DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 11, 32 and 33, was entered on 1/5/26.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Zinn does not disclose or suggest reducing the size of the pre-existing nanofibers to form smaller 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, claim 11 only requires an apparatus which is capable of converting nanofibers into small nanoparticles. Zinn teaches that the nanoparticle aggregates are in the form of nanowires (i.e. claimed nanofibers) (¶ 0049) and that these nanowires can be broken down into individual nanoparticles (¶ 0031).
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.
Claims 11-17, 21-27 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinn et al. (WO2021/158726) in light of Rice et al. (US 2016/0303592).
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 which receives agglomerates in the form of nanowires (i.e. claimed nanofibers) (¶ 0049) and breaks the agglomerates down to individual nanoparticles (¶ 0031); and a third spray device which aerosolizes and sprays the individual nanoparticles (¶ 0054) through the upper surface of the fibers and into the fiber substrate , wherein the nanoparticles have a dimension less than 1 µm (¶¶ 0063, 0064, 0081).
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.
Claims 12 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.
Claim 13: Zinn teaches that the system includes a vacuum (i.e. a source of energy configured to apply a negative pressure at a second surface) (¶ 0070).
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 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.
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 further teaches that oxides of copper and silver are suitable (i.e. claimed ceramic materials) (¶ 0017).
Claims 32 and 33: Zinn further teaches that second device is configured to isolate individual nanoparticles (¶¶ 0031, 0054) which are then dispersed in the propellant (i.e. compressed air) (¶ 0054).
Claims 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinn and Ric in light of Foster et al. (US 2015/0064433).
Claims 15 and 23: Zinn fails to teach the use of dextrin or PVOH as the adhesive. Foster teaches a system for applying an adhesive to a fibrous substrate in order to facilitate adhesion of subsequently deposited nanoparticles and explains that a suitable adhesive is PVOH with a surfactant (¶¶ 0048, 0061). 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 PVOH with a surfactant as the adhesive.
Prior Art
Yi et al. (US2012/0091223) is also cited as relevant to claims 32 and 33. Yi teaches the desirability of including a vibratory means in a nanoparticle aerosol generator in order to ensure that nanoparticles do not agglomerate (Abst., e.g.).
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 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