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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Olsen (US6315130B1A) in view of Fox (US20110000845).
Claim 1: Olsen teaches an air-filter media comprising a relofted, spunbonded nonwoven web, wherein the relofted, spunbonded nonwoven web is a hydroentangled web (Column 12 lines 26-38 teaches that the filter medium is a sheet of non woven fiber that can be meltblown spunbound, carded, or hydroentangled.).
Olsen does not explicitly state exhibiting a solidity of from less than 8.0 %, to at least 3.0 %, and exhibiting a Quality Factor of at least 0.30. Olsen teaches in column 11 line 64-67 that the filter medium 20 is pleated. Column 12 lines 14-25 can be used to filter any fluid, and that the parameters of the filter can be changed depending on what it is being used for.
Fox teaches a pleated air-filter media ([0067] teaches that the webs disclosed can be pleated for air filtration) comprising a spunbonded nonwoven web ([0006]-[0010] teach this is a spunbounded nonwoven web) exhibiting a solidity of from less than 8.0%, to at least 3.0% ([0033] teaches solidity from 4-8%), and exhibiting a Quality Factor of at least 0.30 ([0068] teaches quality factor of at least 0.5/0.7/1). Fox teaches in [0068] that well known parameters of properties for filtration include quality factor. Fox teaches in [0021] that solidity depends upon the filter volume itself.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the filter with a specific quality factor and solidity as indicated in Fox as the filter of Olsen or the filter of Olsen as the filter of Fox as Olsen teaches that the filter can be changed depending on what is being sent through and filtered, and Fox teaches that these are well known parameters for filtration itself and solidity depends upon the filter volume itself. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the quality factor and solidity is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide more efficient filtration. MPEP 2144.05.
The limitation “relofted” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation since it is drawn to a product, i.e., spunbonded nonwoven web, but it includes a process step of making the product, i.e., "relofted". Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP 2113 [R-1]. Without claiming the degree of relofting, the media of Olsen in view of Fox can be considered relofted, since Olsen discloses hydroentangling, and page 7 2nd paragraph of the present application teaches that “spunbonded webs that have been relofted by methods such as needle-punching and/or hydroentangling may be readilty identified as having been subjected to such processes”.
Claim 2: Fox teaches the web comprises a solidity of from less than 7.0% to at least 4.0% ([0033] teaches at least about 6%.).
Claim 3: Fox teaches the web comprises at least some meltspun fibers that are charged ([0015]-[0016] teaches that spunbonded has a set of meltspun fibers. [0037] teaches that webs can have monocomponent fibers that are charged.).
Claim 4: Fox teaches the web comprises at least some meltspun fibers that are hydrocharged ([0015]-[0016] teaches that spunbonded has a set of meltspun fibers. [0065] teaches that the webs can be charged as is well known in the art for example by hydrocharging.).
Claim 5: Fox teaches web comprises at least some meltspun, charged fibers that are monocomponent fibers ([0015]-[0016] teaches that spunbonded has a set of meltspun fibers. [0037] teaches that webs can have monocomponent fibers that are charged.).
Claim 6: Fox teaches the air-filtration web comprises a Quality Factor of at least about 0.70 ([0068] teaches a quality factor of at least about 0.7.).
Claim 7: Fox teaches the web comprises a Quality Factor of at least about 1.0 ([0068] teaches a quality factor of at least 1.0.).
Claim 8: Referring to the limitation “the relofted web comprises fiber-fiber melt bonds and also comprises broken fiber-fiber melt bonds,” (Fox teaches in [0006]-[0010] this is a spunbounded nonwoven web. Olsen teaches in column 12 lines 26-38 the fibers can be spunbond. Applicant’s specification teaches in page 2 under Detailed Description that spunbonded refers to a nonwoven web comprises of fibers that exhibit fiber-fiber bonds. Page 6 of the specification teaches in the third paragraph that conventional handling and processing of a spunbonded web will have broken fiber fiber bonds. Therefore it appears that spunbonded webs would have both fiber-fiber and broken fiber-fiber melt bonds. Examiner notes that applicant’s specification also states there is a difference between the broken fiber fiber bonds of the material and conventional handling, however the claim only teaches that there are both fiber-fiber and broken fiber-fiber bonds, therefore the prior art reads upon this structure.).
Claim 9: Olsen and Fox do not explicitly teach the web comprises multi-fiber area-bonds that are present at an area ratio of no more than 2.5%. Fox teaches a high loft spunbonded web (abstract) and calendaring methods for producing these webs ([0055]). Olsen teaches in column 12 lines 26-38 the filter medium can be calendered. Applicant’s specification teaches in page 5 last paragraph that the area bonds are created by calendaring, this would mean that Fox teaches area bonds as it teaches the use of calendaring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have multi fiber area bonds at an area ratio of no more than 2.5% as Fox teaches in [0055] that any bonding method can be manipulated to an advantage in order to enhance the integrity and physical strength of a web. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the area bond ratio is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide better integrity and strength of a web as taught by the calendaring methods of Fox. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 10: Olsen and Fox teaches the web is a pleated web (Olsen teaches in column 11 lines 64-65 and figure 1 this is pleated. Fox teaches in Figure 6, [0004], and [0060] that this can be pleated.).
Claim 11: Fox teaches a perimeter support frame mounted on each of four major edges of the air-filter media (Figure 6, [0004], and [0067] teach that there is a perimeter frame to enhance stability of the pleated filter.).
Claim 12: Olsen and Fox teach the relofted, spunbonded nonwoven web is a monolayer web that is the only nonwoven web present in the air-filter media (Olsen teaches in figure 2 and column 12 lines 6-13 that there is only one single filter medium 20 and that 22 and 24 are just diffusion media. Fox teaches in the figures there is only one filter layer and in [0065] that additional layers can be added.).
Claim 13: Olsen and Fox teach the relofted, spunbonded nonwoven monolayer web is the only air-filtration layer present in the air filter (Olsen teaches in figure 2 and column 12 lines 6-13 that there is only one single filter medium 20 and that 22 and 24 are just diffusion media. Fox teaches in the figures there is only one filter layer and in [0065] that additional layers can be added.).
Claim 14: Olsen and Fox teaches the method comprising passing the stream of flowing air through the air-filter media of claim 1 (Olsen teaches in column 12 lines 14-25 that the filter can filter fluids such as gas, which would require passing gas over or through the filter. Fox teaches in figure 6 and [0067] using the web as a pleated filter for air filtration. If this is used for air filtration, that would involve passing air through this such as in forced ventilation systems as taught by Fox.).
Claim 15: Olsen teaches a process of relofting a spunbonded precursor web, the process comprising: hydroentangling a spunbonded precursor web (Column 12 lines 26-38 teaches that the filter medium is a sheet of non woven fiber that can be meltblown spunbound, carded, or hydroentangled.).
Olsen does not explicitly state a solidity of no more than 10 %, to produce an air-filter media that is a relofted, spunbonded air-filtration web comprising a solidity of from less than 8.0 %, to at least 3.0 %, and comprising a Quality Factor of at least 0.30.
Fox teaches a spunbonded air-filtration web ([0067] teaches that the webs disclosed can be pleated for air filtration) comprising a solidity of from less than 8.0 %, to at least 3.0 % ([0033] teaches solidity from 4-8%), and comprising a Quality Factor of at least 0.30 ([0068] teaches quality factor of at least 0.5/0.7/1).
Fox teaches in [0025] that after collection, the web of spunbonded fibers can be subjected to one or more bonding operations to enhance the integrity and handleability of the web, such as laminators. Fox teaches in [0033] that the solidity is about 4-8%, this would read upon the initial solidity of no more than 10% as Fox teaches there is an additional bonding operation afterward to enhance the web. Fox teaches in [0068] that well known parameters of properties for filtration include quality factor. Fox teaches in [0021] that solidity depends upon the filter volume itself.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the filter with a specific quality factor and solidity as indicated in Fox as the filter of Olsen or the filter of Olsen as the filter of Fox as Olsen teaches that the filter can be changed depending on what is being sent through and filtered, and Fox teaches that these are well known parameters for filtration itself and solidity depends upon the filter volume itself. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the quality factor and solidity is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide more efficient filtration. MPEP 2144.05.
Referring to the limitation of “relofted,” the media of Olsen in view of Fox can be considered relofted, since Olsen discloses hydroentangling, and page 7 2nd paragraph of the present application teaches that “spunbonded webs that have been relofted by methods such as needle-punching and/or hydroentangling may be readilty identified as having been subjected to such processes”.
Claim 16: Olsen and Fox teach the spunbonded precursor web is a monolayer web and wherein the hydroentangling process is performed on the spunbonded precursor monolayer web in isolation, in the absence of any other layers (Olsen teaches in figure 2 and column 12 lines 6-13 that there is only one single filter medium 20 and that 22 and 24 are just diffusion media. Fox teaches in the figures there is only one filter layer and in [0065] that additional layers can be added. Therefore these would be done as a single layer.).
Claim 17: Olsen and Fox teach the air-filter media that is produced by the hydroentangling of the spunbonded precursor web, consists of the relofted, spunbonded air-filtration web (Olsen and Fox teach this single layer and therefore would read upon this claim.).
Claim 18: Fox teaches a step of mounting a perimeter support frame on major edges of the air-filter media to form a framed air filter, with the air-filter media being the only air-filtration layer of the framed air filter (Figure 6, [0004], and [0067] teach that there is a perimeter frame to enhance stability of the pleated filter. The figures of Fox show this is a single layer.).
Claim 19: Olsen and Fox teach the relofting process as indicated above. The prior arts do not explicitly state the relofting process is performed in-line with a subsequent process of pleating the relofted, spunbonded air-filtration web.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the relofting process performed in-line with a subsequent process of pleating the relofted, spunbonded air-filtration web as it would not make sense to pleat the web before finishing enhancing the stability/handleability as taught by Fox in [0025].
Claim 20: Olsen and Fox teach the relofting process as indicated above. The prior arts do not explicitly state the relofting process is performed in-line with a subsequent process of mounting a perimeter support frame on major edges of the relofted, spunbonded air-filtration web.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the relofting process performed in-line with a subsequent process of mounting a perimeter support frame on major edges of the relofted, spunbonded air-filtration web, as it would not make sense to mount the web before finishing enhancing the stability/handleability as taught by Fox in [0025].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20060242933, 20100320138, 20100155323, 20120144790, 6420024, 8613795.
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 07/15/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights