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
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) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US20030010002A1) in view of JP132 (JP6831132B, applicant’s translation will be referenced) in view of JP411 (JP04022411A, applicant’s translation will be referenced.).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP132 in view of JP411.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP132 in view of JP411 in view of Johnson.
Rejection in view of Johnson, JP132, and JP441
Claim 1: Johnson teaches a filter, comprising a filtration member comprising a first filter paper capable of trapping oil mist (Abstract teaches filter arrangement. [0002] teaches removing liquid particulate material from a gaseous stream including oil.), wherein the first filter paper being folded into a corrugated form (Abstract teaches multiple layers of fine fiber containing pleated media.), the first filter paper includes a nanofiber layer formed of polyolefin fibers ([0024] teaches the fine fibers that make up the nanofiber layer can be made from polyolefin.).
Johnson does not explicitly teach the first filter paper includes: a sheet-like aggregate provided adjacent to a first surface of the nanofiber layer; and a sheet-like protective material provided adjacent to a second surface of the sheet-like nanofiber layer on a side opposite to the first surface; and a nanofiber layer formed of polyolefin fibers, and the fiber diameter distribution of the filter. Johnson does teach in [0024] that the filter can have fibers with diameters from 0.001-2 microns.
JP132 teaches in [0047] a filter that is useful as oil absorption material and for air filters. JP132 teaches in page 18 table 1 a set of fiber diameter distributions for a filter that read upon the claim limitations. Claim 1 also reads upon the filter limitations. JP132 teaches in [0027]-[0030] that there is a base layer 51. The molten polymer is sprayed onto 51 to form nanofibers and covered with a cover 52 after. [0020] teaches that the thermoplastic resin can include polyolefin. This would read upon the nanofiber layer being on the bottom and an aggregate and protective layer on either side of the nanofiber layer as there is no further structure related to the different layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the filter of Johnson have a filter as that of JP132 because the simple substitution of one known element for another is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill when the substitution would be expected to produce predictable results. See MPEP 2143, I(B). In this case the substitution would likely produce predictable results because the filter of JP132 is/are an equivalent of the filter of Johnson as they are both meant to be used for air and oil filtration.
It would also have been obvious for Johnson to have a fiber diameter distribution like that of JP132 as both teach filter material for oil and both teach fibers being within this range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case the result effective variable is the fiber diameter distribution that can be changed as taught by JP132.
Johnson and JP132 do not explicitly state the first filter paper being folded into a corrugated form, and the aggregate, the nanofiber layer, and the protective material are integrated by being welded at regular intervals. JP411 teaches a filter with multiple layers used for filtering liquid/oil in which pleating the filter can increase filtration flow rate (Abstract and page 4). It also teaches in pages 8-9 that it is welded in some places (14a and 14b) in order to help reinforce the filter so that it does not shift or come off when handling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a pleated filter with welding at intervals as taught by JP411 for the filter sheet of Johnson and JP132 as both teach layered filter sheets for oil and JP411 teaches that pleating and welding can increase ease of use a promote filtration flow rate.
Claim 2: JP132 teaches in [0033] that filtration efficiency of 95% or more for particles of 0.3 μm (more than 60% can include this.). If the prior arts do not explicitly state the filtration member has a filtration efficiency of 95% or more for particles of 0.3 μm, the prior arts teach the structure of the device and therefore reads upon this limitation. This is also considered to be intended usage of the device. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 3: JP132 teaches the nanofiber layer contains fibers having a fiber diameter of 1 μm or more by 6% or more of all fibers (Table 1 teaches this.).
Claim 5: Johnson teaches the nanofiber layer has a basis weight of 54 g/m2 to 59 g/m2--- ([0024] teaches a basis weight of about 0.01 to 240 micrograms-cm −2) , a thickness of 0.41 mm to 0.5 mm ([0024] teaches that the thickness is about 1-100 times that of the fiber diameter. The fiber diameter is 0.05-0.5 microns. This would fall into the claimed range.).
The prior arts do not explicitly state a density of 0.11 g/cm3 to 0.135 g/cm3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal density such as 0.11 g/cm3 to 0.135 g/cm3, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case the thickness, diameter, and basis weight can all be changed and therefore the density would also be a result of the optimal values of those parameters.
Claim 6: Johnson teaches a first filtration section including the filtration member; and a second filtration section including a second filtration member, the second filtration member comprising a second filter paper capable of trapping oil mist, the second filter paper being folded into a corrugated form, wherein the second filtration section has a filtration efficiency different from a filtration efficiency of the first filtration section, and one of the first filtration section and the second filtration section having a lower filtration efficiency is provided at an upstream side ([0021] teaches that the mist reduction system has a multistage filtration system with a first rough filtering stage and a second fine fiber stage. It teaches that larger particles are removed first before entering the finer layer to remove smaller particles.).
Rejection in view of JP132 and JP441
Claim 1: JP132 teaches a filter (Abstract teaches fiber laminate for filter medium.), comprising a filtration member comprising a first filter paper capable of trapping oil mist, ([0047] teaches this is capable of being an oil filter or oil absorption material.), wherein the first filter paper includes: a sheet-like aggregate provided adjacent to a first surface of the nanofiber layer; and a sheet-like protective material provided adjacent to a second surface of the sheet-like nanofiber layer on a side opposite to the first surface; and a nanofiber layer formed of polyolefin fibers ([0027]-[0030] teaches that there is a base layer 51. The molten polymer is sprayed onto 51 to form nanofibers and covered with a cover 52 after. [0020] teaches that the thermoplastic resin can include polyolefin. This would read upon the nanofiber layer being on the bottom and an aggregate and protective layer on either side of the nanofiber layer as there is no further structure related to the different layers.), wherein: in the nanofiber layer, a content of fibers having a fiber diameter of 0.2 pm to 0.4 pm is 3% or more, a content of fibers having a fiber diameter of 0.4 pm to 0.6 pm is 24% or more, a content of fibers having a fiber diameter of 0.6 pm to 0.8 pm is 15% or more, and a content of fibers having a fiber diameter of 0.8 pm to 1.0 pm is 9% or more (JP132 teaches in page 18 example 6 the middle table a set of fiber diameter distributions for a filter. Claim 1 also teaches this.).
JP132 does not explicitly state the first filter paper being folded into a corrugated form, and the aggregate, the nanofiber layer, and the protective material are integrated by being welded at regular intervals. JP411 teaches a filter with multiple layers used for filtering liquid/oil in which pleating the filter can increase filtration flow rate (Abstract and page 4). It also teaches in pages 8-9 that it is welded in some places (14a and 14b) in order to help reinforce the filter so that it does not shift or come off when handling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a pleated filter with welding at intervals as taught by JP411 for the filter sheet of JP132 as both teach layered filter sheets for oil and JP411 teaches that pleating and welding can increase ease of use a promote filtration flow rate.
Claim 2: JP132 teaches in [0033] that filtration efficiency of 95% or more for particles of 0.3 μm (more than 60% can include this.). If the prior arts do not explicitly state the filtration member has a filtration efficiency of 95% or more for particles of 0.3 μm, the prior arts teach the structure of the device and therefore reads upon this limitation. This is also considered to be intended usage of the device. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 3: JP132 teaches the nanofiber layer contains fibers having a fiber diameter of 1 μm or more by 6% or more of all fibers (Table 1 teaches this.).
Claim 5: The prior arts do not explicitly state the nanofiber layer has a basis weight of 54 g/m2 to 59 g/m2--- , a thickness of 0.41 mm to 0.5 mm, and a density of 0.11 g/cm3 to 0.135 g/cm3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal parameters, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case the thickness, diameter, basis weight, density can all be changed and therefore these parameters would be able to be optimized. This would also depend upon what material is being used and what purpose the filter is being used for as well.
Rejection in view of JP132, JP441, and Johnson
Claim 6: The prior arts do not explicitly teach a first filtration section including the filtration member; and a second filtration section including a second filtration member, the second filtration member comprising a second filter paper capable of trapping oil mist, the second filter paper being folded into a corrugated form, wherein the second filtration section has a filtration efficiency different from a filtration efficiency of the first filtration section, and one of the first filtration section and the second filtration section having a lower filtration efficiency is provided at an upstream side. Johnson teaches in [0021] a mist reduction system has a multistage filtration system with a first rough filtering stage and a second fine fiber stage. It teaches that larger particles are removed first before entering the finer layer to remove smaller particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have multiple filtrations set up as Johnson teaches the benefit of being able to remove larger particles first so that only mist sized particles or mist reaches the second filter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (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 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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 06/30/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights