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 § 112(b)
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 1–13 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.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A vacuum cleaner filter bag comprising:
a wall made of an air-permeable material surrounding an inner space; and
an inlet opening introduced into the wall, wherein the air-permeable material comprises at least one of a layer of a non-woven or a layer of a fiber web comprising fibers formed from one or more recycled plastics, and wherein the one or more recycled plastics comprise chemically recycled polypropylene, wherein the chemically recycled polypropylene is obtained by depolymerizing polypropylene from plastic waste in propane, dehydrogenating the propane in propene, and polymerizing the propene. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the step of “depolymerizing propylene from plastic waste in propane” means that propylene is depolymerized in propane (e.g., propane is the solvent) or if this limitation means that the propylene is depolymerized into propane. This is because the literal language of the claim suggests that propylene is depolymerized in propane (e.g., propane is the solvent), by saying “depolymerizing polypropylene…in propane.” But the specification suggests that the propylene is depolymerized into propane because it describes a depolymerization process where virgin PP from plastic waste is chemically processed and converted to propane. See Spec. p. 8 (fourth full paragraph).
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the step of “dehydrogenating the propane in propene” means that the propane is dehydrogenated in propene (e.g., propene is a solvent), or if it means that propane is dehydrogenated into propene. This is because the literal language of the claim suggests that the propane is dehydrogenated in propene (e.g., propene is a solvent), by saying “dehydrogenating…in propene.” But the specification suggests that propane is dehydrogenated into propene. See Spec. p. 8 (fourth full paragraph).
For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 1 is interpreted to read:
1. A vacuum cleaner filter bag comprising:
a wall made of an air-permeable material surrounding an inner space; and
an inlet opening introduced into the wall, wherein the air-permeable material comprises at least one of a layer of a non-woven or a layer of a fiber web comprising fibers formed from one or more recycled plastics, and wherein the one or more recycled plastics comprise chemically recycled polypropylene, wherein the chemically recycled polypropylene is obtained by depolymerizing polypropylene from plastic waste [[in]] into propane, dehydrogenating the propane [[in]] into propene, and polymerizing the propene.
Claims 2–13 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 or 103
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.
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 1–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauer et al., US 2019/0076766 A1 or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer.
Regarding claim 1, Sauer teaches a vacuum cleaner filter bag, which reads on the claimed “vacuum cleaner bag.” See Sauer [0016].
The vacuum cleaner filter bag comprises a wall of an air-permeable material enclosing an interior, which reads on the “wall made of an air-permeable material surrounding an inner space.” See Sauer [0016].
The vacuum cleaner filter bag further comprises an inlet opening provided in the wall of air-permeable material, which reads on the “inlet opening introduced into the wall.” See Sauer [0016]. The air-permeable material comprises at least one layer of nonwoven fabric made of fibers, including bicomponent fibers, which reads on “the air-permeable material comprises at least one layer of a non-woven or a layer of a fiber web comprising fibers.” Id. at [0016], [0024], [0029]. The bicomponent fibers comprise a core and a sheath, each formed of a plastic, and the sheath can be made from virgin polypropylene. Id. at [0029]. The virgin polypropylene reads on the claimed “chemically recycled polypropylene” as explained in more detail below.
More specifically, with respect to the limitation of—the “chemically recycled polypropylene” being “obtained by depolymerizing polypropylene from plastic waste in propane, dehydrogenating the propane in propene, and polymerizing the propene”—this is a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production unless the process steps imply structure. See MPEP 2113, subsection I. Also, when the prior art disclsoes a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 is acceptable. See MPEP 2113, subsection III. Here, the virgin polypropylene of Sauer would be expected to have either the same or substantially the same structure as the claimed “chemically recycled polypropylene” because the disclosure says that chemically recycled polypropylene (rPP) may “achieve properties comparable to those of ‘virgin’ PP” and that “in contrast to physically recycled rPP, material impurities may be avoided.” See Spec. dated January 19, 2023 (“Spec”) p. 8 (third paragraph). Therefore, because there is no evidence of a structural difference between the virgin polypropylene of Sauer and the “chemically recycled polypropylene” of claim 1, the virgin polypropylene either anticipates or renders obvious the claimed “chemically recycled polypropylene.”
Regarding claim 2, Sauer teaches that the plastics used to make the fibers, including the virgin polypropylene, is electrostatically charged. See Sauer [0043].
Regarding claim 3, Sauer teaches that the air-permeable material is a multi-layer structure wherein at least two layers of the multi-layer structure comprise or are formed from a non-woven web. See Sauer [0043]. The non-woven web of each layer can comprise recycled plastics. Id.
Regarding claim 4, Sauer teaches that the air-permeable material comprises a capacity layer and a fine filter layer. See Sauer [0043]. The fine filter layer is capable of filtering particles less than 1 µm. Id. at [0006]. The capacity layer is a non-woven formed from staple fibers produced by an aerodynamic process. Id. at [0097]. The staple fibers are formed from one or more recycled plastics. Id. The fine filter layer is a meltblown non-woven made of electrostatically charged virgin PP, or is a meltblown non-woven made of bicomponent fibers with a recycled PET or a recycled PP core and a sheath made of virgin PP or virgin PMP. Id. at [0043]. Also, the air-permeable material can comprise a support layer made of recycled plastic fibers with a layer of nanofibers applied thereto. Id.
Regarding claim 5, Sauer teaches that the air-permeable material comprises a support layer and a fine filter layer. See Sauer [0043], [0047]. The fine filter layer is capable of filtering particles less than 1 µm. Id. at [0006]. The support layer and the fine filter layer comprise at least one nonwoven formed from recycled plastics. Id. The air-permeable material also comprises a capacity layer made from at least one non-woven formed from one or more recycled plastics. Id. at [0043], [0097].
Regarding claim 6, Sauer teaches that each support layer is a spunbond nonowoven fabric or scrim with a grammage of 5 to 80 g/m2 and/or having a titer of fibers forming the spunbond or scrim in a range of 0.5 to 15 dtex. See Sauer [0062].
Also, the air-permeable material has one to three support layers, wherein when the air-permeable material has at least two support layers, a total grammage of a sum of all support layers is 10 to 240 g/m2. See Sauer [0064].
Further, all support layers are formed from a recycled plastic or a plurality of recycled plastics. See Sauer [0065].
Regarding claim 7, Sauer teaches that each fine layer includes an extruded nonwoven with a grammage of 5 to 100 g/m2. See Sauer [0066].
Also, the air-permeable material comprises 1 to 5 fine layers, wherein when the air-permeable material comprises at least two fine filter layers, a total grammage of a sum of all the fine layers is 10 to 300 g/m2. See Sauer [0067]–[0068].
Further, at least one of the fine filter layers is formed from a recycled plastic or a plurality of recycled plastics. See Sauer [0069].
Also, at least one of the fine filter layers are electrostatically charged. See Sauer [0071].
Regarding claim 8, Sauer teaches that each capacity layer includes a staple fiber nonwoven, a fiber web or a fibrous recycled material from production of textiles, where each capacity layer has a grammage of 5 to 200 g/m2. See Sauer [0072], [0097].
Also, the air-permeable material has one to five capacity layers, wherein when the air-permeable material comprises at least two capacity layers, a total grammage of a sum of all capacity layers is 10 to 300 g/m2. See Sauer [0073]–[0074].
Regarding claim 9, Sauer teaches that the air-permeable material is a multi-layer structure with a layer sequence as seen from an interior of the vacuum cleaner bag. See Sauer [0075].
Also, the vacuum cleaner filter bag further comprises a support layer, at least one fine filter layer and a second support layer, or a support layer at least one capacity layer, a second support layer, at least one fine filter layer, and a further support layer. See Sauer [0076].
Regarding claim 10, Sauer teaches that the vacuum cleaner filter bag further comprises a retaining plate enclosing the inlet opening, which is made from one or more recycled plastics. See Sauer [0081].
Regarding claim 11, Sauer teaches that at least one flow distributor or diffuser is arranged in an interior of the vacuum cleaner filter bag, where the flow distributor or diffuser is formed from one or more recycled plastics. See Sauer [0082].
Regarding claim 12, Sauer teaches that a proportion by weight of all recycled materials, relative to a total weight of the vacuum cleaner filter bag is up to 96%, which reads on “at least 25%,” as claimed. See Sauer [0104].
Regarding claim 13, Sauer teaches that the vacuum cleaner bag is a flat bag, a block bottom bag or a 3D bag. See Sauer [0090].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauer et al., US 2019/0076766 A1 in view of the admitted prior art from the Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 1, Sauer teaches a vacuum cleaner filter bag, which reads on the claimed “vacuum cleaner bag.” See Sauer [0016].
The vacuum cleaner filter bag comprises a wall of an air-permeable material enclosing an interior, which reads on the “wall made of an air-permeable material surrounding an inner space.” See Sauer [0016].
The vacuum cleaner filter bag further comprises an inlet opening provided in the wall of air-permeable material, which reads on the “inlet opening introduced into the wall.” See Sauer [0016]. The air-permeable material comprises at least one layer of nonwoven fabric made of fibers, including bicomponent fibers, each having a core that can be made of recycled polypropylene. Id. at [0016], [0029]. The layer of nonwoven fabric reads on the “layer of a non-woven or a layer of a fiber web comprising fibers formed from one or more recycled plastics.”
Sauer is silent as to the process steps for manufacturing the recycled polypropylene. Therefore, Sauer fails to provide enough information to teach that the recycled polypropylene is “chemically recycled polypropylene…obtained by depolymerizing polypropylene from plastic waste in propane, dehydrogenating the propane in propene, and polymerizing the propene,” as claimed.
But the Applicant’s disclosure admits that the claimed process steps for making chemically recycled polypropylene were publicly available before the effective filing date of instant application. Specifically, the disclosure says that processes for producing chemically recycled rPP are known in the prior art, with propane produced by depolymerization via Neste’s NEXBTLTM technology, with subsequent dehydrogenation of propane carried out using the Oleflex process from UOP, and with the polymerization step of propene into polypropylene using a conventional catalytic process, such as Ziegler-Natta or metallocene-catalyzed processes. See Spec. p. 8 (fourth paragraph). The disclosure also admits that chemically recycled polypropylene that is either made by the same process as claim 1 or has the same structure as the chemically recycled polypropylene of claim 1 was on sale before the effective filing date of instant application, as it says that “the rPP may be a commercially available polypropylene produced according to Borealis’ Ever MindsTM technology.” Id.
It would have been obvious to combine the known process steps of manufacturing chemically recycled polypropylene admitted in the disclosure—propane produced by depolymerization via Neste’s NEXBTLTM technology, with subsequent dehydrogenation of propane carried out using the Oleflex process from UOP and with the polymerization step of propene into polypropylene using a conventional catalytic process, such as Ziegler-Natta or metallocene-catalyzed processes—to manufacture the recycled polypropylene of Sauer because the individual steps were publicly available for making polypropylene before the effective filing date of instant application, and combining the steps to make the recycled polypropylene of Sauer would merely represent combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, A.
It also would have been obvious to use the commercially available, chemically recycled polypropylene produced according to Borealis’ Ever MindsTM technology as the recycled polypropylene of Sauer because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Sauer teaches that the recycled plastics are electrostatically charged. See Sauer [0043], [0058], [0096].
Regarding claim 3, Sauer teaches that the air-permeable material is a multi-layer structure wherein at least two layers of the multi-layer structure comprise or are formed from a non-woven web. See Sauer [0043]. The non-woven web of each layer can comprise recycled plastics. Id.
Regarding claim 4, Sauer teaches that the air-permeable material comprises a capacity layer and a fine filter layer. See Sauer [0043]. The fine filter layer is capable of filtering particles less than 1 µm. Id. at [0006]. The capacity layer is a non-woven formed from staple fibers produced by an aerodynamic process. Id. at [0097]. The staple fibers are formed from one or more recycled plastics. Id. The fine filter layer is a meltblown non-woven made of electrostatically charged virgin PP, or is a meltblown non-woven made of bicomponent fibers with a recycled PET or a recycled PP core and a sheath made of virgin PP or virgin PMP. Id. at [0043]. Also, the air-permeable material can comprise a support layer made of recycled plastic fibers with a layer of nanofibers applied thereto. Id.
Regarding claim 5, Sauer teaches that the air-permeable material comprises a support layer and a fine filter layer. See Sauer [0043], [0047]. The fine filter layer is capable of filtering particles less than 1 µm. Id. at [0006]. The support layer and the fine filter layer comprise at least one nonwoven formed from recycled plastics. Id. The air-permeable material also comprises a capacity layer made from at least one non-woven formed from one or more recycled plastics. Id. at [0043], [0097].
Regarding claim 6, Sauer teaches that each support layer is a spunbond nonowoven fabric or scrim with a grammage of 5 to 80 g/m2 and/or having a titer of fibers forming the spunbond or scrim in a range of 0.5 to 15 dtex. See Sauer [0062].
Also, the air-permeable material has one to three support layers, wherein when the air-permeable material has at least two support layers, a total grammage of a sum of all support layers is 10 to 240 g/m2. See Sauer [0064].
Further, all support layers are formed from a recycled plastic or a plurality of recycled plastics. See Sauer [0065].
Regarding claim 7, Sauer teaches that each fine layer includes an extruded nonwoven with a grammage of 5 to 100 g/m2. See Sauer [0066].
Also, the air-permeable material comprises 1 to 5 fine layers, wherein when the air-permeable material comprises at least two fine filter layers, a total grammage of a sum of all the fine layers is 10 to 300 g/m2. See Sauer [0067]–[0068].
Further, at least one of the fine filter layers is formed from a recycled plastic or a plurality of recycled plastics. See Sauer [0069].
Also, at least one of the fine filter layers are electrostatically charged. See Sauer [0071].
Regarding claim 8, Sauer teaches that each capacity layer includes a staple fiber nonwoven, a fiber web or a fibrous recycled material from production of textiles, where each capacity layer has a grammage of 5 to 200 g/m2. See Sauer [0072], [0097].
Also, the air-permeable material has one to five capacity layers, wherein when the air-permeable material comprises at least two capacity layers, a total grammage of a sum of all capacity layers is 10 to 300 g/m2. See Sauer [0073]–[0074].
Regarding claim 9, Sauer teaches that the air-permeable material is a multi-layer structure with a layer sequence as seen from an interior of the vacuum cleaner bag. See Sauer [0075].
Also, the vacuum cleaner filter bag further comprises a support layer, at least one fine filter layer and a second support layer, or a support layer at least one capacity layer, a second support layer, at least one fine filter layer, and a further support layer. See Sauer [0076].
Regarding claim 10, Sauer teaches that the vacuum cleaner filter bag further comprises a retaining plate enclosing the inlet opening, which is made from one or more recycled plastics. See Sauer [0081].
Regarding claim 11, Sauer teaches that at least one flow distributor or diffuser is arranged in an interior of the vacuum cleaner filter bag, where the flow distributor or diffuser is formed from one or more recycled plastics. See Sauer [0082].
Regarding claim 12, Sauer teaches that a proportion by weight of all recycled materials, relative to a total weight of the vacuum cleaner filter bag is up to 96%, which reads on “at least 25%,” as claimed. See Sauer [0104].
Regarding claim 13, Sauer teaches that the vacuum cleaner bag is a flat bag, a block bottom bag or a 3D bag. See Sauer [0090].
Response to Arguments
Specification
The amended specification dated September 18, 2025 is accepted, and overcomes the previous objections.
Claim Objections
The Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections of claims 15–21.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 3–8 in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections
The Applicant argues that the virgin polypropylene of Sauer cannot read on the claimed “chemically recycled polypropylene” asserting that impurities remain in the chemically recycled polypropylene that can be used to distinguish it from virgin polypropylene. See Applicant Rem. dated September 18, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) 11. The Applicant fails to explain what the impurities are, or in what amount they would be contained in the chemically recycled polypropylene. There is also no evidence that the impurities would be absent from virgin polypropylene
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s analysis. As noted, the “chemically recycled polypropylene” limitation is a product-by-process limitation because it describes the process of making polypropylene rather than its structure. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production unless the process steps imply structure. See MPEP 2113, subsection I. Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a prior art rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show a difference. See MPEP 2113, subsection II.
Here, the virgin polypropylene of Sauer would be expected to have the same structure or substantially the same structure as the claimed “chemically recycled polypropylene” because the Applicant’s disclosure says that the chemically polypropylene may achieve properties comparable to those of virgin polypropylene. See Spec. p. 8 (third paragraph). The Applicant has failed to provide evidence that there is a structural difference between virgin polypropylene and the claimed chemically recycled polypropylene because, while the Applicant argues that chemically recycled polypropylene would have impurities, the Applicant has failed to explain what those impurities are or the amount they are contained, with there being no evidence that the impurities would be absent from virgin polypropylene. Also, the disclosure contradicts the Applicant’s position because it says that “material impurities may be avoided” by chemically recycling polypropylene, as opposed to mechanically recycling it.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Sauer in view of Layman et al., US 2018/0171094 A1 to simplify the issues.
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 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