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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 1-3, filed 21 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-21 under USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cox et al. (WO 2013/192392) in view of Healey et al. (US 2018/0272258).
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previously applied USC § 112(b) rejection of Claim 12 which is hereby withdrawn.
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 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.
The term "about" in the following claims: Claim 1is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This renders the claims indefinite as the term "about" is used for every range given and it is unclear what falls into and outside of that range given the imprecise term used.
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 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) 2-4, 6-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cox et al. (WO 2013/192392) in view of Healey et al. (US 2018/0272258).
With regards to Claims 2 and 21:
Cox teaches:
A first fiber web comprising first fibers having an average diameter of less than or equal to about 0.6 microns which reads on applicant's claimed 0.5 microns or less (See Cox pg. 34 lines 4-8) the first fiber web has a thickness of 150 microns which reads on applicant's claimed less than or equal to 200 microns (See Cox. Pg. 39 Table 4 S1 Thickness), a calendared fiber web comprising four base layers calendared together such that there is a second fiber web directly adjacent to the first fiber web, a third fiber web bonded to the first fiber web and a fourth fiber web wherein at least two of the fiber webs are joined by calendaring. (See Cox pg. 39 lines 15-20 and Pg. 40 Table 5)
A method of forming a filter media by calendaring. (See Cox. Pg. 34 lines 4-8, pg. 39 lines 15-20, pg. 34-35, pg. 1 lines 15-25)
Cox does not explicitly teach:
A gradient filter media layer wherein each of the second and third fiber webs has an average diameter greater than the diameter of the first fiber web.
The fiber webs are joined by an ultrasonic process.
Healey teaches:
A filter media may comprise a filtration layer having a gradient in average fiber diameter. Several fiber web layers with a graduation of average fiber diameter which may be greater than the average fiber diameter of a first layer. (See Healey Paragraph 60) A fine fiber web, part 40, which has the smallest average fiber diameter of the fiber webs in the filtration layer which reads on applicant's claimed first fiber web. Additional layers of webs which are coarse fiber webs which have a larger average diameter than the fine fiber web which reads on applicant's claimed second and third fiber webs. (See Healey Paragraph 62) The fine fiber web has an average fiber diameter of “greater than or equal to about 0.02 microns and less than or equal to about 0.3 microns” which reads on applicant's claimed first fibers have an average diameter less than or equal to 0.5 microns. The coarse fiber webs have an average fiber diameter “greater than or equal to about 0.1 microns and less than or equal to about 30 microns” (See Healey Paragraph 64) The layers of webs, 2-4 or all layers, can be bonded by an ultrasonic process which is equivalent to a calendaring process. (See Healey Paragraph 189-190).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time of filing to optimize the parameters of fiber diameter, thickness, and pore size and pore size ratios for a particular application since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Cox discloses an average diameter of less than 0.6 microns which anticipates applicant’s claimed range of 0.5 microns or less. Cox discloses a web thickness of 150 microns which anticipates applicant’s claimed range of 200 microns or less. In the alternative Cox renders the claimed range obvious as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the range disclosed by Cox as discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further in cases where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside of prior art ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05
Cox discloses the claimed invention except for Cox does not explicitly teach a gradient filter media layer wherein each of the second and third fiber webs has an average diameter greater than the diameter of the first fiber web . Healey teaches that it is known to utilize a gradient of average fiber diameter in a filter media. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the average fiber diameters of the second and third layers to have a higher or coarser fiber diameter than the first layer as taught by Healey, since Healey states at Paragraph 58 that such a modification would improve particulate capture efficiency for a given application without sacrificing pressure drop and/or service life. See MPEP 2144
Cox discloses the claimed invention except for the process for bonding web filter layers is calendaring instead of an ultrasonic process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute an ultrasonic process in place of Cox’s calendaring process as taught in Healey Paragraph 189-190 to bond two or more layers, including the claimed three layers, as equivalent processes for their use in the filtration making art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to bond layers of a filter would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06
The filter so formed reads on the method of Claim 21.
With regards to Claim 3:
Cox teaches:
Multiple layers can be joined by a calendaring process.
Healey teaches:
The layers of webs, 2-4 or all layers, can be bonded by an ultrasonic process which is equivalent to a calendaring process. (See Healey Paragraph 189-190).
Cox discloses the claimed invention except for the process for bonding is calendaring instead of an ultrasonic process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute an ultrasonic process in place of Cox’s calendaring process as taught in Healey Paragraph 189-190 to bond two or more layers, including the claimed three layers, as equivalent processes for their use in the filtration making art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to bond layers of a filter would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06
With regards to Claim 4 Cox teaches:
The fiber webs can be combined with an adhesive which joins the fiber webs. (See Cox pg. 34 lines 20-25)
Healey also teaches that “ lamination, thermo-dot bonding, ultrasonic, calendering, glue-web, co-pleating, collation” are equivalent processes for bonding layers. Glue-web is considered to read on applicant's claimed adhesive.
With regards to Claim 6 and 7 Cox teaches:
The fiber webs can include a scrim. (See Cox pg. 34 lines 20-25)
The scrim is attached to the fiber web. Cox teaches multi-layered fiber webs to which the scrim is attached directly adjacent. (See Cox pg. 39 lines 15-20 and Pg. 40 Table 5)
Healey also teaches:
The filter media may include additional structural features or stiffening elements. (See Healey Paragraph 192)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Cox to have a scrim directly adjacent to a third fiber web which is directly adjacent to the first fiber web as Cox states at pg. 34 lines 20-25 that a scrim attached by adhesive is desirable and there is implicit that the scrim would be directly attached to an outer surface of the multi-layered filter body which would provide a stabilizing benefit. See MPEP 2144.01
With regards to Claim 8 Cox teaches:
The filter medium which reads on applicant's claimed second or third filter web can be prepared using a wet laid product which reads on applicant's claimed wet laid fiber web. (See Cox pg. 35)
Additionally, Healey teaches that the filter media can be produced using suitable processes including a wet laid process. (See Healy Paragraph 173)
With regards to Claims 9-12 Cox teaches:
The fiber web has a water permeability of greater than about 0.2 ml/min-cm2-psi which reads on applicant's claimed greater than or equal to 2 (Claim 9), 5 (Claim 10), 8 (Claim 11) and between 2 and 9 (Claim 12) ml/min-cm2-psi. (See Cox pg. 2 lines 15-20, pg. 29 lines 9-30, pg. 30 lines 1-15)
Cox teaches the claimed invention except for Cox does not teach the exact ranges of water permeability claimed by applicant. Cox teaches that water permeability is a known result effective variable with a range of greater than about 0.2 ml/min-cm2-psi which reads on applicant's claimed range of greater than 2 and less than 9 ml/min-cm2-psi for water permeability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the water permeability of Cox as taught by Cox pg. 29 and 30 in order to optimize filter performance as discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a known result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further in cases where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside of prior art ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05
With regards to Claims 13 Cox teaches:
An air permeability of greater than 1 CFM (cubic feet per minute) and less than 1800 CFM. With a specific example of greater than 2 CFM and less than 35 CFM (See Cox pg. 26 line 25 to pg. 27 line 25, and pg. 27 line 20)
Cox teaches the claimed invention except for Cox does not teach the exact ranges of air permeability claimed by applicant. Cox teaches that air permeability is a known result effective variable with a range of greater than about 2 CFM to less than 35 CFM which reads on applicant's claimed range of greater than 0.5 CFM and less than 10 CFM. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the air permeability of Cox as taught by Cox pg. 26-27 in order to optimize filter performance as discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a known result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further in cases where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside of prior art ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05
With regards to Claims 14 Cox teaches:
The fibers have a diameter between 0.1 microns and 1.5 microns which reads on applicant's claimed average diameter of 0.05 microns to 0.5 microns. (See Cox pg. 2 lines 5-15 and pg. 18 lines 15-34, pg. 19 lines 1-5)
Cox teaches the claimed invention except for Cox does not teach the exact ranges of fiber diameter claimed by applicant. Cox teaches that fiber diameter is a known result effective variable with a range between 0.1 microns and 1.5 microns which reads on applicant's claimed range of greater than 0.05 microns and less than 0.5 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the fiber diameter of Cox as taught by Cox pg. 18-19 in order to optimize filter performance as discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a known result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further in cases where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside of prior art ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05
With regards to Claim 15:
Cox does not explicitly teach the filter webs are sterile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to sterilize the filter in order to make it suitable for medical uses.
With regards to Claim 16 and 17:
The fiber web is formed of one or more polymers including polyesters which reads on applicant's claimed synthetic fibers including polyester. The fiber web includes the first or third web layers. (See Cox Col. 25 lines 10-22)
With regards to Claims 18-20:
The fiber webs of Cox can be used as a filter media for liquid filtration or water filtration. (See Cox. Pg. 1 lines 25-26, and pg. 40)
Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (WO 2013/192392) in view of Healey (US 2018/0272258) as applied above in the rejection of Claims 2 and 3 further in view of Wertz et al.
With regards to Claim 4 and 5:
Cox in view of Healey teaches an adhesive is used to join the fiber webs.
Cox in view of Healey does not teach specific types of adhesives.
Wertz teaches:
Using an adhesive, in particular polymer or polyamide (e.g. Nylon), which reads on applicant's claimed polyamide adhesive, among other adhesives may be used and are commercially available.
Cox discloses the claimed invention except for the fiber webs are mechanically bonded by calendaring or by a generic adhesive. Wertz teaches that it is known to mechanically or chemically bond meltblown particles in a filter and that known adhesives include polyamides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the filter of Cox to utilize the adhesive as taught by Wertz, since Wertz states at Paragraph 222 that such a modification would provide an chemical bond to the mechanical bond of Cox. See MPEP 2144
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.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brit E Anbacht whose telephone number is (571)272-9876. The examiner can normally be reached on M, T, R, F 11:30-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9876.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIT E. ANBACHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
BRIT E. ANBACHT
Examiner
Art Unit 1776