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 Status
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gebert et al. (US 2008/0302074) [hereinafter Gerbert].
With respect to claim 1, Gerbert discloses a multiple layer filter media 100, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a support layer 105 (cellulose substrate, see paragraph 0044, layer 105 may include cellulose) impregnated with a phenolic resin (see paragraph 0049, layer 105 includes a thermoplastic binder; see paragraph 0014, thermoplastic binder may be phenolic); and a filtration layer 104 (ePTFE layer, see paragraph 0042, layer 104 may be ePTFE) arranged on the cellulose substrate 105, as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 3, Gerbert discloses a plurality of folds, as shown in Fig. 3, wherein each fold of the plurality of folds comprises one or more regions 102 (embossments), as shown in Fig. 1.
With respect to claim 4, Gerbert discloses wherein the plurality of folds include a first fold and a second fold neighboring each other, as shown in Fig. 3, wherein the one or more embossments 102 of the first fold and the one or more embossments 102 of the second fold are arranged such that a region is defined between the first fold and the second fold, wherein the first fold and the second fold do not contact each other in the region, as shown in Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 5, Gerbert discloses wherein the one or more embossments 102 of the first folds and the one or more embossments 102 of the second fold are positioned opposite each other at least partially, as shown in Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 6, Gerbert discloses wherein the one or more embossments 102 are configured to reinforce the fold (see paragraph 0053-0057).
With respect to claim 7, Gerbert discloses wherein the plurality of folds include a first fold and a second fold neighboring each other, as shown in Fig. 3, wherein the one or more embossments 102 of the first fold and the one or more embossments 102 of the second fold are arranged such that a region is defined between the first fold and the second fold, wherein the first fold and the second fold do not contact each other in the region, as shown in Fig. 3.
With respect to claim 10, Gerbert discloses wherein each fold comprises identical embossments 102, as shown in Figs. 1 and 3.
With respect to claim 11, Gerbert discloses a folded filter medium 301, as shown in Fig. 3, the folded filter medium 301 comprising a support layer 105 (cellulose substrate, see paragraph 0044, layer 105 may include cellulose) impregnated with a phenolic resin (see paragraph 0049, layer 105 includes a thermoplastic binder; see paragraph 0014, thermoplastic binder may be phenolic); and a filtration layer 104 (ePTFE layer, see paragraph 0042, layer 104 may be ePTFE) arranged on the cellulose substrate 105, as shown in Fig. 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gebert (US 2008/0302074).
With respect to claim 2, Gerbert discloses wherein the ePTFE layer 104 is bonded onto the cellulose substrate 105, as shown in Fig. 1. Gebert does not disclose the ePTFE layer being laminated onto the cellulose substrate. However, this limitation is considered to be a product-by-process limitation since it is drawn to a product, i.e., a filter medium, but it includes a process step of making the product, i.e., “laminated”. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see MPEP 2113 [R-1], In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (FED. Cir. 1985)).
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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert (US 2008/0302074).
With respect to claim 8, Gebert lacks wherein the one or more embossments are selected from the group consisting of knob embossments, S embossments, pleat lock embossments, and combinations thereof. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the courts have held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claim 9, Gebert discloses wherein the plurality of folds include at least one fold comprising at least two embossments 102, as shown in Fig. 3. Gebert lacks wherein the plurality of folds include at least one fold comprising at least two of the pleat lock embossments, wherein between the at least two pleat lock embossments at least an S embossment or a knob embossment is provided. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the courts have held that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
With respect to claim 13, Gebert lacks a vehicle having the filter element. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to use the filter element since one of ordinary skill would recognize to use the filter element disclosed by Gebert in a vehicle in order to clean the air the vehicle and since Gebert already suggests the use of the filter element in a variety of industrial fields (see paragraph 0001).
With respect to claim 15, Gebert discloses the method steps of: impregnating the cellulose substrate 105 with the phenolic resin (see paragraph 0049, layer 105 includes a thermoplastic binder; see paragraph 0014, thermoplastic binder may be phenolic); applying the ePTFE layer 104 onto the cellulose substrate 105 impregnated with the phenolic resin, as shown in Fig. 1; folding the cellulose substrate 105 with the ePTFE layer 104 applied thereon, as shown in Fig. 3. Gebert lacks curing the phenolic resin. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to be able to use the layer as a substrate/support.
With respect to claim 16, Gebert discloses embossing embossments 102 in folds of the cellulose substrate 105 after folding the cellulose substrate 105 with the ePTFE layer 104 applied thereon, as shown in Fig. 3. Gerbert lacks before curing the phenolic resin; however, this would have been obvious in order to be able to use the layer as a substrate/support.
With respect to claim 17, Gebert wherein applying the ePTFE layer onto the cellulose substrate impregnated with the phenolic resin is done by laminating. However, Gerbert teaches that lamination is a conventional bonding technique in order to bond multiple layers together (see paragraphs 0007-0008). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use laminating in order to bond the cellulose substrate with the phenolic resin, as claimed by applicant, since laminating is a conventional bonding technique used to bond multiple layers together (see paragraphs 0007-0008).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert (US 2008/0302074) in view of Sassa (US 4,983,434).
With respect to claim 12, Gebert discloses a filter assembly 300, as shown in Fig. 3, comprising: a housing, as shown in Fig. 3; a filter element received in the housing, as shown in Fig. 3, wherein the filter element comprises a folded filter medium 301, as shown in Fig. 3, the filded filter medium 301 comprising a support layer 105 (cellulose substrate, see paragraph 0044, layer 105 may include cellulose) impregnated with a phenolic resin (see paragraph 0049, layer 105 includes a thermoplastic binder; see paragraph 0014, thermoplastic binder may be phenolic); and a filtration layer 104 (ePTFE layer, see paragraph 0042, layer 104 may be ePTFE) arranged on the cellulose substrate 105, as shown in Fig. 1; wherein the folded filter medium 301 of the filter element is configured to be cleaned (see paragraph 0045).
Gebert lacks wherein the folded filter medium of the filter element is configured to be cleaned by a reverse flow principle.
Sassa discloses a membrane laminate, as shown in Fig. 1, used to filter gas streams (see col. 1, lines 10-12). Sassa teaches that “these textile based filter media remove particulate from the fluids. When the resistance to flow or pressure drop through the textile caused by accumulation of particulate on the filter becomes significant, the filter must be cleaned, and the particulate cake removed. It is common in the industrial filtration market to characterize the type of filter bag by the method of cleaning. The most common types of cleaning techniques are reverse air (reverse flow principle), shaker and pulse jet. Reverse air and shaker techniques are considered low energy cleaning techniques. The reverse air technique is a gentle backwash of air on a filter bag which collects dust on the interior. The back wash collapses the bag and fractures dust cake which exits the bottom of the bag to a hopper” (see col. 1, lines 15-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the reverse flow principle taught by Sassa to clean the filter disclosed by Gebert, in order to remove collected particles on the filter for maintenance purposes and since this is a very common manner of cleaning filters (see col. 1, lines 15-32 of Sassa).
With respect to claim 14, Gebert as modified by Sassa lacks a vehicle having the filter element. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to use the filter element since one of ordinary skill would recognize to use the filter element disclosed by Gebert in a vehicle in order to clean the air the vehicle and since Gebert already suggests the use of the filter element in a variety of industrial fields (see paragraph 0001).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773