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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Zinn does not provide a mechanical method for breaking apart the agglomerates and, therefore, does not teach “a second device comprising a pump and a passage coupled to the pump, wherein the pump propels a first group of nanofibers having a first dimension into a surface at a velocity sufficient to convert the first group of nanofibers into nanoparticles.” This is not persuasive. “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does… A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” MPEP § 2114(II). In this case, Zinn teaches that the system comprises a second device in the form of a pump sprayer (i.e. a pump connected to a passage). The claim language “wherein the pump propels a first group of nanofibers having a first dimension into a surface at a velocity sufficient to convert the first group of nanofibers into nanoparticles” is an intended use of the structural pump and passage and does not differentiate the claimed invention from Zinn because it is not a part of the device claimed.
Applicant also argues, with respect to claim 31, that Zinn fails to teach any of the claimed nanoparticles. This is not persuasive. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP § 2115. In this case, Zinn teaches each element of the systems as claimed. While it does not teach the specific material of the nanoparticles, these nanoparticles are not a part of the device claimed and are instead an article worked upon by the device which does not distinguish the device itself from the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11-17, 21-24, 26-27 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zinn et al. (WO2021/158726).
Claims 11, 14, 16 and 22: Zinn teaches a system for manufacturing a fibrous filter media (Abst.) comprising: a feeder for advancing a substrate of fibers from an upstream end to a downstream end (see, e.g., ¶ 0064 which discusses the use of a roll-to-roll system); a first spray device for dispensing a solution or emulation of synthetic resin or polymeric adhesive on the fibers (¶¶ 0073-0074); a second device comprising a pump and spraying device (i.e. claimed pump and coupled passage) which receives agglomerates in the form of nanowires (i.e. claimed nanofibers) (¶ 0049) or individual nanoparticles (¶ 0031) which aerosolizes and sprays the nanowires or individual nanoparticles (¶ 0054) ; and a third device comprising a vacuum (i.e. a source of energy configured to apply a negative pressure at a second surface) which pulls the nanowires or nanoparticles through the upper surface of the fibers and into the fiber substrate (¶¶ 0063, 0064, 0070, 0081).
With respect to the claim limitation “wherein the pump propels a first group of nanofibers having a first dimension into a surface at a velocity sufficient to convert the first group of nanofibers into nanoparticles”, this language is an intended use of the structural pump and passage and does not differentiate the claimed invention from Zinn because it is not a part of the device claimed.
Claims 12, 13 and 21: Zinn teaches a spray coater which sprays the adhesive onto the fibers (¶¶ 0073-0074). While Zinn does not expressly state that the adhesive penetrates the first surface, this language is considered an intended use of the system. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114(II). In this case, the spray device is capable of penetrating the upper surface of the fiber substrate and this limitation is met.
Claims 15 and 23: Zinn fails to teach the use of dextrin, PVOH or a surfactant as the adhesive. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114(II). In this case, Zinn teaches a device which sprays a binding agent and would be capable of spraying a different binding agent, such as dextrin or PVOH.
Claims 17 and 24: Zinn teaches that the system includes a heating device (¶ 0070). While Zinn does not expressly teach that the heating device cross-links the adhesive, , this language is considered an intended use of the system. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114(II). In this case, the heating device is capable of applying heat to the adhesive which would be sufficient to cross-link it.
Claim 26: Zinn further teaches coating the fibers with a second adhesive after deposition of the nanoparticles (¶ 0074; see also ¶ 0079 which explains that additional layers may be applied to the filter).
Claim 27: Zinn teaches that the system first deposits adhesive, then nanoparticles then a second adhesive (¶¶ 0073-0074, 0079-0081). Thus, it teaches the claimed order of components.
Claim 30: Zinn teaches a dryer after the nanoparticle sprayer (¶ 0070).
Claim 31: Zinn fails to teach the use one of the claimed materials for the nanoparticles. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114(II). In this case, Zinn teaches a device disperses nanoparticles through the surface of the substrate and would have been capable of doing so with nanoparticles of one of the claimed materials.
Claims 32 and 33: Zinn fails to teach compressed air. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114(II). In this case, Zinn teaches a device which can use any suitable aerosol propellant (¶ 0059) and would have been capable of using compressed air.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinn.
Claim 25: Zinn fails to teach a particle size for the adhesive spray. However, Zinn teaches a spray device which is capable of forming droplets between 10 and 150 µm (¶ 0058). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a nozzle capable of spraying droplets having a size of 20-30 µm with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinn in light of Rice et al. (US 2016/0303592).
Claims 32 and 33: Zinn further teaches that any suitable aerosol propellant may be used (¶ 0059), but fails to teach compressed air. Rice teaches a system for aerosolizing nanoparticles (Abst.) and explains that compressed air is a suitable aerosol propellant (¶ 0008). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected compressed air as the propellant in Zinn with the predictable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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 Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights