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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “large diameters fibers” in lines 1-2 should read “large diameter fibers”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 and 8-16 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.
The terms “about 90%” in claim 1, and “such as viruses (~0.1 um)” in claim 8-14 and “small diameter fibers (~0.2 um) and large diameter fibers (~20 um)” in claims 14-15 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about” and the approximation of a range by the tilde (~) is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes the terms will be interpreted as being within 5% of the claimed value.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a layer of large diameter fibers, a layer of small diameter fibers and a layer of large diameter fibers” renders the claim indefinite. It is first unclear whether or not the fibers are intended to be the same type as those set forth in claim 14, as they are not recited in the same manner with the approximate size and thus could be of any differing sizes. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to recite the fibers are the same as that of claim 14 or to specify how the fibers may be different. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as referring to the same fiber type. Additionally, it is unclear if the claim limitation is specifying two different layers of large diameter fibers. Applicant is advised to clarify if the second recitation of a layer of large diameter fibers is distinct, and may wish to recite first and second layers of the large diameter fibers for clarity. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as reciting two distinct layers of large diameter fibers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3, 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation “a fiber diameter size of 187 ± 70 nm” which has lower range bound which is outside that set forth in claim 1 and thus is improperly dependent upon claim 1.
Similar arguments can be made for claims 3, 7-9, 13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zussman (U.S Publication No. 2023/0041267 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zussman discloses a mask having a mean fiber diameter range from 187 nanometers to 1.757 um (Paragraph 0011, the mean fiber diameter can be between 50 and 1500 nanometers; also see Paragraph 0037, 0085) and a porosity of around 90% (Paragraph 0046, 0049; The preferred porosity can be in a range between 85-95% or more particularly between 88-92%)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zussman (U.S Publication No. 2023/0041267 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Jo (U.S Publication No. 2014/0076797 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman is silent regarding a fiber diameter size of 187 ± 70 nm with a porosity of 91.33%.
However, Zussman further discloses that the porosity is preferentially in a range between 88 and 92% for capturing microbes of a particular target size (Paragraph 0049, the porosity is preferentially between 88-92% and can capture microbes with sizes in a range between 50 and 400 nm). Zussman also teaches that the diameter of the nanofibers in the filter can be between 100-300 nanometers (Paragraph 0011, 0085; In different embodiments, the diameter of the nanofiber can be between 100-200 nm, 200-300 nm).
Jo teaches filters and construction techniques which are known to have/produce an average fiber diameter of 187 ± 70 nm (Paragraph 0083-0084, Table 2, Paragraph 0095; A filter can be formed through electrospinning or through silica/PVdF fibers with an average fiber diameter of 201 nm/235 nm). Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 91.33%, such as that taught by Zussman and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Regarding claim 4, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman further discloses a fiber diameter size of 600 ± 210 nm (Paragraphs 0011, 0037, 0085).
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a porosity of 91.35%.
However, Zussman further discloses that the porosity is preferentially in a range between 88 and 92% for capturing microbes of a particular target size (Paragraph 0049, the porosity is preferentially between 88-92% and can capture microbes with sizes in a range between 50 and 400 nm).
Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 91.35%, such as that taught by Zussman and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Regarding claim 5, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman further discloses a fiber diameter size of 844 ± 246 nm (Paragraphs 0011, 0037, 0085).
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a porosity of 90.65%.
However, Zussman further discloses that the porosity is preferentially in a range between 88 and 92% for capturing microbes of a particular target size (Paragraph 0049, the porosity is preferentially between 88-92% and can capture microbes with sizes in a range between 50 and 400 nm).
Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 89.42%, such as that taught by Zussman and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Regarding claim 6, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman further discloses a fiber diameter size of 1177 ± 531 nm (Paragraphs 0011, 0037, 0085).
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a porosity of 89.42%.
However, Zussman further discloses that the porosity is preferentially in a range between 88 and 92% for capturing microbes of a particular target size (Paragraph 0049, the porosity is preferentially between 88-92% and can capture microbes with sizes in a range between 50 and 400 nm).
Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 89.42%, such as that taught by Zussman and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Regarding claim 7, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman further discloses a fiber diameter size of 1767 ± 640 nm (Paragraphs 0011, 0037, 0085).
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a porosity of 89.89%.
However, Zussman further discloses that the porosity is preferentially in a range between 88 and 92% for capturing microbes of a particular target size (Paragraph 0049, the porosity is preferentially between 88-92% and can capture microbes with sizes in a range between 50 and 400 nm).
Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 89.89%, such as that taught by Zussman and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zussman (U.S Publication No. 2023/0041267 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Lagaron Cabello (U.S Publication No. 2021/0322907 A1) and Huang (U.S Publication No. 2017/0361254 A1) and Jo (U.S Publication No. 2014/0076797 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman is silent regarding having a fiber diameter size of 250 ± 88 nm.
However, Lagaron Cabello teaches a filter for masks having a fiber diameter size of 250 ± 88 nm (Paragraph 0140, a hygienic mask may be made through electrospun PHBV with a fiber diameter of 200-300 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to have included a fiber diameter of 250 ± 88 nm, such as that taught by Lagaron Cabello, in order to provide a known fiber filter layer for producing a hygienic mask with high filtration efficiency (Paragraph 0140-0143).
Zussman is silent regarding a porosity of 93.87%.
However, Huang teaches a nanofiber web for a face mask filter having a porosity of 93.87% (Paragraph 0086, the porosity may be about 94%; also see Paragraph 0150 where the term about may be approximate and/or larger/smaller than the stated value to reflect rounding or values that have functional or operable equivalence and thus can be easily seen to encompass 93.87%). The high porosity is useful for high breathability through the mask while still providing high filtration efficiency (Abstract).
Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 93.87%, such as that taught by Huang and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Huang also teaches having a relatively high porosity allows for breathability through the mask (Abstract). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Claims 8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zussman (U.S Publication No. 2023/0041267 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Jo (U.S Publication No. 2014/0076797 A1) and Gan (U.S 2025/0057167 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman is silent regarding a fiber diameter size of 187 ± 70 nm with a porosity of 91.33%.
However, Zussman further discloses that the porosity is preferentially in a range between 88 and 92% for capturing microbes of a particular target size (Paragraph 0049, the porosity is preferentially between 88-92% and can capture microbes with sizes in a range between 50 and 400 nm). Zussman also teaches that the diameter of the nanofibers in the filter can be between 100-300 nanometers (Paragraph 0011, 0085; In different embodiments, the diameter of the nanofiber can be between 100-200 nm, 200-300 nm).
Jo teaches filters and construction techniques which are known to have/produce an average fiber diameter of 187 ± 70 nm (Paragraph 0083-0084, Table 2, Paragraph 0095; A filter can be formed through electrospinning or through silica/PVdF fibers with an average fiber diameter of 201 nm/235 nm). Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 91.33%, such as that taught by Zussman and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um).
However, Gan teaches a filtering mask with a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um) (Paragraph 0141, the filter layer has a filtration efficiency for filtration of particles with a size of 0.1 μm and thus can trap viruses of such a size).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to have included a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um), such as that taught by Gan, in order to prevent passing and inhalation of microscopic particles and hazards (Paragraph 0141).
Regarding claim 10, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman further discloses a fiber diameter size of 600 ± 210 nm (Paragraphs 0011, 0037, 0085).
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a porosity of 91.35%.
However, Zussman further discloses that the porosity is preferentially in a range between 88 and 92% for capturing microbes of a particular target size (Paragraph 0049, the porosity is preferentially between 88-92% and can capture microbes with sizes in a range between 50 and 400 nm).
Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 91.35%, such as that taught by Zussman and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um).
However, Gan teaches a filtering mask with a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um) (Paragraph 0141, the filter layer has a filtration efficiency for filtration of particles with a size of 0.1 μm and thus can trap viruses of such a size).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to have included a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um), such as that taught by Gan, in order to prevent passing and inhalation of microscopic particles and hazards (Paragraph 0141).
Regarding claim 11, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman further discloses a fiber diameter size of 844 ± 246 nm (Paragraphs 0011, 0037, 0085).
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a porosity of 90.65%.
However, Zussman further discloses that the porosity is preferentially in a range between 88 and 92% for capturing microbes of a particular target size (Paragraph 0049, the porosity is preferentially between 88-92% and can capture microbes with sizes in a range between 50 and 400 nm).
Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 89.42%, such as that taught by Zussman and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um).
However, Gan teaches a filtering mask with a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um) (Paragraph 0141, the filter layer has a filtration efficiency for filtration of particles with a size of 0.1 μm and thus can trap viruses of such a size).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to have included a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um), such as that taught by Gan, in order to prevent passing and inhalation of microscopic particles and hazards (Paragraph 0141).
Regarding claim 12, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman further discloses a fiber diameter size of 1177 ± 531 nm (Paragraphs 0011, 0037, 0085).
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a porosity of 89.42%.
However, Zussman further discloses that the porosity is preferentially in a range between 88 and 92% for capturing microbes of a particular target size (Paragraph 0049, the porosity is preferentially between 88-92% and can capture microbes with sizes in a range between 50 and 400 nm).
Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 89.42%, such as that taught by Zussman and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um).
However, Gan teaches a filtering mask with a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um) (Paragraph 0141, the filter layer has a filtration efficiency for filtration of particles with a size of 0.1 μm and thus can trap viruses of such a size).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to have included a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um), such as that taught by Gan, in order to prevent passing and inhalation of microscopic particles and hazards (Paragraph 0141).
Regarding claim 13, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman further discloses a fiber diameter size of 1767 ± 640 nm (Paragraphs 0011, 0037, 0085).
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a porosity of 89.89%.
However, Zussman further discloses that the porosity is preferentially in a range between 88 and 92% for capturing microbes of a particular target size (Paragraph 0049, the porosity is preferentially between 88-92% and can capture microbes with sizes in a range between 50 and 400 nm).
Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 89.89%, such as that taught by Zussman and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um).
However, Gan teaches a filtering mask with a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um) (Paragraph 0141, the filter layer has a filtration efficiency for filtration of particles with a size of 0.1 μm and thus can trap viruses of such a size).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to have included a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um), such as that taught by Gan, in order to prevent passing and inhalation of microscopic particles and hazards (Paragraph 0141).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zussman (U.S Publication No. 2023/0041267 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Lagaron Cabello (U.S Publication No. 2021/0322907 A1) and Huang (U.S Publication No. 2017/0361254 A1) and Jo (U.S Publication No. 2014/0076797 A1) and Gan (U.S 2025/0057167 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zussman discloses the device of claim 1.
Zussman is silent regarding having a fiber diameter size of 250 ± 88 nm.
However, Lagaron Cabello teaches a filter for masks having a fiber diameter size of 250 ± 88 nm (Paragraph 0140, a hygienic mask may be made through electrospun PHBV with a fiber diameter of 200-300 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to have included a fiber diameter of 250 ± 88 nm, such as that taught by Lagaron Cabello, in order to provide a known fiber filter layer for producing a hygienic mask with high filtration efficiency (Paragraph 0140-0143).
Zussman is silent regarding a porosity of 93.87%.
However, Huang teaches a nanofiber web for a face mask filter having a porosity of 93.87% (Paragraph 0086, the porosity may be about 94%; also see Paragraph 0150 where the term about may be approximate and/or larger/smaller than the stated value to reflect rounding or values that have functional or operable equivalence and thus can be easily seen to encompass 93.87%). The high porosity is useful for high breathability through the mask while still providing high filtration efficiency (Abstract).
Furthermore, Jo teaches that the average diameter of the fibers of a filter impacts the pore size and pore size distribution, and therefore the porosity of the filter (Paragraph 0043, decreasing the average diameter of the fiber causes pore size and pore distribution to decrease, and thereby the average diameter of the fibers used in the filter can determine the amount of porosity).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to achieve a porosity of 93.87%, such as that taught by Huang and Jo, because routine optimization of the fiber diameter sizes within the claimed range would lead to the claimed porosity because Jo teaches that changing the fiber diameter sizes adjusts porosity and thus the modification of the fiber diameters within the claimed range will result in a range of porosities which will include the claimed porosity (Paragraph 0043). Zussman teaches that porosity is a desireable parameter to optimize to target and trap certain sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) which is known to be adjustable through modification and variation of the mean fiber diameter (Paragraph 0043 of Jo). Huang also teaches having a relatively high porosity allows for breathability through the mask (Abstract). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the porosity to the claimed value which is suitable for capturing particular sizes of microbes (Paragraph 0049 of Zussman) by routine experimentation within the range of fiber diameter sizes.
Zussman is silent regarding specifically a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um).
However, Gan teaches a filtering mask with a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um) (Paragraph 0141, the filter layer has a filtration efficiency for filtration of particles with a size of 0.1 μm and thus can trap viruses of such a size).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Zussman to have included a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um), such as that taught by Gan, in order to prevent passing and inhalation of microscopic particles and hazards (Paragraph 0141).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (U.S 2013/0291877 A1) in view of Gan (U.S 2025/0057167 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Nguyen discloses a mask comprised of small diameter fibers (~0.2 um) and large diameter fibers (~20 um) (Fig. 1 and Paragraphs 0057, 0063-0064; A mask 10 can have a filtration/fiber layer with a bimodal mixture of intermingled microfibers and mesofibers of varying diameters; The microfiber mode can include small diameter fibers with a diameter from 0.1 to 0.5 μm and the mesofiber mode can include large diameter fibers with a diameter from 11-20 μm and thus encompasses the claimed values).
Nguyen is silent regarding specifically a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um).
However, Gan teaches a filtering mask with a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um) (Paragraph 0141, the filter layer has a filtration efficiency for filtration of particles with a size of 0.1 μm and thus can trap viruses of such a size).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nguyen to have included a screening efficiency for small submicron particles, such as viruses (~0.1 um), such as that taught by Gan, in order to prevent passing and inhalation of microscopic particles and hazards (Paragraph 0141).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Nguyen discloses the device of claim 14.
Nguyen further discloses wherein said small diameter fibers (~0.2 um) and said large diameter fibers (~20 um) are co-deposited onto a surface (Paragraph 0063-0064, a mixture of microfibers and mesofibers are co-deposited into the cover web layer for filtration of differently sized particles; also see Paragraph 0065-0068).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Nguyen discloses the device of claim 14.
Nguyen is silent regarding specifically wherein the mask is comprised of a layer of large diameters fibers, a layer of small diameter fibers and a layer of large diameter fibers.
However, Nguyen teaches wherein the mask can be comprised of a plurality of filtering layers (Fig. 3 and Paragraph 0059, 0077, 0083; Multiple filtration layers can be used and may be joined by adhesive) and wherein the fibers selected for a layer are based on the kind of substances/particles to be filtered (Paragraph 0077). Thus, stacking of several different filtration layers with predominantly large then small fibers can provide successive filtration of large and small particles. It is also noted that applicant has not defined that the layers must be in any particular order, merely that there are two apparent large fiber layers and a small fiber layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art to have modified the device of Nguyen to include two large diameter fiber filtering layers and a small diameter fiber filtering layer, such as that taught by Nguyen, in order to provide greater filtration efficiency and provide successive filtering of particles by size (Paragraph 0059, 0077, 0083 for example).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS WILLIAM GREIG whose telephone number is (571)272-5378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/THOMAS W GREIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785