CTFR 18/019,424 CTFR 87021 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claim 4 is objected to because it has a period in the middle, and does not end in a period (but instead ends in a semicolon). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 4, 6 and 11 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 4 recites limitations after the period in the middle of the (beginning with “wherein the groups R 1 , R 2 , R 3 , and R 4 , independently are a hydrogen atom”). It is unclear whether these limitations are an option of claim 4 because there is no language to suggest that the limitations are intended to be an option, but they are included in the claim. The Examiner suggests deleting these limitations. Claims 6 and 11 are each indefinite because “Formula 1D” is excluded from claimed “Formula 1” as claim 1 specifies that “X” is an -OH when R 2 and R 3 together consist of linkages to a fused aromatic ring, but Formula 1D has “X” as an -NH 2 group with R 2 and R 3 together consisting of linkages to a fused aromatic ring. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1–4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al., US 2001/0045086 A1 in view of Law et al., US 5,451,482 . Regarding claim 1 , Cox teaches a melt blown electret polymer fiber web, which reads on the claimed “electret web.” See Cox abstract, [0009]. The fiber web consists of a “blend” consisting of a polymer resin, such as polyester (the “thermoplastic resin”) and an additive to enhance the charge stability of the media, such as a fatty acid amide. Id . at abstract, [0040], [0045]. Cox differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the charge stability additive being a substituted-aromatic carboxylic acid or substituted-aromatic carboxylate salt of Formula 1 or Formula 2, as claimed. But Law teaches a hydroxy naphthoic acid charge enhancing additive that can be melt blended with a resin, such as polyester. See Law abstract, col. 11, ll. 26–42. The charge enhancing additive has the formula: PNG media_image1.png 142 278 media_image1.png Greyscale where X is a halogen, hydroxy, or hydrogen; M is a hydrogen, an alkaline earth, an alkali metal, or NR 4 where R is an alkyl with from 1 to 5 carbon atoms, and n is the number 1 or 2. Id . at abstract. The formula reads on claimed “Formula 1,” at least when X is hydrogen, M is hydrogen, and n is 1. Specifically, in this situation, claimed “R 1 and R 4 ” are each a hydrogen atom, while claimed “R 2 and R 3 consist of linkages to a fused aromatic ring” (the ring on the left-hand side of the formula), and claimed “X is -OH when R 2 and R 3 together consist of linkages to a fused aromatic ring.” The change enhancing additive is beneficial because it is environmentally friendly. Id . at col. 5, ll. 24–30. The formula also reads on the claimed “Formula 2” when M is an alkaline earth metal (valency of 2) or an alkali metal (valency of 1), with X being hydrogen, and n being 1. It would have been obvious to use the charge enhancing additive of Lee as the additive that enhances the charge stability of the melt blown electret polymer fiber web of Cox to provide a charge enhancing additive that is environmentally friendly. It also would have been obvious use the charge enhancing additive of Lee as the additive that enhances the charge stability of the melt blown electret polymer fiber web of Cox 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 , Cox teaches that the web consists of the melt blown material, which is a “non-woven fibrous web.” See Cox [0045]. Regarding claim 3 , Cox teaches that the web consists of the melt blown material, which reads on a “film” under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See Cox [0045]; Sheldon et al., US 2018/0214323 A1 [0007] (describing an elastic meltblown film fabric-like material). Regarding claim 4 , Law teaches that the charge enhancing additive has the structure of claimed “Formula 1” at least when X is hydrogen, M is hydrogen, and n is 1. See Law abstract. In this situation, the claimed “R 1 and R 4 ” are each a hydrogen atom, while “R 2 and R 3 ” together consist of linkages to a fused phenyl ring, and “X” is -OH. Regarding claim 6 , Law teaches that the charge enhancing additive consists of Formula 1B when X is hydrogen, M is hydrogen, and n is 1. See Law abstract. Regarding claim 8 , Cox teaches an electret material of a first web of melt blown polymer fibers, after it is charged but before it is attached to another layer, which reads on the claimed “electret filter medium.” See Cox [0014]. The structure of the first web reads on the “web…wherein the web is an electret web.” The web consists of a “blend” consisting of a polymer resin, such as polyester (the “thermoplastic resin”) and an additive to enhance the charge stability of the media, such as a fatty acid amide. Id . at abstract, [0040], [0045]. Cox differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the charge stability additive being a substituted-aromatic carboxylic acid or substituted-aromatic carboxylate salt of Formula 1 or Formula 2, as claimed. But Law teaches a hydroxy naphthoic acid charge enhancing additive that can be melt blended with a resin, such as polyester. See Law abstract, col. 11, ll. 26–42. The charge enhancing additive has the formula: PNG media_image1.png 142 278 media_image1.png Greyscale where X is a halogen, hydroxy, or hydrogen; M is a hydrogen, an alkaline earth, an alkali metal, or NR 4 where R is an alkyl with from 1 to 5 carbon atoms, and n is the number 1 or 2. Id . at abstract. The formula reads on claimed “Formula 1,” at least when X is hydrogen, M is hydrogen, and n is 1. Specifically, in this situation, claimed “R 1 and R 4 ” are each a hydrogen atom, while claimed “R 2 and R 3 consist of linkages to a fused aromatic ring” (the ring on the left-hand side of the formula), and claimed “X is -OH when R 2 and R 3 together consist of linkages to a fused aromatic ring.” The change enhancing additive is beneficial because it is environmentally friendly. Id . at col. 5, ll. 24–30. The formula also reads on the claimed “Formula 2” when M is an alkaline earth metal (valency of 2) or an alkali metal (valency of 1), with X being hydrogen, and n being 1. It would have been obvious to use the charge enhancing additive of Lee as the additive that enhances the charge stability of the melt blown electret polymer fiber web of Cox to provide a charge enhancing additive that is environmentally friendly. It also would have been obvious use the charge enhancing additive of Lee as the additive that enhances the charge stability of the melt blown electret polymer fiber web of Cox 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 9 , Law teaches that the charge enhancing additive has the structure of claimed “Formula 1” at least when X is hydrogen, M is hydrogen, and n is 1. See Law abstract. In this situation, the claimed “R 1 and R 4 ” are each a hydrogen atom, while “R 2 and R 3 ” together consist of linkages to a fused phenyl ring, and “X” is -OH. Regarding claim 11 , Law teaches that the charge enhancing additive consists of Formula 1B when X is hydrogen, M is hydrogen, and n is 1. See Law abstract. Regarding claim 13 , Cox teaches that the thermoplastic resin consists of polyester. See Cox [0040]. Regarding claim 14 , Cox teaches that the charge additive consists of 1 to 8% by weight of the melt blown electret polymer fiber web. See Cox [0011]. The prior art range of 1 to 8% overlaps with the claimed range of 0.02 to 5.0 % by weight of the web, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Regarding claim 15 , Cox teaches that the electret material contains an electrostatic charge because it is an electret. See Cox [0014]. The charge can be imparted by corona treatment. Id . at [0022]. Response to Arguments 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the Non-Final Rejection dated February 12, 2026, in light of the amendments. 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Mathis et al., US 2007/0044801 A1 in view of Gaynor et al., US 2004/0000313 A1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims over this prior art combination is withdrawn. However, the claims remain unpatentable for the reasons stated above. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 18/019,424 Page 2 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,424 Page 3 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,424 Page 4 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,424 Page 5 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,424 Page 6 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,424 Page 7 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,424 Page 8 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,424 Page 9 Art Unit: 1776
Prosecution Insights