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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 4-11 and 15 in the reply filed on is 10/29/25 acknowledged. Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1 and 4-11 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.
4. With regard to claim 1, it is not clear what is meant by the limitation of “wherein the atomizing is “undertaken”. It appears that Applicants intend to limit the processing steps/methods and/or conditions/parameters of the atomizing process; however, the term “undertaken” does not capture any specific performative process steps/methods and/or conditions/parameters. Claim 1 is further indefinite because it while it appears that Applicants intend claim the ratio (quotient) of the liquid to the positive pressure of the gas medium it appears that no ratio is set forth, only the positive pressure of the gas medium in hectopascals. It is further suggested that Applicants amend the claims to recite fiber and ratio rather than “fibre” and “quotient” to conform more closely with U.S. practices.
5. With regard to claims 4-8 and 11, claims 4-8 and 11 are indefinite as set forth above with respect to the term “undertaken”. Claims 1 and 4-8 (and their dependent claims) are further indefinite because of the term “particular”. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
6. Claim 6 is further indefinite because the polar liquid is atomized when the positive pressure of the gas medium is significantly outside and broader than the recited range (closed) of claim 1. Claim 1 recites that the polar liquid is atomized under the condition that the positive (absolute) pressure of the gas medium ranges from .004 to .008 hectopascals. Claim 6 recites the positive pressure of the gas medium at pressures ranging of 500-900 hectopascals. It appears from Applicants specification that the polar liquid can be also atomized under the conditions of positive pressure ranging from 500 to 900 hectopascals. However, Applicants claim language does not make clear if this higher pressure range conditions is additional processing condition/embodiment, or if the atomizing of the polar liquid of claim 1 takes place when the gas medium is under positive (absolute) pressure conditions at range of .004-.008 and/or if the atomizing of the polar liquid of claim 6 can also take place when the gas medium is under positive pressure conditions at range from 500-900 hectopascals. The Examiner is of the position that the since higher pressure range of claim 6 appears to directly conflict with the closed lower pressure range of claim 1 claim 6 is considered further indefinite at this time.
7. With regard to claims 9 and 11, it is not clear what is meant by “afford a fibre construct and/or fibre non-woven”. It appears that Applicants are attempting to limit and/or recite an additional processing step of when the fibers are sprayed with the aerosol; however, Applicants claim language does not capture such limitations and/or processing steps.
8. With regard to claim 10, claim 10 is indefinite because it is not clear if Applicants are limiting how the fibers are produced and/or how/when the melt-blown fibers are treated with the aerosol and/or additional apparatus features. The recitation of “and/or in that the treatment aerosol [[(24)]] is supplied to the outlet opening of a melt blowing die apparatus [[(20)]] for spraying of the fibres [[(12)]]”, specifically appears to be an apparatus limitation rather than a processing limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 9-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angadjivand et al., US 6375886 B1.
The patent issued to Angadjivand et al., teach a process for forming an electret filter wherein an atomized polar liquid is sprayed onto free fibers (title and abstract). Said fibers can be made from several types of polymer materials and can be made via melt-blowing (column 6, 5-25 and column 10-65-column 11, 20). Said polar liquid is directed through a gas stream (atomized) (column 7, 40-50). Angadjivand et al., further teach that the fibers are sprayed prior to the formation of a non-woven (abstract). Angadjivand et al., further teach that the polar liquid is sprayed at pressure as low as 30 Kpa (300 Hpa) and as high as 3,500 Kpa (35000 Hpa)(column 8, 35-45). With specific regard to the limitations pertaining the ratio of the polar liquid and the positive pressure of the gas medium recited in claim 1, Angadjivand et al., does not specifically teach this ratio; however, absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the claimed ratios, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 9, Angadjivand et al., teach that the fibers are sprayed prior to the formation of a non-woven (abstract).
With regard to claims 10 and 11, Angadjivand et al., teach the fibers can be made from several types of polymer materials and can be made via melt-blowing (column 6, 5-25 and column 10-65-column 11, 20) and that the fibers are sprayed prior to the formation of a non-woven (abstract).
With regard to claim 15, the Examiner is of the position that claim 15 is product by process claim. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the non-woven electret article of Angadjivand et al., is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article as set forth above. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789