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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 54 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 62, 64-73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pourdeyhimi (US 20240384451 A1) as cited in the claim listing below. Note: layers in filter media comprise fiber(s).
Claim 54. A filter media (par [0001], [0002], [0024], [0065]), comprising a first plurality of fibers and a second plurality of fibers different from the first plurality of fibers, wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises polylactic acid (PLA) fibers, wherein the first plurality of fibers are triboelectrically charged with the second plurality of fibers. (See Pourdeyhimi pars [0006], [0043]-[0046]; Claim 1 and 13).
Claim 56. The filter media of claim 54, wherein the second plurality of fibers comprises polypropylene (PP) fibers. (See Pourdeyhimi pars [0005]-[0006], [0013]).
Claim 62. The filter media of claim 54, wherein the first plurality of fibers and the second plurality of fibers are non-woven fibers. (See Pourdeyhimi pars [0005], [0006]-[0020], [0043], [0045]).
Claim 64. The filter media of claim 54, wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises continuous fibers (“filaments”). (See Pourdeyhimi claims 1 and 8; pars [0022], [0024], [0040]-[0041], [0050], [0055]-[0057], [0059], [0062].)
Claim 65. The filter media of claim 54, wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises non-continuous fibers (“fibers,” “staple fibers”). (See Pourdeyhimi pars [0023]-[0024], [0040]-[0041], [0055]-[0056].)
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 Pourdeyhimi pars [0065], [0068], [0076]).
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 Pourdeyhimi pars [0041], [0057]).
Claim 68. The filter media of claim 54, 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 Pourdeyhimi Fig. 2; pars [0035], [0041], [0043], [0056]-[0057]).
Claim 69. The filter media of claim 54, 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 Pourdeyhimi pars [0041], [0056].)
Claim 70. Regarding claim 70, the recitation “triboelectrically charged by rubbing 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. 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 wherein the first plurality of fibers are triboelectrically (par [0003]). 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 Pourdeyhimi Fig. 3; pars [0029]-[0030], [0042], [0057]-[0063])
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 Pourdeyhimi pars [0013], [0043]-[0046].)
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 54; 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 Pourdeyhimi as set forth above claim 54 and claim 71.)
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, 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourdeyhimi 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. The prior art discloses the claimed invention except for the weight ratio and instead discloses weight percentages that have a range of possible values rather than a singular optimum value as claimed, i.e., 1:1 by weight (See par [0054]). 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.
Regarding claim 63, the teaching of the prior art is relied upon as indicated above and does not appear to disclose explicitly wherein the first plurality of fibers, the second plurality of fibers, or a combination thereof comprise a spin finish of about 2% or less. However, Pourdeyhimi does teach fiber additives at compositions less than 2% (pars [0068]-[0069]). Nonetheless, the limitation “a spin finish…” is a product-by-process, whereas, a spin finish is formed by spinning and application of compositions. Patentability of a product, such as the instant invention, is determined by the product itself and not the process of production. See MPEP § 2113.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourdeyhimi taken with Tiemeier (US 20050146071 A1).
Regarding claim 57, the teaching of the prior art reference is relied upon as indicated above. The prior art discloses the polypropylene fibers (pars [0044], [0071]) 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 to determine workable ranges of a known result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and 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) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourdeyhimi taken with Yoshida (US 20180056219 A1).
Regarding claim 59, the teaching of the prior art reference is relied upon as indicated above. Pourdeyhimi discloses filter media of claim 54, wherein the first plurality of fibers comprises PLA fibers that have a relatively high effective charge density (par [0044]). It would appear that Pourdeyhimi does not explicitly teach wherein the second plurality of fibers comprises acrylic fibers. However, Pourdeyhimi also teaches “nonwoven fabric comprising a nonwoven material having a first surface and an opposing second surface, wherein the first surface has a first average surface charge and the second surface has a second average surface charge, the first average surface charge being different from the second average surface charge, wherein the nonwoven material comprises a first plurality of fibers comprising a first polymer and a second plurality of fibers comprising a second polymer different from the first polymer” (par [0007]). Yoshida is analogous art and discloses an air filter medium having a plurality of thermoplastic resins used in combination comprising PLA and acrylics (par [0046]). Acrylic have negative triboelectric charging according to triboelectric series listings. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute acrylics as the second plurality of fibers for nonwoven of Pourdeyhimi since Pourdeyhimi teaches a different average surface charge and a different second polymer fiber acrylic satisfies both to form an efficient dust collection air filer medium as disclosed in Yoshida.
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 Pourdeyhimi taken with Dugan (US 20220170201 A1).
Regarding claim 60, the teaching of the prior art reference is relied upon as indicated above. Pourdeyhimi discloses polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHBV) at par [0046] and further teaches a first plurality of fibers and a second plurality of fibers different from the first plurality of fibers (see claim 54 above). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to envisage from the teaching of Pourdeyhimi the first plurality fibers to be PHBV since Pourdeyhimi teaches “copolymers and combinations thereof” for polymer in the filter media art.
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 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 June 23, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights