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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 08-31-2026. As directed, claims 1, 8, 16, and 20 have been amended, claims 18-19 and 21-22 are newly canceled, with claims 2-7 and 11-15 having been previously canceled. Thus, claims 1, 8-10, 16-17, 20, and 23 are currently pending examination. Examiner notes that claim 23 is currently marked as “New” but it is a previously presented claim.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08-31-2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has canceled claim 21, thereby obviating the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 103 to claim 21.
Applicant has canceled claim 22, thereby obviating the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 103 to claim 22.
Applicant has canceled claims 18-19, thereby obviating the previous rejections to these claims under 35 USC 103.
It is the Examiner’s position that the subject matter of the instant application and co-pending application 18/249,989 have distinct claimed subject matter, and therefore the double patenting rejections of record are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
In the most recent response, Applicant has proffered no arguments. Examiner notes that any rejections that are maintained, without being updated due to amendment, would incur the same explanations and responses to arguments as established in the previous Final Office action (e.g., the 112(a) rejections to claims 17 and 22).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, line 10, it I suggested that “removes” be replaced with “is configured to remove” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 1, line 11, it is suggested that “the %Chg” be replaced with “a %Chg” as the term has not been previously introduced.
At claim 20, line 14, it I suggested that “removes” be replaced with “is configured to remove” to avoid recitation of positive method steps in an apparatus claim.
At claim 20, line 15, it is suggested that “the %Chg” be replaced with “a %Chg” as the term has not been previously introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Each of claims 1 and 20 now require the material property “and the second nonwoven fibrous web removes dioctyl phthalate such that the %Chg @ 200 mg is no greater than 67”. Because the claim only requires that the second nonwoven fibrous web includes a second electret charge, core sheath fibers made up of an electrostatic charging additive, a fiber core comprises one of polypropylene, polyester, polystyrene, or polyethylene, and a PMP sheath layer comprising 1-50% by weight of the core sheath fibers, because the claim limitation is a material property, it is interpreted as being met when the prior art, alone or in combination, discloses and/or teaches the complete set of claim limitations concerning the second nonwoven fibrous web. If there are particular ranges of values, weights, additives, etc. that are required to ascertain the claimed material property that are not present in the prior art combination of record, Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to include such differences.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8-10, 16-17, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding each of claims 1 and 20, the claim now requires “and the second nonwoven fibrous web removes dioctyl phthalate such that the %Chg @ 200 mg is no greater than 67”, and “a fiber core that comprises polypropylene, polyester, polystyrene, or polyethylene, and having a poly(4-methylpentene) sheath layer disposed thereon”. Each of the alternative options for this set of claim limitations are not supported by the originally filed instant specification. Further, as no arguments or accompanying explanation of the claim amendments were provided in the most recent response, Applicant has asserted no position as to where support for the amendments are derived in the instant specification. Looking to Table 4 of the instant specification, contained at page 22, the only three webs that meet the claim limitation “and the second nonwoven fibrous web removes dioctyl phthalate such that the %Chg @ 200 mg is no greater than 67” are W13, W14, W15, and W16, as the %Chg at 200 mg for each of these webs is within the claimed range. It is also important to note at this stage, that the Table also does not support the value of “67” as claimed, rather the highest value encompassed is 66.9, thus possession of 67 is not established. Further, in the relevant tables, there are only provided discrete values, and these discrete values for %Chg at 200 mg do not show possession of each discrete values in the claimed range. Still further, Table 7 establishes additional values within the claimed range, by subtracting the penetration at 200 from the penetration at 0, for each of webs W18-20 and W22-24. However, for each of W13-16, W18-20, and W22-24, the fibers are detailed as being made from one of various examples of PMP and one of various examples of polypropylene. None of the exemplary webs that include a %Chg in the claimed range include any of polyester, polystyrene, nor polyethylene. Thus, Applicant lacks written description support for the combination of elements in claims 1 and 20, and therefore has not established possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-10, 16-17, and 23 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on either of claims 1 or 20.
Regarding claims 17 and 23, the claims recite that the first and second fibrous webs “do not comprise fluorine-containing compound(s)”. Applicant have alleged that page 6, second paragraph of WO 2020/261034 (i.e. the WIPO document that the instant application takes priority from, see the same citation in the instant application) provides written description support for this limitation. The cited paragraph states the following:
“The first and second nonwoven fibrous webs comprise at least one charge enhancing additive, which may be the same or different. Many charge enhancing additives for making electret-containing fiber webs are known in the art. Exemplary electrostatic charge enhancing additives may include pigments, light stabilizers, primary and secondary antioxidants, metal deactivators, hindered amines, hindered phenols, metal salts, phosphite triesters, phosphoric acid salts, fluorine-containing compounds, and combinations thereof.”
First, this citation refers to different charging additives that may be added to either the first or second nonwoven fibrous web, and dictates that fluorine-containing compounds are one such example of a charging additive. Second, claim 1, from which claim 17 depends, and claim 20, from which claim 23 depend respectively, at least establish that the second fibrous web contains core-sheath fibers with a fiber core and a sheath layer disposed thereon with the electrostatic charging additive contained within the core-sheath fibers. Thus, with respect to at least the second fibrous web, the claims establish that the web contains elements that are additional to the charging additive. It is also noted that the instant application, see final paragraph of page 3 through the first line of page 4, establishes that the first nonwoven fibrous web at least contains additional polymeric compounds.
Thus, Applicant’s alleged support for the subject matter of claims 17 and 22-23 does not seem to adequately support that which is claimed. Given that Applicant’s own instant claims and specification set forth that the fibrous webs contain more elements than the charging additive referenced at page 6, second paragraph, it would not be readily apparent to the skilled artisan that the entirety of the first and second nonwoven fibrous webs would be free from fluorine-containing compound(s) as recited in claims 17 and 23 and alleged by Applicant. It is of further note that the specification does not seem to contain any working examples nor particular language that explicitly demonstrates a lack of fluorine-containing compounds in either web. Applicant is encouraged to provide additional evidence from the instant specification to support their assertion that the subject matter of claims 17 and 23 do in fact derive support therefrom, or else eliminate the language from the claim to overcome the rejection.
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 8 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 8, line 2 recites “an electrostatic charging additive” and goes on to detail what compound the additive may be selected from. However, this limitation renders the claim indefinite because claim 1, lines 4-5 recite “an electrostatic charging additive” and thus it is unclear if this additive in claim 8 is the same or different from the one established in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the two will be interpreted as the same additive, and Applicant may overcome the rejection by amending “an electrostatic charging additive” in claim 8 to “the electrostatic charging additive”.
Claim 16 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 8.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 8-10, 16-17, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huberty (US 6,627,563) in view of Nambiar (US 2014/0308866) and in further view of Masuda (JP 2007/211376), as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 USC 112 above.
Regarding claim 1, Huberty discloses a filter assembly (10) (Col. 5, lines 11-16; Fig. 1) comprising:
an air filter medium (30) comprising a first nonwoven fibrous web having a first electret charge (Col. 5, lines 13-23 and 61-63; Col. 6, lines 1-3 detail that the second electret filter layer includes fibers; Col. 3, lines 44-46 defines that an electret filter layer exhibits at least a quasi-permanent electrical charge by definition, and thus the second electret layer 30 has a first charge; Col. 10, lines 41-55 describe different forms that the first and second electret filter layers may take, where lines 53-55 explicitly define that the layers may be comprised of nonwoven web microfibers; Fig. 1; see also Col. 5, lines 34-37 which explains that the first and second electret filter layers 20 and 30 are denoted as such based on the sequential order of airflow through the assembly 10, such that airflow passes through first layer 20 first and second layer 30 second, thus layer 20 is regarded as a prefilter because airflow occurs through it before second layer 30, and second layer 30 is regarded as a filter medium because air passes through it after passing through first prefilter layer 20); and
a prefilter medium (20) comprising a second nonwoven fibrous web having a second electret charge (Col. 5, lines 13-23 and 61-63; Col. 6, lines 1-3 detail that the first electret filter layer includes fibers; Col. 3, lines 44-46 defines that an electret filter layer exhibits at least a quasi-permanent electrical charge by definition, and thus the first electret layer 20 has a second charge; Col. 10, lines 41-55 describe different forms that the first and second electret filter layers may take, where lines 53-55 explicitly define that the layers may be comprised of nonwoven web microfibers; Fig. 1; see also Col. 5, lines 34-37 which explains that the first and second electret filter layers 20 and 30 are denoted as such based on the sequential order of airflow through the assembly 10, such that airflow passes through first layer 20 first and second layer 30 second, thus layer 20 is regarded as a prefilter because airflow occurs through it before second layer 30, and second layer 30 is regarded as a filter medium because air passes through it after passing through first layer 20), wherein the second nonwoven fibrous web comprises core-sheath fibers comprising a fiber core (Col. 10, lines 33-34),
wherein the filter assembly (10) is configured such that air passing through the prefilter medium (20) is directed through the air filter medium (30) (Col. 5, lines 34-37 which explains that the first and second electret filter layers 20 and 30 are denoted as such based on the sequential order of airflow through the assembly 10, such that airflow passes through first layer 20 first and second layer 30 second, thus layer 20 is regarded as a prefilter because airflow occurs through it before second layer 30, and second layer 30 is regarded as a filter medium because air passes through it after passing through first layer 20).
Huberty fails to disclose that the second nonwoven fibrous web includes core-sheath fibers specifically that comprise an electrostatic charging additive and a fiber core selected from polypropylene, polyester, polystyrene, or polyethylene, and having a poly(4-methylpentene) sheath layer disposed thereon that comprises 1-50% by weight of the core-sheath fibers, and the second nonwoven fibrous web removes dioctyl phthalate such that the %Chg @ 200 mg is no greater than 67.
However, Nambiar teaches a bicomponent fiber of a core-sheath form (paragraph 56, lines 1-6) that includes a core layer of polyphenylene sulfide with an electrostatic charging additive contained in the core (paragraph 56, lines 1-2, where zinc ethylhexanoate is a metal salt, and the instant specification at page 6, lines 5-10 define metal salts as one possible choice for an electrostatic charging additive, and thus the zinc ethylhexanoate contained in the fiber core is regarded as the claimed electrostatic charging additive), and a poly(4-methylpentene) sheath disposed on the fiber core (paragraph 56, lines 1-6, where “polymethylpentene” or “PMP” is analogous to poly(4-methyl-1-pentene)), where the metal salt electrostatic charging additive is described as stabilizing the polyphenylene sulfide component (paragraph 56, lines 1-3), and it is noted that poly(4-methyl pentene) has high permeability, and further wherein the sheath layer comprises 30 percent by weight of the core-sheath fiber (see paragraphs 56-59 which describe Fiber Example B, in the Table following paragraph 59, the sheath layer is described in each example as being 30% of the weight of the core-sheath fiber; per MPEP 2131.03 I, a specific example in the prior art that lies within a claimed range anticipates the range, and 30 percent lies within 1 and 50 percent).
Given that Huberty discloses that the electret webs of the filter assembly are permeable (Col. 4, lines 51-54) and also indicates the usage of poly(4-methylpentene) for the fiber (Col. 8, line 61 through Col. 9, line 18, where poly(4-methylpentene) is described as a useful polymer for electret filter layers 20 and 30, and claims 1 and 18 outline the use of poly(4-methylpentene) in the first electret 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 have manufactured the sheath of the sheath-core fiber of Huberty from poly(4-methylpentene) where the PMP makes up 30% by weight of the core-sheath fibers, as taught by Nambiar, in order to provide a suitably permeable sheath layer for Huberty’s filter.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the core of Huberty’s sheath-core fiber be manufactured from polyphenylene sulfide and include a metal salt electrostatic charging additive, as further taught by Nambiar, in order to provide a stable core component for the fiber.
Now modified Huberty fails to disclose wherein the fiber core comprises polypropylene, polyester, polystyrene, or polyethylene, given that Nambiar provides a polyphenyl sulfide fiber core, and that the second nonwoven fibrous web removes dioctyl phthalate such that the %Chg @ 200 mg is no greater than 67.
However, Masuda teaches a sheath-core fiber structure (abstract, lines 1-7) that can be used in filtration (page 1: “Applications include articles such as clothing, leisure goods, household goods, wipers, filters, civil engineering materials, building materials, sanitary goods, and medical goods, which are made using this composite fiber fabric”) wherein polypropylene, polyethylene, and polyester resin are all given to be suitable alternative fiber core materials to polyphenylene sulfide resins (page 3: “Examples of the thermoplastic resin used for the core include polyamide resin (for example, nylon 6,nylon 12, nylon 66, aromatic nylon, copolymer nylon), polyester resin (for example, polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate), polyolefin resin ( For example, polyethylene, polypropylene, copolymers of ethylene and propylene, copolymers of ethylene or propylene and C.sub.4 to C .sub.20 α olefins, terpolymers of ethylene, propylene and C .sub.4 to C .sub.20 α olefins, ethylene and vinyl acetate Copolymer, copolymer of propylene and vinyl acetate, copolymer of styrene and α-olefin, polyisobutylene), polyether resin, polyether ester resin, polyacrylate resin, ethylene alkyl Acrylate resins, polydiene resins (e.g., polybutadiene, copolymers of isobutylene and isoprene), and the like polyurethane resins, polyether ether ketone resins, polyether imide resins, polyether sulfoneresins, polyphenylene sulfide resins, polycarbonate resins”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polyphenylene sulfide resin of modified Huberty’s fiber core (see paragraph 56, lines 1-6 of Nambiar) with polypropylene, polyester, or polyethylene given that Masuda teaches that the four compounds are art-recognized equivalents for manufacturing a fiber core of a sheath-core fiber (see MPEP 2144.06 II).
As outlined above, now that the filter of modified Huberty includes each of the materials claimed for the second nonwoven fibrous web, the filter assembly of modified Huberty is understood to fulfill the functional material property of removing dioctyl phthalate such that the %Chg @ 200 mg is no greater than 67, given the presence of each of the required materials in their claimed ranges for the second nonwoven fibrous web (MPEP 2112 III).
Regarding claim 8, Huberty in view of Nambiar and Masuda disclose the filter assembly of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Huberty further discloses wherein the core-sheath fibers further comprise the electrostatic charging additive that is a metal salt (Nambiar: paragraph 56, lines 1-2, where zinc ethylhexanoate is contained in the fiber core and is regarded as the claimed electrostatic charging additive, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and is a metal salt).
Regarding claim 9, Huberty in view of Nambiar and Masuda disclose the filter assembly of claim 1, as discussed above.
Huberty further discloses wherein the first nonwoven fibrous web comprises poly(4-methyl-1-pentene) (Huberty: Col. 6, lines 1-5, where the first and second layers may be made from the same materials; Col. 8, line 61 through Col. 9, line 18, where poly(4-methylpentene) is described as a useful polymer for electret filter layers 20 and 30, and claims 1 and 18 outline the use of poly(4-methylpentene) in the electret filter layers).
Regarding claim 10, Huberty in view of Nambiar and Masuda disclose the filter assembly of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Huberty further discloses a respirator comprising the filter assembly of claim 1 (Huberty: Col. 8, lines 14-16; see also Nambiar: paragraph 4, lines 1-7 and paragraph 5, lines 1-12 which describe the use of related compounds in filtration, and Mauda at page 1: “Applications include articles such as clothing, leisure goods, household goods, wipers, filters, civil engineering materials, building materials, sanitary goods, and medical goods, which are made using this composite fiber fabric”).
Regarding claim 16, Huberty in view of Nambiar and Masuda disclose the filter assembly of claim 8, as discussed above.
Modified Huberty discloses wherein the electrostatic charging additive is present in the fiber core (Nambiar: paragraph 56, lines 1-2, where zinc ethylhexanoate is contained in the fiber core and is regarded as the claimed electrostatic charging additive, as discussed above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Huberty in view of Nambiar and Masuda disclose the filter assembly of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Huberty further discloses wherein the first and second nonwoven fibrous webs do not comprise fluorine-containing compound(s) (for the second web, see Nambiar at paragraph 56, lines 1-2, where zinc ethylhexanoate is the electrostatic charging additive, paragraph 56, lines 1-6, where “polymethylpentene” or “PMP” is analogous to poly(4-methyl-1-pentene) and is the sheath, and see Masuda at page 3: “Examples of the thermoplastic resin used for the core include polyamide resin (for example, nylon 6,nylon 12, nylon 66, aromatic nylon, copolymer nylon), polyester resin (for example, polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate), polyolefin resin ( For example, polyethylene, polypropylene, copolymers of ethylene and propylene, copolymers of ethylene or propylene and C.sub.4 to C .sub.20 α olefins, terpolymers of ethylene, propylene and C .sub.4 to C .sub.20 α olefins, ethylene and vinyl acetate Copolymer, copolymer of propylene and vinyl acetate, copolymer of styrene and α-olefin, polyisobutylene), where polyethylene or polypropylene make up the fiber core, and note that none of ethylhexanoate, PMP, or polyethylene or polypropylene are denoted as containing fluorine or being perfluorinated; for the first fiber web, note Huberty: Col. 6, lines 1-5, where the first and second layers may be made from the same materials; Col. 8, line 61 through Col. 9, line 18, where poly(4-methylpentene) is described as a useful polymer for electret filter layers 20 and 30, and claims 1 and 18 outline the use of poly(4-methylpentene) in the electret filter layers, and PMP is not denoted as containing fluorine or being perfluorinated, and while Col. 6, lines 11-16 outline that the fiber webs “may also contain” or “may also include” performance enhancing additives, note that Huberty cites to performance-enhancing additives including those recited by Rousseau in US 5,908,598, see Col. 9, lines 30-36, which includes triazine, see Rousseau at Col. 2, lines 50-57, where triazine does not contain fluorine or perfluorinated polymers).
Regarding claim 20, Huberty discloses a filter assembly (10) (Col. 5, lines 11-16; Fig. 1) comprising:
an air filter medium (30) comprising a first nonwoven fibrous web having a first electret charge (Col. 5, lines 13-23 and 61-63; Col. 6, lines 1-3 detail that the second electret filter layer includes fibers; Col. 3, lines 44-46 defines that an electret filter layer exhibits at least a quasi-permanent electrical charge by definition, and thus the second electret layer 30 has a first charge; Col. 10, lines 41-55 describe different forms that the first and second electret filter layers may take, where lines 53-55 explicitly define that the layers may be comprised of nonwoven web microfibers; Fig. 1; see also Col. 5, lines 34-37 which explains that the first and second electret filter layers 20 and 30 are denoted as such based on the sequential order of airflow through the assembly 10, such that airflow passes through first layer 20 first and second layer 30 second, thus layer 20 is regarded as a prefilter because airflow occurs through it before second layer 30, and second layer 30 is regarded as a filter medium because air passes through it after passing through first prefilter layer 20); and
a prefilter medium (20) comprising a second nonwoven fibrous web having a second electret charge (Col. 5, lines 13-23 and 61-63; Col. 6, lines 1-3 detail that the first electret filter layer includes fibers; Col. 3, lines 44-46 defines that an electret filter layer exhibits at least a quasi-permanent electrical charge by definition, and thus the first electret layer 20 has a second charge; Col. 10, lines 41-55 describe different forms that the first and second electret filter layers may take, where lines 53-55 explicitly define that the layers may be comprised of nonwoven web microfibers; Fig. 1; see also Col. 5, lines 34-37 which explains that the first and second electret filter layers 20 and 30 are denoted as such based on the sequential order of airflow through the assembly 10, such that airflow passes through first layer 20 first and second layer 30 second, thus layer 20 is regarded as a prefilter because airflow occurs through it before second layer 30, and second layer 30 is regarded as a filter medium because air passes through it after passing through first layer 20), wherein the second nonwoven fibrous web comprises core-sheath fibers comprising a fiber core (Col. 10, lines 33-34),
wherein the filter assembly (10) is configured such that air passing through the prefilter medium (20) is directed through the air filter medium (30) (Col. 5, lines 34-37 which explains that the first and second electret filter layers 20 and 30 are denoted as such based on the sequential order of airflow through the assembly 10, such that airflow passes through first layer 20 first and second layer 30 second, thus layer 20 is regarded as a prefilter because airflow occurs through it before second layer 30, and second layer 30 is regarded as a filter medium because air passes through it after passing through first layer 20).
Huberty fails to disclose that the second nonwoven fibrous web includes core-sheath fibers that comprise an electrostatic charging additive selected from the group consisting of pigments, light stabilizers, primary and secondary antioxidants, metal deactivators, hindered amines, hindered phenols, metal salts, phosphite triesters, phosphoric acid salts, and combinations thereof, and a fiber core selected from polypropylene, polyester, polystyrene, or polyethylene, and having a poly(4-methylpentene) sheath layer disposed thereon that comprises 1-50% by weight of the core-sheath fibers, and the second nonwoven fibrous web removes dioctyl phthalate such that the %Chg @ 200 mg is no greater than 67.
However, Nambiar teaches a bicomponent fiber of a core-sheath form (paragraph 56, lines 1-6) that includes a core layer of polyphenylene sulfide with an electrostatic charging additive contained in the core, where the charging additive is selected to be a metal salt (paragraph 56, lines 1-2, where zinc ethylhexanoate is a metal salt, and the instant specification at page 6, lines 5-10 define metal salts as one possible choice for an electrostatic charging additive, and thus the zinc ethylhexanoate contained in the fiber core is regarded as the claimed electrostatic charging additive), and a poly(4-methylpentene) sheath disposed on the fiber core (paragraph 56, lines 1-6, where “polymethylpentene” or “PMP” is analogous to poly(4-methyl-1-pentene)), where the metal salt electrostatic charging additive is described as stabilizing the polyphenylene sulfide component (paragraph 56, lines 1-3), and it is noted that poly(4-methyl pentene) has high permeability, and further wherein the sheath layer comprises 30 percent by weight of the core-sheath fiber (see paragraphs 56-59 which describe Fiber Example B, in the Table following paragraph 59, the sheath layer is described in each example as being 30% of the weight of the core-sheath fiber; per MPEP 2131.03 I, a specific example in the prior art that lies within a claimed range anticipates the range, and 30 percent lies within 1 and 50 percent).
Given that Huberty discloses that the electret webs of the filter assembly are permeable (Col. 4, lines 51-54) and also indicates the usage of poly(4-methylpentene) for the fiber (Col. 8, line 61 through Col. 9, line 18, where poly(4-methylpentene) is described as a useful polymer for electret filter layers 20 and 30, and claims 1 and 18 outline the use of poly(4-methylpentene) in the first electret 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 have manufactured the sheath of the sheath-core fiber of Huberty from poly(4-methylpentene) where the PMP makes up 30% by weight of the core-sheath fibers, as taught by Nambiar, in order to provide a suitably permeable sheath layer for Huberty’s filter.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the core of Huberty’s sheath-core fiber be manufactured from polyphenylene sulfide and include a metal salt electrostatic charging additive, as further taught by Nambiar, in order to provide a stable core component for the fiber.
Now modified Huberty fails to disclose wherein the fiber core comprises polypropylene, polyester, polystyrene, or polyethylene, given that Nambiar provides a polyphenyl sulfide fiber core, and the second nonwoven fibrous web removes dioctyl phthalate such that the %Chg @ 200 mg is no greater than 67.
However, Masuda teaches a sheath-core fiber structure (abstract, lines 1-7) that can be used in filtration (page 1: “Applications include articles such as clothing, leisure goods, household goods, wipers, filters, civil engineering materials, building materials, sanitary goods, and medical goods, which are made using this composite fiber fabric”) wherein polypropylene, polyethylene, and polyester resin are all given to be suitable alternative fiber core materials to polyphenylene sulfide resins (page 3: “Examples of the thermoplastic resin used for the core include polyamide resin (for example, nylon 6,nylon 12, nylon 66, aromatic nylon, copolymer nylon), polyester resin (for example, polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate), polyolefin resin ( For example, polyethylene, polypropylene, copolymers of ethylene and propylene, copolymers of ethylene or propylene and C.sub.4 to C .sub.20 α olefins, terpolymers of ethylene, propylene and C .sub.4 to C .sub.20 α olefins, ethylene and vinyl acetate Copolymer, copolymer of propylene and vinyl acetate, copolymer of styrene and α-olefin, polyisobutylene), polyether resin, polyether ester resin, polyacrylate resin, ethylene alkyl Acrylate resins, polydiene resins (e.g., polybutadiene, copolymers of isobutylene and isoprene), and the like polyurethane resins, polyether ether ketone resins, polyether imide resins, polyether sulfoneresins, polyphenylene sulfide resins, polycarbonate resins”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polyphenylene sulfide resin of modified Huberty’s fiber core (see paragraph 56, lines 1-6 of Nambiar) with polypropylene, polyester, or polyethylene given that Masuda teaches that the four compounds are art-recognized equivalents for manufacturing a fiber core of a sheath-core fiber (see MPEP 2144.06 II).
As outlined above, now that the filter of modified Huberty includes each of the materials claimed for the second nonwoven fibrous web, the filter assembly of modified Huberty is understood to fulfill the functional material property of removing dioctyl phthalate such that the %Chg @ 200 mg is no greater than 67, given the presence of each of the required materials in their claimed ranges for the second nonwoven fibrous web (MPEP 2112 III).
Regarding claim 23, Huberty in view of Nambiar and Masuda disclose the filter assembly of claim 20, as discussed above.
Modified Huberty further discloses wherein the first and second nonwoven fibrous webs do not comprise fluorine-containing compounds(s) (for the second web, see Nambiar at paragraph 56, lines 1-2, where zinc ethylhexanoate is the electrostatic charging additive, paragraph 56, lines 1-6, where “polymethylpentene” or “PMP” is analogous to poly(4-methyl-1-pentene) and is the sheath, and see Masuda at page 3: “Examples of the thermoplastic resin used for the core include polyamide resin (for example, nylon 6,nylon 12, nylon 66, aromatic nylon, copolymer nylon), polyester resin (for example, polyethyleneterephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate), polyolefin resin ( For example, polyethylene, polypropylene, copolymers of ethylene and propylene, copolymers of ethylene or propylene and C.sub.4 to C .sub.20 α olefins, terpolymers of ethylene, propylene and C .sub.4 to C .sub.20 α olefins, ethylene and vinyl acetate Copolymer, copolymer of propylene and vinyl acetate, copolymer of styrene and α-olefin, polyisobutylene), where polyethylene or polypropylene make up the fiber core, and note that none of ethylhexanoate, PMP, or polyethylene or polypropylene are denoted as containing fluorine or being perfluorinated; for the first fiber web, note Huberty: Col. 6, lines 1-5, where the first and second layers may be made from the same materials; Col. 8, line 61 through Col. 9, line 18, where poly(4-methylpentene) is described as a useful polymer for electret filter layers 20 and 30, and claims 1 and 18 outline the use of poly(4-methylpentene) in the electret filter layers, and PMP is not denoted as containing fluorine or being perfluorinated, and while Col. 6, lines 11-16 outline that the fiber webs “may also contain” or “may also include” performance enhancing additives, note that Huberty cites to performance-enhancing additives including those recited by Rousseau in US 5,908,598, see Col. 9, lines 30-36, which includes triazine, see Rousseau at Col. 2, lines 50-57, where triazine does not contain fluorine or perfluorinated polymers).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
