “patterned outer surface comprising a plurality of raised structures.” Id. at [0022], [0024]. Each raised structure has a height in the z-axis grater than 12 microns, which is within the claimed range of “a height in a range of 1 µm to 40 µm.” Id. at [0025].
A coating is disposed on the surface pattern 24, as claimed. See Harp [0031].
The hierarchical structure and the coating are configured to render the outer surface oleophobic, as claimed. See Harp [0031].
PNG
media_image1.png
659
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Harp differs from claim 26 because it is silent as to the body of the venting material 47 comprising phase-inverted material comprising nanoscale nodules.
But Harp teaches that the porous venting material 47 can be made from a porous polymeric membrane material of a polymer, such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). See Harm [0023]. The porous venting material 47 can also be constructed as a laminate with the porous venting material 47 supported by a backer material. Id. at [0032].
With this in mind, Pacheco teaches a membrane that can be made of PVDF and that can be used for gas filtration. See Pacheco abstract, col. 1, ll. 13–18. The PVDF membrane is a phase-inverted material because it is manfuactured using a solvent-casting technique. Id. at col. 8, ll. 37–53.2 The surface of the membrane comprises a series of nodules 52 that are “nanoscale” and sized “about 50 nm to 1000 nm,” as claimed, because the nodules 52 are less than 1 micron and can range down to the several tenths of a micron in diameter. See Pacheco Fig. 8, col. 3, ll. 62–66, col. 7, ll. 21–30. Pacheco further teaches that a serious problem during production of supported membranes is that the external or internal grid can delaminate from the membrane. Id. at col. 1, ll. 43–50. Pacheco solves this problem by supporting the membrane with a support that includes the same polymer, with the membrane having improved structural rigidity, chemical inertness and uniformity of thermal expansion and contraction. Id. at col. 1, ll. 53–59. It would have been obvious to use the membrane of Pacheco as the porous venting material 47 of Harp to provide a membrane material with improved structural rigidity, chemical inertness and uniformity of thermal expansion and contraction.
PNG
media_image2.png
819
896
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With this modification, the porous venting material 47 of Harp has a “hierarchical structure” comprising the nodules 52 of Pacheco (the “nanoscale nodules”) and the embossed surface pattern 24 of Harp (the “plurality of raised structures”), as claimed.
Harp also differs from claim 26 because it is silent as to the center-to-center spacing between pairs of raised structures. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach this spacing being in a range of 1 to 100 microns, as claimed.
But the surface pattern 24 is provided to prevent residual liquid droplets from remaining on the vent material 47 to prevent the pores from being restricted to thereby retain the gas permeability of the material 47. See Harp [0001], [0002].
With this in mind, Karasawa teaches a water repellant material comprising a substrate 11 with a patterned surface formed by irregularities comprising recess and protrusion portions 17, 18. See Karasawa Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 53–64. The irregularities create a liquid repellant surface by being dimensioned to prevent a droplet 21 from falling into a recess portion 17. Id. at col. 5, ll. 1–10. As such, each protrusion portion 18 has a width A of preferably 1 to 10 microns and each recess portion 17 has a width B of preferably 1 to 10 microns. Id. at Fig. 3, col. 5, ll. 11–35. This results in a center-to-center spacing between each pair of protrusions 18 being from 2 to 20 microns.
PNG
media_image4.png
976
930
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the raised structures of Harp to have a center-to-center spacing between 2 and 20 microns, because this is a suitable spacing to ensure that the surface pattern 24 is dimensioned to prevent residual liquid droplets from remaining on the material 47. The prior art range of 2 and 20 microns is within the claimed range of 1 to 100 microns.
Harp as modified also differs from claim 26 because it is silent as to the receding contact angle of the embossed surface pattern 24 when in contact with a contaminant. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach “a receding contact angle that is 50° or greater when in contact with a contaminant,” as claimed.
But Harp teaches that the embossed surface pattern 24 is oleophobic with an AATCC Test method 118-2002 oil rating of at least 2. See Harp [0031]. Also, Scancarello teaches a porous lattice structure for fluid supply comprising a coating that renders the lattice structure oleophobic with a receding contact angle of at least 90° for non-polar liquids. See Scancarello [0063].
It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal receding contact angle of the embossed surface pattern 24 of Harp to provide the desired level of oleophobicity to the material. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed range of a receding contact angle that is 50° or greater when in contact with a contaminant, because the surface pattern 24 is coated so that it is oleophobic with Scancarello teaching that an oleophobic coating can provide a receding contact angle for non-polar fluids of at least 90°. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (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).
Regarding claim 27, Harp teaches a method of manufacturing a venting material 47, which reads on the claimed “method.” See Harp Fig. 1, [0021], [0028].
The method comprises applying a pattered stamp (the claimed “stamp”) to a first side of a layer of porous material forming the body of the venting material 47 (the “porous material”) at a predetermined temperature and pressure to form a surface pattern 24 (the “patterned surface”) on the body of the porous material. See Harp [0022], [0029]. The surface pattern 24 corresponds to a negative of the pattern of raised structures on the stamp because the stamp is patterned to create the surface pattern 24 when the stamp is pressed onto the venting material 47. Id. at [0029]. Each raised structure of the surface pattern 24 has a height in the z-axis greater than 12 microns, which is within the claimed range of 1 to 40 microns. Id. at [0025].
The method also comprises applying a coating disposed on the surface pattern 24. See Harp [0031].
The hierarchical structure and the coating are configured to render the outer surface oleophobic, as claimed. See Harp [0031].
PNG
media_image1.png
659
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Harp differs from claim 27 because it is silent as to the body of the venting material 47 comprising phase-inverted material comprising nanoscale nodules.
But Harp teaches that the porous venting material 47 can be made from a porous polymeric membrane material of a polymer, such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). See Harm [0023]. The porous venting material 47 can also be constructed as a laminate with the porous venting material 47 supported by a backer material. Id. at [0032].
With this in mind, Pacheco teaches a PVDF membrane that can be used for gas filtration. See Pacheco abstract, col. 1, ll. 13–18. The PVDF membrane is a phase-inverted material because it is manfuactured using a solvent-casting technique. Id. at col. 8, ll. 37–53.3 The surface of the membrane comprises a series of nodules 52 that are “nanoscale” and sized “about 50 nm to 1000 nm,” as claimed, because the nodules 52 are less than 1 micron and can range down to the several tenths of a micron in diameter. See Pacheco Fig. 8, col. 3, ll. 62–66, col. 7, ll. 21–30. Pacheco further teaches that a serious problem during production of supported membranes is that the external or internal grid can delaminate from the membrane. Id. at col. 1, ll. 43–50. Pacheco solves this problem by supporting the membrane with a support that includes the same polymer, with the membrane having improved structural rigidity, chemical inertness and uniformity of thermal expansion and contraction. Id. at col. 1, ll. 53–59. It would have been obvious to use the membrane of Pacheco as the porous venting material 47 of Harp to provide a membrane material with improved structural rigidity, chemical inertness and uniformity of thermal expansion and contraction.
PNG
media_image2.png
819
896
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Harp also differs from claim 27 because it is silent as to the center-to-center spacing between pairs of raised structures. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach this spacing being in a range of 1 to 100 microns, as claimed.
But the surface pattern 24 is provided to prevent residual liquid droplets from remaining on the vent material 47 to prevent the pores from being restricted to thereby retain the gas permeability of the material 47. See Harp [0001], [0002].
With this in mind, Karasawa teaches a water repellant material comprising a substrate 11 with a patterned surface formed by irregularities comprising recess and protrusion portions 17, 18. See Karasawa Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 53–64. The irregularities create a liquid repellant surface by being dimensioned to prevent a droplet 21 from falling into a recess portion 17. Id. at col. 5, ll. 1–10. As such, each protrusion portion 18 has a width A of preferably 1 to 10 microns and each recess portion 17 has a width B of preferably 1 to 10 microns. Id. at Fig. 3, col. 5, ll. 11–35. This results in a center-to-center spacing between each pair of protrusions 18 being from 2 to 20 microns.
PNG
media_image4.png
976
930
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the raised structures of Harp to have a center-to-center spacing between 2 and 20 microns, because this is a suitable spacing to ensure that the surface pattern 24 is dimensioned to prevent residual liquid droplets from remaining on the material 47. The prior art range of 2 and 20 microns is within the claimed range of 1 to 100 microns.
Harp as modified also differs from claim 27 because it is silent as to the receding contact angle of the embossed surface pattern 24 when in contact with a contaminant. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach “a receding contact angle that is 50° or greater when in contact with a contaminant,” as claimed.
But Harp teaches that the embossed surface pattern 24 is oleophobic with an AATCC Test method 118-2002 oil rating of at least 2. See Harp [0031]. Also, Scancarello teaches a porous lattice structure for fluid supply comprising a coating that renders the lattice structure oleophobic with a receding contact angle of at least 90° for non-polar liquids. See Scancarello [0063].
It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal receding contact angle of the embossed surface pattern 24 of Harp to provide the desired level of oleophobicity to the material. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed range of a receding contact angle that is 50° or greater when in contact with a contaminant, because the surface pattern 24 is coated so that it is oleophobic with Scancarello teaching that an oleophobic coating can provide a receding contact angle for non-polar fluids of at least 90°. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (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).
Regarding claim 28, Harp as modified teaches the limitations of claim 27, as explained above.
Harp as modified differs from claim 28 because it is silent as to the pattern solid fraction of the raised structures. Note that pattern solid fraction can be calculated using the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
80
327
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where s is the width of each raised structure and p is pitch, which is the center-to-center distance. See Spec. Fig. 3E, p. 10, ll. 1–17, p. 14, ll. 17–25.
But, as noted, it would have been obvious for the center-to-center distance (p) of the raised structures of Harp to be 2 to 20 microns. Also, Karasawa teaches that its protrusion portions 18 have a width A ranging from 1 to 10 microns. See Karasawa Fig. 3, col. 5, ll. 26–31. It would have been obvious for each raised structure of Harper to have a width (s) ranging from 1 to 10 microns, because this is a suitable dimension for protrusions used to create a liquid repellant surface on a substrate. With this modification, the raised structures of Harp would have a pattern sold fraction ranging from 0.05 to 5, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.8, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 30, Harp teaches that the porous material of the venting material 47 is a membrane. See Harp [0023].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harp, US 2008/0257153 A1 in view of Pacheco et al., US 5,376,273 in view of Karasawa et al., US 6,764,745 B1 in view of Scancarello et al., US 2017/0184086 A1 and in further view of Klare, US 2001/0018096 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Harp as modified teaches that the venting material 47 (the “porous material”) has a pore size of 0.45 micron when using the porous membrane of Pacheco. See Pacheco col. 3, ll. 15–17. The prior art value of 0.45 micron is within the claimed range of at least 0.05 µm.
Harp as modified differs from claim 12 because it is silent as to the permeability of the venting material 47.
But Klare teaches a porous membrane that is used as a vent, where the membrane has a Frazier permeability of at least 0.1 CFM per square foot and an average pore size of 0.35 to 1.0. See Klare [0054], [0091], [0093. It would have been obvious for the venting material 47 of Harp to have a Frazier permeability of at least 1 CFM per square foot because this is a suitable a value for a material used as a vent.
Note that claim 12 is interpreted such that the limitations describing the structure of the porous material before it is patterned fail to further limit the scope of the claim, because claim 12 is to a filter media fter the porous material is patterned, with the structure before it is patterned describing part of the process by which the finished material is manfuactured. See MPEP 2113(I) (determination of patentability is based on the product itself).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harp, US 2008/0257153 A1 in view of Pacheco et al., US 5,376,273 in view of Karasawa et al., US 6,764,745 B1 in view of Scancarello et al., US 2017/0184086 A1 and in further view of Jessen et al., US 2017/0056828 A1.
Regarding claim 31, Harp as modified teaches the limitations of claim 27, as explained above.
Harp as modified differs from claim 31 because it is silent as to the stamp comprising a roll or a plate, with the step of applying the stamp to the layer of porous material comprising a roll-to-roll or roll-to-plate process.
But the stamp is used to emboss the surface pattern 24 on the porous material. See Harp [0029].
With this in mind, Jessen teaches a membrane comprising a textured surface that is applied using a roll-to-roll principle. See Jessen [0092]. The roll-to-roll process is beneficial because it allows for a single manufacturing line in an efficient and cost effective manner. Id.
It would have been obvious for the stamp of Harp to be a roll, with the step of applying the stamp to the layer of porous material comprising a roll-to-roll process to increase efficiency and reduce cost of the manufacturing process.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harp, US 2008/0257153 A1 in view of Pacheco et al., US 5,376,273 in view of Karasawa et al., US 6,764,745 B1 in view of Scancarello et al., US 2017/0184086 A1 and in further view of Bacino et al., US 2008/0257155 A1.
Regarding claim 32, Harp as modified teaches the limitations of claim 27, as explained above.
Harp as modified differs from claim 32 because it is silent as to the method comprising a step of applying a second stamp to a second side of the porous material, with the second stamp having a second patterned outer surface that corresponds to a negative of a second pattern comprising a plurality of raised structures.
But the surface pattern 24 is provided on a side of the venting material 47 to improve the liquid repellency of that side of the venting material 47. See Harp [0001]–[0002].
With this in mind, Bacino teaches a porous composite membrane that is used to ventilate a container to allow gas, but not liquid, to pass through. See Bacino [0001]. The composite membrane comprises a porous membrane 22, and both surfaces of the porous membrane 22 can be treated with a layer 24 to render each surface impermeable to liquid. Id. at Fig. 9, [0035].
It would have been obvious for each side of the venting material 47 of Harp to comprise the surface pattern 24 so that each side is impermeable to liquid. With this modification, it would have been obvious for a second stamp having a second patterned outer surface that corresponds to a negative second pattern comprising a plurality of raised structures to be used to apply the surface pattern 24 to the opposite side of the venting material 47, because a stamp with this configuration is used to apply the surface pattern 24 to the first surface. See Harp [0029].
Regarding claim 33, Harp as modified teaches the limitations of claim 27, as explained above.
Harp as modified differs from claim 33 because it is silent as to the method comprising a step of laminating a layer of porous material comprising a pattern of raised structures on the surface of the layer onto a second layer of porous material comprising a second pattern of raised structures on the surface of the second layer, resulting in a material comprising a pattern of raised structures on both major surfaces of the material.
But the surface pattern 24 is provided on a side of the venting material 47 to improve the liquid repellency of that side of the venting material 47. See Harp [0001]–[0002]. Also, Harp teaches that the pattern may be achieved by laminating the porous venting material 47 to another material. Id. at [0030].
With this in mind, Bacino teaches a porous composite membrane that is used to ventilate a container to allow gas, but not liquid, to pass through. See Bacino [0001]. The composite membrane comprises a porous membrane 22, and both surfaces of the porous membrane 22 can be treated with a layer 24 to render each surface impermeable to liquid. Id. at Fig. 9, [0035].
It would have been obvious for each side of the venting material 47 of Harp to comprise the surface pattern 24 so that each side is impermeable to liquid. With this modification, it would have been obvious to laminate two of the venting materials 47 to each other so that the resulting material has a surface pattern 24 on both major surfaces, because Harp suggests that lamination is a suitable technique for providing the patterned surface. See Harp [0030].
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harp, US 2008/0257153 A1 in view of Pacheco et al., US 5,376,273 in view of Karasawa et al., US 6,764,745 B1 in view of Scancarello et al., US 2017/0184086 A1 and in further view of Holden, US 3,100,721.
Regarding claim 37, Harp teaches that the body of the venting material 47 can be made from a material such as cellulose acetate or PVDF. See Harp [0023]. Also, while Pacheco is silent as to its membrane being made from cellulose acetate, the reference teaches that the membrane can be made from various polymers (see Pacheco col. 5, ll. 17–20) while the membrane can be made using the solvent-casting technique (a phase-inversion process) described in Holden (id. at col. 8, ll. 21–42). Also, Holden teaches that its technique can be used to make membranes from various polymers including cellulose acetate (see Holden col. 3, ll. 19–29, col. 4, ll. 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the venting material 47 of Harp to be made from cellulose acetate, as claimed, because Harp teaches cellulose acetate can be used to make the membrane while Pacheco teaches that its membrane can be made from various polymers with the technique of Holden, with Holden teaching that cellulose acetate is a suitable material.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harp, US 2008/0257153 A1 in view of Pacheco et al., US 5,376,273 in view of Karasawa et al., US 6,764,745 B1 in view of Scancarello et al., US 2017/0184086 A1 and in further view of Gahan et al., US 2002/0174869 A1.
Regarding claim 38, Harp as modified teaches that the coating can be a fluoropolymer, as claimed. See Harp [0031].
Harp as modified differs from claim 38 because it is silent as to the fluoropolymer comprising poly(2,2,3,3,4,4,4-heptafluorobutyl methacrylate).
But the coating is intended to make the patterned venting material oleophobic, and can be applied using several techniques known in the art. See Harp [0031].
With this in mind, Gahan teaches a filter media comprising a web that is coated with 2,2,3,3,4,4,4-heptafluorobutyl acrylate to make the web oleophobic. See Gahan [0044], [0047].
It would have been obvious for the oleophobic coating of Harp to comprise 2,2,3,3,4,4,4-heptafluorobutyl acrylate because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harp, US 2008/0257153 A1 in view of Pacheco et al., US 5,376,273 in view of Karasawa et al., US 6,764,745 B1 in view of Scancarello et al., US 2017/0184086 A1 and in further view of Brinduse et al., US 4,981,727.
Regarding claim 39, Harp as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Harp differs from claim 39 because it is silent as to the coating comprising a perfluoroether (PFPE) bottlebrush polymer.
But Brinduse teaches a perfluoroether polymer (VI or VII) that is useful as an oil repellent. See Brinduse col. 9, ll. 43–54. The perfluoroether polymers VI and VII are each bottlebrush polymers, as claimed, because they each contain a polyfluoropolyether backbone with side chains off of the backbone. Id. at col. 8, ll. 34–35, col. 9, l. 5.
It would have been obvious to use the perfluoroether polymer bottlebrush polymer of Brinduse as the oleophobic coating of Harp because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 See e.g. Sigel, US 6,537,577 B1, col. 8, ll. 19–26 (phase-inversion membranes are solvent-cast films)
2 See e.g. Sigel, US 6,537,577 B1, col. 8, ll. 19–26 (phase-inversion membranes are solvent-cast films)
3 See e.g. Sigel, US 6,537,577 B1, col. 8, ll. 19–26 (phase-inversion membranes are solvent-cast films)
