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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 10 2023 103 969.5, filed on 02/17/2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the third outflow-side filter layer 3 (paragraph 0049) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1” has been used to designate both inflow first filter layer and a section in fig. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9 and 10 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 set forth 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.
Claims 9 and 10 introduces “a further layer” without clearly specifying its structural relationship to the layers already recited in claim 1. Claim 1 defines a filter medium having a first filter layer, a second filter layer and a third filter layer arranged from inflow side to an outflow side. Claims 9 and 10 does not clarify whether the “further layer” is: in addition to the third layer, or a replacement for one of the previously recited layers. As a result, the scope and number of layers in the claimed filter medium cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 9 recites that the “further layer” forms an outflow-side layer, even though claim 8 already recites that the third filter forms an outflow-side layer. Claim 9 fails to explain how multiple layers simultaneously occupy the same outflow-side position, creating positional ambiguity in the claimed structure.
Claim 10 recites “an adsorption layer” without clearly defining the structural relationship to the claimed filter medium. The claim fails to specify the position of the adsorption layer relative to the first, second and third filter layers, or whether the adsorption layer is provided as a discreet layer or incorporated into an existing layer, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rammig et al. U.S. Pub. No. 6966939 B2, November 22, 2005 (hereinafter “Rammig”).
Regarding claim 1, Rammig discloses a multi-layer filter structure E (fig. 1) for the dust extraction from gases, suitable for use in stationary or mobile dust cleaning devices, including air filters for motor vehicles (col. 1, lines 61-66 and col. 6, lines 17-21). The multiple-layer filter medium includes an inflow-side coarse dust filter layer (A), a fine dust filter layer (B), and a support layer (C), which are disposed behind one another in the direction from the inflow side to the outflow side (col. 1, lines 1-15, figs. 1-3). The coarse dust filter layer (A) functions as a prefilter layer for larger particles, the fine dust filter layer (B) functions as a fine filter layer, and the support layer (C) provides mechanical support for the fine dust filter layer (col. 3, lines 5-46). Rammig further discloses that the fibers of the coarse dust filter layer and/or the fine duct filter layer may be provided with an antimicrobial additive (col. 7, lines 15-18).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rammig et al. U.S. Pub. No. 6966939 B2, November 22, 2005 (hereinafter “Rammig”) in view of Ding CN 106693531 A, May 24, 2017.
Regarding claim 2, Rammig discloses that the first filter layer is formed as a nonwoven layer (col. 3, lines 38-55), but fails to disclose that the first filter layer is configured as a nonwoven layer of a PM 2.5 category. Ding discloses a nonwoven filter fabric 7 (figs. 1 and 2, paragraph 0018) that can remove PM2.5 and other small particles (paragraph 0012 and 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the nonwoven first filter layer of Rammig to meet a PM2.5 category, as taught by Ding, to yield improved filtration performance.
Regarding claim 3, Rammig discloses an anti-microbial additive (col. 7, lines 15-18) but failed to disclose that the anti-microbial finish comprises anti-bacterial and/or anti-viral and/or anti-allergenic and/or fungicidal substances. Ding discloses an antibacterial non-woven fabric 5 (fig.1, paragraph 0010 and 0023). When using, the air firstly passes through the antibacterial non-woven fabric 5, removing bacteria and dust particles, and inhibit the growth of bacteria, absorbing organic matter and peculiar smell through the active carbon layer (paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select known anti-microbial substances, as these are well known classes of microbial agents commonly used in air filtration media depending on the intended microbial target.
Regarding claim 5, Rammig discloses the fine dust filter layer is a microfiber nonwoven produced according to the melt-blown process, having small fiber diameter and progressively decreasing pore sizes to capture fine dust particles (figs. 1-3, col. 3, lines 16-22) but fails to disclose the second filter layer includes a very high efficiency filter medium. Ding discloses high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter layer 4 (figs. 1-2, paragraph 0018, 0021, and 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a very high efficiency filtration medium within a multilayer filter structure, as such modification will yield predictable results in enhanced filtration performance.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rammig et al. U.S. Pub. No. 6966939 B2, November 22, 2005 (hereinafter “Rammig”) and Ding, in view of claim 3, in further view of Uenen U.S. Pub. No. 20210213379 A1, July 15, 2021.
Regarding claim 4, Rammig discloses an antimicrobial finish but fails to disclose the anti-microbial finish comprises a fruit acid, in particular a citric acid. Uenen discloses the antiallergenic substances of the filter medium may contain fruit acids, for example citric acid (paragraph 0017-0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select citric acid, as it is an anti-microbial fruit acid commonly used to inhibit microbial growth in air filtration applications.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rammig et al. U.S. Pub. No. 6966939 B2, November 22, 2005 (hereinafter “Rammig”) and Ding, in view of claim 5, in further view of Komatsu et al. JP 2007301436 A, November 22, 2007 (hereinafter “Komatsu”).
Rammig is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 6, Rammig fails to disclose that the filter medium has nanofibers and a porous membrane. Komatsu discloses an air filter media 10 (fig. 1, paragraph 0009) includes a nanofiber structure layer 12, which is made of a sheet-like fiber structure in which nanofibers 12a are three-dimensionally entangled (paragraph 0009). Komatsu further discloses an upstream porous body layer 14 that is laminated integrally with the nanofiber structure layer 12 is a smooth surface that is free from fibrous fluff (paragraph 0012) and a downstream porous layer 16 supports the nanofiber structure layer 12 from the downstream side of filtration to prevent the nanofiber structure layer 12 from being damaged by wind pressure or the like applied by the gas to be filtered (paragraph 0013). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the nanofiber and porous membrane structure taught by Komatsu into the fine filter layer of Rammig, as modified by claim 5, in order to provide mechanical stability and further improve fine-particle filtration efficiency.
Claims 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rammig et al. U.S. Pub. No. 6966939 B2, November 22, 2005 (hereinafter “Rammig”) in view of Keerl et al. DE 102013021071 A1, June 18, 2015 (hereinafter “Keerl”).
Rammig is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 10, Rammig discloses the fibers of the coarse dust filter layer and/or the fine duct filter layer may be provided with an antimicrobial additive (col. 7, lines 15-18). However, Rammig fails to disclose (i) an anti-microbial finish at the outflow-side layer, (ii) a further layer arranged at the outflow side and configured with an anti-microbial finish, and (iii) a layer configured as an adsorption layer comprising activated carbon.
Keerl discloses that a filter medium can be structured in multiple layers. Keerl discloses the order of airflow, for example, an antimicrobial filter layer can be applied, a particle filter layer, an odor filter layer, an activated carbon layer, and/or an anti-allergen filter layer can follow (paragraph 0014). Keerl further discloses that the first layer 2 then has the particle filter function, the second layer 3 the antimicrobial substance and the third layer 3 the anti-allergenic substance (fig. 1, paragraph 0036). For example, fig. 1 teaches a top-side coating of an antimicrobial material and third filter layer 4 a fabric coating on the underside containing an antimicrobial substance (paragraph 0038).
Additionally, Keerl discloses a filter layer can in particular be designed as an adsorption filter layer. This can, for example, itself consist of a multilayer structure comprising of activated carbon particles supported on carrier layers or an open pored foam with embedded activated carbon (paragraph 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer filter structure of Rammig to that taught by Keerl, in order to provide enhanced anti-microbial protection, allergen reduction, and odor removal in a predictable manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776