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
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1–9 and 12–15 in the reply filed on February 02, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the Applicant believes that a search and examination of all the claims would place no undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because examining all of the claims simultaneously would place an undue burden on the Examiner for the reasons stated in the Requirement for Election/Restriction dated August 01, 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 2 recites:
2. A filter media as in claim 1, wherein the filter media comprises a plurality of adsorbent particles disposed on the nonwoven fiber web. Emphasis added.
Claim 2 fails to further the limit the scope of claim 1 because claim 1 recites the italicized limitation of claim 2 in the last limitation of claim 1.
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.
Claims 4–6 and 13–15 are 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 4 recites:
4. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate and large cavities of the plurality of cavities together have an average area of less than or equal to 500 microns2. Emphasis added.
Claim 4 is indefinite because “the intermediate and large cavities” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites:
5. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein the large cavities of the plurality of cavities have an average area of less than or equal to 1300 microns2. Emphasis added.
Claim 5 is indefinite because “the large cavities” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites:
6. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein the matrix polymer comprises only polymer with a molecular weight of greater than 3 kDa. Emphasis added.
Claim 6 is indefinite because “the matrix polymer” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites:
13. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein the additional layer comprises a fiber web. Emphasis added.
Claim 13 is indefinite because “the additional layer” lacks antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, claim 13 could be amended to depend from claim 12.
Claim 14 recites:
14. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein the fiber web of the additional layer comprises a plurality of glass fibers. Emphasis added.
Claim 14 is indefinite because “the fiber web” and “the additional layer” lack antecedent basis. To overcome this rejection, claim 14 could be amended to depend from claim 13.
Claim 15 recites:
15. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein at least some adsorbent particles are disposed within the fiber web. Emphasis added.
Claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “some adsorbent particles” of claim 15 are part of the “plurality of adsorbent particles” of claim 1, or whether the “some adsorbent particles” could include particles that are different from the “plurality of adsorbent particles” of claim 1. To overcome this rejection, claim 15 could be rewritten as:
15. A filter media according to claim 1, wherein at least some of the adsorbent particles of the plurality of adsorbent particles are disposed within the fiber web.
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 1–5, 7, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders, US 2005/0006303 A1 in view of Fu et al., US 2014/0120322 A1 and in further view of Lee et al., US 2015/0225290 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Sanders teaches a filter media, which reads on the claimed “filter media.” See Sanders [0002].
The filter media comprises a web of thermoplastic fibers, which reads on the claimed “fiber web.” See Sanders [0032]. The web comprises a “plurality of surface cavities” because the fibers are etched using a plasma treatment. See Sanders [0025].
The web comprises thermoplastic fibers (“synthetic fibers”). See Sanders [0032]. The thermoplastic fibers can be air laid staple fibers. Id. at [0041].
The web has a developed interfacial area ratio greater than 0 because the etching process increases the surface area of the web. See Sanders [0026].
The web comprises activated carbon. See Sanders [0026]. While the reference is silent as to the activated carbon being in particulate form, Fu teaches a filter media comprising activated carbon particulates. See Fu [0059]. It would have been obvious for the activated carbon of Sanders to be activated carbon particulates because activated carbon is conventionally in particulate form. The activated carbon particulates of the web reads on “a plurality of adsorbent particles disposed on the fiber web” (claims 1 and 2).
Sanders differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the length of the thermoplastic fibers (the “synthetic fibers”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the thermoplastic fibers have an average length of less than or equal to 40 mm.
But, as noted, the thermoplastic fibers can be air laid staple fibers. See Sanders [0041]. With this in mind, Fu teaches a filter media comprising air laid staple fibers having a length of 3 to 52 mm. See Fu [0035]. It would have been obvious for the staple fibers of Sanders to have an average length of 3 to 52 mm because this is a suitable length for air laid staple fibers of a filter media. The prior art range of 3 to 52 mm overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 40 mm, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Sanders also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the exact dimensions of the developed interfacial area ratio of the web. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the web has a developed interfacial area ratio of greater than or equal to 0.1.
But the developed interfacial area ratio is a parameter that measures the additional surface area added by texture compared to an ideally flat, smooth plane. Also, a developed interfacial area ratio of greater than 0.1 means that the surface texture adds more than 10% additional surface area compared to an ideally smooth flat plane of the same projected footprint. In Sanders, the web is etched for the purpose of increasing the surface area of the fibers to allow for more area for particle entrapment. See Sanders [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the developed interfacial area ratio of the web to be at least 0.1 to ensure that the fibers have a sufficiently increased surface to allow for more area for particle entrapment to improve the effectiveness of the filter.
Sanders further differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the cross-dimensional frequency of the etched cavities on the web. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the cavities have an average cross-dimensional frequency of greater than or equal to 3,000 surface cavities per meter.
But the etched cavities are produced using a plasma etching process. See Sanders [0025]. Also, the magnified images of the fibers in Figs. 1–12 show that the cavities are not visible. With this in mind, Lee teaches a plasma etching process for the fibers of a filter media where the etching process creates nanopore cavities with the fiber having several cavities per micron, meaning that the frequency is greater than 3,000 cavities per meter along the length of an individual fiber. See Lee Fig. 3b, [0020], [0034].
PNG
media_image1.png
774
943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the etched cavities of Sanders to have a cross-dimensional frequency of greater than 3,000 cavities per meter because the cavities are produced by an etching process, and this type of etching technique conventionally results in more than 3,000 cavities per meter along the length of an etched fiber.
Regarding claim 3, Sanders teaches that the web is non-woven because it is airlaid. See Sanders [0041].
Regarding claim 4, Sanders is interpreted such that the etched cavities (the “plurality of cavities”) are not uniform in size because they are produced by a plasma etching technique that produces non-uniform cavities within a range (as evidenced by Lee [0034] teaching etched nanopores have a range of 1 to 1,000 nm). The intermediate sized cavities and a large cavities read on the “intermediate and large cavities.” Also, Lee teaches that the etched nanopores have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm (see Lee [0034]) and it would have been obvious for the etched cavities of Sanders to also have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm because the etched cavities are manufactured using a similar plasma etching technique. With this modification, the “intermediate” cavities of Sanders are interpreted as having an average diameter of 500 nm (0.5 micron) and the “large” cavities of Sanders are interpreted as having an average diameter of 1,000 nm (1 micron). The combined area of these cavities is around 1.77 microns2, which is within the claimed range of an average area of less than or equal to 500 microns2.
Regarding claim 5, Sanders is interpreted such that the etched cavities (the “plurality of cavities”) are not uniform in size because they are produced by a plasma etching technique that produces non-uniform cavities within a range (as evidenced by Lee [0034] teaching etched nanopores have a range of 1 to 1,000 nm). The large cavities read on the “large cavities.” Also, Lee teaches that the etched nanopores have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm (see Lee [0034]) and it would have been obvious for the etched cavities of Sanders to also have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm because the etched cavities are manufactured using a similar plasma etching technique. With this modification, the “large cavities” of Sanders is interpreted as having a diameter of 1,000 nm (1 micron). The average area of the large cavities is around 0.78 micron2, which is within the claimed range of less than or equal to 1300 micron2.
Regarding claim 7, Sanders as modified teaches that the plurality of adsorbent particles is a plurality of activated carbon particles, as claimed. See Sanders [0026].
Regarding claim 8, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Sanders as modified differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the adsorbent particles being at least partially disposed within the cavities of the fibers, as claimed. But Fu teaches a filter material comprising sorbent nanoparticles having a median diameter of less than 1 µm (1,000 nm), and as low as 0.001 µm (1 nm). See Fu [0123]–[0124]. The sorbent nanoparticles are beneficial because they provide high surface area for sorption of contaminants. Id. It would have been obvious to use the sorbent nanoparticles of Fu with the web of Sanders to provide a sorbent material with high surface area for sorption of contaminants. Also, Lee teaches that the etched nanopores have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm (see Lee [0034]), and it would have been obvious for the etched pores on the fibers in Sanders to have a diameter ranging from 1 to 1,000 nm because the etched cavities in Sanders are manufactured using a similar plasma etching process of Lee. With this modification, at least some of the nanoparticles would be expected to be at least partially disposed within the etched cavities of Sanders, as claimed, because some of the nanoparticles would have a smaller diameter than the diameter of the cavities.
Regarding claim 15, Sanders teaches that at least some adsorbent particles are disposed within the fiber web, because the activated carbon is internally melted. See Sanders [0026].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders, US 2005/0006303 A1 in view of Fu et al., US 2014/0120322 A1 in view of Lee et al., US 2015/0225290 A1 and in further view of Tseng et al., US 2021/0003801 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Sanders teaches that the web is made of thermoplastic fibers, with the thermoplastic material reading on the claimed “matrix polymer.” See Sanders [0032].
Sanders differs from claim 6 because it is silent as to the molecular weight of the thermoplastic polymer. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the thermoplastic polymer having a molecular weight of greater than 3 kDa, as claimed.
But Tseng teaches that the molecular weight of a thermoplastic polymer used to manufacture fibers of a filter material is result effective because molecular weight affects the spinnability of the fiber. See Tseng [0066]. As such, Tseng suggests that the molecular weight of a thermoplastic polymer should range from 5,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol (5 to 1,000 kDa). Id.
It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal molecular weight of the thermoplastic material of Sanders to optimize manufacturing of the fibers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed range of greater than 3 kDa, because Tseng teaches a thermoplastic polymer used to make fibers for a filter media having a molecular weight of 5 to 1,000 kDa.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders, US 2005/0006303 A1 in view of Fu et al., US 2014/0120322 A1 in view of Lee et al., US 2015/0225290 A1 and in further view of Jasuja et al., WO 2022/009028 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Sanders teaches that the web is a “first layer of the filter media,” as claimed because the web is a layer of the filter media. See Sanders [0002].
Sanders differs from claim 9 because it is silent as to the adsorbent particles forming a second layer disposed on top of the first layer.
But Sanders teaches that the web can comprise additives, including activated carbon. See Sanders [0026].
With this in mind, Jasuja teaches an air filter comprising a filtration layer with an additional layer of sorbent particles (e.g., activated carbon) disposed on the filtration layer. See Jasuja p. 12, ll. 17–22. The layer of sorbent particles is beneficial because it is able to remove gases, vapors, odors and the like. Id.
It would have been obvious to provide an additional layer of sorbent particles on the web of Sanders to provide a layer capable of removing gases, vapors, odors and the like. This modification reads on “the adsorbent particles form a second layer disposed on top of the first layer.”
Claims 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders, US 2005/0006303 A1 in view of Fu et al., US 2014/0120322 A1 in view of Lee et al., US 2015/0225290 A1 and in further view of Jaganathan et al., US 2018/0169551 A1.
Regarding claims 12–14, Sanders as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Sanders as modified differs from claims 12–14 because it is silent as to the filter media comprising an additional layer at least partially disposed on the web, wherein the additional layer comprises a fiber web comprising a plurality of glass fibers.
But Jaganathan teaches a filter media comprising a third layer comprising a web of glass fibers, with the third layer acting as a support layer for the filter media. See Jaganathan [0107], [0128]. It would have been obvious for the filter media of Sanders to include a support layer comprising glass fibers to provide structural support for the filter media.
Double Patenting
U.S. Application No. 18/320,109
Claims 1 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/320,109 in view of Jasuja et al., WO 2022/009028 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claims 1, 2, 7, 9 and 12, claim 1 of the ’109 application teaches all of the limitations of instant claims 1, 2, 7, 9 and 12 except that claim 1 of the ’109 application is silent as to the filter media comprising a plurality of adsorbent particles disposed on the fiber web.
Jasuja teaches an air filter comprising a filtration layer with an additional layer of sorbent particles (e.g., activated carbon) disposed on the filtration layer. See Jasuja p. 12, ll. 17–22. The layer of sorbent particles is beneficial because it is able to remove gases, vapors, odors and the like. Id.
It would have been obvious to provide an additional layer of sorbent particles on the web of claim 1 of the ’109 application to provide a layer capable of removing gases, vapors and odors.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/320,109 in view of Jasuja et al., WO 2022/009028 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 3, claim 7 of the ’109 application as modified teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 3.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/320,109 in view of Jasuja et al., WO 2022/009028 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 4, claim 8 of the ’109 application as modified teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 4.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/320,109 in view of Jasuja et al., WO 2022/009028 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 5, claim 9 of the ’109 application as modified teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 5.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/320,109 in view of Jasuja et al., WO 2022/009028 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 6, claim 13 of the ’109 application as modified teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 6.
Claims 12–14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/320,109 in view of Jasuja et al., WO 2022/009028 A1 and in further view of Jaganathan et al., US 2018/0169551 A1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claims 12–14, claim 1 of the ’109 application as modified teaches the limitations of claims 12–14 except it is silent as to the filter media comprising an additional layer at least partially disposed on the web, wherein the additional layer comprises a fiber web comprising a plurality of glass fibers.
But Jaganathan teaches a filter media comprising a third layer comprising a web of glass fibers, with the third layer acting as a support layer for the filter media. See Jaganathan [0107], [0128]. It would have been obvious for the filter media of claim 1 of the ’109 application to include a support layer comprising glass fibers to provide structural support for the filter media.
Claim 15 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/320,109 in view of Fu et al., US 2014/0120322 A1.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 1 of the ’109 application teaches all of the limitations of instant claim 15 except for the limitations requiring a plurality of adsorbent particles disposed on the fiber web wherein some of the adsorbent particles are disposed within the fiber web.
But Fu teaches a filter media comprising a fiber web having adsorbent particles disposed within the fiber web, with the adsorbent particles being beneficial for allowing the web to adsorb gases. See Fu [0120]. It would have been obvious for the fiber web of claim 1 of the ’109 application to comprise adsorbent particles disposed within the fiber web to allow it to adsorb gases.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zinn et al., WO 2021/158726 A1.
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