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Claims 1-16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/11/2025.
The two groups have divergent subject matter which are classified in different categories and have separate status in the art..
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17-20, 32-35, 37,39-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOGINS (US 20040255783) in view of Kahlbaugh (US 20060096263).
Regarding Claim 17, GOGINS discloses filter media, comprising: a fiber web comprising a plurality of pores ([0005]) but didn’t specifically disclose the recited weight percent of the pores to have a fixed diameters . In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Kahlbaugh controllable and appropriate pore size, pore permeability ([008], [0018], [0019]); also it discloses the pore size within the claimed range (abstract) but didn’t disclose specifically that wherein the filter media has a pore permeability index (PPI) of greater than or equal to 0.2 and less than or equal to 4.0, and wherein greater than or equal to 15% of pores of the plurality of pores have an average size of less than or equal to 1 micrometer.. Kahlbaugh didn’t particularly disclose that permeability index (PPI) of greater than or equal to 0.2 and less than or equal to 4.0, and wherein greater than or equal to 15% of pores of the plurality of pores have an average size of less than or equal to 1 micrometer. However, firstly, it is pointed out that the filters in both Kahlbaugh and the applicants’ are layered fiber filter layers having the ability to capture particulates throughout the volumes thereof. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention to varying the porosities, and permeability index of the fiber layers to arrive at a multi-layer filter media, having e.g. the filtration characteristics of claim 1 depending upon the desired filtration performance that would be optimized for a particular filtration use. Also, this is chosen based on the intended use of the filter media and it is well-known that permeability is measured in different ways and is a well- known result effective variable routinely optimized depending on the intended use and necessary parameters of the filter media for proper functioning. 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).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine GOGIN’s teaching of the filter with that of Kahlbaugh as it teaches the varying of the filter characteristics with the controllable parameters for the purpose of improved improved processability ([0008])
Regarding Claim 18, Kahlbaugh discloses filter media with controllable and appropriate pore permeability ([008], [0018], [0019]); Kahlbaugh didn’t particularly disclose that permeability index (PPI) of the filter media is greater than or equal to 0.3 and less than or equal to 3.5. However, firstly, it is pointed out that the filters in both Kahlbaugh and the applicants’ are layered fiber filter layers having the ability to capture particulates throughout the volumes thereof.
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention to varying the porosities, and permeability index of the fiber layers to arrive at a multi-layer filter media, having e.g. the filtration characteristics of claim 1 depending upon desired filtration performance that would be optimized for a particular filtration use. Also, this is chosen based on the intended use of the filter media and it is well-known that permeability is measured in different ways and is a well- known result effective variable routinely optimized depending on the intended use and necessary parameters of the filter media for proper functioning. 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.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine GOGIN’s teaching of the filter with that of Kahlbaugh as it teaches the varying of the filter characteristics with the controllable parameters for the purpose of improved improved processability ([0008])
Claims 19-20, Kahlbaug discloses firstly, that the filters in both Kahlbaugh and the applicants’ are layered fiber filter layers having the ability to capture particulates throughout the volumes thereof but didn’t specifically disclose that greater than or equal to 20% of the pores of the plurality of pores have the average size of less than or equal to 1 micrometer or less than or equal to 50% of the pores of the plurality of pores have the average size of less than or equal to 1 micrometer.
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention to varying the porosities, and permeability index of the fiber layers to arrive at a multi-layer filter media, having e.g. the filtration characteristics of claim 1 depending upon desired filtration performance that would be optimized for a particular filtration use as this is chosen based on the intended use . SEE MPEP 2144.05 II as Kahlbaugh teaches the varying of the filter characteristics with controllable parameters for improved processability ([0008])
Regarding Claim 32, GOGGINS disclose wherein the fiber web is a non-woven fiber web ([0070).
Regarding Claim 33 GOGGINS discloses, wherein the fiber web glass fibers ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 34 GOGGINS discloses, wherein the fiber web comprises one or more binders ([0182).
Regarding Claim 35, Kahlbaugh discloses wherein the binder could be, epoxy ([0043]).
Regarding Claim 37, GOGGINS discloses, wherein the filter media has a gas/liquid separation performance ([0016]-[0017]) but didn’t disclose that less than or equal to 10 mg/m3 liquid. However, it is well-known that the gas/liquid separation flow of a material is routinely optimized to control the efficiency at minimum flow restriction and excellent filtering . This is chosen based on the intended use of the filter media. Choosing a specific separation parameter for the gas/liquid filter was well-within the routine skill of one of ordinary skill in he art at the time of the invention. 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, IL.).
Regarding Claim 39-40 GOGGINS discloses wherein the filter media has an air permeability of 1 to 200 ft/min (Claim 1) but didn’t disclose that it’s greater than or equal to 1 1/m2s and less than or equal to 5000 1/m2s. It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention to vary the air permeability as having e.g. the filtration characteristics of claim 1 depending upon desired filtration performance that would be optimized for a particular filtration use as this is chosen based on the intended use . SEE MPEP 2144.05 II
Regarding Claim 41 GOGINS discloses wherein the filter media has a thickness of greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and less than or equal to 3 mm (abstract,)
Regarding Claim 42, GOGGINS discloses, wherein the filter media has a gas/liquid separation performance ([0016]-[0017]) .
Claims 43 , Kahulbag discloses firstly, that the filters in both Kahlbaugh and the applicants’ are layered fiber filter layers having the ability to capture particulates throughout the volumes thereof but didn’t specifically disclose that greater than or equal to 30% of the pores of the plurality of pores have the average size of less than or equal to 1 micrometer.
It is considered that it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention to varying the porosities, and permeability index of the fiber layers to arrive at a multi-layer filter media, having e.g. the filtration characteristics of claim 1 depending upon desired filtration performance that would be optimized for a particular filtration use as this is chosen based on the intended use . SEE MPEP 2144.05 II as Kahlbaugh teaches the varying of the filter characteristics with controllable parameters for improved processability ([0008])
Claim(s) 36, 44-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOGINS (US 20040255783) in view of Kahlbaugh (US 20060096283) as applied to claim 17, further in view of ANANTHARAMAIA H (US 20170232371).
Regarding Claim 36 GOGGINS discloses the filter media with a dust collector (([0002], [0016])) but didn’t disclose it has a specific dust holding capacity (DHC), but did not disclose that of greater than or equal to 10 g/m2 and less than or equal to 1000 g/m2. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, ANANTHARAMAIA H discloses that the filter media comprises a dust holding capacity of greater than about 20 g/m2 which meets the claimed range (abstract, [0005], [0015], Claim 1).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine GOGINS’s teaching for the purpose of ANANTHARAMAIA H that the filter media comprises a dust holding capacity for the purpose of having beneficial properties like without comprising the mechanical properties ([0017]).
Regarding Claim 44-47 GOGGINS discloses the filter media with a dust collector (([0002], [0016])) but didn’t disclose it has a specific dust holding capacity (DHC), but did not disclose that of greater than or equal to 10 g/m2 and less than or equal to 1000 g/m2. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, ANANTHARAMAIA H discloses that the filter media comprises a dust holding capacity of greater than about 20 g/m2 which meets the claimed range (abstract, [0005], [0015], Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 49 GOGGINS discloses the filter media with a dust collector (([0002], [0016])) but didn’t disclose it has a specific dust holding capacity (DHC), but did not disclose that of greater than or equal to 10 g/m2 and less than or equal to 1000 g/m2. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, ANANTHARAMAIA H discloses that the filter media comprises a dust holding capacity of greater than about 20 g/m2 which meets the claimed range (abstract, [0005], [0015], Claim 1). Further, a filter media that is essentially identical in composition but fabricated according to a wetlaid process ([0007], [0009]).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOGINS (US 20040255783) in view of Kahlbaugh (US 20060096283) as applied to claim 17, further in view of GOODBY (US 20190009194)
Regarding Claim 38 GOGINS discloses filter media, comprising: a fiber web comprising a plurality of pores ([0005]) but didn’t wherein the filter media has a fuel/water separation performance of greater than or equal to 5% water retention. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, GOODBY discloses the filter media has a fuel/water separation performance of greater than or equal to 5% water retention ([0002], [0093])
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine GOGGINs’ teaching with that of the teaching of fuel water separation by GOODBY for the purpose of longer service time for the customer for the filter media ([0007], GOODBY).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741