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.
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 1, 4, 7-8, 10-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultink et al. WO2017158026 published 21 Sep. 2017 as translated by US 2019/0082913 (hereafter ‘026) and further in view of EP 1198280 published 16 Apr. 2002 as translated by US 6,372,004 (hereafter ‘280), Westwood et al. WO 2011/112311 published 15 Sep. 2011 (hereafter ‘311), and Lee et al. US 2017/0058159 (hereafter ‘159).
Regarding claim 1, ‘026 teaches a vacuum cleaner filter bag with a bag wall (¶1), comprising:
a support layer comprising a recycled polyethylene terephthalate, rPET (¶77);
a fine filter layer of a meltblown non-woven fabric comprising a polypropylene, PP, a PET and/or a recycled polypropylene, rPP (¶53); and
a capacity layer of a non-woven fabric comprising a rPET, a recycled textile material, a TLO, and/or an rPP (¶68, ¶78).
‘026 does not teach:
wherein the bag wall further comprises at least one intermediate layer formed of a nonwoven fabric and comprising an rPP as a main component; and
wherein the at least one intermediate layer is made of an extrusion non-woven fabric or an extrusion web, and
wherein the at least one intermediate layer is arranged between the support layer and the fine filter layer and/or between the fine filter layer and the capacity layer;
wherein a grammage of the at least one intermediate layer is between 5 and 50 g/m2, and
wherein the non-woven fabric of the at least one intermediate layer comprises a melt flow index of less than 100g/10min.
‘026 further teaches where the multilayer filter can be as described in ‘280 (¶6, ¶45). ‘026 further teaches where ‘rPP should be used to use recycled material (¶39).
‘280 teaches a multilayer filter comprising a support layer (101, col 17 lines 28-32), a fine filter layer (98, col 17 lines 28-32 and col 16 lines 36-60), a capacity layer (96, col 17 lines 28-32 and col 16 lines 36-60), and an intermediate layer (99) composed of pulp/fibers (col 17 lines 28-32 and col 16 lines 36-60). ‘280 teaches wherein the at least one intermediate layer is arranged between the support layer and the fine filter layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support layer (¶77), fine filter layer (¶53), and capacity layer (¶68, ¶78) of ‘026 by forming the layers in the Fig 13 embodiment (layers 101, 98, and 96 layers, respectively) of ‘280 because ‘026 teaches using the filter layers arrangement of ‘280 (‘026 ¶6, ¶45).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intermediate layer (99) of ‘280 to formed of a nonwoven fabric or a fibrous web and comprising an rPP as a main component in order to use a recycled material suitable (‘026 ¶39).
‘026 further teaches wherein fibres or filaments of the non-woven fabric or the fibrous web have an average diameter of 0.5 to 10 μm with bicomponent fiber suitable for nonwoven containing recycled fibers/textiles (¶132, ¶19-20). ‘280 further teaches where the intermediate layer comprises bicomponent fibers (col 16 lines 36-60).
‘026 does not teach wherein fibres or filaments of the non-woven fabric or the fibrous web of the at least one intermediate layer have an average diameter of more than 5 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the make the intermediate layer (99) of ‘280 of the bicomponent fibers (¶132, ¶19-20) as an obvious selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP 2144.07) and in order to make the intermediate layer of bicomponent fibers (¶132, ¶19-20) where bicomponent allow an enhanced layer with the properties of two different materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fibers diameter (¶132, 0.5 to 10 um) of ‘026 by choosing the overlapping portion (more than 5 um to 10 um) of the claimed (more than 5 um) and prior art ranges as a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05 I).
‘280 teaches where grammage affects the thickness of the layer (col 6 lines 44-54). ‘280 further teaches where the grammage of a wet-laid layer can be 30-150 g/m2 such as 50 g/m2 (col 6 lines 11-21) and where the grammage of the dry-laid layer [intermediate layer 99] can be the same grammage as the wet-laid layer (col 7 lines 48-58). ‘280 teaches where intermediate layer 99 in Fig 13 is the same construction as layer 53 in Fig 5 (col 17 lines 28-32) and where layer 53 in Fig 5 is a dry-laid layer (col 16 lines 36-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the grammage of the intermediate layer, such as to be between 5 and 50 g/m2 such as to be 50 g/m2, in order to affect the layer thickness (‘280, col 6 lines 44-54). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
’026 teaches where dry-laid and extruded (such as meltblown or spunbond) web layers and known equivalents (¶24).
‘311 teaches vacuum cleaner bags (¶116) where melt blow fibers with a low melt flow index which results in highly elastic, breathable, high molecular weight fabric (¶6).
‘159teaches melt blown fibers where a low melt flow index such as 1 to 10 grams per minute are correlated with higher molecular weight and higher melt strength (¶86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the make the intermediate layer (‘280 99 in Fig 13) of ‘280 made of a dry laid web layer (col 16 lines 36-60) to be a meltblown non-woven fabric comprises a melt flow index of less than 100g/10min (‘311 ¶6, Lee ¶86) as a matter of substituting art recognized equivalents (MPEP §2144.06, §2144.07) and in order to result in a highly elastic (‘311¶6), breathable (‘311 ¶6), high molecular weight (‘311 ¶6, ‘159 ¶86), high melt strength (‘159 ¶86) fabric.
Regarding claim 4, ‘026 in view of ‘280, ‘311, and ‘159 teach all the limitations of claim 1.
‘026 does not teach wherein an air permeability of the at least one intermediate layer is more than 2000 l/m2/s.
‘280 teaches where the intermediate layer (where the intermediate layer 99 is a dry laid layer) has an air permeability of about 2,000 to 4000 l/m2/s in order to have excellent dust holding capacity and has the advantage of being much more uniform in weight and thickness than the wet-laid papers (col 7 lines 48-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify intermediate layer (99 in Fig 13) of ‘280 to have an air permeability of about 2,000 to 4000 l/m2/s in order to have excellent dust holding capacity and has the advantage of being much more uniform in weight and thickness than the wet-laid papers (col 7 lines 48-59).
Regarding claim 7, ‘026 in view of ‘280, ‘311, and ‘159 teach all the limitations of claim 1. The claim 1 modification further teaches wherein the at least one intermediate layer is directly adjacent to the fine filter layer (as shown in ‘280 Fig 13).
Regarding claim 8, ‘026 in view of ‘280, ‘311, and ‘159 teach all the limitations of claim 1.
The claim 1 modification further teaches wherein a protective layer (‘280 in Fig 13 layer 95) is directly adjacent to the capacity layer (96) towards an interior (side exposed to airflow) of the bag which is made of a non-woven fabric (‘280 col 17 lines 28-32 and col 16 lines 36-60) wherein the protective layer is embodied corresponding to the intermediate layer (‘280 as shown in Fig 13 where the protective layer and intermediate layer are both present).
Regarding where the protective layer comprising a recycled plastic, ‘026 further teaches where ‘rPP should be used to use recycled material (¶39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective layer (95) of ‘280 to comprise a recycled plastic in order to use a recycled material suitable (‘026 ¶39).
Regarding claim 10, ‘026 in view of ‘280, ‘311, and ‘159 teach all the limitations of claim 1. ‘026 further teaches wherein the support layer is a spunbond of the rPET (¶52-53).
Regarding claim 11, ‘026 in view of ‘280, ‘311, and ‘159 teach all the limitations of claim 1.
‘026 does not teach wherein the non-woven fabric of the at least one intermediate layer comprises bicomponent fibres.
‘026 further teaches wherein fibres or filaments of the non-woven fabric or the fibrous are bicomponent fiber suitable for nonwoven containing recycled fibers/textiles (¶132, ¶19-20). ‘280 further teaches where the intermediate layer comprises bicomponent fibers (col 16 lines 36-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the make the intermediate layer (99) of ‘280 of the bicomponent fibers (¶132, ¶19-20) as an obvious selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP 2144.07) and in order to make the intermediate layer of bicomponent fibers (¶132, ¶19-20) where bicomponent allow an enhanced layer with the properties of two different materials.
Regarding claim 18, ‘026 in view of ‘280, ‘311, and ‘159 teach all the limitations of claim 1.
The claim 1 modification further teaches wherein the fibres or filaments of the non-woven fabric or the fibrous web of the at least one intermediate layer have an average diameter from more than 5 μm to 10 μm.
‘026 does not teach wherein the fibres or filaments of the non-woven fabric or the fibrous web of the at least one intermediate layer have an average diameter between 10 μm to 100 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the make the intermediate layer (99) of ‘280 of the bicomponent fibers (¶132, ¶19-20) to be more than 10 um, for instance to be 10.001 um in order to account for manufacturing tolerances of a 10um fiber and or to increase the strength of the fibers where a thick fiber would have a higher strength.
Regarding claim 19, ‘026 in view of ‘280, ‘311, and ‘159 teach all the limitations of claim 4.
‘026 does not teach wherein the air permeability of the at least one intermediate layer is more than 8000 l/m2/s.
‘280 teaches where the intermediate layer (where the intermediate layer 99 is a dry laid layer) has an air permeability of about 500 to 8000 l/m2/s in order to have excellent dust holding capacity and has the advantage of being much more uniform in weight and thickness than the wet-laid papers (col 7 lines 48-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify intermediate layer (99 in Fig 13) of ‘280 to have an air permeability of about 500-8000 l/m2/s in order to have excellent dust holding capacity and has the advantage of being much more uniform in weight and thickness than the wet-laid papers (col 7 lines 48-59).
MPEP 2144.05 I states that where claimed and prior art ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to choose the overlapping portions of the ranges. Thus, it would have been obvious to choose the range of about 8000 l/m2/s which is more than 8000 l/m2/s for the air permeability of the intermediate layer as a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 20, ‘026 in view of ‘280, ‘311, and ‘159 teach all the limitations of claim 11.
‘026 does not teach wherein the biocomponent fibres comprise a core comprising an rPET and an envelope comprising an rPP or vice-versa.
‘026 further teaches wherein fibres or filaments of the non-woven fabric or the fibrous are bicomponent fiber suitable for nonwoven containing recycled fibers/textiles (¶132, ¶19-20). ‘280 further teaches where the intermediate layer comprises bicomponent fibers (col 16 lines 36-60).
‘026 teaches wherein the biocomponent fibres comprise a core comprising an rPET and an envelope comprising an rPP or vice-versa (¶132-136, ¶19-20, ¶39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the make the intermediate layer (99) of ‘280 of the bicomponent fibers (¶132, ¶19-20) to be a core comprising an rPET and an envelope comprising an rPP or vice-versa (¶132-136, ¶19-20, ¶39) as an obvious selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP 2144.07) and in order to make the intermediate layer of bicomponent fibers (¶132, ¶19-20) where bicomponent allow an enhanced layer with the properties of two different materials.
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 13 Jun. 2025:
Applicant argues that the claim amendments overcome the claim 1 rejection in view of ‘026 and ‘280.
Examiner agrees and the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further search and/or consideration the claims are rejected in view of ‘026, ‘280, ‘311, and ‘159.
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 STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776