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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to set forth 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.
Claim 7 recites that “the plurality of pores has an average connectivity diameter ranging from about 10 nanometers to about 200 micrometers.” This limitation is unclear and indefinite because the claim recites a single parameter (“average connectivity diameter”) having a range that spans over four orders of magnitude, form nanometers to micrometers, without specifying how such connectivity diameter is defined, measured, or distinguished from previously recited pore diameter. Also, the specification does not clearly define “connectivity diameter” as distinct from pore diameter, nor does it disclose a method for measuring such a parameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 16, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaganathan et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20160175752 A1, June 23, 2016 (hereinafter “Jaganathan”).
Regarding claim 1, Jaganathan discloses a filtration media (figs. 1A-D) comprising: a membrane (paragraph 0007) comprising one or more polymeric layers configured to filter one or more particles (paragraph 0060), wherein the membrane comprises a plurality of pores (paragraph 0063) having a defined mean flow pore sizes that are at most 50 microns and may be as small as 1 micron (paragraph 0044), which are well below the claimed upper limit of 175 micron. The particulate efficiency of the pre-filter layer may have an initial DOP efficiency of greater than or equal to about 65%, greater than or equal to about 70%, greater than or equal to about 75%, greater than or equal to about 80%, greater than or equal to about 85%, or greater than or equal to about 90% (paragraph 0037). Jaganathan also discloses that the filter media and polymeric layers exhibit a low pressure drop, including pressure drop less than or equal to about 5 mm H2O, and in some embodiments as low as 1 mm H2O or 0.5 mm H2O, as measured under standardized testing conditions (fig. 2, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 2, Jaganathan discloses that the filter media comprises polymeric membrane layer and/or polymeric fibrous layers formed from synthetic polymers, including layers formed using melt-blown, melt-spun, or electrospinning processes (paragraphs 0061 and 0091). Such processes are conventionally used to form polypropylene, polyester, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers.
Regarding claim 4, Jaganathan discloses that the layer or filter media may be charged and particle separation may not be substantially or solely due mechanical particle separation (paragraph 0040 and 0144).
Regarding claim 6, Jaganathan discloses filter layers having mean flow pore size up to 150 micrometers, as well as pore sizes of 50 micrometers, 40 micrometers, 30 micrometers, and smaller, depending on the configuration and layer selection (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 13, Jaganathan discloses the membrane layer may be a single layer film or a multilayer film. In embodiments which use multilayer films, the different layers may have different compositions (paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 16, Jaganathan discloses the particulate efficiency of the pre-filter layer may have an initial DOP efficiency of greater than or equal to about 65%, greater than or equal to about 70%, greater than or equal to about 75%, greater than or equal to about 80%, greater than or equal to about 85%, or greater than or equal to about 90% (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 19, Jaganathan also discloses that the filter media and polymeric layers exhibit a low pressure drop, including pressure drop less than or equal to about 5 mm H2O, and in some embodiments as low as 1 mm H2O or 0.5 mm H2O, as measured under standardized testing conditions (fig. 2, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 20, Jaganathan discloses filtration media configured to filter particulate matter, including submicron particles, as evidenced by experimental testing using dioctyl phthalate (DOP) aerosols having an average particle size of approximately 0.3 microns (300nm) and sodium chloride aerosols having an average particle size of approximately 0.26 microns (260nm) (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 22, Jaganathan discloses filtration media comprising polymeric membrane layers formed from polymeric materials using melt-based polymer processing and fiber-forming techniques, which necessarily involve heating polymetric materials to softened or molten state to form filtration layers (paragraph 0028, 0089-0090).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 3, 5, 8-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaganathan et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20160175752 A1, June 23, 2016 (hereinafter “Jaganathan”) in view of Tepper et al U.S. Pub. No. 20080026041 A1, January 31, 2008 (hereinafter “Tepper”).
Jaganathan is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 3, Jaganathan fails to disclose that at least one of the one or more polymeric layers comprises an active agent configured to devitalize or deactivate one or more microorganisms or toxins. However, Tepper discloses a non-woven filtration media in which active agents are incorporated into or onto fibrous filter layers to neutralize, devitalize, or deactivate microorganisms and toxic contaminants (paragraph 0091). Tepper teaches adding antimicrobial and chemisorbing agents, including silver, copper, zinc ions, activated carbon, and chemically active sorbents media to intercept and deactivate bacteria, viruses, and toxic substances (paragraphs 0011 and 0092). Tepper further discloses that such active agents may be mixed with or adsorbed onto fibrous layers of the filter media so as to remain available for biological or chemical deactivation during filtration (fig. 11, paragraphs 147-157).
Therefore, 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 polymetric filtration media of Jaganathan to include an active agent configured to devitalize microorganisms as taught by Tepper, in order to enhance biological and chemical contaminant removal and improve hygienic performance of the filtration media.
Regarding claim 5, Jaganathan fails to disclose that at least one of the one or more polymeric layers is acidic. Tepper discloses that activated carbon and fibrous filter media may be impregnated with acidic compounds such as citric acid to improve adsorption and neutralization of contaminants. Therefore, 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 polymeric filtration media of Jaganathan to include an acidic polymer layer, in order to enhance adsorption of basic species, and increase antimicrobial effectiveness of the filtration media.
Regarding claim 8, Jaganathan discloses filtration media comprising multiple polymeric layers arranged in a stacked or composite configuration, wherein different layers may be selected or configured to achieve desired filtration performance characteristics, including particle capture and pressure drop (paragraphs 0024 and 0064). Tepper discloses a multilayer and composite non-woven filtration media in which different properties, such as pore size, fiber diameter, porosity, sorptive capability or chemical activity, to improve overall filtration performance (paragraph 0111). Tepper further discloses that combining layers with different properties is advantageous for controlling pressure drop, filtration efficiency, and contaminant removal (paragraph 0118-0127). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the polymeric filtration media of Jaganathan to include layers with different set of properties, in order to optimize filtration efficiency, contaminant capture, and flow resistance.
Regarding claim 9, Jaganathan discloses a multilayered polymeric filtration media in which filtration performance is controlled by structural properties of the layers, including layer thickness, density, and pore size (figs. 1A-1D, paragraphs 0006-0007, 0032, 0044 ).Tepper discloses the performance of non-woven and fibrous filtration media is governed by layer thickness, and pore size, within an interconnected network, and that such properties maybe varied between layers to tailor filtration efficiency (figs. 13 and 14, paragraphs 0123-0126). Tepper teaches combinations of these properties when designing multilayer filtration media (paragraphs 0120, 0154, 0200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to define the filtration layers in terms of properties, such as, layer thickness, pore size, pore density, or combination thereof, because these adjustments in filtration media design will increase filtration performance.
Regarding claim 10, Jaganathan discloses using multiple layers of varying properties in appropriate combination to form filter media (paragraph 0129).
Regarding claim 12, Jaganathan discloses the filter may comprise synthetic fibers formed from a melt-blown process, melt spinning process, centrifugal spinning process, or electrospinning process (paragraph 0024). Tepper discloses the fibrous structure is prepared by wet laying, but it may also be prepared by other methods well known in the art including air laying, melt-blowing, spun-bonding and carding (paragraph 0091). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these well known and routinely used techniques to fabricate the filtration media with predictable structural and filtration characteristics.
Regarding claim 14, Jaganathan fails to disclose the membrane comprises a single-use membrane or a reusable membrane. Tepper discloses that the filter can be disposed as sanitary waste (paragraph 0150), thereby teaching a single-use or disposable filter configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art at the time of the invention to configure the filtration media as either single-use or reuseable membrane based on intended use, without altering the fundamental filtration function of the membrane.
Claims 21, 23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaganathan et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20160175752 A1, June 23, 2016 (hereinafter “Jaganathan”) in view of Huang et al U.S. Pub. No. 20170361254 A1, December 21, 2017 (hereinafter “Huang”).
Jaganathan is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 21, Jaganathan fails to disclose the membrane is biodegradable. Huang discloses using biodegradable polymers, bio-based polymers, natural polymers and combinations thereof, in fibrous filtration structures (paragraph 0061). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filtration media of Jaganathan to use biodegradable polymer materials, in order to reduce environmental impact and facilitate disposal of used filtration media.
Regarding claim 23, Jaganathan fails to disclose the filtration media of claim 1; and at least one securement member for securing the filtration media to a subject or an object. However, Huang discloses the filtration media is incorporated into a wearable structure, including the use of securement members such as straps, bands, fasteners, or similar attachment elements to secure the filtration media to a user (paragraph 0091). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate at least one securement member, as taught by Huang, in order to retain the filtration media in a desired position during use, particularly for personal, environmental, or object-mounted filtration applications.
Regarding claim 29, Jaganathan disclose the filtration media is suitable for gas filtration such as for HVAC, HEPA, face mask, and ULPA filtration applications (paragraph 0016, 0084, 0138). Jaganathan fails to disclose the polymeric layers comprise of polycaprolactone, nor does it disclose a mask configuration with a securement member. However, Huang discloses wearable filtration devices for filtering airborne particles, including filtration members formed from biodegradable polymers (paragraph 0061) such as polycaprolactone, and discloses securement members such as straps or bands, for securing the filtration member to a user’s face (paragraph 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filtration media of Jaganathan to use polycaprolactone, and to incorporate the resulting filtration membrane into a mask having securement member, as taught by Huang, in order to provide a wearable air-filtration device.
Conclusion
Claims 11, 15, 17, 18, 24-28, and 30-36 were cancelled in the amended claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./
Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776