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) 9, 13-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon (USPGPub 2016/0015098) as in view of Yalcinkaya et al. (“Electrospun Polyamide-6 Nanofiber Hybrid Membranes for Wastewater Treatment” Fibers and Polymers 2019, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 93-99).
Regarding claim 9, Conlon teaches coating a substrate with nanofibers [0073] and sandwiching it between an outer layer and an inner layer (Fig. 3) to form a mask. Conlon further teaches that the fabrics used in the formation of the facemask of his invention may include non-woven melt blown materials such as polypropylene [0102][109-110]. Conlon further teaches that the fibers of his nanofiber layer are “at least about 150 times smaller than the diameter of each fiber of the nonwoven material” (claim 4) wherein the nanofiber dimensions are shown to be “about 10 to about 1500nm” [0071], implying that the fiber diameter of the non-woven material of Conlon overlaps the range claimed. Further those of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the diameter of the fibers present would directly affect the amount of air able to pass through the layers of the mask. Therefore, in the absence of criticality of the specific diameter range of the current claims, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the fiber diameter of Conlon within a range in order to control the ability of air to pass through the mask of Conlon. The teachings of Conlon are as shown above. Conlon fails to teach wherein the nanofibers are formed according to the methods of the current claims. However, Yalcinkaya teaches that it is known to form nanofiber webs by electrospinning nanofiber onto a web present between two spools and moved between a positively and negatively charged pair of wires with the positively charged wire receiving a coating solution provided on the wire by sliding a slider up and down the length of the wire to provide coating solution from a solution chamber (see Experimental and Fig. 1). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nanofiber deposition method of Yalcinkaya to deposit the nanofibers on a substrate as is done by Conlon as a use of a known nanofiber deposition method applied to a known product comprising deposited nanofibers ready for improvement to yield results that would be predictable based on the teachings of Yalcinkaya.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya are as shown above. Yalcinkaya teaches the use of spools over which the web is passed but it is noted stated that they are “free spinning”. However, there are a limited number of possibilities as to how the spool of Yalcinkaya could be operated (i.e., they are stationary, free spinning or the spin thereof is controlled by some spin control means). Therefore it would have been considered “obvious to try” for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ and of the limited number of roller operation methods wherein all methods would function in a predictable manner and would be expected to provide success.
Regarding claim 14, the teachings Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya are as shown above. Yalcinkaya does not explicitly teach that motors are used to rotate the spools rolling up the fabric substate to be coated. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that it is known in the art to use motors to operate rollers in general including those that roll paper, thread, yarn and belts used across many fields. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the operation of the substrate roller system of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya using a motor as a use of a known roller operation mechanism provided to a roller device in the same way.
Regarding claim 18, Conlon teaches coating a substrate with nanofibers [0073] and sandwiching it between an outer layer and an inner layer (Fig. 3) to form a mask. Conlon fails to teach wherein the nanofibers are formed according to the methods of the current claims. However, Yalcinkaya teaches that it is known to form nanofiber webs by electrospinning nanofiber onto a web present between two spools and moved between a positively and negatively charged pair of wires with the positively charged wire receiving a coating solution provided on the wire by sliding a slider up and down the length of the wire to provide coating solution from a solution chamber (see Experimental and Fig. 1). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nanofiber deposition method of Yalcinkaya to deposit the nanofibers on a substrate as is done by Conlon as a use of a known nanofiber deposition method applied to a known product comprising deposited nanofibers ready for improvement to yield results that would be predictable based on the teachings of Yalcinkaya.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon (USPGPub 2016/0015098) as in view of Yalcinkaya et al. (“Electrospun Polyamide-6 Nanofiber Hybrid Membranes for Wastewater Treatment” Fibers and Polymers 2019, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 93-99) as applied to claim 9, 13, 14 and 18 above and further in view of and further in view of Hirsch et al. (USPGPub 2017/0076901).
Regarding claims 10-11, the teachings Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya are as shown above. Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya fails to teach wherein the wires potentials are necessarily held with a single dual polarity power supply. However, Hirsch teaches that the use of dual-polarity power supplies [0083] is known for supplying the voltages present in electrospinning operations [0032]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the potential source of Hirsch in the electrospinning operation of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya as a use of a known potential provision technique to improve a similar electrospinning technique in the same way.
Regarding claims 12 and 15, it is noted that as relates to Conlon, “a coating on the coated substrate” would read upon the inner and outer layers of Conlon. Conlon fails to teach the pore opening size and thickness of those layers. However, Conlon further notes that porosity and pore size are known variables in layers of face mask material [0076-0077] wherein those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the pore size of layers of the mask would directly affect the ability of air to flow through said layers. Therefore, in the absence of criticality of the specific pore opening size range of the current claims, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pore opening size of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya and Hirsch in order to control the airflow through the layers of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya and Hirsch. Further Conlon teaches that fibrous layer thickness is a known variable in the manufacture of face masks [0073][0116] wherein those of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that layer thickness of face mask layers would directly affect the directness of the path of air through the masks directly affecting air flow. Therefore, in the absence of criticality of the specific coating thickness range of the current claims, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the outer and/or inner layer thickness of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya and Hirsch in order to control the airflow through the layers of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya and Hirsch.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon (USPGPub 2016/0015098) as in view of Yalcinkaya et al. (“Electrospun Polyamide-6 Nanofiber Hybrid Membranes for Wastewater Treatment” Fibers and Polymers 2019, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 93-99) and Hirsch et al. (USPGPub 2017/0076901) as applied to claims 10-12 and 15 above and further in view of Leong et al. (WO2008/069759) and further in view of Okimura et al. (USPGPub 2013/0338790).
Regarding claim 16, the teachings Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya and Hirsch are as shown above. Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya and Hirsch fails to teach the use of the electrospinning solution of the current claims. However, Leong teaches that a preferred electrospinning composition for creating nanofiber webs of controlled porosity size may comprise a copolymer formed from polyvinylidene fluoride, n,n-dimethylformamide, acetone and trifluoroacetic acid (see preferred composition). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrospinning composition of Leong in the electrospinning operations of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya and Hirsch as simple substitution of one known electrospinning composition for another wherein the results would be predictable based on the disclosure of Leong. The teachings of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya, Hirsch and Leong are as shown above. Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya, Hirsch and Leong fails to teach wherein the composition employed uses polyvinylidene difluoride instead of polyvinylidene fluoride. However, Okimura teaches that it is known to use polyvinylidene fluoride or polyvinylidene difluoride alternatively [0050] as the polymeric portion of a composition employed for the formation of biomedical fibers used in medical implants. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyvinylidene difluoride of Okimura in place of the polyvinylidene fluoride of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya, Hirsch and Leong as a simple substitution of one implantable non-woven fabric material for another wherein the results of said substitution would be predictable based upon the teachings of Okimura.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon (USPGPub 2016/0015098) as in view of Yalcinkaya et al. (“Electrospun Polyamide-6 Nanofiber Hybrid Membranes for Wastewater Treatment” Fibers and Polymers 2019, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 93-99) and Hirsch et al. (USPGPub 2017/0076901) as applied to claims 10-12 and 15 above and further in view of Leong et al. (WO2008/069759) and further in view of Okimura et al. (USPGPub 2013/0338790).
Regarding claims 17-18, Conlon teaches coating a substrate with nanofibers [0073] and sandwiching it between an outer layer and an inner layer (Fig. 3) to form a mask. Conlon further teaches that the fabrics used in the formation of the facemask of his invention may include non-woven melt blown materials such as polypropylene [0102][109-110]. Conlon further teaches that the fibers of his nanofiber layer are “at least about 150 times smaller than the diameter of each fiber of the nonwoven material” (claim 4) wherein the nanofiber dimensions are shown to be “about 10 to about 1500nm” [0071], implying that the fiber diameter of the non-woven material of Conlon overlaps the range claimed. Further those of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the diameter of the fibers present would directly affect the amount of air able to pass through the layers of the mask. Therefore, in the absence of criticality of the specific diameter range of the current claims, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the fiber diameter of Conlon within a range in order to control the ability of air to pass through the mask of Conlon. The teachings of Conlon are as shown above. Conlon fails to teach wherein the nanofibers are formed according to the methods of the current claims. However, Yalcinkaya teaches that it is known to form nanofiber webs by electrospinning nanofiber onto a web present between two spools and moved between a positively and negatively charged pair of wires with the positively charged wire receiving a coating solution provided on the wire by sliding a slider up and down the length of the wire to provide coating solution from a solution chamber (see Experimental and Fig. 1). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nanofiber deposition method of Yalcinkaya to deposit the nanofibers on a substrate as is done by Conlon as a use of a known nanofiber deposition method applied to a known product comprising deposited nanofibers ready for improvement to yield results that would be predictable based on the teachings of Yalcinkaya. Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya fails to teach wherein the wires potentials are necessarily held with a single dual polarity power supply. However, Hirsch teaches that the use of dual-polarity power supplies [0083] is known for supplying the voltages present in electrospinning operations [0032]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the potential source of Hirsch in the electrospinning operation of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya as a use of a known potential provision technique to improve a similar electrospinning technique in the same way. The teachings Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya and Hirsch are as shown above. Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya and Hirsch fails to teach the use of the electrospinning solution of the current claims. However, Leong teaches that a preferred electrospinning composition for creating nanofiber webs of controlled porosity size may comprise a copolymer formed from polyvinylidene fluoride, n,n-dimethylformamide, acetone and trifluoroacetic acid (see preferred composition). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrospinning composition of Leong in the electrospinning operations of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya and Hirsch as simple substitution of one known electrospinning composition for another wherein the results would be predictable based on the disclosure of Leong. The teachings of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya, Hirsch and Leong are as shown above. Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya, Hirsch and Leong fails to teach wherein the composition employed uses polyvinylidene difluoride instead of polyvinylidene fluoride. However, Okimura teaches that it is known to use polyvinylidene fluoride or polyvinylidene difluoride alternatively [0050] as the polymeric portion of a composition employed for the formation of biomedical fibers used in medical implants. Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyvinylidene difluoride of Okimura in place of the polyvinylidene fluoride of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya, Hirsch and Leong as a simple substitution of one implantable non-woven fabric material for another wherein the results of said substitution would be predictable based upon the teachings of Okimura.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon (USPGPub 2016/0015098) as in view of Yalcinkaya et al. (“Electrospun Polyamide-6 Nanofiber Hybrid Membranes for Wastewater Treatment” Fibers and Polymers 2019, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 93-99) and Hirsch et al. (USPGPub 2017/0076901) and Leong et al. (WO2008/069759) and Okimura et al. (USPGPub 2013/0338790) as applied to claims 17-18 above and further in view of Patel et al. (USPGPub 2014/0079759).
Regarding to claims 19-20, the teachings of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya, Hirsch, Leong and Okimura are as shown above. Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya, Hirsch, Leong and Okimura fails to teach wherein the fiber size employed is as claimed. However, Patel teaches the formation of breathable, nanoporous webs and scaffolds provided by electrospinning that use of fiber diameters in the claimed range [0142-0143]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fiber dimensions and porosity sizes of the invention of Patel to form any mask layers of Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya, Hirsch, Leong and Okimura in order to provide “breathable” scaffolds for face masks, breathability being a primary concern of face masks.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the applicants arguments, the applicant seemingly argues that the examiner set forth a rejection based on Conlon in view of Yalcinkaya that would constitute depositing the material of Conlon on a first material and removing it and then depositing the removed material elsewhere. This was not proposed by the examiner. Conlon shows a structure having electrospun layers each deposited on opposite sides of a single inner layer but fails to teach applying the coating in the manner claimed. However, the examiner applied Yalcinkaya to show that it would be possible to deposit those layers of the structure of Conlon in the manner employed by Yalcinkaya. This would not require a removal step whatsoever. The three layer inner structure of Conlon could be formed according to Yalcinkaya and that was what was proposed by the examiner. The examiner did not mention removal steps because they would not be present in the combination of these two inventions.
As relates to claim 15, the steps of claimed 15 are as described earlier in the prior art and rejection but claim 15 depended from claim 12. Therefore the rejection of claim 15 was presented in conjunction with the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding the rejection of claim 16, the applicant seems to argue that the prior arts employed (i.e., Conlon, Yalcinkaya, Hirsch, Leong and Okimura) are non-analogous prior arts and therefore cannot be properly combined. However, Conlon is related to the manufacture of masks which include non-woven and woven layers as filtration means. Yalcinkaya is related to the manufacture of nonwoven fibrous membranes for filtration means as well. As such these two references are very relevant to one another. Further Hirsch is related to the formation of Taylor cones as a concept but said concept is applied in form of Taylor cones for electrospinning, polymer spinning being the method employed by Yalcinkaya. As such, Hirsch is highly relevant to the teachings of Conlon and Yalcinkaya. Further Leong is related to the manufacture of non-woven bodies by electrospinning, as stated in the title of his patent. As such, it is highly relevant to the other prior arts applied. Finally Okimura, is again related to the manufacture of non-woven fabrics for varied uses by electrospinning. As such, Okimura is again highly related to the field of spinning polymers and to the provision of non-woven fabric formed therefrom.
Regarding the teachings of Patel, the examiner applied to teachings of Patel as relates to the inner and outer cloth layers as claimed wherein “any” layer includes those layers. Further the applicant argues that a change in fiber size would not address breathability in a meaningful way. However, this appears to be mere conjecture and is not supported by facts or scientific reasoning. Logically for the same weaving pattern, an increase in a fiber size would directly affect the porosity size formed and the ability of the fibers to move and fit against one another, making the pathway for air more or less tortuous as the fibers are varied. This is one of the reasons that nanofibers are included in the mask of Conlon. Those fibers would be more closely packed and presumably provide better filtering. However, at the same time they would also presumably affect breathability negatively if not considered appropriately. Further there is a logical connection between the breathability of all fabrics. That connection is that as those fabrics and the materials and patterns used to form them are varied, breathability may also vary.
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 ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717