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.
Claims 1–3, 7, 13, 22, 24, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higginson et al., US 2020/0179848 A1, in view of either Fernagut et al., US 2018/0171140 A1 or Shoji et al., WO 2015/141753 A1, and in further view of Mehlmann, US 2012/0164364 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Higginson teaches a filter media 1002, which reads on the claimed “filter media.” See Higginson Fig. 2B, [0017]. The filter media 1002 comprises:
A nanofiber layer 100, which reads on the claimed “main filter layer.” See Higginson Fig. 2B, [0017]. The nanofiber layer 100 comprises a plurality of fibers with an average diameter between 50 and 250 nm, which is within the claimed range of less than 1 micron. Id. at [0027].
An additional layer 202 disposed on the nanofiber layer 100. See Higginson Fig. 2B, [0017]. The additional layer 202 can be upstream of the nanofiber layer because the additional layer 202 can serve as a prefilter. Id. Also, the additional layer 202 can be a second nanofiber layer. Id. The second, additional nanofiber layer 202 reads on the claimed “prefilter layer” because it can be positioned upstream of the nanofiber layer 100.
A backer layer 200 that can be manufactured using a wetlaid technique and which is disposed beneath the nanofiber layer 100. See Higginson Fig. 2B, [0017], [0051]. The backer layer 200 reads on the “first wetlaid support layer.”
The nanofiber layer 100 (the “main filter layer”) has a porosity between 70 to 99% because it has a solidity of 1 to 30%. See Higginson [0039]. Note that porosity can be derived from solidity using the formula: solidity(%) = 100 – porosity(%). See Jaganathan et al., US 2018/0169551 A1, [0159]. The prior art range of 70 to 99% overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 80%, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
The nanofiber layer 100 (the “main filter layer”) comprises a matrix of fibers with the fibers (as it is a nonwoven web) with the fibers being manufactured from at least one synthetic polymer. See Higginson [0022]. The polymer used to make the nanofibers reads on the “matrix polymer.”
The polymer used to make the nanofibers (the “matrix polymer”) can be a polyamide, a copolymer of polyamide or a blend comprising a polyamide. See Higginson [0022].
The additional layer 202 (the “pre-filter layer”) is interpreted as having the same structural characteristics as the nanofiber layer 100 because the additional layer 202 is a second nanofiber layer, with Higginson only providing information about the nanofiber layer 100. The nanofiber layers of Higginson each have a normalized surface area ranging from 0.25 to 305 m2/m2, calculated as explained in the footnote below1. The prior art range of 0.25 to 305 m2/m2 overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 15 m2/m2, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Higginson differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the polymer used to make the nanofibers (the “matrix polymer”) comprising an impact modifier dispersed in it, with the impact modifier comprising a copolymer comprising at least two different monomers, with one monomer having an affinity to the matrix polymer and at least one monomer not having an affinity to the matrix polymer.
But Higginson is concerned with improving the mechanical robustness of the nanofiber layer, and provides components within the fibers to improve robustness. See Higginson [0016]. Also, as noted, the polymer used to make the nanofibers can be a polyamide, a copolymer of polyamide or a blend comprising a polyamide. Id. at [0022].
With this in mind, Fernagut teaches a polyamide composition that can be used to make fibers, where the polyamide composition comprises an impact modifier of polyether block amide (PEBA) block copolymer. See Fernagut [0001]–[0002], [0021]. PEBA is an impact modifier comprising a copolymer comprising at least two different monomers where one monomer has an affinity to the matrix polymer (polyamide) and at least one monomer does not have an affinity for the matrix polymer, as claimed, because claim 38 says that the impact modifier comprises PEBA. The PEBA impact modifier of Fernagut is beneficial because it increases the level of impact resistance of the polyamide. Id. at [0001]. It would have been obvious to include the PEBA impact modifier of Fernagut with the polyamide of Higginson to improve the mechanical robustness of the polyamide by increasing the level of impact resistance of the polyamide.
Alternatively, Shoji teaches a polyamide resin composition (see Shoji abstract, p. 4) that can be molded into a fiber (id. at p. 23) where the polyamide resin composition comprises an impact modifier that can be an alkali metal salt (an ionomer) of ethylene-acrylic acid (id. at p. 22, last two paragraphs). The ionomer is an impact modifier comprising a copolymer comprising at least two different monomers where one monomer has an affinity to the matrix polymer (polyamide) and at least one monomer does not have an affinity for the matrix polymer, as claimed, because claim 40 says that the impact modifier comprises an ionomer of ethylene and an acrylic acid salt. The impact modifier of Shoji is beneficial because it improves the impact resistance of the polyamide resin composition. It would have been obvious to include the alkali metal salt (ionomer) of ethylene-acrylic acid of Fernagut with the polyamide of Higginson to improve the mechanical robustness of the polyamide by increasing the impact resistance of the polyamide
It is noted that the impact modifiers of Fernagut and Shoji are used in polyamide compositions that are extruded. But a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the impact modifiers with the polyamide of Higginson (which is electrospun) because Mehlmann teaches a composition comprising a polymer with an impact modifier blended with the polymer, where the composition can be processed into various products such as an extruded element or electro-spun into fibers. See Mehlmann [0037]–[0038].
Higginson also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the efficiency metric for the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 (the “prefilter layer”) for DOP particles having an average diameter of 0.09 microns. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the additional layer 202 having an efficiency metric of greater than 2.5 measured using the formula: efficiency metric = -log(%penetration(DOP)/100). Note that an efficiency metric of 2.5 equates to a penetration of about 0.3% of particles, meaning that the efficiency would be around 99.7%.
But Higginson teaches that the filter media is a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) or ultra-low particulate air filter (ULPA), having an efficiency between 99.95 and 99.999995%. See Higginson [0076]. Note that a ULPA rating is based on the efficiency of a filter material for 0.1 to 0.17 micron DOP particles. See Kang, US 2011/0223071 A1 [0036]. Also, as noted, the additional layer 202 is a second nanofiber layer. See Higginson [0017]. The nanofiber layers of the filter media in Higginson are the layers that contribute mostly to filtration efficiency. Id. at [0050]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the efficiency of each nanofiber layer to have an efficiency of between 99.95 and 99.999995% for 0.1 to 0.17 micron DOP particles, because the nanofiber layers contribute mostly to the efficiency of the filter media and the filter media can have an efficiency of 99.999995%. With an efficiency between 99.95 to 99.999995% for 0.1 to 0.17 micron DOP particles, the efficiency metric would range from 2.3 to 7.3 using the equation of -log(%penetration(DOP)/100) for DOP particles having an average diameter of 0.1 to 0.17 microns. The prior art range of 2.3 to 7.3 either overlaps with or is close enough to the claimed range of an efficiency metric of greater than 2.5 using the equation of -log(%penetration(DOP)/100) for DOP particles having an average diameter of 0.09 microns, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection I.
PNG
media_image1.png
936
2058
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Higginson teaches that the nanofiber layer 100 (the “main filter layer”) has a porosity between 70 to 99% because it has a solidity of 1 to 30%. See Higginson [0039]. The prior art range of 70 to 99% overlaps with the claimed range of 80 to 99%, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection I.
Regarding claim 3, Higginson teaches that the nanofibers (the “plurality of fine fibers”) have an average diameter of 55 to 250 nm, which converts to 0.05 to 0.25 micron. See Higginson [0027]. The prior art range of 0.05 to 0.25 micron is within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.01 microns and less than 1 micron.
Regarding claim 7, Higginson teaches that the additional, second nanofiber layer 202 (the “prefilter layer”) has an efficiency metric of 2.3 to 7.3, as explained in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above. The prior art range of 2.3 to 7.3 either overlaps with or is close enough to the claimed range of greater than 2.5 and less than or equal to 6 to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection I.
Regarding claim 13, Higginson teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Higginson differs from claim 13 because it does not teach that the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 (the “prefilter layer”) has an initial efficiency between 95% and 99.99995%. (Note that claim 13 is non-specific as to the particle size being measured by the initial efficiency.) Instead, the reference says that the filter media has an initial efficiency of 90% for 1.5 microns. Id. at [0081]. The reference also says that the filter media can have a very high efficiency, up to 99.99995%. Id. at [0076]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 to have an initial efficiency between 95 to 99.99995%, at least for particles larger than 1.5 microns, because the filter media 1002 has a very high overall efficiency.
Regarding claim 22, Higginson teaches that the filter media 1002 can comprise an extra backer layer disposed on the backer layer 200. See Higginson [0050]. For he instant claim, the backer layer 200 is interpreted to read on the “second wetlaid support layer” and the extra backer layer is interpreted to read on the “first wetlaid support layer.”
The prior art differs from claim 22 because it is silent as to a ratio of efficiency of the extra backer layer (the “first wetlaid support layer”) to an efficiency of the additional layer 202 (the “second wetlaid support layer”) being less than or equal to 1:1.1 and greater than or equal to 1:99, as claimed.
But Higginson teaches that the additional backer layer does not necessarily contribute appreciably to the filtration performance of the filter media, whereas the additional layer 202 can be provided to contribute to filtration performance. See Higginson [0050], [0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the efficiency of the extra backer layer (the “first wetlaid support layer”) to be lower than the efficiency of the additional layer (the “second wetlaid support layer”), with the range being somewhere with the broad range described in claim 22 of 1:1.1 to 1:99.
Regarding claim 24, Higginson teaches that the filter media 1002 has a dust holding capacity ranging from 2.5 to 1,000 g/m2, which either overlaps with or is close enough to the claimed “thermal PAO loading capacity of greater than or equal to 10 g/m2 and less than or equal to 100 g/m2” to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See Higginson [0077].
Regarding claim 35, Higginson teaches that the nanofiber layer 100 (the “main filter layer”) is a solvent spun layer because it is manufactured in an electrospinning process where a solvent is spun to manufacture the nanofibers. See Higginson [0016]. Note also that because the nanofiber layer 100 is electrospun, it is a “solvent spun layer,” as claimed, because electrospinning is recognized in the art as a solvent-spun process. See Jaganathan et al., US 2018/0169551 A1 [0099] (“The second layer may be a solvent-spun layer such as an electrospun layer”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higginson et al., US 2020/0179848 A1, in view of either Fernagut et al., US 2018/0171140 A1 or Shoji et al., WO 2015/141753 A1, in view of Mehlmann, US 2012/0164364 A1, and in further view of Lievana et al., “Impact Modification of PA-6 and PBT by Epoxy-Functionalized Rubbers” (2003).2
Regarding claim 4, Higginson as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Higginson as modified differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to the weight percentage of the impact modifier.
But Lievana teaches a polyamide comprising an impact modifier where the impact modifier can be 5 wt% of the total weight of the composition. See Lievana summary. It would have been obvious for the impact modifier of the polyamide of Higginson as modified to comprise between 5 wt% with respect to the total weight of the nanofibers because this is a suitable amount for a polyamide utilizing an impact modifier. The prior art range of 5 wt% is within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1 wt.% and less than or equal to 25 wt.% of the fine fibers.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higginson et al., US 2020/0179848 A1, in view of either Fernagut et al., US 2018/0171140 A1 or Shoji et al., WO 2015/141753 A1, in view of Mehlmann, US 2012/0164364 A1, and in further view of Healey et al., US 2018/0272258 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Higginson as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Higginson as modified differs from 9 because it is silent as to the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 (the “prefilter layer”) being a meltblown layer.
But the nanofiber layer is a nonwoven web comprising comprises fibers as large as 250 nm (0.25 µm). See Higginson [0021], [0027]. The nanofiber layer can be, but is not necessarily, an electrospun fiber web. Id. at [0021].
With this in mind, Healey teaches a filter media comprising a fine fiber layer comprising fibers having a diameter ranging from 0.02 to 0.3 microns (20 to 300 nm). See Healey [0004]. The fine fiber layer can be manufactured using a meltblowing or electrospinning technique. Id. at [0063].
It would have been obvious for the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 of Higginson to be manufactured using a meltblowing technique, because this is a conventional method for making nonwoven fiber mats used for filtration with similar characteristics as the nanofiber layer.
Regarding claim 17, Higginson as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Higginson as modified differs from claim 17 because it is silent as to the pressure drop across the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 (the “prefilter layer”).
But Healey teaches a filter media comprising a fine fiber web, where the initial pressure drop across the filter media (and thus across the fine fiber web) ranges from 1.0 to 15.0 mm H2O, which converts to 0.0098 to 0.147 kPa. See Healy [0004].
It would have been obvious for the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 of Higginson to have an initial pressure drop of 0.0098 to 0.147 kPa, because this is a suitable pressure drop value for filter media used in similar applications as in Higginson. The prior art range of 0.0098 to 0.147 kPa overlaps with the claimed range of 0.001 to 0.08 kPa, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higginson et al., US 2020/0179848 A1, in view of either Fernagut et al., US 2018/0171140 A1 or Shoji et al., WO 2015/141753 A1, in view of Mehlmann, US 2012/0164364 A1, and in further view of Rezaei et al., US 2020/0171418 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Higginson as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Higginson as modified differs from claim 11 because it is silent as to the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 (the “prefilter layer”) having an average fiber diameter greater than or equal to 0.5 microns and less than or equal to 4 microns.
But the nanofiber layer is the main filtration layer in the filter media 1002. The nanofiber layer can be manufactured using electrospinning. See Higginson [0021]. And the filter media 1002 has a very high efficiency, such as 99.999995%. Id. at [0076].
With this in mind, Rezaei teaches a filter media 100 comprising a fiber web 102 that acts as the efficiency layer of the filter media. See Rezaei Fig. 1A, [0025]. The filter media has a very high efficiency, approaching 100%. Id. at [0088]. The fiber web 102 is manufactured using an electrospinning technique. Id. at [0026]. And the fibers in web 102 have an average diameter less than 0.5 microns. Id.
It would have been obvious for the fibers in the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 of Higginson to have an average diameter as large as 0.5 microns, because this is a suitable size for nanofibers used in similar filtration applications with similar efficiencies. With this modification, the upper limit of the diameter range (0.5 microns) would overlap with the claimed range of 0.5 to 4 microns, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higginson et al., US 2020/0179848 A1, in view of either Fernagut et al., US 2018/0171140 A1 or Shoji et al., WO 2015/141753 A1, in view of Mehlmann, US 2012/0164364 A1, and in further view of Jaganathan et al., US 2018/0169551 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Higginson as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Higginson as modified differs from claim 12, because it is silent as to the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 (the “prefilter layer”) having an oil rating between 1 and 8.
But the filter media 1002 can be used for HEPA or ULPA filtration. See Higginson [0076].
With this in mind, Jaganathan teaches a filter media that can be used for HEPA filtration comprising a first layer. See Jaganathan [0097]. The first layer is treated with an oleophobic additive so that it has an oil rank greater than 1. Id. at [0098]. This is beneficial to reduce pressure drop. Id.
It would have been obvious for the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 of Higginson to be treated to have an oil rank greater than 1, to provide this benefit.
The prior art range of an oil rank greater than 1 overlaps with the claimed range of an oil rank from 1 to 8, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higginson et al., US 2020/0179848 A1, in view of either Fernagut et al., US 2018/0171140 A1 or Shoji et al., WO 2015/141753 A1, in view of Mehlmann, US 2012/0164364 A1, and in further view of Eitzman et al., US 2002/0190434 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Higginson as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Higginson as modified differs from claim 14 because it is silent as to the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 (the “prefilter layer”) being hydrocharged.
But the reference teaches that the nanofibers in the nanolayer layer have electrostatic characteristics. See Higginson [0016].
Eitzman teaches a hydrocharging method for imparting electrostatic properties to a fibrous filter material by contacting the fiber web with a liquid solution containing water and a non-aqueous component and then drying the fibrous web. See Eitzman abstract. The method is beneficial because it provides for a better performing filter compared with conventional techniques. Id. at [0018].
It would have been obvious for electrostatic properties of the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 of Higginson to be imparted using the hydrocharging technique of Eitzman to improve performance.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higginson et al., US 2020/0179848 A1, in view of either Fernagut et al., US 2018/0171140 A1 or Shoji et al., WO 2015/141753 A1, in view of Mehlmann, US 2012/0164364 A1, and in further view of Coulson et al., US 2011/0114555 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Higginson as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Higginson as modified differs from claim 15 because it is silent as to the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 (the “prefilter layer”) comprising a fluorocarbon coating. But the filter media 1002 can be used for air filtration.
Coulson teaches a filter material used for air filtration, comprising a fibrous filtration media having a fluorocarbon coating. See Coulson [0004], [0100]. The fluorocarbon coating is beneficial because it enhances anti-caking properties of the fibrous filtration media. Id. at [0100].
It would have been obvious to apply the fluorocarbon coating of Coulson to the second, additional nanofiber layer 202 of Higginson, to enhance anti-caking properties of this layer.
Claims 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higginson et al., US 2020/0179848 A1 in view of Fernagut et al., US 2018/0171140 A1 and in further view of Mehlmann, US 2012/0164364 A1.
Regarding claims 36 and 38, Fernagut teaches that the impact modifier is olyether block amide (PEBA) block copolymer, which comprises an amide (claim 36) comprising a polyether block amide (PEBA) block copolymer (claim 38). See Fernagut [0001]–[0002], [0021].
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higginson et al., US 2020/0179848 A1 in view of Shoji et al., WO 2015/141753 A1 and in further view of Mehlmann, US 2012/0164364 A1.
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Shoji teaches that the impact modifier comprises an ionomer (claim 39) comprising ethylene and an acrylic acid salt (claim 40). See Shoji p. 22, last two paragraphs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 37 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 37 requires that the impact modifier comprises a polyamide terpolymer. The impact modifier of Fernagut differs from claim 37 because it is PEBA, which is not a polyamide terpolymer. Also, the impact modifier of Shoji differs from claim 37 because it is an alkali metal salt (an ionomer) of ethylene-acrylic acid, which is not a polyamide terpolymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner addresses arguments that are relevant to the current rejection.
The Applicant argues that Higginson fails to teach the need for the nanofibers to have an increased impact strength. See Applicant Rem. filed February 25, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 6–7. Instead, it is argued that the Higginson incorporates nanoparticles into the nanofibers to reduce the tendency of the nanofiber layer to collapse on itself. Id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Higginson teaches that the nanoparticles are includes to “increase the mechanical robustness of the nanofiber layer.” See Higginson [0016]. Therefore, Higginson is generally concerned with increasing the strength of the nanofiber layer. An impact modifier is an additive that improves the mechanical toughness of a polymer material. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the desirability of including an impact modifier with the polyamide of Higginson, to improve the toughness of the polyamide.
The Applicant also argues that inclusion of impact modifiers with Higginson would likely counteract the increased stiffness of the polymer (due to the nanoparticles). See Applicant Rem. 7. Therefore, it is argued that it would not have been obvious to include an impact modifier with the polymer of Higginson. Id. The Applicant provides not evidence to support this conclusion, other than the opinion of the attorney. Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive. See MPEP 2145, subsection I (arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record).
The Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in using an impact modifier for an extruded polymer with the polymer of Higginson (which is electrospun). See Applicant Rem. 8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mehlmann teaches a polymer composition comprising an impact modifier where the composition can be extruded or electros-spun into fibers. See Mehlmann [0037]–[0038]. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using an impact modifier for an extrude polymer with a polymer that is intended to be electrospun.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 Normalized surface area is calculated using the formula: normalized surface area = [basis weight/(polymer density * fiber diameter * π/4]. See Spec. p. 46, ll. 24–27. The density of the nanofiber layer 100 ranges from 166,666 to 1,000,000,000 g/m3, and was determined using the solidity information at [0039] of the reference while holding the basis weight constant at 10 g/m2 (the upper limit of the range provided in [0042]) for simplicity. Note that solidity is determined with the formula: solidity = [basis weight/(fiber density * thickness)]*100%. See Higginson [0040]. The fiber diameter of the nanofiber layer ranges form 50 to 250 nm. Id. at [0027]. The thickness of the nanofiber layer 100 ranges from 0.5 to 200 µm. Id. at [0044].
2 Lievana is in the record as the 8-page Non Patent Literature document dated July 07, 2025.
Prosecution Insights