Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 13-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (U.S Patent No. 4683165) in view of Matsumura et al. (U.S Patent No. 5927287)
Regarding claim 1, Lindemann discloses a nonwoven fabric (capable of being use as a filter element), wherein the nonwoven fabric comprises a sheet of staple fibers; wood pulp; and an aqueous polymer emulsion binder; wherein the aqueous polymer emulsion binder is applied to the staple fibres in aqueous form (Abstract and column 2, lines 37-68). Lindemann also discloses that the deposition of the polymer binder improves characteristics of the fiber fabric sheet (Abstract and column 2, lines 37-68), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to uniformly coat the binder to at least one face of the sheet of staple fibres to improve the characteristic of the fibres.
Lindemann discloses the staple fibres cotton (column 2, lines 59-52) corresponding to the claimed wherein the staple fibres have a “Ready Biodegradability” level of biodegradability as measured according to OECD 301B “Ready Biodegradability” method (modified Sturm test); wherein the nonwoven fabric is a wet laid nonwoven fabric (Abstract and column 2, lines 37-68).
Lindemann also discloses the non-woven fabric comprises wood pulp (column 2, lines 52-67) but does not expressly disclose the amount of wood pulp; Matsumura discloses the ratio of staple fibers to wood pulp can be about 90/10 by weight overlapping with the claimed range of up to 9.5% by weight of the nowoven fabric is wood pulp. In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the features discussed above for claim 1, Matsumura discloses the ratio of staple fibers to wood pulp can be about 90/10 to 20/80 by weight overlapping with the claimed range of the wood pulp in an amount of up to 20% by weight of the non-woven fabric. In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Matsumura discloses a tobacco smoke filter comprises wood pulp (Abstract). Therefore, the combination of Matsumura and Barnes taken together as a whole teaches a filter cigarette includes the tobacco smoke filter according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Matsumura discloses a tobacco smoke filter comprises wood pulp (Abstract). Therefore, the combination of Matsumura and Barnes taken together as a whole teaches a filter cigarette includes the tobacco smoke filter according to claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant essentially argues that the reference of Matsumura discloses the proportion of the cellulose ester short staple to the beaten pulp may practically be about 90/10 to 20/80 by weight; therefore Matsumura discloses the pulp can be 10-80 precent by weight while claim 1 recites that up to 9.5% by weight of the nonwoven fabric is wood pulp. Therefore, the range (must be at least 10%) disclosed in Matsumura does not overlap with the claimed range (no more than 9.5%); furthermore it is unexpected that small amount of wood pulp would be sufficiently strong enough to be formed into filter elements and therefore non-obvious as it would not be predicted that using such a low percentage of wood pulp would provide a nonwoven fabric such strength. This argument is not persuasive because, as the Applicant’s pointed to col. 3 lines 37-39 of Matsumura, the reference of Matsumura discloses about 10 to 80 by weight (contrary to the Applicant’s assertion that it must be at least 10%). In this case, about 10% by weight is overlapping with the claimed range of up to 9.5% by weight; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range. Furthermore, the combination of Lindemann and Matsumura teaches/suggests the claimed features therefore one of ordinary skill in the art a the time the invention was made would also expect the nonwoven fabric of Lindemann and Matsumura taken together as whole to have the strength capable for being a filter element.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 5712703882. 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.
/PHU H NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1747