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 .
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.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–2 and 4–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hein et al., US 2019/0344209 A1 (“Hein”) in view of Boehringer et al., US 2016/0166970 A1 (“Boehringer”) and in further view of Blucher et al., US 2010/0162888 A1 (“Blucher”).
Regarding claim 1:
Hein discloses that an air filter medium (Hein’s filter material 12, Hein Fig. 2, [0049]) comprising:
a predetermined inflow side (above layer 13, Hein Fig. 2, [0049]) and a predetermined outflow side (below layer 15, Hein Fig. 2, [0049]), wherein the air filter medium is configured to be flowed through from the predetermined inflow side to the predetermined outflow side in a flow direction (as indicated by throughflow direction 29, Hein Fig. 2, [0049]);
an ion exchanger layer (Hein’s ion-exchange layer 13, Hein Fig. 2, [0048]) comprising ion exchanger particles (Hein discloses as cation exchange particles, Hein [0048]);
an impregnation layer (Hein’s impregnation layer 15, Hein [0047]) comprising impregnated active carbon particles (Hein’s impregnated active carbon particles 17, 18, Hein Fig. 2, [0047]), wherein the impregnation layer (15 of Hein) is arranged downstream of the ion exchanger layer (13 of Hein);
an active layer (Hein’s active layer 14, Hein Fig. 4, [0046]) comprising non-impregnated active carbon particles (Hein’s non-impregnated active particles 16, Hein [0046]);
Hein does not disclose that the active carbon particles (17, 18 of Hein) of the impregnation layer (15 of Hein) is impregnated with an acidic impregnation agent comprising at least one inorganic acid, wherein the at least one inorganic acid is selected from the group consisting of phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, and hydrochloric acid. Hein does not disclose a grammage of the ion exchanger particles in the ion exchanger layer (13 of Hein) lies in a range between 150 g/m2 and 350 g/m2. Hein does not disclose a grammage of the impregnated active carbon particles in the impregnation layer (15 of Hein) lies in a range between 150 g/m2 and 350 g/m2.
In the analogous art of filtering materials, Boehringer discloses a filtering material comprising impregnated activated carbon, Boehringer Fig. 1, [0067]. Boehringer discloses its activated carbon could be impregnated with sulfuric acid, which is especially effective with respect to the removal of Ammonia, Boehringer [0067]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Boehringer’s activated carbon to be impregnated with sulfuric acid to effectively remove ammonia.
Additionally, Boehringer discloses a first filter element comprising activated carbons, Boehringer Fig. 1, [0039]. Boehringer also discloses a second filter element comprising ion exchange resins, wherein the carrier structure of the first and second filtering element comprising a weight per unit area (grammage) from 15 to 450 g/m2, Boehringer [0137]. Boehringer also discloses that the first adsorbent material (activated carbon) could be in the amount range from 20 to 100% weight (Boehringer [0129]), which means Boehringer’s activated carbon could have a grammage range of 15 to 450 g/m2, this range overlaps with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I). Boehringer discloses its second adsorbent material could be in the range of 15% to 100% weight (Boehringer [0130]), which means Boehringer’s ion exchange resins could have a grammage from 15 to 450 g/m2, this range overlaps with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I). Boehringer discloses its filter media has significantly improved adsorption performance, increased breakthrough times and improved cumulative breakthrough values, Boehringer [0173]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Hein’s carrier structure has the same grammage as disclosed by Boehringer for the benefits disclosed above.
Such modification does not disclose the claimed limitation of “wherein the impregnated active carbon particles of the impregnation laver are impregnated with 5% by mass or less of the acidic impregnation agent.”
In the analogous art of acid impregnated activated carbon adsorption filters, Blucher discloses that activated carbon could be impregnated in order to increase the adsorption performance, Blucher [0077]. Blucher discloses its impregnation agent could be acidic compounds such as sulfuric acid compounds, Blucher [0078]. Blucher further discloses impregnation in an amount based on activated carbon of very preferably 1% to 10% by weight to the activated carbon, Blucher [0083]. Blucher discloses such impregnation permit in some cases the catalytic decomposition of certain odorants and or noxiants and/or their accelerated degradation and/or their accelerated adsorption, Blucher [0084]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Hein to have an impregnation in amount between 1% to 10% by weight for the benefits disclosed above. With such modification, modified Hein would have an impregnation range overlaps with the claimed range of 5% by mass or less, and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 1, wherein the grammage of the ion exchanger particles in the ion exchanger layer lies in a range between 200 g/m2 and 350 g/m2 and/or the grammage of the impregnated active carbon particles in the impregnation layer lies in a range between 250 g/m2 and 350 g/m2 (as modified in claim 1, modified Hein discloses an ion exchange resin range of 15 to 450 g/m2, such range overlaps with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Hein does not disclose that the air filter medium according to claim 1, wherein an average grain size of the ion exchanger particles amounts to 300 µm to 1,200 µm.
However, Boehringer discloses a particle diameter for its second adsorbent, which is ion-exchange particles, has an average diameter of 0.01 µm to 5 mm, Boehringer [0102] and [0127]. Boehringer discloses its design improves adsorption performance of the inventive filter units, resulting in increased breakthrough times as well as improved cumulative breakthrough value, Boehringer [0173]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Hein for the benefits disclosed. With such modification, modified Hein would have a range overlapping the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Hein does not disclose that the air filter medium according to claim 1, wherein an average grain size of the impregnated active carbon particles amounts to 350 µm to 550 µm. However, Boehringer discloses that its impregnated activated carbon could have a mean particle diameter in the range of 0.01 to 2 mm (equivalent to 10 to 2000 micron), Boehringer [0084]. Boehringer therefore discloses a range overlapping with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify Hein to comprises such impregnated activated carbon size range for the benefits of improves adsorption performance of the inventive filter units, resulting in increased breakthrough times as well as improved cumulative breakthrough value, Boehringer [0173].
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Hein disclsoes that the air filter medium according to claim 1, wherein the ion exchanger particles comprise acidic cation exchangers comprising as a functional group an acidic group and comprising a cation group selected from H+ and Na+ (Hein discloses ion exchange particles 20, which contains acid ions, therefore reads on the claimed “H+” and Hein’s cation exchange particles contains sulfonic acid group, therefore reads on the claimed “acidic group”, Hein [0048]).
Additionally, Boehringer discloses cationic ion-exchange resins comprising divinylbenzene-crosslinked polystyrenes with sulfonic acid groups, Boehringer [0127] and [0097], which comprising acidic group of sulfonic acid groups and cation group of “H+”). It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to alternatively use Boehringer’s ion exchanger particles for an increased breakthrough times as well as improved cumulative breakthrough value, Boehringer [0173].
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 6, wherein the acidic group is sulfonic acid (Boehringer [0127]).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 1, further comprising an adhesive (Hein discloses as glue, Hein [0031]) bonding one or more of the particles selected from the group consisting of the impregnated active carbon particles of the impregnation layer, the non-impregnated active carbon particles of the active layer, and the ion exchanger particles of the ion exchanger layer to each other.
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 8, wherein the one or more particles selected from the group consisting of the impregnated active carbon particles of the impregnation layer, the non-impregnated active carbon particles of the active layer, and the ion exchanger particles of the ion exchanger layer are cross-linked by the adhesive (Hein discloses as a thermal connection via glue, Hein [0031]).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 1, further comprising at least one carrier layer (Hein’s support layer 25 or 26, Hein Fig. 4, [0052]).
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 10, wherein the at least one carrier layer is arranged at the predetermined inflow side (Hein’s support layer 25 is arranged at the predetermined inflow side, Hein Fig. 4, [0052]).
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 10, wherein the at least one carrier layer comprises a synthetic nonwoven material (Hein discloses its support layer 25, 26 could be made of plastic non-woven, which is synthetic non-woven material, Hein [0020]).
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 1, further comprising at least one particle filter layer (Hein’s support layer 25 or 26 is essentially a particle filter layer, Hein [0024]).
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 13, wherein the at least one particle filter layer is arranged at the predetermined outflow side (26 of Hein is arranged at the predetermined outflow side, Hein Fig. 4, [0024]).
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 13, wherein the at least one particle filter layer comprises a synthetic nonwoven material (Hein discloses its support layer 25, 26 could be made of plastic non-woven, which is synthetic non-woven material, Hein [0020]).
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 1, further comprising one or more separation layers (Hein’s third additional layer 27, Hein FIG. 6, [0056]) arranged between at least one of the layers selected from the group consisting of the ion exchanger layer, the active layer, and the impregnation layer (Hein’s layer 27 is adjacent to active layer 14, Hein Fig. 6, [0056]), and a respective neighboring layer (Hein’s fourth additional layer 28, Hein Fig. 6, [0056]) arranged adjacent to the at least one selected layer (14 of Hein).
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 16, wherein the one or more separation layers comprise a synthetic nonwoven material (Hein discloses its additional layer could be non-woven material of plastic fibers, Hein [0052], which is synthetic non-woven).
Regarding claim 18:
Modified Hein discloses that the air filter medium according to claim 1, comprising at least one adsorption layer comprising adsorption particles, wherein the adsorption particles comprise one or more adsorption materials selected from the group consisting of an active carbon, a zeolite, an ion exchanger, and a molecular sieve (Hein’s active layer 14 is an adsorption layer and it comprises active carbon, Hein Fig. 2, [0047]).
Regarding claim 19:
Modified Hein discloses that a filter medium body comprising the air filter medium according to claim 1, wherein the air filter medium is folded multiple times to a folded bellows (Hein discloses its filter could be pleated, Hein [0032]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hein in view of Boehringer and Blucher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyata et al., JP 4589038 B2 (“Miyata”)1.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Hein does not disclose that the air filter medium according to claim 1, wherein the active layer (14 of Hein) is arranged downstream of the impregnation layer (15 of Hein) having the impregnated active carbon particles (17, 18 of Hein), wherein the impregnation layer (15 of Hein) arranged upstream of the active layer already absorbs a portion of hydrocarbons, thereby extending a service life of the active layer.
In the analogous art of filter media comprising multiple layers, Miyata discloses a layer of impregnated activated carbon 4 and an activated carbon layer 1 comprising granular activated carbon (which are non-impregnated because Miyata does not use the term “impregnated”), Miyata Fig. 2, p. 3. Miyata discloses its activated carbon layer 1 is disposed downstream of the impregnated activated carbon layer in the gas flow direction so that the activated carbon layer captures substances separated from the impregnated activated carbon layer, Miyata Fig. 2, p. 3. Miyata discloses its design allows to possible to purify air in a space where the humidity is low and high cleanliness is required, such as the inside of an exposure apparatus, Miyata p. 2. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include an active layer similar to Miyata’s activated carbon layer 1 downstream of modified Hein’s impregnation layer 15 the same way as disclosed in Miyata such that modified Hein’s device could be used to purify air in a space where humidity is low and high cleanliness is required. With such modification, modified Hein would have two active layers, one is Hein’s active layer 14 and the other is Miyata’s activated carbon layer 1. Miyata’s activated carbon layer 1 is located downstream of modified Hein’s impregnation layer 15. Modified Hein’s impregnation layer 15 would be arranged upstream of the active layer already absorbs a portion of hydrocarbons (Hein discloses its layer 15 adsorbs hydrocarbons, Hein [0047]), thereby extending a service life of the active layer (intended use, and modified Hein’s impregnation layer 15 is capable of extending a service life Miyata’s activated carbon layer 1 by adsorbing upstream hydrocarbons).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hein in view of Boehringer and Blucher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakano et al., US 2006/0185336 A1 (“Nakano”).
Regarding claim 20:
Modified Hein discloses that a filter element comprising:
a filter medium body comprising the air filter medium according to claim 1, wherein the air filter medium is folded multiple times to a folded bellows (this limitation is mapped in claim 19, Hein [0032]).
Modified Hein does not explicitly disclose a frame element connected to the filter medium body and at least partially surrounding the filter medium body.
In the analogous art of air filters, Nakano discloses a frame element 26 connected to the filter medium body 20 and partially surrounding the filter medium body, Nakano Fig. 5, [0007]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a frame for modified Hein’s filter medium to protect the filter medium. Additionally, filter frame surrounding and connected to filter medium are known in the art as disclosed by Nakano.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The applicant amends claim 1 to include a further limitation of “wherein the impregnated active carbon particles of the impregnation laver are impregnated with 5% by mass or less of the acidic impregnation agent.” The applicant then argues that Hein in view of Boehringer does not teach the claimed limitation. Applicant Rem. dated Mar. 23, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) ps. 6–7.
In view of the amendment, the examiner introduces Blucher to teach the missing limitation. Details are provided above.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant argues that Hein in view of Boehringer fails to teach the claimed acidic group and cation group selected from H+ and Na+, Applicant Rem. p. 7.
The examiner disagrees. As discussed in claim 6 above, Boehringer discloses cationic ion-exchange resins comprising divinylbenzene-crosslinked polystyrenes with sulfonic acid groups, Boehringer [0127] and [0097]. Boehringer’s divinylbenzene-crosslinked polystyrenes with sulfonic acid groups comprising the claimed acidic group of sulfonic acid group and cation group of H+. Additionally, the examiner points out that Hein in fact disclose ion exchange particles 20, which contains acid ions (read on the claimed “H+”) and cation exchange particles contains sulfonic acid group (reads on the claimed “acidic group”), Hein [0048]. Noted here that the applicant removes the term “strongly” in claim 6, changes the scope of invention.
Reding claim 3, the applicant amends the claims and argues that since both claim 1 and claim 3 are amended, it is now novel and nonobvious, Applicant Rem. p. 9. The applicant also argues that Braeunling teaches an active layer of “activated carbon fibers” not “non-impregnated active carbon particles” and therefore does not read on claim 3, Id.
Merely to move the case forward, without agreeing with the applicant, the examiner now relies on a new reference Miyata. Applicant’s argument regarding Braeunling is therefore moot. Additionally, Miyata discloses its activated carbon is “granular”, which means they are activated carbon particles, Miyata p. 2. Additionally, Miyata distinguish between “impregnated activated carbon” and “activated carbon layer”, Miyata p. 3. The examiner is interpreting “activated carbon layer” as non-impregnated activated carbon layer, because otherwise, Miyata would use the term “impregnated”.
Applicant’s arguments of claim 20 depends on the allowability of claim 1 (Applicant Rem. p. 11), and since claim 1 is not allowable, applicant’s arguments regarding claim 20 is not persuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 A copy of Miyata’s original document and machine translation are provided with the office action. The examiner relies on the original document for the figure and machine translation for the text.
Prosecution Insights