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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 1/16/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pourdeyhimi (US 2011/0250815 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Pourdeyhimi teaches a nonwoven material comprising a blend of a first plurality of monocomponent fibers and a second plurality of segmented fibers comprising segments comprising a first polymer and segments comprising a second polymer different from the first polymer (e.g., two or more polymers), and wherein the segmented fibers are at least partially fibrillated or split (para 14, 27, 67, 68, 98-99)
Regarding the limitations “wherein the nonwoven material comprises about 75 to about 95% by weight of the monocomponent fibers, and about 5 to about 25% by weight of the segmented fibers, based on the total weight of the nonwoven material;” and “wherein the nonwoven material comprises about 80 to about 95% by weight of the monocomponent fibers;” Pourdeyhimi teaches relative number of fibers from each group can vary depending on the desired properties of the resulting fabric. e.g., both the first and second group of fibers can comprise from about 1 to about 99% of the total number of fibers; and/or one group of fibers will be present in an amount of about 5 to about 50% of the total number of fibers, and the other group will be present in an amount of about 50 to about 95%; and/or one group is present in an amount of 20% to about 50% and the other group is present in an amount of about 50% to about 80% (para 71).
These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Pourdeyhimi, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Pourdeyhimi suggests the species of polymers used in the segment fibers may be polylactic acid (i.e., an aliphatic polyester), polypropylene (i.e., a polyolefin), and/or polyethylene (i.e., a polyolefin) (para 6, 112) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the first polymer is an aliphatic polyester and the second polymer is an aromatic polyester or a polyolefin; and wherein the first polymer is polylactic acid and the second polymer is polypropylene or polyethylene.
Regarding claim 4, Pourdeyhimi teaches bicomponent fiber formed of polymer A and polymer B; wherein the ratio of polymer A to polymer B can be about 50/50 to about 5/95 (para 114-115); which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention bicomponent segmented fibers having said ratio. This range substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Pourdeyhimi, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Pourdeyhimi teaches the monocomponent fibers may be a polyolefin or one of the polymers used in the segmented fibers (para 79, 111); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to pick that of polypropylene or polyethylene; since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). Pourdeyhimi further suggests the species of polymers used in the segment fibers may be polypropylene (i.e., a polyolefin), and/or polyethylene (i.e., a polyolefin) (para 6); so Pourdeyhimi would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the monocomponent fibers comprise either the first polymer or the second polymer.
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 9, Pourdeyhimi teaches the segmented fibers are segmented pie fibers having 4, 8, 16, or 32 segments (para 78). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Pourdeyhimi, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claims 11, Pourdeyhimi teaches the monocomponent fibers and the segmented fibers are continuous filament fibers (para 3, 14, 65).
Regarding claim 13, Pourdeyhimi teaches “[a]ir permeability is an important factor in the performance of textiles, particularly in filter materials” (para 126) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention an air filter comprising the nonwoven material of claim 1.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourdeyhimi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al (US 2020/0330913 A1).
Pourdeyhimi teaches the nonwoven fabrics have a basis weight of 50 gsm to 200 gsm (para 137), so these values lie within the range of the instant claims. Pourdeyhimi further suggests a filtration efficiency of at least about 65% while exhibiting a flow resistance of less than about 0.01 psi (i.e., ~ 69 Pa) (para 125).
Pourdeyhimi fails to expressly teach a pressure drop of about 5 to about 80 Pa and a filtration efficiency of about 80% or higher, on a TSI 8130 filter tester at a flow rate of 32 L/min and a sample area of 100 cm2.
Smith teaches filter media characteristics, such as surface area and basis weight, affect filter performance including filter efficiency, pressure drop and resistance to fluid flow through the filter; and, in general, higher filter efficiencies may result in a higher resistance to fluid flow which leads to higher pressure drops for a given flow rate across the filter (para 3).
Therefore, per the teachings of Smith, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the surface area and basis weight of the nonwoven fabrics of Pourdeyhimi to optimize its pressure drop and filtration efficiency.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourdeyhimi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dugan et al (US 2022/0170201 A1).
Pourdeyhimi suggests the nonwoven material of claim 1.
Pourdeyhimi fails to teach wherein the monocomponent fibers and the segmented fibers are discontinuous fibers having a length ranging from 3 mm to 150 mm. However, Pourdeyhimi teaches the monocomponent fibers and the segmented fibers are discontinuous or staple fibers (para 95).
Dugan teaches nonwoven fabrics for use in filters formed from staple fibers; wherein the fibers may be splittable (i.e., segmented) or nonsplittable (i.e., monocomponent) and comprise polylactic acid, polyethylene, and/or polypropylene; wherein a blend of both splittable fibers and nonsplittable fibers may provide benefits such as strength, shape retention, and filtering (abstract, para 13, 33, 48-51, 66, 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the nonwoven fabrics of Dugan with the nonwoven materials of Pourdeyhimi for nonwoven materials with strength, shape retention, and filtering.
Dugan further teaches the staple fibers have a length of about 1.25 cm (12.5 mm) to about 16 cm (160 mm) in length (para 33). This range substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Dugan, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourdeyhimi as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Knowles (US 2006/0277879 A1).
Pourdeyhimi suggests the air filter of claim 13.
Pourdeyhimi fails to teach wherein the nonwoven material is pleated, optionally wherein the nonwoven materials has about 10 to about 25 pleats/ft; and the air filter further comprises a frame attached to the nonwoven material.
Knowles teaches and extended pleat air filter that is contained within and sealed to the walls of the housing (i.e., frame)(abstract, para 16-21), so one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have recognized frames or housings and pleated filter media as common design feature of air filters at the time of invention.
Therefore, per the teachings of Knowles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use pleats and a housing or frame in the design of the air filter as suggested by Pourdeyhimi, since these were common design features of air filters known at the time of invention.
The limitation “optionally wherein the nonwoven materials has about 10 to about 25 pleats/ft” is an optional limitation that does not need to be taught by the prior art. However, Knowles teaches its extended pleated filters have 12 pleats per foot, which lies within the range of the instant claim, as well as adjusting the pleats per foot adjusts the initial resistance to air flow through the filter as well as the particulates to be captured and service life (para 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the pleats per foot of the filter to optimize the initial resistance to air flow through the filter as well as the particulates to be captured and service life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends Pourdeyhimi provides clear guidance to use significantly lower amounts than the "about 75 to about 95% by weight" of monocomponent fibers.
First, this is not persuasive, since Applicant did not include the entirety of the passage, e.g., “[i]n specific embodiments, the fabric can be characterized by the weight percentage of the fibers present that are not micro-denier fibers, relative to the total weight of the fabric” (para 72).
Second, the Applicant appears to ignore the totality of the teachings of Pourdeyhimi:
[0071] The relative number of fibers from each group can vary depending on the desired properties of the resulting fabric. For example, both the first and second group of fibers can comprise from about 1 to about 99% of the total number of fibers exiting a particular spinneret. Typically, one group of fibers will be present in an amount of about 5 to about 50% of the total number of fibers, and the other group will be present in an amount of about 50 to about 95%. In one embodiment, one group is present in an amount of 20% to about 50% and the other group is present in an amount of about 50% to about 80%. Where three distinct fiber groupings are present in the fabric, the relative amount of each can vary. For example, each group can be present in an amount of about 1% to about 80%, more typically about 5% to about 66%, and most often about 10% to about 50%
These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Pourdeyhimi, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Third, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Regarding the working examples of Pourdeyhimi, “it is well established that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to specific working examples contained therein.” In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1 (CCPA 1982).
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed nonwoven materials, comprising high monocomponent fiber contents, clearly demonstrate unexpectedly positive filtration characteristics, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783