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
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 and 15-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2010/124899 to Canonico (as evidenced by the machine translation of the priority document ITMI20090730A1) in view of WO-2009/092922 to Dieudonne, US Pub No. 2013/0197664 to Ballard and US Pub No. 2011/0004997 to Hale.
Regarding Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 and 15-18 and 21
Canonico discloses a carrier layer comprising a woven monofilament fabric (Canonico, page 2, lines 15-16) and an electrospun membrane arranged on the carrier, which necessarily results in fibers lying one above the other, forming a pore structure (Id., page 2, lines 17-19). Canonico teaches that the layers are bonded together (Id., Page 2, lines 22-25. See also page 9, line 24 to page 10, line 3). Canonico also discloses a plasma treatment applied to the woven monofilament fabric carrier layer (Id., Page 10, lines 4-7). Canonico discloses that the carrier layer is fixedly connected to the membrane (Id., page 10, lines 1-3). Canonico teaches that the membrane is arranged between two carrier layers (Id., page 2, line 32, claim 5, see machine translation paragraph [0016]).
Canonico teaches that the composite structure can be formed as a barrier against the penetration of microorganisms (Id.). Canonico teaches that the air permeability is at least 10 l/m2*s (Id., fig. 5). Canonico teaches that the yarn diameter may be within a range of 30 to 150 micrometers such as approximately 30 micrometers and a mesh opening below 300 micrometers such as approximately 30 micrometers (Id., fig. 9). Canonico teaches that there may be one or more electrospun layers (Id., page 2, lines 10-16).
Canonico does not disclose a plasma coating applied to the electrospun membrane layer or that the plasma treatment of the woven layer comprises a coating. However, Dieudonne teaches a method for modifying the surface of a membrane by plasma treatment (Dieudonne, abstract). The method imparts water-repellent properties to said membrane, which can be a woven fabric, non-woven fabric or composite material (Id., page 4, lines 14-16), the membrane is treated with a plasma of a precursor compound selected from a hydrocarbon gas, a fluorocarbon gas, mixtures thereof, a fluorocarbon liquid. The membrane can be used also as a filter (Id., line 10 page 1). The plasma process may be provided according to the PECVD method (Id., line 9 page. 4). Dieudonne teaches that the plasma coating is formed from a material with hydrophobic and/or oleophobic properties and may be of the claimed compounds such as fluoroacrylates (Id., page 3, lines 3-6, page 6, lines 25-30, page 8, line 15, page 10, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of Canonico and to apply a plasma coating to both the electrospun membrane layers and woven carrier layers as taught by Dieudonne, motivated to add a plasma coating to the fabric composite to impart hydrophobic and oleophobic properties in a well-known manner according to a well-known technique, and with an expectation of success.
Canonico teaches that the membrane prevents passage of particles having a size of 1-2 microns but does not appear to specifically teach that the maximum pore size is between 0.1 micrometers and 0.4 micrometers. However, Ballard teaches a multilayer fabric membrane comprising one or more electrospun membrane layers having a pore size which may be below 0.2 or below 0.3 micrometers, which overlaps the claimed range of between 0.1 and 0.4 micrometers (Ballard, abstract, paragraph [0170], [0218]). Ballard teaches this pore size inhibits cell growth and removes dust, pollen, mold and bacteria (Id., paragraph [0201]). Ballard teaches that the pore size may be in the form of a gradient wherein two layers may possess differing pore sizes which improves efficiency for optimal filtration performance (Id., paragraphs [0146], [0148], [0155], [0159]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the fabric composite of Canonico and to utilize a pore size such as within the claimed range and gradient, as taught by Ballard, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite fabric filtering means having improved cell, microbial and bacterial barrier characteristics, with improved efficiency and performance.
Canonico teaches that the fabric composite is useful in applications such as filtering means or media, for filtering liquid and air; protective and barrier fabric materials (in sanitary, military, cloth article applications and so on) (Canonico, page 7) but does not disclose a seam provided at a surrounding edge of the protective vent, wherein the seam frames the protective vent. However, Hale teaches a bedding product comprising a core and a vent component which allows airflow into and out of the interior space (Hale, abstract). Hale teaches that the vent component comprises a seam formed by welding which provides a secure attachment to prevent removal of the vent either by accidental or intentional tampering (Id., paragraphs [0027]-[0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the fabric composite of Canonico and to include a seam component as taught by Hale, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite fabric filtering means which is securely fastened to a functional substrate to fully practice the invention of Canonico and its applications.
Regarding the limitations of “by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition” and “is applied after forming the bonding,” these limitations are product by process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. 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 a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding Claim 9
Regarding the limitations of the product being a bedding product, this limitation is an intended use limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canonico in view of Dieudonne, Ballard and Hale as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 and 15-18 and 21 above, in view of US Pub No. 2004/0255783 to Graham.
Regarding Claim 20
The prior art combination does not specifically teach that the second carrier layer may be a non-woven of different material. However, Graham teaches a high efficiency filter comprising an electrospun nanofiber layer and a substrate layer, wherein the substrate layer may be either woven or non-woven (Graham, abstract, paragraph [0074]- [0079]). Graham teaches that the substrate that the non-woven substrate comprises coated or uncoated glass fiber and allows less than 5% particle penetration, and when fiberglass is used high efficiency and robust mechanical stability is achieved (Id., claim 3, paragraph [0018]). Graham teaches that utilizing the substrate layer in combination with additional substrate layers improves the efficiency of the filter (Id., paragraph [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite fabric of the prior art combination and to include as the second carrier layer, the non-woven substrate layer of Graham, motivated by the desire to form a composite fabric utilizing demonstrably suitable carrier layers for filtration devices, and possessing improved efficiency, strength and filtration properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection. To the extent to which Applicants’ arguments still apply, they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that Graham in combination with the cited references fails to teach disclose or otherwise reasonably suggest having one carrier layer different from another. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above and in the Non-Final rejection of February 20, 2025, the prior art teaches a multilayer woven composite membrane but differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a single woven layer with a non-woven layer. Graham teaches non-woven layers for use in composite membranes and their functions are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite fabric of the prior art combination and to include as the second carrier layer, the non-woven substrate layer of Graham, motivated by the desire to form a composite fabric utilizing demonstrably suitable carrier layers for filtration devices, and possessing improved filtration properties. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143 I (B)).
Applicant argues that Canonico merely states that there may be one or more electrospun layers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Canonico teaches specifically to couple with an additional fabric to form a sandwich of fabric (substrate) which contains the nanofibrous layer within which meets the limitations of the claims (Id., see machine translation of December 15, 2022, paragraph [0016]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST.
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 Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786