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 Status
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102022133357.4, filed on 12/14/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 4. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the
same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 10, 11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claim 10 and 11 recite the term “several” recited both in line 3. This is imprecise and is not providing a clear upper limit. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “two or more”.
(ii) Claim 18 is objected because the abbreviation “UHMWPE” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 16 and 18 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.
Claim 1 recites “said warp threads (11) in line 4 is indefinite because line 1 recites “having warp threads (11, 12) in line 1.” It is unclear if the “said warp threads” refers to 11 or 12, or both.
Claim 2 recites “said warp threads” in line 2 is indefinite because claim 1 introduced two distinct types: “warp threads (11, 12)” and “some of said warp threads (11).” It is unclear if claim 2 refers to the total warp group (11+12) or only the UHMWPE subset (11).
Claim 2 recites “between 60% and 70%, between 45% and 55%, or between 30% and 35% of said warp threads” in lines 1-2 is indefinite because this claim recitation provides multiple alternative UHMWPE composition range in a single limitation, making it unclear.
Claim 5 recites “every second and every third or every second or every third or every fourth warp thread” in lines 1-2 is indefinite because this is representing a nested and/or structure is considered improper, making the scope of the claim unclear.
Claim 9 recites the phrase “bigger sub-section” in line 2 indefinite because it is a relative term. Without a numerical definition or objective standard in the specification, the claim is indefinite because “bigger” is subjective.
Claim 16 recites “said warp threads” without clear reference to whether it means all warp threads (11, 12).
Claim 18 depends from claim 14 which depends from claim 1. The recitation “the side” in claim 18, line 2 lacks antecedent basis (no recitation of “side” appears in claim 14). Claim 1 recites “one side” and it is not clear if “the side” is in reference to “one side” or something else.
Any claims which depend from claims which are rejected under 112(b), should be rejected by virtue of its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1- 6, 9-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN 104,474,782 A, hereinafter “Xu”).
Xu teaches a weaving method of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene monofilament filter fabric (Abstract).
Xu discloses a filter cloth comprising warp and weft yarns (“yarn” and “thread” often are used interchangeably and treated here as equivalent structures) crosswise interwoven forming a woven filtration cloth (page 2, lines 6-8), comprising a polymer yarn including UHMWPE yarn where warp yarn level can be adjusted according to filtration cloth production needs (page 1, line 46 thru page 2 line 8).
Xu further discloses that the monofilament filter cloth can be processed into plate-and-frame filter cloth for use in filtration systems (page 3, lines 38-39). Plate-and-frame filtration configuration would be expected to retains solids on one surface or the filter cloth forming filter cake while filtrate passes through the filter cloth. This refers to the claim limitation where the woven filter cloth of Xu exhibits one side facing retained solids forming filter cake and an opposite side facing away from the filter cake when in use.
But Xu does not explicitly disclose that at least 25% of the warp yarn are UHMWPE.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select at least 25% warp yarn within the woven filtration cloth of Xu because UHWPE yarn filter cloth provides enhance wear resistance and durability of the filtration surface (Xu: page 1, lines 54-56).
In regard to claim 2, Xu discloses UHMWPE yarn incorporated into woven filtration cloth (page 2, lines 10-20). Xu does not explicitly disclose the specification percentage ranges recited in the claim. Selection of a particular percentage range of UHMWPE warp yarn represents optimization of a known material parameter affecting abrasion resistance and durability of filtration cloth (Xu: page 2, lines 49-51).
In regard to claims 3 and 4, Xu discloses UHMWPE yarn incorporated into woven filtration cloth (page 2, lines 1-20). Xu further discloses selecting the number of creels and packages, calculate the number of strips with the same number of filaments, adjustment of strip displacement, warp configuration according to production needs as part of parameter debugging procedure (page 1, lines 58-60). Even distribution of UHMWPE warp yarn represents a predictable design affecting tensile strength, uniform durability of filtration cloth and less blockage subjected to repeated particle loading (Xu: page 1, lines 58-60; page 2, lines 49-52).
In regard to claim 5, Xu discloses patterned arrangement of warp yarn within woven filtration cloth (page 3: lines 19-22; lines 55-57; page 4 lines 30-32). Periodic placement of UHMWPE warp yarn represents predictable filtration cloth configuration affecting mechanical load distribution (warp breaking strength: page 3, line 40; page 4, lines 15-16, lines 50-51) within filtration cloth subjected to retained solids, thereby maximize stability and filtration performance of the filter cloth (Xu: page 2, lines 49-52)
In regard to claim 6, Xu discloses UHMWPE yarn incorporated into woven filtration cloth (page 2, lines 10-20). Xu further discloses selecting the number of creels and packages, calculate the number of strips with the same number of filaments, adjustment of strip displacement, including warp configuration adjustment according to production (page 1, lines 58-60), allowing increased proportion of UHMWPE warp yarn. Increasing proportion of UHMWPE warp yarn predictably increases abrasion resistance and durability of filtration cloth (Xu: page 1, lines 54-56).
In regards to claim 9, Xu discloses woven textile configuration controlling relative positioning of warp yarn and weft yarn within filtration cloth (Xu: page 1, lines 58-60). Orientation of warp yarn relative to filtration surface interaction with retained solids forming filter cake represents predictable textile design optimization affecting abrasion resistance of the filtration surface (Xu: page 1, lines 58-60; page 2, lines 49-52).
In regards to claim 10, Xu discloses interwoven warp yarn and weft yarn forming woven filtration cloth via twill binding (page 3, lines 46-60). Selection of weave geometry controlling yarn float length represents routine textile design optimization affecting durability of filtration cloth subjected to repeated particle loading (Xu: page 2, lines 49-52).
In regard to claim 11, Xu discloses woven textile configuration controlling exposure of warp and weft yarns within filtration cloth structure. Increasing exposure of UHMWPE warp yarn at filtration surface predictably improves abrasion resistance of filtration cloth exposed to filter cake (Xu: page 2, lines 49-52).
In regard to claim 15, Xu discloses weft threads as monofilament yarns. (page 3, lines 11).
In regard to claim 16, Xu discloses UHMWPE yarn incorporated within woven filtration cloth. Determining the amount percentage of UHMWPE yarn within warp yarn is a structural result effective variable design optimization to predictably improve abrasion resistance of filtration cloth exposed to filter cake (Xu: page 2, lines 49-52).
In regard to claim 17, Xu teaches filtration cloth suitable for use in plate-and-frame filtration equipment (page 3, lines 38-39), thereby discloses use of the woven filter cloth in a filter press.
In regard to claim 18, Xu discloses filtration of cloth used in plate-and-frame filtration where retained solids form filter cake on the filtration surface plate having percentile of UHMWPE (page 3, lines 38-39). Positioning abrasion-resistant yarn at the filtration surface is a result effective variable that predictably improve durability of filtration cloth to repeated particle loading (Xu: page 1, lines 54-56).
Claims 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Bloch (EP 2,185,264 B1, hereinafter “Bloch”).
Xu discloses UHMWPE yarn incorporated into woven filtration cloth (page 2, lines 10-20) but fails to disclose polypropylene belonging to the polyolefin family, as a non-UHMWPE warp thread configuration in the filter cloth.
Bloch teaches filter cloth for a brewery mash filter using polypropylene monofilaments thread components (Abstract).
Bloch discloses polyolefin comprising polypropylene-type monofilament filter cloth usage as warp and weft threads in a filtration cloth (¶ [0016]).
Bloch is analogous to Xu because both references are directed to the same field of endeavor, namely woven filter cloths used in solid-liquid separation, and filtration systems.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the warp yarn not UHMWPE of Xu with polyolefin yarn as polypropylene of Bloch in order to provide superior durability and tensile strength of the filter cloth (Bloch ¶ [0026]).
In regard to claim 8, Bloch teaches filter cloth for a brewery mash filter using propylene monofilaments thread components (¶ [0016]). Since polypropylene is a specific type of polyolefin, thereby render claim 8 obvious.
In regard to claims 12 and 13, Bloch discloses, weft threads made up of polypropylene (¶ [0016]), which is a type of polyolefin.
In regard to claim 14, Bloch discloses woven filter cloth comprising multifilament fibers suitable for filtration but does not explicitly disclose multi-filament thread as warp thread. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the at least some of the UHMWPE warp threads of Xu with the multifilament configuration of Bloch because the multifilament configuration provides predictable bending or flexibility in filter cloth to handle alternating load during filtration process (Bloch: page 1, line 45).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/
Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights