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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0306562 to Stifter et al. (hereinafter referred to as Stifter).
In regard to claim 1, as shown in figure 2 and discussed in paragraphs [0012] and [0026], Stifter discloses a filter media (10) having an outer upstream layer (14) and an inner downstream layer (12). The downstream layer (12) is shown to be corrugated and can be considered a corrugate self-supporting downstream layer, as broadly recited in the claim. As discussed in paragraphs [0012] and [0029], this layer consists of fibers having a mean fiber diameter of less than 3 microns. As discussed in paragraph [0047], the upstream layer (14) can have fibers with a diameter in the range of 1 to 20 microns. This range overlaps with the claimed range of less than 5 microns. The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549; In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). This upstream layer in modified Stifter can be considered a dust holding layer. As shown in figure 4, the upstream layer (14) is non-corrugated and coupled to peaks of the corrugated self-supporting downstream layer (12). It is noted that the different zones (164, 166, 168) are all part of the upstream layer (14).
In regard to claim 2, as discussed in paragraph [0029], the fibers of the corrugated self-supporting downstream layer (12) can be made of an electro-spinnable polymer.
In regard to claim 3, as discussed in paragraph [0034], the upstream layer (14) can be formed by fiberglass. Thus, the dust holding layer can be formed by glass fibers. In which case it is at least 80 % glass fibers.
In regard to claims 4 and 20, as discussed in paragraph [0034], the dust holding layer (14) can include polymer fibers from the recited group.
In regard to claims 5 and 6, Stifter does not specifically disclose the basis weight of any of the layers. Thus, Stifter does not disclose the basis weight of the upstream layer (14) to be in the range of 50 to grams per square meter (gsm), or the downstream layer to be in the range of 50 to 200 gsm. There is no evidence the basis weight of the upstream layer or the downstream layer is critical. A thicker layer can increase the basis weight of the layer. In general, a higher basis weight can increase the particle retention and strength of the media while having a higher flow restriction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose or optimize the basis weight of the upstream layer to be in the range of 50 to 100 gsm and the basis weight of the downstream layer to be in the range of 50 to 200 gsm given this allows for the desired particle retention in the upstream and downstream layers. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical, see In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934.
In regard to claims 7 and 8, Stifter does not specifically disclose the corrugation width or the corrugation depth of the downstream layer (12). There is no evidence the width or depth of the corrugations is critical. It is within the scope of a skilled artisan to form the corrugations to have a desired width and depth in order to form a desired size filter. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose or optimize the corrugation width to be between 3 and 15 mm, and the corrugation depth to be between 0.5 and 20 mm given this results in a desired size filter. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical, see In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934.
In regard to claim 10, the corrugated downstream layer (12) can be considered to exhibit a surface area increase in a range of 150% to 800% compared to a non-corrugated media, as the size of the non-corrugated media is not specified.
In regard to claim 11, the filter of Stifter includes all of the required structural limitations and is considered to be capable of having an initial pressure drop and filter efficiency as recited in the claim.
In regard to claim 12, Stifter includes a core (16) that can be considered an additional supporting layer that is connected downstream to the corrugated downstream layer (12). The core (16) is cylindrical to match the filter media (12, 14). As discussed in paragraph [0054], the filter cartridge of Stifter can also be formed to be flat or planar. Stifter, however, does not specifically disclose a planar supporting layer. Predictably, in the planar arrangement, a planar support layer would function similarly to the core to provide downstream support to the filter media. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stifter to include a planar support layer connected downstream to the corrugated downstream layer in order to be able to support the filter media in use in a planar configuration.
Claim 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stifter as applied to claims 1 – 8, 10 – 12, and 20 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0255473 to Gao et al. (hereinafter referred to as Gao).
Stifter is discussed above in section 3. In regard to claim 9, Stifter does not disclose any of the layers to be consolidated by chemical binders, thermoplastic binders, calendaring, ultrasonic activation, or a combination thereof. Gao discloses a similar media having upstream and downstream layers (20, 22). As discussed in paragraph [0046] of Gao, the layers can be consolidated by chemical binders, thermoplastic binders, or ultrasonic activation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stifter to consolidate the layers together using chemical binders, thermoplastic binders, or ultrasonic activation as these are known means in the art for connecting filter layers together.
In regard to claim 19, as discussed in paragraphs [0029] and [0032], the downstream layer of Stifter can be made from a polymer material, such as a nonwoven polypropylene material. Stifter does not specifically disclose forming the downstream layer with polyoxyethylene, polyvinyl alcohol,polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyldene fluoride, polyacrylonitrile, polycaprolactone, polyactid acid, polyethersulfone, polyurethane, polystyrene, polyamide, cellulose acetate, chitosan, silk fibroin, or collagen. As discussed in paragraphs [0065] – [0070], Gao discloses a similar downstream layer that can be formed of polypropylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, or polyacrylonitrile fibers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stifter to form the downstream layer from a material having polyvinylidene fluoride, or polyacrylonitrile fibers as these equivalently known materials for forming a filter layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments in regard to the Stifter reference. Applicant argues the upstream layer (14) in Stifter is not coupled to the peaks of the downstream layer (12). As shown in figure 4, the upstream layer (14) is non-corrugated and coupled to peaks of the corrugated self-supporting downstream layer (12). The different zones (164, 166, 168) are all part of the upstream layer (14), thus the upstream layer (14) is considered to be coupled to the peaks of the downstream layer (12).
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 Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
