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 § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by Meindl, US 2009/0049988 (Meindl, IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Meindl discloses an air-permeable filter (abstract) comprising a porous fluorine resin membrane (see “PTFE”, ¶ 0126) having one principal surface and the other principal surface, the porous fluorine resin membrane being treated with an oil-repellant agent (see “PFPE”, ¶ 0009), wherein an absorbance ratio Rf of the one principal surface (as determined primarily by C-O bond stretching in PFPE) and an absorbance ratio Rb of the other principal surface (as determined primarily by C-F stretching in PTPE) are not substantially the same (see asymmetric loading of oil-repellant agent, ¶ 0064-0065, 0068), where the absorbance ratio is calculated by formula 1 as follows: Rf = Aa/Am and Rb = Aa/Am, where Aa is an FTIR absorbance peak derived from the oil-repellant agent (see “PFPE”, ¶ 0009), and Am is an FTIR absorbance peak derived from C-F stretching (see “PTFE”, ¶ 0126).
Regarding claim 2, Meindl discloses a filter where Rf and Rb are greater than zero (see asymmetric loading of oil-repellant agent on PTFE surface, ¶ 0064-0065, 0068, where PFPE absorbance contributes primarily on coated side and minimally on uncoated side).
Regarding claim 3, Meindl discloses a filter where Rf > Rb (where C-F FTIR peak is greater than C-O FTIR peak), and the one principal surface (having the PFPE coating) has an oil repellancy to prevent permeation of n-alkane having 15 carbon atoms (see “PFPE”, ¶ 0009, 0047).
Regarding claim 5, Meindl discloses a filter wherein the porous fluorine resin membrane has a Gurley air permeability of 90 seconds/100mL or less (¶ 0417-0421).
Regarding claim 8, Meindl discloses a filter wherein the porous fluorine resin membrane is a porous polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (see “PTFE”, ¶ 0126).
Regarding claims 9-11, Meindl discloses a filter wherein the oil-repellant agent comprises perfluoropolyether (see “PFPE”, ¶ 0009).
Regarding claim 13, Meindl discloses a filter wherein the porous fluorine resin membrane has a porosity of 63% or more (¶ 0421-0421).
Regarding claim 14, Meindl discloses a filter wherein the porous fluorine resin membrane has a maximum pore diameter of 500 nm or less (¶ 0420-0421).
Regarding claim 15, Meindl discloses a filter further comprising a support layer for supporting the porous fluorine resin membrane (¶ 0134).
Regarding claim 16, Meindl discloses an air-permeable member comprising an air-permeable filter (described above) and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer bonded to the air-permeable filter (¶ 0401, 0424).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6-7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meindl.
Regarding claim 4, Meindl discloses various porous fluorine resin membranes having a pore diameter of 900 nm or less (¶ 0417-0421) but does not disclose the membrane having a Gurley air permeability of 12 seconds/100 mL or less. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a PTFE resin membrane having the recited Gurley air permeability range since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claims 6-7, Meindl does not explicitly disclose the rate of difference between absorbance ratios or Rm absorbance ratio at a depth of 40-60% of the porous fluorine resin membrane satisfying Rf > Rm > Rb. However, Meindl discloses asymmetric loading of the oil-repellant agent on the porous fluorine resin membrane surface (¶ 0064-0065, 0068), where the membrane can be saturated with said oil-repellant agent according to desired performance characteristics (¶ 0067-0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide those characteristics recited in claims 6-7, 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 (as it relates to oil-repellant loading) involves only routine skill in the art absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05, Section II, Part A).
Regarding claim 12, while Meindl discloses the porous fluorine resin membrane having a water entry pressure of 180 kPa or more (¶ 0048), Meindl does not disclose the water entry pressure test being conducted with an aqueous isopropanol solution with a concentration of 30% by weight. However, it can be envisaged that the porous fluorine resin membrane provided in Meindl would have similar performance in IPA, since the membrane material is the same as recited in the claims and a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect similar performance characteristics absent a showing to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights