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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dankovich et al (US 20230135711; hereinafter Dankovich) in view of WO 2020198428 (hereinafter WO ‘428) and further in view of Beplate (WO 2004098753; see English equivalent US 20040178135).
As regarding claim 1, Dankovich discloses the claimed invention for a filter media comprising: a substrate comprising meltblown and spunbond fibers ([0042], [0044] and claim 71) and nanoparticles disposed within the substrate ([0033]).
Dankovich does not disclose wherein the filter media has a MERV rating of at least about 16 and a pressure drop less than about 0.6 inches of water. WO ‘428 discloses wherein the filter media has a MERV rating of at least about 16 (table 1, pg 35) and a pressure drop less than about 0.6 inches of water (pg 34 ln 17-18). Both Dankovich and WO ‘428 are both directed to filtration element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the filter media has a MERV rating of at least about 16 and a pressure drop less than about 0.6 inches of water as taught by WO ‘428 in order to achieve high-efficiency particulate removal while maintaining low airflow resistance and energy consumption. Examiner notes that high filtration efficiency and low pressure drop can be achieved through optimization of fiber structure, porosity, and distribution of active materials within the media.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the filter media has a MERV rating of at least about 16 and a pressure drop less than about 0.6 inches of water in order to maintain high filtration performance under high-efficiency standards without imposing excessive pressure loss, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen pressure drops or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen pressure drops are critical and unexpected results.
Dankovich as modified does not disclose wherein the substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the nanoparticles are disposed within the substrate from the first surface throughout the substrate to the second surface. Beplate teaches wherein the substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the nanoparticles are disposed within the substrate from the first surface throughout the substrate to the second surface ([0047] and fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the nanoparticles are disposed within the substrate from the first surface throughout the substrate to the second surface as taught by Beplate in order to improve filtration efficiency, and help maintain lower pressure drop by avoiding clogging at single surface layer.
As regarding claim 15, Dankovich as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Dankovich as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the nanoparticles are isolated within a fluid and dispersed through a first surface of the substrate ([0033], [0042], [0044] and claim 71).
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dankovich et al (US 20230135711; hereinafter Dankovich) in view of WO 2020198428 (hereinafter WO ‘428) and Beplate (WO 2004098753; see English equivalent US 20040178135), as applied supra, and further in view of Chen et al (US 20220274040; hereinafter Chen).
As regarding claim 2, Dankovich as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Dankovich as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the MERV rating of the filter media is at least about 12 after IPA discharge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the MERV rating of the filter media is at least about 12 after IPA discharge in order to enhance filter media performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Chen ([0140]).
As regarding claim 3, Dankovich as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Dankovich as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the pressure drop is less than about 0.45 inches of water (WO ‘428, pg 34-35).
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al (US 20220152592; hereinafter Zeng) in view of Beplate (WO 2004098753; see English equivalent US 20040178135) and WO 2017008171 (hereinafter WO ‘171).
As regarding claim 16, Zeng discloses the claimed invention for a gas filter comprising: a filter media (abstract) comprising a substrate containing one or more glass fibers (title and abstract); nanoparticles ([0016] and fig. 1) disposed within the substrate.
Zeng does not disclose wherein the substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the nanoparticles are disposed within the substrate from the first surface throughout the substrate to the second surface.
Beplate teaches wherein the substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the nanoparticles are disposed within the substrate from the first surface throughout the substrate to the second surface ([0047] and fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the nanoparticles are disposed within the substrate from the first surface throughout the substrate to the second surface as taught by Beplate in order to enhance filter media performance.
Zeng as modified does not disclose wherein the gas filter has a MERV rating of 10 or greater and a pressure drop from the first surface to the second surface of about 0.31 or less inches of water. WO ‘171 teaches wherein the gas filter has a MERV rating of 10 or greater and a pressure drop from the first surface to the second surface of about 0.31 or less inches of water ([0029], [0074], [0086]-[0087], [0118], and [0209]). Both Zeng and WO ‘171 are directed to a filtration device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the gas filter has a MERV rating of 10 or greater and a pressure drop from the first surface to the second surface of about 0.31 or less inches of water as taught by WO ‘171 in order to achieve high-efficiency particulate removal.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the gas filter has a MERV rating of 10 or greater and a pressure drop from the first surface to the second surface of about 0.31 or less inches of water in order to maintain high filtration performance under high-efficiency standards without imposing excessive pressure loss, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen pressure drops or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen pressure drops are critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 17, Drolet as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Drolet as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the gas filter has a MERV rating is 13 or greater after the gas filter has been conditioned with ASHRAE Standard 52.2 (WO ‘171 - [0029]).
As regarding claim 19, Zeng as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Zeng as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein at least some of the nanoparticles are disposed within the substrate from the first surface to the second surface Beplate (fig. 3).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al (US 20220152592; hereinafter Zeng) in view of Beplate (WO 2004098753; see English equivalent US 20040178135) and WO 2017008171 (hereinafter WO ‘171), as applied supra, and further in view of Drolet et al (US 20180264386; hereinafter Drolet).
As regarding claim 20, Zeng as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Zeng as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the nanoparticles are isolated within a fluid and dispersed through a first surface of the nonwoven fiber substrate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the gas filter has a MERV rating of 10 or greater and a pressure drop from the first surface to the second surface of about 0.31 or less inches of water as taught by WO ‘171 in order to enhance gas filter performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Drolet ([0264] and [0322]).
Examiner notes that Berrigan et al (US 20100291213; hereinafter Berrigan) appears to teach a gas filter comprising: a filter media comprising a substrate containing one or more glass fibers ([0033], [0035], [0113]); nanoparticles (34, [0082]) disposed within the substrate; wherein the substrate comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the nanoparticles are disposed within the substrate from the first surface throughout the substrate to the second surface (fig. 1C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 15-17, and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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 L. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights