CTFR 18/019,935 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Koori et al., US 2015/0368836 A1 . Regarding claim 1 , Koori teaches a fibrous non-woven fabric that can be used as an electret filter. See Koori [0001], [0063]. The fibrous non-woven fabric used as an electret filter reads on the “electret web.” The fibrous nonwoven fabric consists of a resin composition C of general-purpose polypropylene (as high-crystalline polyolefin A ) and low-crystalline polypropylene (as low-crystalline polyolefin B ) ( see Koori [0012]–[0013], [0021]) and a release agent of metal salt of an organic carboxylic acid, where the metal is Mg and the organic carboxylic acid is benzoic acid ( id . at [0038], [0041]–[0042]). The resin composition C reads on the “polypropylene resin” because it is a resin of polypropylene. Note that the claim and the specification fail to specify that the “polypropylene resin” is perfectly monodisperse. Therefore, the resin composition C reads on the “polypropylene resin” because it is made exclusively of two types of polypropylene, even though each type has a different crystallinity. The salt of Mg and benzoic acid reads on the claimed “charge-enhancing additive comprising a benzoate salt with the general structure of Formula 1” because a magnesium salt of benzoic acid is magnesium benzoate, which has the structure seen below, with magnesium having a valence of 2. Note that the limitation requiring the additive to function as a “charge-enhancing” additive fails to further limit the scope of the claim because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the additive. See MPEP 2112, subsection I (something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property). The fibrous non-woven fabric used as an electret filter contains an electrostatic charge, as claimed, because it is an electret material that has been subjected to electret processing. See Koori [0063]. Note that the Applicant acknowledges that an electret web has an electrostatic charge implicitly by the name “electret.” See Applicant Rem. filed August 28, 2025, 12. Note also that an “electret” is known in the art as a material that exhibits a quasi-permanent electrical charge. See e.g. , Schultz et al., US 2019/0003112 A1, [0002]. PNG media_image1.png 383 592 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2 , Koori teaches that the electret filter comprises a non-woven fibrous web. See Koori [0001]. Regarding claim 4 , Koori teaches that the internal release agent is magnesium benzoate, as explained in the rejection above. Magnesium benzoate has the general structure of claimed Formula 1, as seen in the chemical structure of magnesium benzoate provided in the rejection of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 8 , Koori teaches that the internal release agent is magnesium benzoate, as explained in the rejection above. Magnesium benzoate has the general structure of claimed Formula 1C, as seen in the chemical structure of magnesium benzoate provided in the rejection of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 10 , Koori teaches a fibrous non-woven fabric that can be used as an electret filter. See Koori [0001], [0063]. The fibrous non-woven fabric used as an electret filter reads on the “electret filter medium.” The fibrous nonwoven fabric consists of a “web,” as claimed, because the fibrous nonwoven fabric itself reads on the “web.” See Koori [0001], [0063]. The fibrous nonwoven fabric consists of a resin composition C of general-purpose polypropylene (as high-crystalline polyolefin A ) and low-crystalline polypropylene (as low-crystalline polyolefin B ) ( see Koori [0012]–[0013], [0021]) and a release agent of metal salt of an organic carboxylic acid, where the metal is Mg and the organic carboxylic acid is benzoic acid ( id . at [0038], [0041]–[0042]). The resin composition C reads on the “polypropylene resin” because it is a resin of polypropylene. Note that the claim and the specification fail to specify that the “polypropylene resin” is perfectly monodisperse. Therefore, the resin composition C reads on the “polypropylene resin” because it is made exclusively of two types of polypropylene, even though each type has a different crystallinity. The salt of Mg and benzoic acid reads on the claimed “charge-enhancing additive comprising a benzoate salt with the general structure of Formula 1” because a magnesium salt of benzoic acid is magnesium benzoate, which has the structure seen below, with magnesium having a valence of 2. Note that the limitation requiring the additive to function as a “charge-enhancing” additive fails to further limit the scope of the claim because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the additive. See MPEP 2112, subsection I (something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property). The fibrous non-woven fabric used as an electret filter contains an electrostatic charge, as claimed, because it is an electret material that has been subjected to electret processing. See Koori [0063]. Note that the Applicant acknowledges that an electret web has an electrostatic charge implicitly by the name “electret.” See Applicant Rem. filed August 28, 2025, 12. Note also that an “electret” is known in the art as a material that exhibits a quasi-permanent electrical charge. See e.g. , Schultz et al., US 2019/0003112 A1, [0002]. PNG media_image1.png 383 592 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 11 , Koori teaches that the internal release agent is magnesium benzoate, as explained in the rejection above. Magnesium benzoate has the general structure of claimed Formula 1, as seen in the chemical structure of magnesium benzoate provided in the rejection of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 15 , Koori teaches that the internal release agent is magnesium benzoate, as explained in the rejection above. Magnesium benzoate has the general structure of claimed Formula 1C, as seen in the chemical structure of magnesium benzoate provided in the rejection of claim 1 above. Regarding claim 19 , Koori teaches that the fibrous nonwoven fabric contains an electrostatic charge because it is an electret material that has been subjected to electret processing, as noted above. See Koori [0063]. The limitation describing that the electrostatic charge is imparted through corona treatment, hydrocharging or a combination therefore fails to further limit the scope of the claim because it describes the process of manufacturing the web instead of its structure. See MPEP 2113(I) (the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production unless the process steps impart structure) . 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koori et al., US 2015/0368836 A1 in view of Midkiff et al., US 2010/0326902 A1 . Regarding claim 3 , Koori teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above. Koori differs from claim 3 because it is silent as to the electret filter (the “web”) comprising a film. But Midkiff teaches a multilayer electret filtration media comprising a first layer made of a film. See Midkiff [0025]. The first layer is beneficial because it provides structural support to the filtration media. Id . It would have been obvious for the electret filter of Koori to comprise the first layer of Midkiff to provide structural support to the electret filter. With this modification, the fibrous non-woven fabric used as an electret filter of Koori “comprises a film,” as claimed, because the electret filter would include the first layer of Midkiff, in addition to the fibrous nonwoven fabric of Koori . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koori et al., US 2015/0368836 A1 . Regarding claim 18 , Koori teaches that the internal release agent comprises between 10 to 10,000 ppm by mass of the resin composition used to manufacture the fibers of the nonwoven web. See Koori [0049]. The nonwoven fiber web is comprised mostly of the fibers. The range of 10 to 10,000 ppm by mass converts to 0.001 to 1% by mass. The prior art range of 0.001 to 1% by mass of the resin composition used to make the fibers of the nonwoven web either overlaps with or is close enough to the claimed range of 0.02 to 5.0 % by weight of the web to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection I. Response to Arguments Claim Objections The Examiner withdraws the previous claim objection to claim 17 because it is cancelled. 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments. 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections The Applicant argues that the resin composition C of Koori, which can be made exclusively of polypropylene (high-crystalline polypropylene A and low-crystalline polypropylene B ) cannot read on the claimed “polypropylene resin.” Instead, the Applicant asserts that the claim limitation of “consisting of: a polypropylene resin” means that the “polypropylene resin” is a single resin and not a resin composition. See Applicant Rem. filed April 28, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 10–11. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification fails to provide a special definition for “a polypropylene resin” and therefore this limitation is given its plain meaning under the broadest reasonable interpretation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “a polypropylene resin” can include multiple types of polypropylene because a polymer resin typically includes a distribution of polymer molecules of the game general type of polymer, but with different lengths and weights. This is known in the art as the “polydispersity” (or “dispersity), which describes the distribution of different molecular chain lengths within a specific resin sample. A polypropylene resin conventionally has a polydispersity index of greater than 1, meaning that it has multiple different types of polypropylene. See e.g. , Jang et al., US 2019/0169419 A1 [0009] (a polypropylene resin having a polydispersity index of about 4.5 to 6.5); Guo et al., US 2017/0313845 A1 [0073] (the polydispersity index of the polypropylene base resin is from 4 to 8). Therefore, the resin composition C of Koori reads on the claimed “polypropylene resin” even though it is has two different types of polypropylene, because it is made exclusively of polypropylene (polypropylene A and polypropylene B ), while a polypropylene resin is conventionally considered a single resin, even though it has a distribution of different types (lengths and weight) of polypropylene distributed within the resin. It is also noted that if the Applicant intends for “a polypropylene resin” to include a perfectly monodisperse polypropylene resin, then claims 1 and 10 would likely fail the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the disclosure fails to specify that the polypropylene resin is perfectly monodisperse. 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: 18/019,935 Page 2 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,935 Page 3 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,935 Page 4 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,935 Page 5 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,935 Page 6 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,935 Page 7 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,935 Page 8 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,935 Page 9 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/019,935 Page 10 Art Unit: 1776
Prosecution Insights