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
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 2-12, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by WO reference (WO2008/078858A1).
WO reference in figure 4 teaches a filter media, comprising: a first layer, wherein the first layer comprises fibers(spunbond nonwoven layer 2 in figure 4); a second layer, wherein the second layer is a meltblown layer(meltblown nonwoven layer 1 in figure 4); and an adhesive between the first layer and the second layer , wherein the first layer is bonded to the second layer by the adhesive(page 8 lines 8-9 stating “In addition, each layer of the filter material can be laminated by either of needle punching, low melting point resin, or water soluble resin, or the mixture thereof”), wherein a bond strength between the first and second layers is greater than or equal to 100 g/in²(examiner noting an adhesive is identified as a “water-soluble resin”, and lines 11-13 stating “lamination process by the heat treatment in the post processing may be used in order for easy bonding. Lamination process by the heat treatment can be accomplished by heat treatment of the meltblown web using fusing oven, belt press, calender or hot air, etc at 100-300 C”, wherein examiner respectfully submits providing a water-soluble resin along with a heat treatment post processing is expected to provide a claimed bond strength between the first and second layers is greater than or equal to 100 g/in²; examiner also noting page 15 of the specification stating “the adhesive … may be a solvent-based adhesive, … the solvent may be water” , page 16 stating “the filter media may be subject to one or more treatment steps after two or more layers have been laminated together. For instance , the filter media may be subject to a step in which increased heat is applied, … the temperature is … greater than or equal to 100 C”; examiner noting that WO reference providing equivalent water-soluble resin adhesive, along with equivalent lamination and post lamination treatment steps with application of heat at greater than or equal to 100 C, would provide for the claimed bond strength; also noting page 11 lines 1-2 of WO reference stating “low melting point meltblown is melted to increase the bonding strength to the non-woven web”) , wherein the first layer has a mean flow pore size of greater than or equal to 0.5 microns and less than or equal to 100 microns(page 6 stating “the spunbond non-woven fabric used in the pre-layer may have various properties, … and a pore size of 10 microns or above”), and wherein the filter media has a stiffness of greater than or equal to 50 mg, wherein the stiffness is measured in a cross direction( examiner noting page 11 stating “the filter material according to the present invention can be pleatable”; examiner noting WO reference providing a pleated laminated filter media including a water soluble resin adhesive and post processing heat treatment is expected to provide a claimed stiffness of greater than or equal to 50 mg; examiner also noting page 8 of WO reference stating “the filter material according to the present invention may preferably comprises a support layer in the back of the meltblown layer”; examiner also noting page 53 of the current specification stating “in embodiments where the filter media comprises at least one support layer(e.g. a first layer, a third layer, a fifth layer), the support layer or layers may have any suitable Gurley stiffness, … , In some embodiments , the Gurley stiffness in the cross direction of the support layer or layers … greater than or equal to 50 mg”).
With regards to claim 3, WO reference further teaches wherein the filter media has an efficiency of greater than 95% according to standard EN1822:2009 (noting table on page 14 stating an end dust holding efficiency % for example 1 of 99.77%).
With regards to claim 4, WO reference further teaches wherein the first layer is a wetlaid layer, a meltblown layer, a charged mcltblown layer, a support layer, or a pre-filter layer(page 6 stating “the spunbond non-woven fabric used in the pre-layer”).
With regards to claim 5, WO reference further teaches wherein the filter media comprises a third layer(noting third layer in figure 4; also noting “support layer in the back of the meltblown layer”).
With regards to claim 6, WO reference further teaches wherein the third layer is a meltblown layer, a wetlaid layer, a pre-filter layer, or a support layer.
With regards to claim 7, WO reference further teaches wherein the third layer is a charged meltblown layer(pages 8-9 stating “the support may be formed by the conventional non-woven fabric, … the non-woven fabric can also be prepared according to … meltblown processes”).
With regards to claim 8 , WO reference further teaches wherein the first layer or the second layer is a surface- modified layer.
With regards to claim 9 , WO reference further teaches wherein the surface modification of at least one of the first layer and second layer has been performed by a chemical deposition technique, by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition, by electron beam assisted radiation curing, by a physical deposition technique, or by powder coating(examiner noting a spunbonding method as stated on page 7 is equivalent to surface modification performed by a physical deposition technique).
With regards to claim 10 , WO reference further teaches wherein the filter media has a DOP penetration at the MPPS of less than or equal to 0.5% at a DOP oil loading of greater than or equal to 4.5 g/m²(examiner notes that the limitations of claim 10 directed to a characteristic of the claimed filter media, wherein the filter media of WO reference with equivalent first layer, second layer, adhesive, and filter efficiency on page 14 is expected to provide a filter media has a DOP penetration at the MPPS of less than or equal to 0.5% at a DOP oil loading of greater than or equal to 4.5 g/m²).
With regards to claim 11 , WO reference further teaches wherein the filter media has a gamma value of greater than or equal to 18(Examiner noting a gamma value is a characteristic of the filter media based on exposure to an IPA vapor, wherein anticipation of the claimed filter media is based on the prior art reference teaching the claimed structural elements, and wherein the filter media of WO reference is expected to provide a gamma value of greater than or equal to 18) .
With regards to claim 12 , WO reference further teaches wherein the filter media has a basis weight of less than or equal to 150 g/m²(page 9 stating “the finally prepared composite filter media has preferably as a total weight of 150 to 500 g/m”).
With regards to claim 16 , WO reference further teaches wherein the filter media is a component of a filter element.
With regards to claim 17 , WO reference further teaches wherein the first layer comprises multi-component fibers(pages 6-7 stating “the material can be spun after mixing or spun in the form of bi-component”).
With regards to claim 18 , WO reference further teaches wherein the filter media has a stiffness of greater than or equal to 200 mg, wherein the stiffness is measured in either a machine direction or a cross direction ( examiner noting page 11 stating “the filter material according to the present invention can be pleatable”; examiner noting WO reference providing a laminated filter media including a water soluble resin adhesive and post processing heat treatment is expected to provide a claimed stiffness of greater than or equal to 200 mg; examiner also noting page 8 of WO reference stating “the filter material according to the present invention may preferably comprises a support layer in the back of the meltblown layer”; examiner also noting page 53 of the current specification stating “in embodiments where the filter media comprises at least one support layer(e.g. a first layer, a third layer, a fifth layer), the support layer or layers may have any suitable Gurley stiffness, … , In some embodiments , the Gurley stiffness in the cross direction of the support layer or layers … greater than or equal to 200 mg”).
With regards to claim 19 , WO reference further teaches wherein the first layer is a pre-filter layer.
With regards to claim 20 , WO reference further teaches wherein the first layer is the layer that is furthest upstream.
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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO reference (WO2008/078858A1).
With regards to claim 13, WO reference further teaches wherein the filter media has a thickness of mm dimension. WO reference is silent as to wherein the thickness is less than or equal to 1 mm. Examiner respectfully submits that filter media thickness is a result effective variable which can be modified, through routine experimentation, based on the filtering application required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter media having a thickness less than or equal to 1 mm in order to optimize a filter efficiency based on overall thickness and overall amount of filter media provided for filtration.
With regards to claim 14 , WO reference further teaches wherein the filter media is pleated(page 11 stating the filter material according to the present invention can be pleatable”). WO reference is silent as to and the pleat height is greater than or equal to 10 mm and less than or equal to 510 mm. Examiner respectfully submits that pleat height is a result effective variable which can be modified, through routine experimentation, based on the filtering application required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pleat height is greater than or equal to 10 mm and less than or equal to 510 mm for the pleated filter media of WO reference in order to provide a pleat height which optimizes an overall cross sectional area for filtration of the filter media.
With regards to claim 15 , WO reference wherein the filter media is pleated(page 11 stating the filter material according to the present invention can be pleatable”). WO reference is silent as to and has a pleat density of greater than or equal to 6 pleats per 100 mm and less than or equal to 100 pleats per 100 mm. Examiner respectfully submits that pleat density is a result effective variable which can be modified, through routine experimentation, based on the filtering application required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pleat density greater than or equal to 6 pleats per 100 mm and less than or equal to 100 pleats per 100 mm in order to provide a pleat density which optimizes an overall cross sectional area for filtration of the filter media.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights