DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 8/10/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivant US Patent 8,986,414.
Regarding claim 1, Sullivan teaches a filter media comprising:
A reversible pleated filter sheet having opposing sides, pleats 30 providing a valley or trough 40 in successive tops or peaks 50 (column 7 lines 25-33);
At least some of the front pleats each comprise junctions as multiple adhesive elements, including glue dots or patterned adhesives, (column 8 lines 47-50); and further teaches that two adhesive lines are arranged in a cross pattern where the angles, distribution, and location may be varied (Figures 2C-2D, column 7 lines 59-column 8 line 26 and lines 47-65);
The adhesives lines in Figures 2C extend at an angle across the parallel pleats, the lines intersect successive pleats at different positions along the pleat direction. Therefore, the junctions of one of the front pleats are offset, along the pleat direction, from the junctions of the other front pleat (column 8 lines 6-12 lines 47-65).
Regarding claim 2, Sullivan teaches compressing a pre-pleated sheet material into a compacted pleated stack 100, where the pleat walls are brought into the close abutment and the pleat valleys are collapsed (Figure 3, column 9 lines 17-43).
Regarding claim 3, Sullivan teaches expanding or deploying the compacted filter media, in a traverse direction to the pleat direction, and separating the pleats while retaining an adhered portion along only on part of each pleat Thus, the unbonded wall portions more apart while the bonded portions remain joined (Figures 4A-5C, column 9 lines 44-61).
Regarding claim 7, Sullivan teaches the adhesive element and spacing structure are located on the same side of the filter media (claim 27). The opposing side therefore lacks the claimed wall junctions, allowing its pleat walls to move apart along their lengths during expansion.
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.
Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivant US Patent 8,986,414.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Sullivan teaches applying adhesives to any selected portion of the pleat between its peak and trough (column 7 lines 59-66).
Sullivan does not explicitly teach wherein each local area of a front pleat wall that is frontally joined to a complementary local area of an adjoining front pleat wall to form a junction, occupies from 10 to 90 % of a pleat distance of the front pleat wall and includes a zone that is no further away from the front pleat tip than 20 % of the pleat distance of the front pleat wall, with the proviso that the local area does not include the front pleat tip.
Heilmann teaches applying adhesive near the pleat tip and allowing the adhesive to penetrate down the pleat walls by about 30% ([0023]). Thus, it would have been obvious to apply Heilmann’s near tip adhesive region while leaving the actual tip uncovered as taught by Sullivan, in order to retain reinforcement near the tip without coating or joining at the tip.
Regarding claim 13, Sullivan teaches that the bonded pleated filter members contain optional space support structures attached to the pleat tips (column 7 lines 33-3). Since the structures are optional. Sullivan suggests the filter media does not comprise any pleat-stabilizing member or members bonded to the front-side pleat tips, nor any pleat-stabilizing member or members bonded to the rear-side pleat tips.
Regarding claim 14, Sullivan teaches the angles and crossed adhesive patterns that offset junctions are on some neighboring pleats. Sullivan, however, does not teach that the junctions are offset for every pair of nearest-neighbor pleats.
However, it would have been obvious to apply Sullivan’s adhesive lines at a consistent nonzero angle across the entire pleated filter media. An angled line intersects each successive pleat and a different position along the pleat direction, thereby offsetting the junctions for every pair of nearest-neighbor pleats. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide a uniform adhesive pattern and support throughout the filter.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivant US Patent 8,986,414 in view of Gillian US 2013/0205732.
Regarding claim 4, Sullivan does not explicitly teach the diamond-pleated filter media exhibits an expansion ratio of at least 3:1. However, Gilian teaches a collapsible pleated filter that is sized 16×25×4 inches and collapses to fit into a space of 16×6×2.5 inches. The expansion ratio is about 4.17:1 (along the length).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Sullivan’s filter to the expansion ratio of Gillian to reduce the filter’s shipping and storage size volume while allowing it to operate at its intended size.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Sullivan teaches where the filter media is in the expanded configuration and is viewed from the front side, the diamond-pleated filter media exhibits a plurality of frontally-open-ended, rearwardly-closed-ended pockets, each in the general shape of a rhombus that comprises a length that is aligned with the pleat direction and a width that is aligned with the expansion direction (Figures 2C and 2D)
Sullivan does not explicitly teach the diamond-pleated filter media exhibits a exhibit a vertex angle of from 150 to 175 degrees or a length to width aspect ratio of from 4:1 to 20:1.
However, the length and width of the filter is considered a result effective variable. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the length to width aspect ratio to arrive at 4:1 to 20:1, or the line segment shape to reach a vertex angle of from 150 to 175 by routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 12, Sullivan does not explicitly teach: the adhesive being present at a thickness that is less than 25 % of a maximum pleat spacing of the front pleats of the diamond-pleated filter media when the diamond-pleated filter media is in an expanded configuration, the diamond-pleated filter media exhibits a pleat height of from 1.5 cm to 2.5 cm and a pleat density of from 0.3 to 3 pleats per cm, and wherein the junctions are spaced along each pleat along the pleat direction, at a spacing of from 3.0 cm to 7.0 cm, or the diamond-pleated filter media comprises a thickness of less than 1.0 mm, wherein the pleat tips of the diamond-pleated filter media exhibit an average radius of curvature of less than 1.0 mm, and wherein the diamond-pleated filter media exhibits a Gurley stiffness of at least 150 mg.
However, the filter’s thickness, pleat dimensions, weight, density and stiffness are considered result effective variables. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize these parameters by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights