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 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 1-16 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.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-14, claims 1 and 6 recite that the fiber structure is equally divided into ten regions in a thickness direction thereof; the regions defined as first to tenth regions from the thin fiber group side to the thick fiber group side; and the first to third regions, the fourth to seventh regions, and the eighth to tenth regions are defined as regions S, T, and U, respectively. The claims do not a thin or a thick fiber group side. Therefore, the limitations lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Additionally, it is unclear if the claimed fiber structure requires a thin fiber group side and a thick fiber group side, including what structure is necessarily within the scope of each. For example, it is unclear if a thin fiber group side would require only thin fibers or a majority of thin fibers or a portion of thin fibers. Similar arguments apply for a thick fiber side.
Additionally, it is unclear if the recitation of the fiber structure being equally divided as claimed entails that the fiber structure is physically divided as claimed, or if the fiber structure is merely designated into the equally divided structure for purposes of indicating the claimed regions.
Additionally, it is unclear if only the eighth to tenth regions are defined as regions S, T, and U, or if the first to third regions collectively, and the fourth to seventh regions collectively, and the eighth to tenth regions collectively, are defined as S for the first to third regions, T for the fourth to seventh regions, and U for the eighth to tenth regions collectively, as the verbiage of the claim is unclear.
Additionally, claims 1 and 6 recite that the fiber structure satisfies the condition that SB “is the highest among SB, TB, and UB.” It is unclear what “highest” necessarily entails, such as the highest number, highest density, highest mass, highest thickness, highest volume, etc.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 15, claims 2 and 4 recite an average number of fused points between the fibers B is as claimed. Claims 1 and 4 do not require any fused points. Therefore, it is unclear exactly what structure is required by the claims.
Additionally, claim 1 requires different amounts of filling proportions in each of the regions. It is unclear how an average number of fused points in a 100µm-square range spreading in a planar direction is determined, as the number of fibers B would appear to be variable depending on what 100µm-square range is used as a basis for the determination. Note that the claims do not require a thickness or volume or density for the fiber structure.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, the claims recites that the fused points between the fibers B are derived from melt blowing. The claims are dependent from claims 1 and 4, which do not recite or require melt blowing. Therefore, it is unclear if melt blowing is necessarily required by the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2020/137605 to Nakayama, with US Pub. No. 2021/0310166 cited as the English equivalent.
Regarding claims 1-16, Nakayama teaches a fiber structure in which an extra-fine fiber layer and a substrate layer are integrated, wherein the extra-fine fiber layer includes extra-fine fibers having a number average single fiber diameter of 5 µm or less, and the substrate includes non-extra-fine fibers having a number average single fiber diameter of 7 µm or more, and in a cross section along a thickness direction of the fiber structure, the substrate layer contains mixture portions in each (Nakayama, Abstract). Nakayama teaches that where the substrate layer is divided into three segments and each of the segments is denoted sequentially as a proximal region, a central region, and a distal region, at least a part of the extra-fine fibers from the extra-fine fiber layer reaches the distal region (Id., paragraphs 0013, 0111-0121). Nakayama teaches that the fiber structure is an entangled product of the extra-fine fiber layers and non-extra-fine fiber layers (Id., paragraph 0023), so that the extra-fine fibers are entangled with respect to the substrate layer not only in the thickness direction (Id., paragraph 0089), wherein the extra-fine fiber layer is a meltblown nonwoven fabric (Id., paragraph 0025). Nakayama teaches that the fiber structure has a basis weight of 20 to 180 g/m2, an electret structure having a collection efficiency of 70% or higher, and a QF value of 0.21 or more (Id., paragraphs 0027, 0031, 0033, 0035). Nakayama teaches that the meltblown nonwoven fabric is a fibrous form which is bonded by means of self-fusion characteristics (Id., paragraph 0093). Nakayama teaches that where a part of the extra-fine fiber constituting the extra-fine fiber layer are physically pushed into the substrate layer, the obtained fiber structure can achieve high collection efficiency even having an unprecedented low pressure loss (Id., paragraphs 0010, 0123).
Regarding the claimed fiber structure satisfying the claimed conditions including the average number of fused points, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, Nakayama establishes a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, including three segments comprising varying amounts of fibers (see for example Nakayama at Table 6). Nakayama teaches extra-fine meltlbown fibers which self-fuse, wherein the resulting fiber structure comprises overlapping basis weight, collection (i.e. filtration) efficiency, and QF values as claimed. Nakayama teaches an entangling process which is substantially similar or identical to the entangling process recited in the Applicants’ specification, wherein the entangle treatment can achieve a specific structure (Id., paragraphs 0100-0106). Additionally, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the three segments comprise substantially similar or identical structures and compositions, and that an increase in the existence proportion of each region reasonably correlates to an increase in the filling proportions as claimed (see additionally Id., Figs. 1 and 2).
Therefore, based on the totality of the teachings of Nakayama, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed properties are inherent to or naturally flow from the teachings of Nayakama, as Nakayama discloses a substantially similar or identical structure as claimed, formed by a substantially similar entangling process as set forth in Applicants’ specification, and resulting in properties which are substantially similar and overlap with the claimed properties. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiber structure of Nakayama, and adjusting and varying the filling portions and average number of fused points, such as within the claimed ranges, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiber structure having the desired collection efficiency while suppressing the pressure loss and the desired level of bonding suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claims 13-16, Nakayama teaches a filter or mask comprising the fiber structure (Nakayama, paragraphs 0039, 0041).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights