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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 10 2022 103 995.1, filed on 02/21/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the filter element comprising a part of the first carrier layer and the second carrier layer.” The limitation is unclear as to whether the filter element comprises only part of the first carrier layer together with the entire second carrier layer, or respective portions of both the first and second layers. In other words, it is unclear whether or not “part” applies to both layers.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the separating line" in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "prior to separating the portions" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the plural “the portions” in this limitation. Claim 1 recites separating “a portion” of the layer composite. It is unclear what portions are intended.
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.
4. 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaukoniemi et al., U.S. Pub. No. 20090241777 A1, October 01, 2009 (hereinafter “Kaukoniemi”) in view of Visco et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20200243902 A1, July 30, 2020 (hereinafter “Visco”).
Regarding claim 1, Kaukoniemi discloses a method of producing a filter element for electrostatic filtration comprising a multilayer filter structure (10) having a fibrous isolation/filter layer (12) disposed between conductive surface layers (14 and 16) (Fig. 1; paragraph 0037). The conductive layers (14, 16) comprise fibrous support matrices treated with an electrically conductive polymer, and the support matrices may be formed of woven or non-woven fabric (paragraphs 0037–0038, 0044), the isolation material layer (12) can comprise, for example, two or more fiber layers glued or otherwise bound to each other (paragraph 0042). Thus, Kaukoniemi teaches first and second planar media having respective carrier layers comprising nonwoven fabric at least partially provided with electrically conductive material (paragraph 0050). Kaukoniemi further discloses that the isolation layer (12) functions as the filtering layer and is arranged between and connected to conductive layers (14 and 16) (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0017, 0037). The conductive and isolation layers are mechanically joined to form multilayer structure (10), and the layers may be bound in an online process using wet or dry layering, including a multi-web paper machine suitable for mass production (paragraphs 0050, 0053–0054). Hence, Kaukoniemi teaches producing first and second media in web form, at least one having a filter layer arrangement connected to its carrier layer, amalgamating the media such that the filter layer is positioned between the conductive carrier layers, and thereby obtaining a multilayer web composite.
Kaukoniemi does not expressly teach forming the electrically conductive material as a plurality of coating areas spaced from one another in the web direction and separating the web along a line between adjacent coating areas.
Visco discloses this web-manufacturing arrangement. Visco forms a continuous web 100W and applies material layer (1101) intermittently so as to produce periodic, well-defined coated and uncoated regions (Fig. 12B; paragraphs 0346–0348). Visco discloses excising individual portions from the coated web by cutting along the width or length of the web, with the cutting operation occurring within uncoated region (1205), thereby avoiding cutting or scoring through the deposited coating (paragraph 0348). Figure 12B illustrates the spaced coated regions and intervening uncoated regions. Separating a portion of the layer composite in web form is carried out such that the separating line or subassemblies (1200Z) runs between two adjacent sub-areas (paragraph 0348).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaukoniemi’s continuously produced conductive filter web by applying the electrically conductive material intermittently, as taught by Visco, thereby providing spaced conductive coating areas and separating the resulting composite web through the intervening uncoated regions. Visco identifies the benefit of this arrangement as permitting individual articles to be separated without cutting or scoring through the deposited material layer, which would provide a predictable manufacturing advantage when cutting Kaukoniemi’s continuously produced multilayer filter web.
Regarding claim 2, Kaukoniemi discloses that the isolation layer (12) and conductive layers (14, 16) can be bound to each other with an online-method using wet or dry layering techniques and specifically teaches use of a multi-web paper machine, with the process being suitable for mass production (paragraphs 0053–0054). Visco further discloses forming and processing a continuous web 100W through successive inline processing stages and subsequently winding the coated web into a roll for downstream roll-to-roll processing (paragraphs 0346–0348).
Regarding claim 3, Kaukoniemi discloses positioning an additional layer arrangement between the first and second conductive carrier layers (14, 16). Kaukoniemi further teaches that the intermediate isolation/filter layer (12) need not be a single layer. Paragraph [0042] states that layer (12) may comprise two or more fiber layers glued or otherwise bound to each other, thereby providing a multilayer filter-layer arrangement between conductive layers (14 and 16). The isolation layer (12) is free of synthetic electret fibers, especially polyester. Thus, the fiber layer (12) does not accumulate electrostatic charges (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 6, Kaukoniemi fails to disclose that separating the portion of the layer composite in web form is carried out by a method process which is selected from a group consisting of cutting, punching and welding methods, preferably shearing, laser cutting and ultrasonic welding. However, Visco discloses separating portions from a continuous web by cutting (paragraphs 0348; Fig. 12B). Visco discloses forming discrete assemblies from coated regions of web 1200W and excising the assemblies by cutting along the widthwise and/or lengthwise direction of the web, preferably by laser cutting, with the cut being made within uncoated region (1205) (paragraph 0348).
Regarding claim 8, Kaukoniemi discloses that the underlying carrier may be a nonwoven fabric and that the carrier layers are treated with electrically conductive material (paragraphs 0044, 0050–0052). Visco discloses forming the plurality of coating areas by intermittently coating a continuous web (paragraph 0344). The material layer (1101) may be applied to web 100W in a continuous or intermittent fashion, and the intermittent application of layer (1101) to produce periodic well-defined coated and uncoated regions along the web (paragraph 0348 and Fig. 12B).
Regarding claim 9, Kaukoniemi discloses that the amount and distribution of conductive material arranged on the surface of the fibers of the matrix determines the electrical properties of the conductive layer, indicating that the spatial distribution of the conductive material is a manufacturing parameter that may be selected according to the desired filter construction (paragraph 0057). Visco discloses that material layer (1101) may be applied intermittently to continuous web 100W to form periodic, well-defined coated and uncoated regions, and that the web is cut within the intervening uncoated region (1205) (Fig. 12B and paragraph 0348).
Thus, once the spaced conductive coating areas of Visco are applied to Kaukoniemi’s conductive nonwoven web, the spacing between adjacent coating areas relative to their length would have been a matter of selecting the dimensions of the coated and uncoated regions to provide sufficient separation space while preserving the desired coated area. However, the prior art of record fails to disclose the specific claimed ranges of 0.01L–0.1L or 0.02L–0.05L, the spacing between adjacent coated regions is a result-effective process variable because it affects the available uncoated region in which separation is performed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize this spacing through routine experimentation to provide sufficient separation area while maintaining the desired coated area of the web. Where the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, determination of an optimum or workable range through routine experimentation is ordinarily obvious. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Kaukoniemi discloses the conductive layers may be uniformly conductive material structures and teaches formation of an essentially uniform and essentially homogenous electrically conductive structure on the surfaces of the porous support matrix (Claim 30; Fig. 1; paragraphs 0017, 0019). Visco discloses that a material layer mi applied to a web either continuously or intermittently (paragraph 0344), thereby establishing control over the extent of surface coverage during web coating.
Although Kaukoniemi and Visco fail to disclose the claimed 80% or more surface-area coverage, Kaukoniemi’s teaching of a uniformly and essentially homogenous conductive carrier layer would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to provide conductive material over a substantial portion of the carrier surface to obtain the desired electrical conductivity. The percentage of surface coverage would have been a result effective variable because the amount and distribution of conductive material affect the conductivity of the resulting carrier layer. Thus, determining a suitable coverage, including 80% or more, would have involved routine optimization of the known conductive coating to obtain the desired electrical performance, absent evidence or criticality or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 4, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaukoniemi and Visco, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Stinzendoerfer et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20140013941 A1, January 16, 2014 (hereinafter “Stinzendoerfer”).
Regarding claim 4, Kaukoniemi discloses that the intermediate filtering portion of the multilayer structure may comprise multiple fiber/filter layers (Fig. 1 and paragraph 0042) but fails to disclose the second filter layer comprises activated carbon in a mass fraction of 70% or more, based on the mass of the filter layer.
However, Stinzendoerfer discloses an adsorption filter layer comprising layers of fixed bulk activated carbon, wherein each layer comprises a carrier layer made of spunbounded fleece of PET fibers having a grammage of 85 g/m2 and approximately 800 g/m2 of activated carbon beads applied thereto (Fig. 6; paragraph 0080). Stinzendoerfer discloses arranging multiple layers to form an adsorption filter layer. Based on the disclosed grammages, the activated carbon mass fraction of the layer is approximately 800/(800 + 85) x 100 = 90.4 wt. %, which is greater than the claimed 70% or more.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the activated carbon filter layer of Stinzendoerfer into the filter layer arrangement of Kaukoniemi to provide adsorption of gaseous contaminants in addition to particulate filtration, since Stinzendoerfer discloses activated carbon as an adsorption filter layer for removing harmful gases from air stream (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 13, Kaukoniemi discloses a method of producing a filter element for electrostatic filtration comprising a multilayer filter structure (10) having a fibrous isolation/filter layer (12) disposed between conductive surface layers (14 and 16) (Fig. 1; paragraph 0037). The conductive layers (14, 16) comprise fibrous support matrices treated with an electrically conductive polymer, and the support matrices may be formed of woven or non-woven fabric (paragraphs 0037–0038, 0044), the isolation material layer (12) can comprise, for example, two or more fiber layers glued or otherwise bound to each other (paragraph 0042). Thus, Kaukoniemi teaches first and second planar media having respective carrier layers comprising nonwoven fabric at least partially provided with electrically conductive material (paragraph 0050). Kaukoniemi further discloses that the isolation layer (12) functions as the filtering layer and is arranged between and connected to conductive layers (14 and 16) (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0017, 0037). The conductive and isolation layers are mechanically joined to form multilayer structure (10), and the layers may be bound in an online process using wet or dry layering, including a multi-web paper machine suitable for mass production (paragraphs 0050, 0053–0054).
However, Kaukoniemi fails to disclose the additional second filter layer comprising activated carbon. Stinzendoerfer discloses an adsorption filter layer comprising layers of fixed bulk activated carbon, wherein each layer comprises a carrier layer made of spunbounded fleece of PET fibers having a grammage of 85 g/m2 and approximately 800 g/m2 of activated carbon beads applied thereto (Fig. 6; paragraph 0080). Stinzendoerfer discloses arranging multiple layers to form an adsorption filter layer. Based on the disclosed grammages, the activated carbon mass fraction of the layer is approximately 800/(800 + 85) x 100 = 90.4 wt. %, which is greater than the claimed 70% or more.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include Stinzendoerfer’s activated-carbon filter layer in Kaukoniemi’s intermediate filter-layer arrangement to provide adsorption of gaseous contaminants in addition to particulate filtration, since Stinzendoerfer discloses activated carbon as an adsorption filter layer for removing harmful gases from air stream (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 14, Kaukoniemi discloses arranging the filter layer between an upstream inlet side and a downstream outlet side of the gas flow. Figure 1 shows particle-containing gas entering the multilayer filter structure (10) from one side and filtered gas exiting from the opposite side through conductive layer (14), isolation/filter layer (12), and conductive layer (16). Kaukoniemi further discloses an ionization/pre-charging device upstream of the filter. Paragraph 0064 states that the airflow is directed to the vicinity of a corona wire before passing through the filter paper so that particles entrained in the airflow are electrically charged and expressly identifies such a device as a pre-charger used in electrical filtration. Figure 1 illustrates the pre-charging region immediately upstream of filter structure 10.
It would have been obvious to provide Kaukoniemi’s corona-wire pre-charger as an integrated component of the filter assembly so that incoming particles are ionized immediately before entering the electrically active filter medium, thereby improving electrostatic particle capture as demonstrated by Kaukoniemi. Kaukoniemi reports increased separation efficiency when the charged filter is used together with the pre-charger (paragraph 0036).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaukoniemi and Visco, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Dudr et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20140260146 A1, September 18, 2014 (hereinafter “Dudr”).
Regarding claim 5, Kaukoniemi discloses that its filter material may be folded or creased to increase the effective filtering area and may also be folded to form a multilayer filter (paragraph 0066). Dudr discloses a cutting apparatus (10) for welding of a total of four layers (16) of a multilayer filter medium web (12) along two welding seams (18) and for subsequent cutting of the filter medium web (12) along a cutting line (14) which is located between the two welding seams (18) (fig. 1; paragraph 0031). The welding seams (18) form the edges of the filter medium sections (20). The filter medium sections (20) can be folded and/or circumferentially closed in the filter element (Figs. 1-4; paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to fold the separated portion of the web produced according to Kaukoniemi and Visco, as taught by Dudr, in order to obtain a folded/pleated filter element having increased effective filtration area, as recognized by Kaukoniemi.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaukoniemi and Visco, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Johnson et al. U.S. Pub. No. 5980616 A, November 09, 1999 (hereinafter “Johnson”).
Regarding claim 7, Kaukoniemi fails to disclose that the width of the first medium transverse to the web direction is greater than the width of the second medium. However, Johnson discloses this relative-width arrangement in a web-fed filter manufacturing process. In Fig. 5, Johnson describes a rectilinear filter manufactured using web-fed equipment and states that the width of the carbon cloth used in filters (110) is less than the width of the filter material, thus providing an area free of carbon cloth along the edges (106 and 108) of filter (110) for sealing (col.5, lines 60-67; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the respective web materials of Kaukoniemi with different widths, as taught by Johnson, so that the wider web extends beyond the narrower web and provides exposed marginal regions that facilitate subsequent joining, sealing, and separation of the multilayer filter web.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaukoniemi, and Visco, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Sever et al., U.S. Pub. No. 9289968 B2, March 06, 2014 (hereinafter “Sever”).
Regarding claim 11, Sever discloses that the adhesive laminate is cut or punched into adjacent sections that remain connected only by small tie points (255), which are subsequently severed during transfer (Figs. 4A-4C, 9; paragraphs 0042, 0046). Sever identifies reducing or eliminating production waste as an objective of this arrangement. Sever further discloses spacing the separated portions by differential web speed (paragraph 0049). The first web (215) and second web (235) may initially move at substantially the same speed, after which the first web is stopped or advanced more slowly than the second web, causing the patch-shaped section to separate from the remaining laminate. The second web may then be maintained at the faster speed for a selected period to obtain the desired spacing (fig.4A-4C; paragraph 0046). The spacing between successive sections can be adjusted to any desired distance by adjusting the relative rates of motion of the two webs (fig. 5; paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ Sever’s known web-converting technique in the web process of Kaukoniemi and Visco to divide the second medium by cutting substantially without removing a waste area and to create the desired spacing between the resulting sub-areas by guiding the second medium at a reduced speed relative to the first medium, thereby providing controlled spacing while reducing material waste.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaukoniemi, and Visco, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Sever et al., U.S. Pub. No. 9289968 B2, March 06, 2014 (hereinafter “Sever”), in further view of Reed U.S. Pub. No. 4150183 A, April 17, 1979 (hereinafter “Reed”).
Regarding claim 12, Sever discloses transferring sections between first and second continuously moving webs and that the first web and second web may be moved at substantially the same speed during transfer (Fig.4A-4C; paragraph 0046-0049).
Reed discloses die-cutting label material (12) to form successive labels (18) surrounded by matrix (20) of excess material and thereafter stripping matrix (20) from liner (14), thus leaving the spaced labels (18) supported on the continuous liner (Figs. 1, 2, and 6; col. 2, lines 46-57). Reed further discloses that the matrix (20) is removed at stripping station (44) and collected on scrap roll (46) while the liner carrying the remaining spaced labels is taken up on roll (48) (Fig. 6; col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 3). The removed matrix constitutes waste area between the retained sub-areas, with removal of that waste area creating the spacing between the retained portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ Reed’s known waste removal technique in the continuous web process of Kaukoniemi and Visco to form spaced sub-areas by removing the intervening waste material, and to guide the respective media at the substantially same speed as taught by Sever, in order to maintain registration between the media during continuous web processing while obtaining the desired spacing through removal of intervening material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights