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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 54-56, 58-59, 62-73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by any one of Chapman (US 20120097035 A1), Gulrez (US 20220126226 A1), and Myers (US 6759356 B1) as cited in the claim listing below. Note: layers in filter media comprise fiber(s).
Claim 54. A filter media, comprising a first plurality of fibers, wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises polylactic acid (PLA) fibers or acrylic fibers, wherein the first plurality of fibers are triboelectrically charged. (See Chapman Abstract, pars [0008], [0015], [0023], [0025], [0026], [0027], [0028], [0031], [0035], [0036], [0038], [0044], [0045], [0050]-[0052], [0054]-[0057], [0059]-[0088], [0091]-[0100]; see Gulrez [0007], [0024], [0026], [0082], [0100]-[0102], [0134]; and see Myers col. 1, ll. 30-51, col. 3, l. 50-col. 4, l. 50, col. 9, ll. 24-55, col. 13, ll. 44-54, col. 14, ll. 24-31, and col. 14, ll. 35-39.)
Claim 55. The filter media of claim 54, further comprising a second plurality of fibers, wherein the first plurality of fibers are triboelectrically charged with the second plurality of fibers. (See Chapman Abstract, pars [0008], [0025], [0026]; see Gulrez [0074], [0103], [0110], [0130]; and see Myers col. 1, ll. 50-51.)
Claim 56. The filter media of claim 55, wherein the second plurality of fibers comprises polypropylene (PP) fibers. (See Chapman par [0023], [0028]; see Gulrez par [0024], [0026], [0083], [0101], [0102], [0103], [0135], [0192], [0194], [0216], [0239], [0240], [0244]; and see Myers col. 3, ll. 12-13, 51-53, col. 9, ll. 25-29, col. 9, l. 43, col. 12, l. 65.)
Claim 58. The filter media of claim 54, further comprising a second plurality of fibers, wherein the first plurality of fibers are triboelectrically charged with the second plurality of fibers, and wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises the acrylic fibers and the second plurality of fibers comprises polypropylene fibers. (See Chapman Abstract, pars [0008], [0025]-[0026]; see Gulrez [0074], [0083], [0101]-[0103]; and see Myers col. 1, ll. 46-51; claim 16.)
Claim 59. The filter media of claim 54, further comprising a second plurality of fibers, wherein the first plurality of fibers are triboelectrically charged with the second plurality of fibers, and wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises the PLA fibers, and wherein the second plurality of fibers comprises acrylic fibers. (See Chapman Abstract, pars [0008], [0025]-[0027]; see Gulrez [0074], [0083], [0103], [0110], [0135], claims 96-97; and see Myers col. 1, ll. 46-51; col. 4, l. 22-col. 5, l. 1; claim 16.)
Claim 62. The filter media of claim 55, wherein the first plurality of fibers and the second plurality of fibers are non-woven fibers. (See Chapman claims 1-2, 18-21, 27-28; see Gulrez pars [0074], [0084], [0103], and see Myers col. 9, ll. 40-42.)
Claim 63. The filter media of claim 55, wherein the first plurality of fibers, the second plurality of fibers, or a combination thereof comprise a spin finish of about 2% or less.
(See Chapman par [0038]; Claim 24). Nonetheless, the limitation “a spin finish…” is a product-by-process, whereas, a spin finish is formed by spinning. Patentability of a product, such as the instant invention, is determined by the product itself and not the process of production (i.e., carding and needling). See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 64. The filter media of claim 54, wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises continuous fibers. (See Gulrez pars [0082], [0088], [0132], [0134], [0137].)
Claim 65. The filter media of claim 54, wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises non-continuous fibers. (See Gulrez pars [0082], [0096], [0134], [0137].)
Claim 66. The filter media of claim 54, further comprising one or more charge additives configured to modify a charge on the fibers of the filter media, increase a stability of a charge on the fibers of the filter media, or a combination thereof. (see Chapman pars [0010], [0038]; see Gulrez pars [0018], [0130], [0201], [0208]-[0209], [0245]-[0205]; and see Myers col. 2, ll. 37-44.)
Claim 67. The filter media of claim 54, wherein the filter media is formed by carding and needling; whereas, the recitation “formed by carding and needling” is a process limitation (i.e., product-by-process). Patentability of a product, such as the instant invention, is determined by the product itself and not the process of production (i.e., carding and needling). See MPEP § 2113. (See Chapman pars [0037], [0045]; see Gulrez par [0030], [0093]-[0095], [0219]-[0220].)
Claim 68. The filter media of claim 55, wherein the first plurality of fibers and the second plurality of fibers comprise spun bond charged media; whereas, the recitation “spun bound charged media” is a process limitation. Patentability of a product, such as the instant invention, is determined by the product itself and not the process of production (i.e., spun or spinning). See MPEP § 2113. (See Chapman pars [0035]-[0038], [0051]-[0056]; see Gulrez pars [0024], [0026],[0101]-[0102], [0132], [0137]; and see Myers col. 7, ll. 2-31, col. 9, ll. 47-54.)
Claim 69. The filter media of claim 55, wherein the first plurality of fibers and the second plurality of fibers comprises melt blown charged media; whereas, the recitation “melt blown charged media” is a process limitation. Patentability of a product, such as the instant invention, is determined by the product itself and not the process of production (i.e., melt blown). See MPEP § 2113. (See Chapman pars [0023]-[0024]; see Gulrez pars [0134], [0159]; and see Myers col. 10, l. 54.)
Claim 70. Regarding claim 70, the recitation “triboelectrically charged by rubbing (i.e., friction) the first plurality of fibers with one or more machines, wherein the one or more machines comprise one or more of a carding machine, a needling machine, or a combination thereof” is a process limitation. Patentability of a product, such as the instant invention, is determined by the product itself and not the process of production (i.e., rubbing…with one or more machines). See MPEP § 2113. (See above citations with claims 63 and 67-69.)
Claim 71. Regarding claim 71, the prior art is relied upon as set forth above and teaches the first plurality of fibers comprise the PLA fibers, and wherein the first plurality of fibers are triboelectrically. The recitation” triboelectrically charged by hydrocharging” is a process limitation. Patentability of a product, such as the instant invention, is determined by the product itself and not the process of production (i.e., hydrocharging). See MPEP § 2113. (See Gulrez pars [0130]-[0131], [0159])
Claim 72. The filter media of claim 55, wherein the first plurality of fibers comprise the PLA fibers, and wherein the second plurality of fibers comprise one or more biodegradable fibers. (See Gulrez par [0211] “polycaprolactone”.)
Regarding claim 73, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP § 2112.02. Consequently, a method for manufacturing the filter media of claim 55; the method comprising contacting the first plurality of fibers with the second plurality of fibers, wherein contacting the first plurality of fibers with the second plurality of fibers triboelectrically charges the first plurality of fibers is disclosed in the prior art of record. (See Chapman par [0008]; see Gulrez pars [0110], [0130], and see Myer col. 1, ll. 43-51.)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by any one of Chapman (US 20120097035 A1), Gulrez (US 20220126226 A1), and Myers (US 6759356 B1) as cited in the claim listing below. Note: layers in filter media comprise fiber(s).
Regarding claim 61, the teaching of the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and does not appear to disclose explicitly wherein a weight ratio by weight of the first plurality of fibers to the second plurality of fibers is about 1:1. Each of the prior art references discloses the claimed invention except for the weight ratio that has a range of possible values rather than a singular optimum value as claimed by Applicant, i.e., 1:1 by weight (See Chapman Abstract, oar [0025]; Claims 10, 21; see Gulrez Fig. 3; pars [0097], [0106]; see Myers col. 2, l. 60-col. 3, l. 14; col. 6, ll. 26-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to optimize the weight ratio since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable like involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of Chapman (US 20120097035 A1), Gulrez (US 20220126226 A1), and Myers (US 6759356 B1) taken with Tiemeier (US 20050146071 A1).
Regarding claim 57, the teaching of the prior art references is relied upon as indicated above. Each prior art reference discloses the polypropylene fibers but does not appear explicitly disclose the polypropylene fibers comprise an elongation of from about 25% to about 100%, a tenacity of from about 25 cN/tex to about 100 cN/tex, or a combination thereof. Tiemeier teaches that the elongation the polypropylene fibers is a known result effective variable with a range of less than a 40% which reads on applicant's claimed range of elongation of from about 25% to about 100%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention for the workable ranges of a known result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further in cases where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside of prior art ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of Chapman (US 20120097035 A1), Gulrez (US 20220126226 A1), and Myers (US 6759356 B1) taken with Dugan (US 20220170201 A1).
Regarding claim 60, the teaching of the prior art references is relied upon as indicated above. Each prior art reference discloses polymer fibers but does not appear explicitly disclose wherein the first plurality of fibers further comprises polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHBV). Dugan does disclose a polymer fiber comprises polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHBV) at pars [0048]-[0049] for forming a staple fiber (pars [0048]-[0049]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to include the teaching of Dugan for the polymer of any one of the prior art references to form split multicomponent fiber since equivalent materials for use in the filter media art and the selection of any of known
equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.06
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure for example:
US 20160129381 A1: pars [0076] and [0084] teach claims 54-56.
US 20180243674 A1: pars [0082], [0100]-[0102], [0109], [0129], [0134], [0216], [0240], [0241], [0244], and [0249] disclose claims 54-59, 62, 66-68, 71-73.
US 20240384451 A1: par [0046] discloses PHBV for charged nonwoven material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 December 23, 2025
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776